FSTDT Forums

General Category => Suggestion Box => Topic started by: Chaos Undivided on June 12, 2019, 08:36:21 pm

Title: Rule talk
Post by: Chaos Undivided on June 12, 2019, 08:36:21 pm
I'd like to open this thread with a couple direct questions to the mods. What are the standards when it comes to enforcing the rules? Why are the standards the way they are?
Title: Re: Rule talk
Post by: davedan on June 12, 2019, 11:08:42 pm
Exactly. I want to go back to a kilogram being a random lump of metal and the metre should also be all based on the one carbon rod.

Fucking Rules and measures baby.
Title: Re: Rule talk
Post by: niam2023 on June 13, 2019, 02:42:53 am
Nobody on this site takes you seriously OR respects you, CU.
Title: Re: Rule talk
Post by: davedan on June 13, 2019, 04:33:33 am
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m0Dz6NZXSxE

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m0Dz6NZXSxE (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m0Dz6NZXSxE)
Title: Re: Rule talk
Post by: Sigmaleph on June 13, 2019, 06:12:11 pm
I'd like to open this thread with a couple direct questions to the mods. What are the standards when it comes to enforcing the rules? Why are the standards the way they are?

The rules exist to facilitate the existence of a community. The standards in enforcement derive from that goal.

Exactly. I want to go back to a kilogram being a random lump of metal and the metre should also be all based on the one carbon rod.

Fucking Rules and measures baby.

While it's all very nice to be able to point to a chunk of metal and say 'there, that's what a kilogram is', it has a number of weakness (variation over time, reproducibility without access to the physical standard, etc.) that mean the approach based on physical constants is better suited to scientific work.
Title: Re: Rule talk
Post by: davedan on June 13, 2019, 06:44:04 pm
Like I'm going to be able to tell what the planck constant is - I want a lump of platinum
Title: Re: Rule talk
Post by: Sigmaleph on June 13, 2019, 08:37:18 pm
I mean, they didn't throw out the lump of metal. If for some reason you personally need to rederive the kilogram after all accurate weight-measuring instruments have been destroyed, you can still go to France and grab it. if, y'know, it survived whatever wrecked everything else.
Title: Re: Rule talk
Post by: dpareja on June 13, 2019, 08:52:08 pm
The rules, in short:

1. Don't be a dick.
2. If you're a dick we'll ban you.
3. What constitutes being a dick is at the sole discretion of the staff.
Title: Re: Rule talk
Post by: The_Queen on June 14, 2019, 07:57:07 am
Nobody on this site takes you seriously OR respects you, CU.

You took the words right out of my mouth
Title: Re: Rule talk
Post by: Chaos Undivided on June 17, 2019, 08:21:39 pm
Nobody on this site takes you seriously OR respects you, CU.

Direct question: do you condemn the death threats Nick Sandmann got?

The rules, in short:

1. Don't be a dick.
2. If you're a dick we'll ban you.
3. What constitutes being a dick is at the sole discretion of the staff.


The first two I'm fine with. But I got some problems with the last. Simply put, how can I be sure the rules won't be selectively enforced?

I'd like to open this thread with a couple direct questions to the mods. What are the standards when it comes to enforcing the rules? Why are the standards the way they are?

The rules exist to facilitate the existence of a community. The standards in enforcement derive from that goal.

Well, ain't I part of the community? Or am I just the forum outlaw?
Title: Re: Rule talk
Post by: ironbite on June 17, 2019, 08:28:28 pm
...what death threats?
Title: Re: Rule talk
Post by: niam2023 on June 17, 2019, 09:17:43 pm
And that's another whatabout.

Figured as much.

You can run off and go lick a goat, CU.
Title: Re: Rule talk
Post by: Chaos Undivided on June 17, 2019, 09:24:50 pm
...what death threats?

These (https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/20/us/covington-kentucky-student-statement/index.html):

Quote from: Nick Sandmann
I have received physical and death threats via social media, as well as hateful insults. One person threatened to harm me at school, and one person claims to live in my neighborhood. My parents are receiving death and professional threats because of the social media mob that has formed over this issue.

And our boy niam tried to justify them:

David Hogg never tried to intimidate a Native American veteran and has been nothing but peaceful, while that vile little cretin has gone about suing just about everyone who published a nonflattering account of his aggressive actions. Sounds like he'll be a new Trump in a few years.

And that's another whatabout.

Figured as much.

You can run off and go lick a goat, CU.

I asked you a direct question.
Title: Re: Rule talk
Post by: niam2023 on June 17, 2019, 09:39:44 pm
And I'll continue being a thrice-damned thorn in your side.

That's not justifying death threats.

Now if I wanted to justify the death threats against Nick Sandmann I'd say he's a whiny, vanilla skinned (such that I doubt he's ever seen the sun outside of when Mommy lets him out of the sex dungeon), pencil necked little piece of shit dorkwad extremist geek who ought to actually have his persecution complex validated one final time.

THAT is what I'd say if I wanted to justify violent wishes upon Nick Sandmann.

You on the other hand tried to equate Sandmann and David Hogg.
Title: Re: Rule talk
Post by: Chaos Undivided on June 17, 2019, 10:06:53 pm
And I'll continue being a thrice-damned thorn in your side.

That's not justifying death threats.

Now if I wanted to justify the death threats against Nick Sandmann I'd say he's a whiny, vanilla skinned (such that I doubt he's ever seen the sun outside of when Mommy lets him out of the sex dungeon), pencil necked little piece of shit dorkwad extremist geek who ought to actually have his persecution complex validated one final time.

THAT is what I'd say if I wanted to justify violent wishes upon Nick Sandmann.

You on the other hand tried to equate Sandmann and David Hogg.

Because unlike you, I have consistent standards. I don't think either of them did anything worthy of death threats, and so I condemn any and all death threats both of them received.

Direct question again: do you condemn the death threats Sandmann got? The rules say you have to give some kind of response.
Title: Re: Rule talk
Post by: The_Queen on June 17, 2019, 11:17:37 pm
And I'll continue being a thrice-damned thorn in your side.

That's not justifying death threats.

Now if I wanted to justify the death threats against Nick Sandmann I'd say he's a whiny, vanilla skinned (such that I doubt he's ever seen the sun outside of when Mommy lets him out of the sex dungeon), pencil necked little piece of shit dorkwad extremist geek who ought to actually have his persecution complex validated one final time.

THAT is what I'd say if I wanted to justify violent wishes upon Nick Sandmann.

You on the other hand tried to equate Sandmann and David Hogg.

Because unlike you, I have consistent standards. I don't think either of them did anything worthy of death threats, and so I condemn any and all death threats both of them received.

Direct question again: do you condemn the death threats Sandmann got? The rules say you have to give some kind of response.

Direct question: What can you had most that you have dones the least?

The rules say you have to give some kind of response.
Title: Re: Rule talk
Post by: Chaos Undivided on June 17, 2019, 11:27:09 pm
And I'll continue being a thrice-damned thorn in your side.

That's not justifying death threats.

Now if I wanted to justify the death threats against Nick Sandmann I'd say he's a whiny, vanilla skinned (such that I doubt he's ever seen the sun outside of when Mommy lets him out of the sex dungeon), pencil necked little piece of shit dorkwad extremist geek who ought to actually have his persecution complex validated one final time.

