Page 3 of 9 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 90 of 255

Thread: Why?

  1. #61
    Quote Originally Posted by EyeKhan View Post
    I find it curious in a thread about not having flame wars you're working so hard to start one, even going so far as to taunt me for abstaining.
    1) Not a taunt.

    2) Not abstaining:
    "Copper - behave in a way that will elicit the treatment from others you would like.

    Gold - treat others the way you'd like them to treat you.

    Platinum - treat others the way they want to be treated."

    Chiding moralism is not abstaining.

  2. #62
    If you see someone fat on the street, do you come up to them and tell them they deserve it for not having self-control? If not strangers, do you do it to all your acquaintances?
    Hope is the denial of reality

  3. #63
    Quote Originally Posted by Loki View Post
    If you see someone fat on the street, do you come up to them and tell them they deserve it for not having self-control? If not strangers, do you do it to all your acquaintances?
    Icky, do you remember what you told me? It was, oh, I don't know, roughly an hour ago. Maybe a little more, but certainly less than two hours ago.
    We're stuck in a bloody snowglobe.

  4. #64
    Quote Originally Posted by ']['ear View Post
    1) Not a taunt.

    2) Not abstaining:
    "Copper - behave in a way that will elicit the treatment from others you would like.

    Gold - treat others the way you'd like them to treat you.

    Platinum - treat others the way they want to be treated."

    Chiding moralism is not abstaining.
    #1. Have you ever considered that what you say may come across differently to the community than what you intend ? And assume for just a second that it does; in that case do you hold yourself responsible for the result, or the community?

    #2. There is no intended attack against you in the Rules. It was more directed at myself. They can't work unless you first follow them yourself, after all. But my mistake, in this charged environment I should have been more clear.
    Last edited by EyeKhan; 07-21-2010 at 07:22 PM. Reason: Don't like the italics ?
    The Rules
    Copper- behave toward others to elicit treatment you would like (the manipulative rule)
    Gold- treat others how you would like them to treat you (the self regard rule)
    Platinum - treat others the way they would like to be treated (the PC rule)

  5. #65
    I pretty much always assume that my perception of what happens is not necessarily that of others'. Isn't this true for everybody? All sensation involves interpretation, and all interpretation is subjective. Especially with language, which is such an inefficient connection.

  6. #66
    Ok, so when you first posted here and you used this statement: "points that happens to hurt somebody's excessively over sensitive and dramatic feelings," I took it as a clear personal attack against me. And while I don't want to pretend to know what anyone else thinks, it appears as though others saw those comments the same way. Is that what you intended when you made those comments, to take a swipe at me?
    The Rules
    Copper- behave toward others to elicit treatment you would like (the manipulative rule)
    Gold- treat others how you would like them to treat you (the self regard rule)
    Platinum - treat others the way they would like to be treated (the PC rule)

  7. #67
    ']['ear, you're an ass. Again.
    In the future, the Berlin wall will be a mile high, and made of steel. You too will be made to crawl, to lick children's blood from jackboots. There will be no creativity, only productivity. Instead of love there will be fear and distrust, instead of surrender there will be submission. Contact will be replaced with isolation, and joy with shame. Hope will cease to exist as a concept. The Earth will be covered with steel and concrete. There will be an electronic policeman in every head. Your children will be born in chains, live only to serve, and die in anguish and ignorance.
    The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.

  8. #68
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Amsterdam/Istanbul
    Posts
    12,312
    Quote Originally Posted by Nessus View Post
    Remember how dumb it was that Kerry was called a "flip-flopper"? Yeah. People can change, people respond to the general atmosphere of the forum, people can get sick of other people. Cries of hypocrisy should, from you in particular, be left un-cried.

    That said, it is fantastically incomprehensible, IMO, that both of our moderators asked you to read this thread as some kind of guide-line on how to behave. Their response, inasmuch as it existed, to my similar complaints was "pooh-pooh" and "generate more interesting content! !" The naivete of the official line here is staggering; people are simply told to "keep up a positive spirit", "chin up sonny" and so on, all the while some caustic posters respond to each thread with a proverbial kick right in the teeth. What is the point of being nice and posting happy thoughts day after day in the hopes that maybe this thread won't be shitted into oblivion?
    I'm not quite certain I understand what you are trying to say here.