THAT is what I'd say if I wanted to justify violent wishes upon Nick Sandmann.

You on the other hand tried to equate Sandmann and David Hogg.

Because unlike you, I have consistent standards. I don't think either of them did anything worthy of death threats, and so I condemn any and all death threats both of them received.

Direct question again: do you condemn the death threats Sandmann got? The rules say you have to give some kind of response.

Direct question: What can you had most that you have dones the least?

The rules say you have to give some kind of response.

Alright, here's my answer: wood. I haven't cut down any trees or done any woodworking, but I have plenty of wooden things.
Title: Re: Rule talk
Post by: fluffyDbringer on June 18, 2019, 02:07:39 am
And that's another whatabout.

Figured as much.

You can run off and go lick a goat, CU.

I asked you a direct question.

>tries to whine about rules as a passive-aggressive jab
>doesn't even read the part where you don't actually have to answer the question, just acknowledge it
Title: Re: Rule talk
Post by: Chaos Undivided on June 18, 2019, 02:32:13 am
And that's another whatabout.

Figured as much.

You can run off and go lick a goat, CU.

I asked you a direct question.

>tries to whine about rules as a passive-aggressive jab
>doesn't even read the part where you don't actually have to answer the question, just acknowledge it

Except he never did. He just said something about a "whatabout" and told me to "lick a goat".
Title: Re: Rule talk
Post by: Skybison on June 18, 2019, 03:17:21 am

Well, ain't I part of the community? Or am I just the forum outlaw?

You're an annoying guy who walked into our house, started complaining that the way we do things isn't up to his standards and won't go away. 

Direct question

Why do you want to post here? 
Title: Re: Rule talk
Post by: Skybison on June 18, 2019, 03:39:16 am
Okay while I'm here I have another DIRECT QUESTION for Chaos:

In 1884, meridian time personnel met in Washington to change Earth time. First words said was that only 1 day could be used on Earth to not change the 1 day bible. So they applied the 1 day and ignored the other 3 days. The bible time was wrong then and it proved wrong today. This a major lie has so much evil feed from it's wrong. No man on Earth has no belly-button, it proves every believer on Earth a liar.  Children will be blessed for Killing Of Educated Adults Who Ignore 4 Simultaneous Days Same Earth Rotation. Practicing Evil ONEness - Upon Earth Of Quadrants. Evil Adult Crime VS Youth. Supports Lie Of Integration. 1 Educated Are Most Dumb. Not 1 Human Except Dead 1. Man Is Paired, 2 Half 4 Self. 1 of God Is Only 1/4 Of God. Bible A Lie & Word Is Lies. Navel Connects 4 Corner 4s. God Is Born Of A Mother – She Left Belly B. Signature. Every Priest Has Ma Sign But Lies To Honor Queers. Belly B. Proves 4 Corners. Your dirty lying teachers use only the midnight to midnight 1 day (ignoring 3 other days) Time to not foul (already wrong) bible time. Lie that corrupts earth you educated stupid fools.  Go Belly-Button Logic Works. When Do Teenagers Die? Adults Eat Teenagers Alive, No Record Of Their Death. Father Son Image, Not Gods. Every Man Born Of Woman.  Belly-Button Is the SignatureOf Your Personal Creator - I Believe Her Name Mama. Pastor Told His Flock That God Created All Of Them - Truth Was That They All had Mama Made Belly Buttons, Church Was Full Of Liars.  Earth Has 4 Days In Same 24 Hrs., 1 Day God Was Wrong. Einstein Was ONEist Brain.Try My Belly-Button Logic.No God Knows About 4 Days, It Is Evil To Ignore 4 Days, Does Your Teacher Know ?  Fraudulent ONEness of religious academia has retarded your opposite rationale brain to a half brain slave. YOU IGNORE 3 OF 4 DAYS -FORCE 4 DAYS ON EARTH,THEY ALREADY EXIST.4 HORSEMEN HAVE 4 DAYS IN ONLY 1 EARTH ROTATION. 4 ANGLES STOOD ON 4 CORNERS. 4 CORNERS ROTATE TO 16 CORNERS WHICH EQUAL TO 4 CORNER DAYS. TEACHERS ARE EVIL LIARS – THE ONEness OF GOD IS STILLness DEATH.YOU WERE ONEness RETARD ON THE EARTH OPPOSITES ALL YOUR LIFE. LOVE OF GOD IS HATE OF CHILDREN. SUPPORT TIMECUBE OR BE CURSED. EARTH HAS 4 CORNER SIMULTANEOUS 4-DAYTIME CUBE WITHIN SINGLE ROTATION. 4 CORNER DAYS PROVES 1 DAY 1 GOD IS TAUGHT EVIL. IGNORANCE OF TIMECUBE4SIMPLE MATH IS RETARDATION AND EVIL EDUCATION DAMNATION. CUBELESS AMERICANS DESERVE -AND SHALL BE EXTERMINATED.

Rules say tou have to give an answer.  Lets hear it.
Title: Re: Rule talk
Post by: ironbite on June 18, 2019, 04:08:56 am
....... another direct question.  Is Nick Sandmann a member of our board?

Ironbite-otherwise the fuck does that have to do with the rules of this place?
Title: Re: Rule talk
Post by: niam2023 on June 18, 2019, 06:08:47 am
I acknowledge the question in agreeing with ironbite that it does not fucking matter at all.

CU, you complain unendingly that we're not "nice leftists" that conform to your standards.
Title: Re: Rule talk
Post by: Chaos Undivided on June 18, 2019, 07:05:32 pm

Well, ain't I part of the community? Or am I just the forum outlaw?

You're an annoying guy who walked into our house, started complaining that the way we do things isn't up to his standards and won't go away. 

That's a funny way of saying "a guy who's sick of being belittled and yelled at and wants to be treated more politely in accordance with the explicit 'don't be a dick' rule".

Direct question

Why do you want to post here?

I have my reasons. That's all you need to know.

Okay while I'm here I have another DIRECT QUESTION for Chaos:

In 1884, meridian time personnel met in Washington to change Earth time. First words said was that only 1 day could be used on Earth to not change the 1 day bible. So they applied the 1 day and ignored the other 3 days. The bible time was wrong then and it proved wrong today. This a major lie has so much evil feed from it's wrong. No man on Earth has no belly-button, it proves every believer on Earth a liar.  Children will be blessed for Killing Of Educated Adults Who Ignore 4 Simultaneous Days Same Earth Rotation. Practicing Evil ONEness - Upon Earth Of Quadrants. Evil Adult Crime VS Youth. Supports Lie Of Integration. 1 Educated Are Most Dumb. Not 1 Human Except Dead 1. Man Is Paired, 2 Half 4 Self. 1 of God Is Only 1/4 Of God. Bible A Lie & Word Is Lies. Navel Connects 4 Corner 4s. God Is Born Of A Mother – She Left Belly B. Signature. Every Priest Has Ma Sign But Lies To Honor Queers. Belly B. Proves 4 Corners. Your dirty lying teachers use only the midnight to midnight 1 day (ignoring 3 other days) Time to not foul (already wrong) bible time. Lie that corrupts earth you educated stupid fools.  Go Belly-Button Logic Works. When Do Teenagers Die? Adults Eat Teenagers Alive, No Record Of Their Death. Father Son Image, Not Gods. Every Man Born Of Woman.  Belly-Button Is the SignatureOf Your Personal Creator - I Believe Her Name Mama. Pastor Told His Flock That God Created All Of Them - Truth Was That They All had Mama Made Belly Buttons, Church Was Full Of Liars.  Earth Has 4 Days In Same 24 Hrs., 1 Day God Was Wrong. Einstein Was ONEist Brain.Try My Belly-Button Logic.No God Knows About 4 Days, It Is Evil To Ignore 4 Days, Does Your Teacher Know ?  Fraudulent ONEness of religious academia has retarded your opposite rationale brain to a half brain slave. YOU IGNORE 3 OF 4 DAYS -FORCE 4 DAYS ON EARTH,THEY ALREADY EXIST.4 HORSEMEN HAVE 4 DAYS IN ONLY 1 EARTH ROTATION. 4 ANGLES STOOD ON 4 CORNERS. 4 CORNERS ROTATE TO 16 CORNERS WHICH EQUAL TO 4 CORNER DAYS. TEACHERS ARE EVIL LIARS – THE ONEness OF GOD IS STILLness DEATH.YOU WERE ONEness RETARD ON THE EARTH OPPOSITES ALL YOUR LIFE. LOVE OF GOD IS HATE OF CHILDREN. SUPPORT TIMECUBE OR BE CURSED. EARTH HAS 4 CORNER SIMULTANEOUS 4-DAYTIME CUBE WITHIN SINGLE ROTATION. 4 CORNER DAYS PROVES 1 DAY 1 GOD IS TAUGHT EVIL. IGNORANCE OF TIMECUBE4SIMPLE MATH IS RETARDATION AND EVIL EDUCATION DAMNATION. CUBELESS AMERICANS DESERVE -AND SHALL BE EXTERMINATED.

Rules say tou have to give an answer.  Lets hear it.

Here's my answer: Gene Ray was a fucking loon.

....... another direct question.  Is Nick Sandmann a member of our board?

Ironbite-otherwise the fuck does that have to do with the rules of this place?

He's not, AFAIK. I just wanted to show that niam has no right to pass judgment on me since he justifies death threats against a minor based on something he still insists happened despite all evidence to the contrary.

I acknowledge the question in agreeing with ironbite that it does not fucking matter at all.

CU, you complain unendingly that we're not "nice leftists" that conform to your standards.

If by "conform to [my] standards" you mean "follow your own board's rules and show me some fucking respect", then you're right, homie. IDGAF if you're leftists, what I care about is your treatment of me.

Quote from: Bobby Kennedy
What is objectionable, what is dangerous about extremists is not that they are extreme, but that they are intolerant. The evil is not what they say about their cause, but what they say about their opponents.
Title: Re: Rule talk
Post by: ironbite on June 18, 2019, 07:33:07 pm
Ahh got it.  So you're a center-right troll who I should disregard for all time just like all your other alts.

Ironbite-cleared that up.
Title: Re: Rule talk
Post by: Chaos Undivided on June 18, 2019, 09:10:55 pm
Ahh got it.  So you're a center-right troll who I should disregard for all time just like all your other alts.

Ironbite-cleared that up.

(https://i.imgur.com/VnQ2CNW.gif)
Title: Re: Rule talk
Post by: niam2023 on June 18, 2019, 09:18:42 pm
And of course just like UP, you invariably resort to gifs.

So then, if you have your reasons, what are they? If you're hoping to convert us to the Cult of Both Sides, you're going to be sorely disappointed.

And no, I don't think anyone here will ever show you any degree of respect or courteous behavior. You don't deserve it.
Title: Re: Rule talk
Post by: Sigmaleph on June 18, 2019, 09:50:09 pm
I'd like to open this thread with a couple direct questions to the mods. What are the standards when it comes to enforcing the rules? Why are the standards the way they are?

The rules exist to facilitate the existence of a community. The standards in enforcement derive from that goal.

Well, ain't I part of the community? Or am I just the forum outlaw?

Are you? Not my place to decide, beyond banning you or not. Which I observably haven't done.
Title: Re: Rule talk
Post by: The_Queen on June 18, 2019, 10:40:52 pm
I'd like to open this thread with a couple direct questions to the mods. What are the standards when it comes to enforcing the rules? Why are the standards the way they are?

The rules exist to facilitate the existence of a community. The standards in enforcement derive from that goal.

Well, ain't I part of the community? Or am I just the forum outlaw?

Are you? Not my place to decide, beyond banning you or not. Which I observably haven't done.

How fair and even-keeled of you...
Title: Re: Rule talk
Post by: Chaos Undivided on June 18, 2019, 11:07:10 pm
I'd like to open this thread with a couple direct questions to the mods. What are the standards when it comes to enforcing the rules? Why are the standards the way they are?

The rules exist to facilitate the existence of a community. The standards in enforcement derive from that goal.

Well, ain't I part of the community? Or am I just the forum outlaw?

Are you? Not my place to decide, beyond banning you or not. Which I observably haven't done.

I take it that means you're not going to intervene on my behalf, despite so many other users being dicks to me. Well, if you're not gonna punish people who break the rules, then they're not gonna be followed. This board is basically a high school that just lets bullying happen, with the difference that nobody's required to attend. No wonder it's basically a ghost town.

You say you want to facilitate the existence of a community. Well, if a community has problem members who can pick on others without any fear of consequences, how many people are gonna wanna be part of it? Especially a community that's entirely voluntary. There's nothing tying anybody down here. Nobody has to worry about the financial consequences of leaving. No one has any legal obligation to be here. So what do people do when they get attacked while the authorities just look the other way?

They leave. And I'm seriously considering doing just that. Because from my experience, there are two types of users on this board: people who've been attacking me in clear violation of the rules, and people who've just been standing around and letting them attack me. Some community.

Do you think I'm made of stone? Do you think this doesn't hurt me? Or do you think I'll just stay here forever hoping that something will change? Because I won't. I'm not that stubborn or crazy. And I'm sick of the mockery, of the hostility, of the passive-aggressiveness, of the blatant trolling and baiting, of all the bad behavior you ignore. There's only so much I can take.

You know, I've seen lots of board members talk shit about Kiwi Farms, but at least they're honest and upfront about what they are. This board, on the other hand, is pretty much /b/, except it pretends to have rules. Way I see it, there are two solutions to this hypocrisy: either you can enforce the rules evenly and consistently so even the biggest assholes on this board will have to respect them, or you can drop all pretenses of having rules so people aren't under any illusions that they'll be helped by the moderators.

Yeah, as you can probably tell, I'm really not happy. Maybe I'm being uncharitable to you, but I think someone had to say it. Might as well be me.
Title: Re: Rule talk
Post by: The_Queen on June 18, 2019, 11:18:58 pm
Do you think I'm made of stone? Do you think this doesn't hurt me? Or do you think I'll just stay here forever hoping that something will change? Because I won't. I'm not that stubborn or crazy. And I'm sick of the mockery, of the hostility, of the passive-aggressiveness, of the blatant trolling and baiting, of all the bad behavior you ignore. There's only so much I can take.