    For starters I don't think that Rand and Dread are that far off the mark putting the responsability back at our doorstep. For them to enforce a strict set of guidelines on content would open an entirely new can of worms. I can't blame them for not wanting to put themselves on the line and getting the flak for it. Not to mention the fact that you run the risk of this forum killing itself through interfactional warring.

    I also don't think that what we should necessarily strive for is people 'being nice' in D&D. That would be totally impossible given the people that post here. That is not just about personalities, but also about the range opinions we hold. Speaking from my position; I can change my attitude towards you as a person, as I have in the last few months. What I can not is change my ideas about (for example) Rand's ideas about Europe. I think he is totally wrong to the point that his ideas are despicable and I could never admit that there is any merit to them.

    NB : as for the 'devil's advocate' game people are proposing; that can be fun but it's the kind of thing that according to me belongs in the playground of GC more than in D&D

    NNBB : I think we have debated Eyekhan's house enough already, I also think indeed that bringing it up again amounts to trolling.
    Congratulations America

  9. #69
    Quote Originally Posted by Hazir View Post
    I also don't think that what we should necessarily strive for is people 'being nice' in D&D. That would be totally impossible given the people that post here. That is not just about personalities, but also about the range opinions we hold. Speaking from my position; I can change my attitude towards you as a person, as I have in the last few months. What I can not is change my ideas about (for example) Rand's ideas about Europe. I think he is totally wrong to the point that his ideas are despicable and I could never admit that there is any merit to them.
    It's not so much "being nice" as it is that it isn't necessary to, for example, bring up Chacha's house repeatedly. I only used that example because it was already started in this thread, I do not mean to imply it is the only possible example or that Tear is the only person who does such a thing. There is a reason I was so pleased that this thread was previously filled with people discussing the ability to change without pointing fingers.

    Who ever said everyone has to agree about everything, or anything. But quit dragging the same grudges into every thread so they all look like copies of one another.
    We're stuck in a bloody snowglobe.

  10. #70
    Quote Originally Posted by EyeKhan View Post
    Ok, so when you first posted here and you used this statement: "points that happens to hurt somebody's excessively over sensitive and dramatic feelings," I took it as a clear personal attack against me. And while I don't want to pretend to know what anyone else thinks, it appears as though others saw those comments the same way. Is that what you intended when you made those comments, to take a swipe at me?
    It was pretty obviously targeted directly at you, yes. Tear's big on lying to himself about not baiting people. He may not be in Kane's league, but that's not exactly high praise.
    Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"

  11. #71
    Quote Originally Posted by littlelolligagged View Post
    It's not so much "being nice" as it is that it isn't necessary to, for example, bring up Chacha's house repeatedly. I only used that example because it was already started in this thread, I do not mean to imply it is the only possible example or that Tear is the only person who does such a thing. There is a reason I was so pleased that this thread was previously filled with people discussing the ability to change without pointing fingers.

    Who ever said everyone has to agree about everything, or anything. But quit dragging the same grudges into every thread so they all look like copies of one another.
    It was the most germane example. Posting a legitimate idea may draw flames but not be trolling. The most significant example in my recent life was the big house debate. Thus I brought it up as an example.

    Not allowed to bring up examples? Lord knows wouldn't want somebody to get their feathers ruffled!

    Quote Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy View Post
    It was pretty obviously targeted directly at you, yes. Tear's big on lying to himself about not baiting people. He may not be in Kane's league, but that's not exactly high praise.
    Sanctimony blah, blah, blah. Thanks for such a novel contribution, as well as the reminder that you would never chide Cain! I feel so special, and bask in the warmth of your cyber-stalking.

  12. #72
    Would it be too hard for you to just try? Please.

    If one thread turns into a wreck, there is no reason to drag the same shit to a different one. That's all.

    So I'm asking you nicely, Tear. This is the last time I will, though. Begging doesn't suit me.
    We're stuck in a bloody snowglobe.

  13. #73
    Quote Originally Posted by littlelolligagged View Post
    Would it be too hard for you to just try? Please.
    To provide a germane example, someone who posts primarily so they can lash out at strangers rather than their wife would find it too hard, yes.
    Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"

  14. #74
    I think I already said that I would. I also said that if somebody else is consistently an ass, I won't refrain for long. Whatever people may think of me, in the large majority of scuffles I didn't start it, but my motto has always been that I'll finish it. The main exception is Lewkowski, but since his posting must be ingenuous to a certain degree, one could consider smart-ass replies de rigueur.

  15. #75
    Quote Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy View Post
    To provide a germane example, someone who posts primarily so they can lash out at strangers rather than their wife would find it too hard, yes.
    What the hell are you talking about?

  16. #76
    Quote Originally Posted by ']['ear View Post
    I think I already said that I would. I also said that if somebody else is consistently an ass, I won't refrain for long. Whatever people may think of me, in the large majority of scuffles I didn't start it, but my motto has always been that I'll finish it. The main exception is Lewkowski, but since his posting must be ingenuous to a certain degree, one could consider smart-ass replies de rigueur.
    Thank you.

    Could you consider all your current scuffles finished?
    We're stuck in a bloody snowglobe.

  17. #77
    Naw, I'd like Fuzzy to clarify his cryptic statement.

  18. #78
    Well at least keep it contained to one place.

    I appreciate it.
    We're stuck in a bloody snowglobe.

  19. #79
    Do I have to drink my tea with my pinky extended as well? Pinkus erectus?

  20. #80
    Since that's the only part of you I get to have erect....
    We're stuck in a bloody snowglobe.

  21. #81
    Dirty girl. I'm married, monogamous and old. Still, flattered to finally be a target of your virtual unbridled lust.

  22. #82
    I did say that was the only part of you I could have erect. I already know about your monogamy (but I've seen you, remember, you aren't too old at all).

    My lust is very bridled.
    We're stuck in a bloody snowglobe.

  23. #83
    Quote Originally Posted by Nessus View Post
    That said, it is fantastically incomprehensible, IMO, that both of our moderators asked you to read this thread as some kind of guide-line on how to behave. Their response, inasmuch as it existed, to my similar complaints was "pooh-pooh" and "generate more interesting content! !" The naivete of the official line here is staggering; people are simply told to "keep up a positive spirit", "chin up sonny" and so on, all the while some caustic posters respond to each thread with a proverbial kick right in the teeth. What is the point of being nice and posting happy thoughts day after day in the hopes that maybe this thread won't be shitted into oblivion?
    I'd like to echo Hazir and point out that you're putting us in a pretty fantastic corner. Asking us to enforce "being nice" and "make interesting posts" is pretty impossible without creating a really bad atmosphere.

    What we can do is try to stop people from needless and deliberate provocation, EG how Cain would bring up Nicaragua with Tear all the time. Or Tear bringing up large homes all the time.

    Which brings me to Tear, who I think was a bit of an ass here. When I suggested you read the thread, Tear, I didn't mean for this to mean "blow into it and take a crap on the conversation". Which, no offense, you sorta did. But I'm glad folks seem to be at an understanding.

  24. #84
    Back on to the original topic...

    While I don't mind this sort of thing in General Chat:

    Quote Originally Posted by agamemnus View Post
    Not long by the way things are going.

    Here are two policies to reverse the trend you mention:
    1) We make poor people drain less money on the economy by removing the incentives to have hundreds of babies.
    2) We remove regulation (instead of adding to it, as we're doing now) so that it is simpler and easier to start and run a (small) business. (the engine of wealth) Large companies can afford tons of regulations; individuals and small business cannot. A modern market economy cannot function if large companies have a huge upper-hand that stalls innovation and efficient investment.
    ...it doesn't quite seem appropriate in Debate and Discussion. I replied in the most on-topic, in the interest of continued proper discussion, manner as possible, but frankly this is a pretty common occurrence depending on the poster. How should I go about this? Should I report it, or should we waste D&D space reminding people if they are going to make a rather large claim, in what is supposed to be the intellectual debating forum, to back up their claims intelligently?
    . . .

  25. #85
    Quote Originally Posted by Dreadnaught View Post
    I'd like to echo Hazir and point out that you're putting us in a pretty fantastic corner. Asking us to enforce "being nice" and "make interesting posts" is pretty impossible without creating a really bad atmosphere.
    I really don't think that is the case.