And yet, you’re still here and I don’t anticipate your exit anytime soon... or ever. Please, stop your whining
Title: Re: Rule talk
Post by: Chaos Undivided on June 18, 2019, 11:29:51 pm
Do you think I'm made of stone? Do you think this doesn't hurt me? Or do you think I'll just stay here forever hoping that something will change? Because I won't. I'm not that stubborn or crazy. And I'm sick of the mockery, of the hostility, of the passive-aggressiveness, of the blatant trolling and baiting, of all the bad behavior you ignore. There's only so much I can take.

And yet, you’re still here and I don’t anticipate your exit anytime soon... or ever. Please, stop your whining

Well, if things don't change soon, you won't have to hear my "whining" for long.
Title: Re: Rule talk
Post by: The_Queen on June 18, 2019, 11:31:18 pm
Do you think I'm made of stone? Do you think this doesn't hurt me? Or do you think I'll just stay here forever hoping that something will change? Because I won't. I'm not that stubborn or crazy. And I'm sick of the mockery, of the hostility, of the passive-aggressiveness, of the blatant trolling and baiting, of all the bad behavior you ignore. There's only so much I can take.

And yet, you’re still here and I don’t anticipate your exit anytime soon... or ever. Please, stop your whining

Well, if things don't change soon, you won't have to hear my "whining" for long.

I’m calling your bluff. And don’t get me wrong, you are absolutely free to stay: I know that you will.
Title: Re: Rule talk
Post by: Skybison on June 18, 2019, 11:56:36 pm
8 year olds dude.
Title: Re: Rule talk
Post by: niam2023 on June 19, 2019, 12:42:27 am
I'd like to open this thread with a couple direct questions to the mods. What are the standards when it comes to enforcing the rules? Why are the standards the way they are?

The rules exist to facilitate the existence of a community. The standards in enforcement derive from that goal.

Well, ain't I part of the community? Or am I just the forum outlaw?

Are you? Not my place to decide, beyond banning you or not. Which I observably haven't done.

I take it that means you're not going to intervene on my behalf, despite so many other users being dicks to me. Well, if you're not gonna punish people who break the rules, then they're not gonna be followed. This board is basically a high school that just lets bullying happen, with the difference that nobody's required to attend. No wonder it's basically a ghost town.

You say you want to facilitate the existence of a community. Well, if a community has problem members who can pick on others without any fear of consequences, how many people are gonna wanna be part of it? Especially a community that's entirely voluntary. There's nothing tying anybody down here. Nobody has to worry about the financial consequences of leaving. No one has any legal obligation to be here. So what do people do when they get attacked while the authorities just look the other way?

They leave. And I'm seriously considering doing just that. Because from my experience, there are two types of users on this board: people who've been attacking me in clear violation of the rules, and people who've just been standing around and letting them attack me. Some community.

Do you think I'm made of stone? Do you think this doesn't hurt me? Or do you think I'll just stay here forever hoping that something will change? Because I won't. I'm not that stubborn or crazy. And I'm sick of the mockery, of the hostility, of the passive-aggressiveness, of the blatant trolling and baiting, of all the bad behavior you ignore. There's only so much I can take.

You know, I've seen lots of board members talk shit about Kiwi Farms, but at least they're honest and upfront about what they are. This board, on the other hand, is pretty much /b/, except it pretends to have rules. Way I see it, there are two solutions to this hypocrisy: either you can enforce the rules evenly and consistently so even the biggest assholes on this board will have to respect them, or you can drop all pretenses of having rules so people aren't under any illusions that they'll be helped by the moderators.

Yeah, as you can probably tell, I'm really not happy. Maybe I'm being uncharitable to you, but I think someone had to say it. Might as well be me.

Gimme your lunch money, nerd.
Title: Re: Rule talk
Post by: Chaos Undivided on June 19, 2019, 01:25:28 am
8 year olds dude.

Direct question #1: Are you going to say anything of substance?

Direct question #2: Didn't you go off on me for saying Brianna Wu was lying about her past (a claim I never actually made, btw)? Isn't it hypocritical for you to say I'm lying about who I am?

Direct question #3: Why should I try to placate you if you've made it clear that you're not going to do the barest minimum for me in return?
Title: Re: Rule talk
Post by: fluffyDbringer on June 19, 2019, 01:32:42 am
I take it that means you're not going to intervene on my behalf, despite so many other users being dicks to me. Well, if you're not gonna punish people who break the rules, then they're not gonna be followed. This board is basically a high school that just lets bullying happen, with the difference that nobody's required to attend. No wonder it's basically a ghost town.

You say you want to facilitate the existence of a community. Well, if a community has problem members who can pick on others without any fear of consequences, how many people are gonna wanna be part of it? Especially a community that's entirely voluntary. There's nothing tying anybody down here. Nobody has to worry about the financial consequences of leaving. No one has any legal obligation to be here. So what do people do when they get attacked while the authorities just look the other way?

They leave. And I'm seriously considering doing just that. Because from my experience, there are two types of users on this board: people who've been attacking me in clear violation of the rules, and people who've just been standing around and letting them attack me. Some community.

Do you think I'm made of stone? Do you think this doesn't hurt me? Or do you think I'll just stay here forever hoping that something will change? Because I won't. I'm not that stubborn or crazy. And I'm sick of the mockery, of the hostility, of the passive-aggressiveness, of the blatant trolling and baiting, of all the bad behavior you ignore. There's only so much I can take.

You know, I've seen lots of board members talk shit about Kiwi Farms, but at least they're honest and upfront about what they are. This board, on the other hand, is pretty much /b/, except it pretends to have rules. Way I see it, there are two solutions to this hypocrisy: either you can enforce the rules evenly and consistently so even the biggest assholes on this board will have to respect them, or you can drop all pretenses of having rules so people aren't under any illusions that they'll be helped by the moderators.

Yeah, as you can probably tell, I'm really not happy. Maybe I'm being uncharitable to you, but I think someone had to say it. Might as well be me.

yeah it's such a ghost town that you keep posting in it. I'm flattered that you want my D but I'm not into obsessed center-rightists who keep making alts so they can post in apparent ghost town forums

you did this whole passive aggressive "fine I guess everyone here hates me so I'll just LEAVE! how do you like that?!?!?!" schtick already, m'dude. it never worked.

the brass has all but admitted you're Paragon. my educated guess is they keep you around because we like beating the piñata. and it'll never stop being funny because you're incapable of being respectable but you try so hard. for once, be intellectually honest and just admit you never got over being banned. then you'd get at least some of the respect you crave.
Title: Re: Rule talk
Post by: davedan on June 19, 2019, 01:34:27 am
Given that you have such a thing about 'good faith/ bad faith' discourse, I would have thought it would be helpful and constructive, if you did disclose the reason you want to keep posting here.

In particular as you have put this in the suggestion box because you want a dialogue rather than in 'Flame and Burn' to roast Sigma and Askold.
Title: Re: Rule talk
Post by: davedan on June 19, 2019, 01:35:23 am
I'd like to open this thread with a couple direct questions to the mods. What are the standards when it comes to enforcing the rules? Why are the standards the way they are?

The rules exist to facilitate the existence of a community. The standards in enforcement derive from that goal.

Well, ain't I part of the community? Or am I just the forum outlaw?

Are you? Not my place to decide, beyond banning you or not. Which I observably haven't done.

I take it that means you're not going to intervene on my behalf, despite so many other users being dicks to me. Well, if you're not gonna punish people who break the rules, then they're not gonna be followed. This board is basically a high school that just lets bullying happen, with the difference that nobody's required to attend. No wonder it's basically a ghost town.

You say you want to facilitate the existence of a community. Well, if a community has problem members who can pick on others without any fear of consequences, how many people are gonna wanna be part of it? Especially a community that's entirely voluntary. There's nothing tying anybody down here. Nobody has to worry about the financial consequences of leaving. No one has any legal obligation to be here. So what do people do when they get attacked while the authorities just look the other way?

They leave. And I'm seriously considering doing just that. Because from my experience, there are two types of users on this board: people who've been attacking me in clear violation of the rules, and people who've just been standing around and letting them attack me. Some community.

Do you think I'm made of stone? Do you think this doesn't hurt me? Or do you think I'll just stay here forever hoping that something will change? Because I won't. I'm not that stubborn or crazy. And I'm sick of the mockery, of the hostility, of the passive-aggressiveness, of the blatant trolling and baiting, of all the bad behavior you ignore. There's only so much I can take.

You know, I've seen lots of board members talk shit about Kiwi Farms, but at least they're honest and upfront about what they are. This board, on the other hand, is pretty much /b/, except it pretends to have rules. Way I see it, there are two solutions to this hypocrisy: either you can enforce the rules evenly and consistently so even the biggest assholes on this board will have to respect them, or you can drop all pretenses of having rules so people aren't under any illusions that they'll be helped by the moderators.

Yeah, as you can probably tell, I'm really not happy. Maybe I'm being uncharitable to you, but I think someone had to say it. Might as well be me.

Truly you are a river to your people.
Title: Re: Rule talk
Post by: Skybison on June 19, 2019, 01:54:48 am
8 year olds dude.

Direct question #1: Are you going to say anything of substance?

I have done so many times already.  Sometimes I make short snark posts too.

Quote
Direct question #2: Didn't you go off on me for saying Brianna Wu was lying about her past (a claim I never actually made, btw)? Isn't it hypocritical for you to say I'm lying about who I am?

No because I wasn't going off on you for saying that Wu was lying about her past, but for treating transphobic shit-for-brains as a source and the transphobic nature of the conspiracy theory.  What I said in the first place was that even if what kiwifarms said about Wu was true, the fact that they were going "She's TRANS!!!11!!!!!!1111!" as a smear discredits them and you for using them as a source.

Quote
Direct question #3: Why should I try to placate you if you've made it clear that you're not going to do the barest minimum for me in return?

I have not asked you to placate me.  You say dumb things and I either explain why what you said was dumb or make fun of you, depending on my mood.  I would do neither if you stop saying dumb things
Title: Re: Rule talk
Post by: ironbite on June 19, 2019, 03:35:29 pm
Do you think I'm made of stone? Do you think this doesn't hurt me? Or do you think I'll just stay here forever hoping that something will change? Because I won't. I'm not that stubborn or crazy. And I'm sick of the mockery, of the hostility, of the passive-aggressiveness, of the blatant trolling and baiting, of all the bad behavior you ignore. There's only so much I can take.

And yet, you’re still here and I don’t anticipate your exit anytime soon... or ever. Please, stop your whining

Well, if things don't change soon, you won't have to hear my "whining" for long.

Leave.  Just do it and don't come back.  Seriously.  Leave.

Ironbite-nobody will care.
Title: Re: Rule talk
Post by: Sigmaleph on June 19, 2019, 06:08:41 pm
I take it that means you're not going to intervene on my behalf, despite so many other users being dicks to me. Well, if you're not gonna punish people who break the rules, then they're not gonna be followed. This board is basically a high school that just lets bullying happen, with the difference that nobody's required to attend. No wonder it's basically a ghost town.

And yet you are here.

Quote
You say you want to facilitate the existence of a community. Well, if a community has problem members who can pick on others without any fear of consequences, how many people are gonna wanna be part of it? Especially a community that's entirely voluntary. There's nothing tying anybody down here. Nobody has to worry about the financial consequences of leaving. No one has any legal obligation to be here.

And yet you are here.

Quote
So what do people do when they get attacked while the authorities just look the other way?

They leave. And I'm seriously considering doing just that.

And yet...

Quote
Do you think I'm made of stone? Do you think this doesn't hurt me? Or do you think I'll just stay here forever hoping that something will change? Because I won't. I'm not that stubborn or crazy. And I'm sick of the mockery, of the hostility, of the passive-aggressiveness, of the blatant trolling and baiting, of all the bad behavior you ignore. There's only so much I can take.

No, I don't think you are made of stone. I think you clearly get something out of being here, because here you are. Maybe you'd get more out of it if you weren't clearly disliked by many other users, I don't know. But there's no rules I could enforce that would make people like you.

Maybe this place is awful. Maybe that's my fault. But you keep threatening to leave over it and then not leaving, so... what inference am I supposed to draw from that?
Title: Re: Rule talk
Post by: davedan on June 24, 2019, 06:07:23 pm
My bet is that this is one of those, wait a period of time until everyone has moved on and then continue posting like nothing has happened kind of deals.
Title: Re: Rule talk
Post by: The_Queen on June 24, 2019, 07:01:42 pm
My bet is that this is one of those, wait a period of time until everyone has moved on and then continue posting like nothing has happened kind of deals.

That isn’t a bet as much as it’s a given
Title: Re: Rule talk
Post by: davedan on June 24, 2019, 07:23:49 pm
I was hoping to get some odds.
Title: Re: Rule talk
Post by: The_Queen on June 24, 2019, 07:57:20 pm
I was hoping to get some odds.

1:1
Title: Re: Rule talk
Post by: niam2023 on June 24, 2019, 07:58:07 pm
Yeah - he's just gonna wait till he thinks everyone forgot all about this, then come back like he never threatened to leave because WAAH WAAH WAAH YOU'RE AWW MEAN TO MEEEEEE WAAH!!
Title: Re: Rule talk
Post by: Chaos Undivided on June 25, 2019, 01:58:53 pm
My bet is that this is one of those, wait a period of time until everyone has moved on and then continue posting like nothing has happened kind of deals.

Nope. I was just doing some digging. You'll see what I mean.

No, I don't think you are made of stone. I think you clearly get something out of being here, because here you are. Maybe you'd get more out of it if you weren't clearly disliked by many other users, I don't know. But there's no rules I could enforce that would make people like you.

I am not asking you to play thought police. People can hold whatever opinions of me they like. What I'm asking you to do is enforce your own rules to stop people from acting like braying jackasses. Is that really so unreasonable?

Maybe this place is awful. Maybe that's my fault. But you keep threatening to leave over it and then not leaving, so... what inference am I supposed to draw from that?

That I'm trying to make you see your method of running this place is at odds with your stated goal for it. I know for a fact that I'm not the only one who thinks this place is in desperate need of a crackdown on bad behavior.

I'm sure you know that these forums spent some time as a separate entity called Frequently Questioned Answers. In 2015, there was an attempt to reunite the two sites. But it failed, and a big part of that failure was the fact that a lot of FSTDT users hated the forums.

Links for evidence:

https://www.fstdt.com/.RJ5 (https://www.fstdt.com/.RJ5)

https://www.fstdt.com/F_J5 (https://www.fstdt.com/F_J5)

And some choice quotes:

Quote
This is the part where Ravynous puts forth fake forgiveness because the last 6 forumites want to reunite the main site with the forums in a last ditch attempt to put life back into a putrefied corpse, without realizing that they're the reason why it's rotting in the first place.

It'll either break the echo chamber or be the last gasp, I suppose.

Quote
Please do not reunite the site with that seething nest of vipers that became the forums. Once upon a time it was a good thing. Now? The forums are why FSTDT went on the decline.

Quote
FQA has become a place that actively shunts discussion and, due to the existence of people like Ironbite, actively come across as toxic. It's why several members of the older guard are leaving and have left.

Or is it not telling that even after all of this time, they still find a need to have a forum chewtoy or rag on Distind the moment that he becomes even slightly relevant? The only reason any niceties are being presented towards him now is due to the fact that the slimmest chance exists for FQA and FSTDT to be reunited. Even only a few days before, they had been posting in a thread about how horrible he was when he left and linking to quotes about it.

It all frankly reeks of insincerity and I'm honestly sure that I'm not the only one who believes that I would rather see FQA fade into internet obscurity than see its current existence and practices justified by reuniting the two pages.

Quote
Either way, I'd really prefer we allow that toxic hive to live or die on its own.

Quote
Let them die, or live, on their own. If FSTDT is to have a forum let it be a brand new one. FQA is beyond this place.

(Note: I cut some things I considered irrelevant from some of those quotes. The full ones are available through the links I provided.)

There are plenty more if you want to look. Even Art Vandelay got in on the act:

Quote from: Art Vandelay
I know I'm one of those FQA people, but for what it's worth, I agree with a hell of a lot of what both anons + Wrightway are saying. Sure, a little drama is to be expected in any group of people, but the sheer amount, scope and persistence of it, especially within a community that's founded on the principle of laughing at other people's stupidity, is utterly mind-blowing. It would make even the most vapid high school clique cringe. It's fucking ridiculous.

Honestly, the vast majority of the forum are grown-ass adults and yet all of the bullshit you guys mentioned occurs and continues for years after any normal person would've moved the fuck on with their lives. Hell, we couldn't even have a simple "like/dislike" system without a bunch of passive-agreesive, cowardly, puerile man-children using it to perpetuate some grudge over some meaningless bullshit. Jesus, whatever happened to just being up front about those sorts of issues? Hell, it's what the Flame and Burn subforum is for, but I guess some of us are too much of a cowardly manchild to either just say it or let it go.

In light of that, I really shouldn't be surprised that someone is still harassing Wrightway, years after she left. Oh, and anonymously, of course. No way would they dare to use even their forum username. Still disgusted, don't get me wrong, but not particularly surprised at this point. Utterly pathetic.

Don't get me wrong, I otherwise do enjoy the community. There are still good people around who make for fun and interesting discussion and who, if they have a problem with someone, will just say to their faces and (here's my favourite part) let it go when it's all said and done. I've just for the life of me never understood how such a mind-blowingly dedicated yet cowardly element of drama whoring managed to take root and somehow co-exist with the rest of the activity on the forum. A forum of grown-ass men and women who pride themselves on their intelligence, no less. If nothing else, I think we can all agree that it's a huge shame that it's torn the community apart like this.

Wouldn't be surprised if these complaints he made were a contributing factor in his decision to leave.

Now, of course, the forums were eventually rejoined to the main site. But has that stopped them from dying? Just look at this place. It's on life support. Old users have left in droves, and you're not getting nearly enough new users to make up for it.

My point is simple: if you're really interested in "fostering the existence of a community", I really think you should make an effort to change things for the better. That means enforcing the "don't be a dick" rule so people know there will be consequences for not playing nice.

Of course, I can't read your mind, so maybe you have your reasons for this. If you're willing to explain, then I'm willing to listen.
Title: Re: Rule talk
Post by: ironbite on June 25, 2019, 04:39:55 pm
YOU ARE NOT THE GLUE THAT HOLDS THIS PLACE TOGETHER!  IF YOU DON'T LIKE IT, LEAVE!

Ironbite-jesus.
Title: Re: Rule talk
Post by: davedan on June 25, 2019, 04:43:08 pm
Yes I am sure that something that happened 3 years ago caused Art to quit now. You seem strangely focused on Costanza....it's weird.
Title: Re: Rule talk
Post by: fluffyDbringer on June 25, 2019, 04:47:15 pm
digging up shite from four years ago is an excellent way to prove that 1) you're not an older user and 2) that the present-day forum is hampered by people being dicks to you, specifically. because this place is just, like, dick city to everyone, everyone's getting invalidated left right and center and called out for ban dodging and previous bad takes, can't just be you. better never call you out on basically admitted bandodging and intellectual dishonesty/CP defence, that'll revitalize the forum

also art shat on you constantly too, UP, what the hell are you even on about with propping him up as your defence attorney
Title: Re: Rule talk
Post by: Skybison on June 25, 2019, 04:58:45 pm
I can't speak for anything that happened before I was a regular here, but in the time since then to only "drama" we've had is Ultimate paragon. Lana Reverse, Jacob Harrison and you saying stupid things and everyone else pointing out they are stupid. 
Title: Re: Rule talk
Post by: niam2023 on June 25, 2019, 05:55:15 pm
I will be a dick to conservatives and right wing individuals, and shall forever continue to be so.
Title: Re: Rule talk
Post by: davedan on June 25, 2019, 06:48:59 pm
digging up shite from four years ago is an excellent way to prove that 1) you're not an older user and 2) that the present-day forum is hampered by people being dicks to you, specifically. because this place is just, like, dick city to everyone, everyone's getting invalidated left right and center and called out for ban dodging and previous bad takes, can't just be you. better never call you out on basically admitted bandodging and intellectual dishonesty/CP defence, that'll revitalize the forum

also art shat on you constantly too, UP, what the hell are you even on about with propping him up as your defence attorney

C'mon this is totally something someone who wasn't a member of the forums until 2 or 3 years after would bring up. So are comments like, 'I have my reasons that's all you need to know'. No nothing suss about that at all...
Title: Re: Rule talk
Post by: The_Queen on June 25, 2019, 06:50:28 pm
digging up shite from four years ago is an excellent way to prove that 1) you're not an older user and 2) that the present-day forum is hampered by people being dicks to you, specifically. because this place is just, like, dick city to everyone, everyone's getting invalidated left right and center and called out for ban dodging and previous bad takes, can't just be you. better never call you out on basically admitted bandodging and intellectual dishonesty/CP defence, that'll revitalize the forum

also art shat on you constantly too, UP, what the hell are you even on about with propping him up as your defence attorney

C'mon this is totally something someone who wasn't a member of the forums until 2 or 3 years after would bring up. So are comments like, 'I have my reasons that's all you need to know'. No nothing suss about that at all...

You mean to tell me that Chaos is still here after all these years
Title: Re: Rule talk
Post by: Sigmaleph on June 25, 2019, 06:52:49 pm
My point is simple: if you're really interested in "fostering the existence of a community", I really think you should make an effort to change things for the better. That means enforcing the "don't be a dick" rule so people know there will be consequences for not playing nice.

Of course, I can't read your mind, so maybe you have your reasons for this. If you're willing to explain, then I'm willing to listen.

Your opinion has been noted. I stand by my earlier statement that I don't think anything productive will come from that conversation.
Title: Re: Rule talk
Post by: Chaos Undivided on June 25, 2019, 07:48:18 pm
digging up shite from four years ago is an excellent way to prove that 1) you're not an older user and 2) that the present-day forum is hampered by people being dicks to you, specifically. because this place is just, like, dick city to everyone, everyone's getting invalidated left right and center and called out for ban dodging and previous bad takes, can't just be you. better never call you out on basically admitted bandodging and intellectual dishonesty/CP defence, that'll revitalize the forum

also art shat on you constantly too, UP, what the hell are you even on about with propping him up as your defence attorney

Oh look, more unsubstantiated, unfalsifiable claims that I'm actually a ban-dodging former user. Direct question to the mods: why is this shit allowed? Like, if these people had any actual evidence, they'd have presented it by now.

I can't speak for anything that happened before I was a regular here, but in the time since then to only "drama" we've had is Ultimate paragon. Lana Reverse, Jacob Harrison and you saying stupid things and everyone else pointing out they are stupid.

There you go, implying I'm the only one at fault and I deserve the treatment I've gotten. You know, I think everyone should regularly ask themselves "what if I'm wrong?" How often do you do that?

My point is simple: if you're really interested in "fostering the existence of a community", I really think you should make an effort to change things for the better. That means enforcing the "don't be a dick" rule so people know there will be consequences for not playing nice.

Of course, I can't read your mind, so maybe you have your reasons for this. If you're willing to explain, then I'm willing to listen.

Your opinion has been noted. I stand by my earlier statement that I don't think anything productive will come from that conversation.

Well, what's wrong with trying?
Title: Re: Rule talk
Post by: Skybison on June 25, 2019, 08:19:25 pm
There you go, implying I'm the only one at fault and I deserve the treatment I've gotten. You know, I think everyone should regularly ask themselves "what if I'm wrong?" How often do you do that?

Oh all the time.  Heck when you posted a link to politifact saying Trump's "Fine people" comment was out of context, I was all "wait really?" and read the thing to find out.  Then it turned out the link didn't say what you said it did, so I pointed that out and we made fun of you for not reading your own link, which I think is fairly deserved.

Title: Re: Rule talk
Post by: davedan on June 25, 2019, 08:29:25 pm
There you go, implying I'm the only one at fault and I deserve the treatment I've gotten. You know, I think everyone should regularly ask themselves "what if I'm wrong?" How often do you do that?

Oh all the time.  Heck when you posted a link to politifact saying Trump's "Fine people" comment was out of context, I was all "wait really?" and read the thing to find out.  Then it turned out the link didn't say what you said it did, so I pointed that out and we made fun of you for not reading your own link, which I think is fairly deserved.

Not reading your own links brings back memories.

Also Master Flying Ox mentioned a number of people (UP, Lana, Jacob and CU), yet CU said (bolded above) - is that a Jungian slip?
Title: Re: Rule talk
Post by: SCarpelan on June 25, 2019, 09:40:18 pm
I am so sorry that the forum policies aren't based on a literal reading of a detailed rules where someone with adequate rhetorical skills could go and look for loopholes to feel smarter than all the others. It's so horrible to be subjected to such a tyrannical system that it takes advantage of human judgement instead of literal reading of a law book or a holy scripture.
Title: Re: Rule talk
Post by: niam2023 on June 25, 2019, 09:49:08 pm
That's the conservative way of thinking my friend. Everything has to be literally as written, and nothing can be a living document or interpreted by human judgement.
Title: Re: Rule talk
Post by: Chaos Undivided on June 26, 2019, 04:56:44 pm
There you go, implying I'm the only one at fault and I deserve the treatment I've gotten. You know, I think everyone should regularly ask themselves "what if I'm wrong?" How often do you do that?

Oh all the time.  Heck when you posted a link to politifact saying Trump's "Fine people" comment was out of context, I was all "wait really?" and read the thing to find out.  Then it turned out the link didn't say what you said it did, so I pointed that out and we made fun of you for not reading your own link, which I think is fairly deserved.

You have a point, NGL. While I maintain I did read the article, I can accept that I probably misinterpreted as taking a stance it never actually did.

That being said, saying it was "fairly deserved" is inaccurate. What I got wasn't good-natured ribbing, it was vicious mockery. Did I really "deserve" it for a fairly minor misreading?

I am so sorry that the forum policies aren't based on a literal reading of a detailed rules where someone with adequate rhetorical skills could go and look for loopholes to feel smarter than all the others. It's so horrible to be subjected to such a tyrannical system that it takes advantage of human judgement instead of literal reading of a law book or a holy scripture.

Well, how else should the rules be read? Symbolically? They're not poetry or religious scripture.

That's the conservative way of thinking my friend. Everything has to be literally as written, and nothing can be a living document or interpreted by human judgement.

If your human judgment interprets "don't be a dick" as "don't be a dick unless you can justify it somehow", I'm starting to think there's more wrong with you than "just" being a literal sociopath. Maybe you're also delusional. You ever tried feeding a stray cat to an ATM?
Title: Re: Rule talk
Post by: davedan on June 26, 2019, 05:07:03 pm
Please don't go ass to mouth on a stray cat. I'm pretty sure it would give you a nasty bite on your cock if you'd just been fucking it in the ass.
Title: Re: Rule talk
Post by: niam2023 on June 26, 2019, 05:41:41 pm
The rules are not going to be interpreted literally as written. That, I think, is the end of that.
Title: Re: Rule talk
Post by: SCarpelan on June 26, 2019, 09:10:22 pm
<stuff>

Human judgement means that the rules are interpreted according to the full context of each situation, not in a platonic void. This works as long as the admins and mods use judgement in a fashion that the community experiences as fair. (You don't but the community at large disagrees with you so deal with it.) I am not at all surprised at your literal world view since it is the one that pretty much all the radical centrists I know of have and you just keep confirming it. Treating the real world as a void where you apply logical ideas in a superficially objective way that works beautifully when you ignore all the messy reality that complicates this world of platonic ideas makes people like you feel more intelligent and logical than others.

The forum has a long history of having people treated as chew toys in response to their repeated actions that have caused them to lose respect of the community and them showing no intention of reforming themselves. This has been the case for as long as I've been here (and longer, the previous chewtoys lived in the forum lore when I came). This dynamic is just more obvious now that the forum is almost dead and the chew toy is one of the most active members of the few that remain.
Title: Re: Rule talk
Post by: Chaos Undivided on June 26, 2019, 11:20:02 pm
The rules are not going to be interpreted literally as written. That, I think, is the end of that.

Said the Southern politician about the 14th and 15th Amendments.

<stuff>

Human judgement means that the rules are interpreted according to the full context of each situation, not in a platonic void. This works as long as the admins and mods use judgement in a fashion that the community experiences as fair. (You don't but the community at large disagrees with you so deal with it.) I am not at all surprised at your literal world view since it is the one that pretty much all the radical centrists I know of have and you just keep confirming it. Treating the real world as a void where you apply logical ideas in a superficially objective way that works beautifully when you ignore all the messy reality that complicates this world of platonic ideas makes people like you feel more intelligent and logical than others.

Lemme get this straight: wanting rules against bad behavior to be enforced... makes me an arrogant, pretentious fart-sniffer?

The hell?

The forum has a long history of having people treated as chew toys in response to their repeated actions that have caused them to lose respect of the community and them showing no intention of reforming themselves. This has been the case for as long as I've been here (and longer, the previous chewtoys lived in the forum lore when I came). This dynamic is just more obvious now that the forum is almost dead and the chew toy is one of the most active members of the few that remain.

OK, first off, that's some blatant-ass appeal to tradition right there. "We've always done it this way!" doesn't justify asshole behavior. Especially not when change is long overdue. You know, maybe this forum wouldn't be "almost dead" if you weren't so hostile to people who didn't agree with you hard enough.

Now, let's talk about chew toys. You can't just say someone's a "chew toy" and expect that to be reason enough to mistreat them. I'm man enough to admit that I haven't been perfect. There are things I wish I hadn't said and done. But you've taken things far beyond the level of legitimate criticism to the point where it's blatantly clear that, like any fanatic, you just think anyone who doesn't agree with you wholeheartedly has some kind of problem. The fact that you keep using "centrist" as a snarl word only further serves as proof.

You're a hypocrite, you know that? You call me smug and arrogant, but you've been nothing but smug and arrogant when it comes to disagreeing with me. Take a gander at this:

I was musing based on your post but I was not answering to you. Arguing with your type about this is just a waste of energy. If this insults you you can blame a certain previous member of this forum: I simply don't have any fucks left to give when it comes to debating with pigheaded "centrists" about anything related to social justice.

Allow me to paraphrase this post: "I'm right, and anybody who disagrees with me has something wrong with them. In fact, I'm so right that I don't even have to bother defending my position, because my rightness is just that self-evident". Maybe you should learn to accept that not everyone who does not think like you is a bad person or somehow defective.
Title: Re: Rule talk
Post by: niam2023 on June 27, 2019, 01:06:38 am
Are you seriously going for guilt by association at this point, oh Concerned Centrist?

And no - we're not about to start treating people with right wing views any better.
Title: Re: Rule talk
Post by: davedan on June 27, 2019, 01:22:34 am
This is all bullshit when considering how fucking disingenuous you are. Everyone knows you are someone who has been here before. Unless you confront that, it rings very hollow to accuse anyone of self-righteousness, hypocrisy or bad faith.

In fact, it's a fucking joke cracker. Which is why you kept getting laughed at.

The real difference between now and the old days wasn't the rules being enforced, but rather the rules were enforced which made everything boring.

When I joined there were several posters who would be categorised as 'chew toys'. In fact there was so much chewing that chew toys used to chew on each other. I mean there was Mr Mannnn, Skyfire and a couple of others who I've forgotten and then there was the 'Moby Dick', the great white whale, the greatest interactive nutjob of them all Nautical999, who never got tired and was in equal measures slimy and insane, so much so that it was just fucking riveting. His appearance was the great bright flare on this forum...
Title: Re: Rule talk
Post by: SCarpelan on June 27, 2019, 03:34:19 am
Blah blah blah.

How nice of you to further demonstrate your way of thinking that is the main target of my criticism. My arrogance towards you is precisely because I don't give a shit about you as a person and I'm only using you to discuss what is wrong with the positions you represent - or at least pretend to represent. It is also the result of a complete loss of respect and trust you have brought upon yourself. Attempting to manipulate the optics of the discussion with fake humility and moralization is part of the behavior pattern that has brought this upon you.

Yes, you can look at the form of what I said and present it as appealing to tradition - if you ingore the context of the claims that you made. This can be a dishonest rhetorical tactic or a genuinely naive, superficial way of interpreting logical concepts. You claim that the treatment you get is a reason for the forum's downfall when I am making the counter argument that it is just an aspect of the community that never prevented it from thriving in the past. Yes, we have become quite a circlejerk here compared to the past but in my opinion it is more a result of the community shrinking than a cause for it.

You are probably thinking about trying to point out that I have recently been as guilty of bad faith interpretation as those of which I am accusing you. The difference is that I am actually taking the full context of your history and expressed ideological tendencies and using that to logically infer your intentions, tactics and implied ideas. And no, there is no need for me to prove that you are Ultimately Anal if there is enough circumstantial evidence to infer that nor do I need to present this evidence if practically everyone else who is already aware of the same evidence has come to the same conclusion. This is not a competitive debate where your skills at rhetorical fencing can be more important than actual reality.
Title: Re: Rule talk
Post by: niam2023 on June 27, 2019, 03:46:28 am
In fact, for all that he talks about things, it does seem like he's trying to tie our treatment of him to the state of the forum. That the forum is dying because we're being just too mean to him for "not agreeing".

It all speaks to a sense of ego. I'd know.
Title: Re: Rule talk
Post by: SCarpelan on June 27, 2019, 04:45:40 am
It's also an attempt at guilting people into giving him a break. Ironically, as much as he tries to present himself as more rational than thou he is also quick to use emotional manipulation (either guilt or fake humility/apology) when driven into a corner.
Title: Re: Rule talk
Post by: davedan on June 27, 2019, 04:47:57 am
Blah blah blah.

How nice of you to further demonstrate your way of thinking that is the main target of my criticism. My arrogance towards you is precisely because I don't give a shit about you as a person and I'm only using you to discuss what is wrong with the positions you represent - or at least pretend to represent. It is also the result of a complete loss of respect and trust you have brought upon yourself. Attempting to manipulate the optics of the discussion with fake humility and moralization is part of the behavior pattern that has brought this upon you.

Yes, you can look at the form of what I said and present it as appealing to tradition - if you ingore the context of the claims that you made. This can be a dishonest rhetorical tactic or a genuinely naive, superficial way of interpreting logical concepts. You claim that the treatment you get is a reason for the forum's downfall when I am making the counter argument that it is just an aspect of the community that never prevented it from thriving in the past. Yes, we have become quite a circlejerk here compared to the past but in my opinion it is more a result of the community shrinking than a cause for it.

You are probably thinking about trying to point out that I have recently been as guilty of bad faith interpretation as those of which I am accusing you. The difference is that I am actually taking the full context of your history and expressed ideological tendencies and using that to logically infer your intentions, tactics and implied ideas. And no, there is no need for me to prove that you are Ultimately Anal if there is enough circumstantial evidence to infer that nor do I need to present this evidence if practically everyone else who is already aware of the same evidence has come to the same conclusion. This is not a competitive debate where your skills at rhetorical fencing can be more important than actual reality.

Frankly even if it were a competitive debate he'd be doing absolutely shithouse. Posturing and pretending to have hurt feelings is fucking crap. All that he's conclusively proved is that if he's not DD, UP or Lana that he is someone else who used to post here and changed his name.

Unfortunately I suspect the reality is going to be far more boring than the speculation.
Title: Re: Rule talk
Post by: The_Queen on June 27, 2019, 08:25:50 am
The rules are not going to be interpreted literally as written. That, I think, is the end of that.

Said the Southern politician about the 14th and 15th Amendments.

<stuff>

Human judgement means that the rules are interpreted according to the full context of each situation, not in a platonic void. This works as long as the admins and mods use judgement in a fashion that the community experiences as fair. (You don't but the community at large disagrees with you so deal with it.) I am not at all surprised at your literal world view since it is the one that pretty much all the radical centrists I know of have and you just keep confirming it. Treating the real world as a void where you apply logical ideas in a superficially objective way that works beautifully