    It should not be fantastic to ask leaders of a community to, erm, lead. I cannot heap enough praise on the technical administration of this site, but the personal one has failed.

    The moderation philosophy seems to have been, let everyone fling their shit on the wall and see what sticks. I really do appreciate the idea that everyone can say what they want and when they want it without fear of reprisal, but that is also not a place where interesting discourse can happen after a couple of months!

    I know I have authoritarian tendencies, and that taints my thinking. But I cannot, for the life of me, imagine having a creative or thinking forum whose life hinges on people not having PMS at the same time. I have a bad week, Tear has a bad week, Low-key has a bad week, every thread in D&D suffers. How is that a good situation? How does that encourage young and interesting minds to post?

    I like that I can call Chaloobi or Loki a jackass to their faces, and for them to have that ability. But I don't know whether or not that should be every thread, everywhere.
    In the future, the Berlin wall will be a mile high, and made of steel. You too will be made to crawl, to lick children's blood from jackboots. There will be no creativity, only productivity. Instead of love there will be fear and distrust, instead of surrender there will be submission. Contact will be replaced with isolation, and joy with shame. Hope will cease to exist as a concept. The Earth will be covered with steel and concrete. There will be an electronic policeman in every head. Your children will be born in chains, live only to serve, and die in anguish and ignorance.
    The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.

  26. #86
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Amsterdam/Istanbul
    Posts
    12,312
    Quote Originally Posted by Nessus View Post
    I really don't think that is the case.

    It should not be fantastic to ask leaders of a community to, erm, lead. I cannot heap enough praise on the technical administration of this site, but the personal one has failed.

    The moderation philosophy seems to have been, let everyone fling their shit on the wall and see what sticks. I really do appreciate the idea that everyone can say what they want and when they want it without fear of reprisal, but that is also not a place where interesting discourse can happen after a couple of months!

    I know I have authoritarian tendencies, and that taints my thinking. But I cannot, for the life of me, imagine having a creative or thinking forum whose life hinges on people not having PMS at the same time. I have a bad week, Tear has a bad week, Low-key has a bad week, every thread in D&D suffers. How is that a good situation? How does that encourage young and interesting minds to post?

    I like that I can call Chaloobi or Loki a jackass to their faces, and for them to have that ability. But I don't know whether or not that should be every thread, everywhere.
    Well, you answered your own question there. We don't really have leaders and I doubt that there would be leaders in this forum without the community using the forum breaking up.

    What we've got here, at best, is what we in Holland call the Polder-model. It's a system in which there is no direction as long as there is somebody whose nose is still pointing the other way. It can be maddening and slow, but it also avoids people leaving angry.

    What it doesn't do is people leaving because posting on the forum has become un-interesting to them.
    Congratulations America

  27. #87
    So Nessus, you want me warning you for calling people jackasses just some of the time? This gets back to a central point: why do you think interesting discourse happens when people have a "fear of reprisal"?

    We intervene in ongoing spats that are spreading from thread to thread. But I really don't think you understand that you're asking us to do something very vague and inconsistent. And even if we enforced politesse with extremely consistent prejudice, wouldn't that just be the Atari/Timothy2035 style that we all fled from?

    I'm aware that people aren't happy and something needs to change to make people happy. But I'm concerned people are looking up the wrong alley, simply because it's the most visible and best-lit alley to look at. This is why we ask people to post the kinds of stuff they want to see. If someone consistently trolls their threads, I will absolutely deal with it. But folks also can't expect the moderators to slap people whose attitude annoys some people some of the time.
    Last edited by Dreadnaught; 07-22-2010 at 11:55 AM.

  28. #88
    Quote Originally Posted by Dreadnaught View Post
    But folks also can't expect the moderators to slap people whose attitude annoys some people some of the time.
    So as long as someone contributes something slightly meaningful somewhere, they are free to, lets say.... jump into the middle of a conversation to post a one liner that adds nothing to the conversation, isn't even a tangent, and is simply there are flamebait they are fanning because someone else stopped short of taking that all the way.

    You know what, I'm just going to say it. Loki is famous for that. You've got an example of it in this very thread that lolli jumped on, and you've got another example in the beach smoking thread when you called me a moron because you couldn't comprehend litter and he ran with it.


    Are you saying you are unable to tell the difference between when someone is actively trying to be disrespectful directly to a user, and when users are unable to agree on certain positions?
    Last edited by Ominous Gamer; 07-22-2010 at 12:36 PM.

  29. #89
    Quote Originally Posted by Dreadnaught View Post
    So Nessus, you want me warning you for calling people jackasses just some of the time? This gets back to a central point: why do you think interesting discourse happens when people have a "fear of reprisal"?
    How about if we have a standard of conduct in the D&D arena? If a discussion resorts to name calling AND if someone reports it, then you pop in and ask everyone to cool off and/or take it to the sloppy forum. Do you think that's infeasible? Do you not like being asked to take on such a role?

    I'm aware that people aren't happy and something needs to change to make people happy.
    For the record, I'm pretty happy. If its the lack of a forum where formal discussion can take place without degenerate flaming and what not that is making many unhappy, then lets try it.

    Consider the two forums we have as Formal and Informal. Informal, mostly anything goes. Formal, create a simple rule set - no name calling. No trolling. Serious discussion required. Whatever other conduct we want to see. Then enforce the rules when someone reports violations -- the people who want the formal forum have to take an active role too and call out bad behavior. Mods take a look at what was reported and make a judgement before acting, as a check against abuse. If everyone understands up front the Formal Forum has a standard of conduct, there won't be any hurt feelings when they get spanked.
    The Rules
    Copper- behave toward others to elicit treatment you would like (the manipulative rule)
    Gold- treat others how you would like them to treat you (the self regard rule)
    Platinum - treat others the way they would like to be treated (the PC rule)

  30. #90
    Quote Originally Posted by Dreadnaught View Post
    So Nessus, you want me warning you for calling people jackasses just some of the time? This gets back to a central point: why do you think interesting discourse happens when people have a "fear of reprisal"?

    We intervene in ongoing spats that are spreading from thread to thread. But I really don't think you understand that you're asking us to do something very vague and inconsistent. And even if we enforced politesse with extremely consistent prejudice, wouldn't that just be the Atari/Timothy2035 style that we all fled from?

    I'm aware that people aren't happy and something needs to change to make people happy. But I'm concerned people are looking up the wrong alley, simply because it's the most visible and best-lit alley to look at. This is why we ask people to post the kinds of stuff they want to see. If someone consistently trolls their threads, I will absolutely deal with it. But folks also can't expect the moderators to slap people whose attitude annoys some people some of the time.
    I would like it if there were a place and a time when it clearly wasn't appropriate for me to call someone a jackass. And unfortunately that has to come from something other than people going "tut, tut".

    I do not think that interesting discourse needs some kind of threat looming over it, and I do not understand why you want to pose that kind of false dichotomy over this discussion.

    We have not had a fun time, as I can see it, from the time we got here. I have said it time and again and your response seems to be mocking me, I suppose that's something, but it isn't constructive. I don't think it is unreasonable to ask for some kind of guidance or guide-lines from people asked to do that. Being a moderator isn't just banning spam-bots, but I suppose that, too, is too much.

    I do not think it is that out-landish that you say to someone that hey, you're being a bit of a dick. As a figure of authority. Because it has become blindingly obvious that this community needs some boundaries.

    The Timmy2892398329823198238923-angle concerns me too, and I'd be the first one railing against some kind of censorship on valid discussion. I think it is all too likely that there is no way to engender hospitality without shoe-horning people into something they don't want.

    The passive-aggressive loathing and spite that some posters seemed to carry for years flared up recently, and was dealt with in a passive-aggressive way by the community. Maybe that's a good thing, at least that way those posters could continue posting? But it ruins threads. It ruins discussion, and that is what I come here for.
    In the future, the Berlin wall will be a mile high, and made of steel. You too will be made to crawl, to lick children's blood from jackboots. There will be no creativity, only productivity. Instead of love there will be fear and distrust, instead of surrender there will be submission. Contact will be replaced with isolation, and joy with shame. Hope will cease to exist as a concept. The Earth will be covered with steel and concrete. There will be an electronic policeman in every head. Your children will be born in chains, live only to serve, and die in anguish and ignorance.
    The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •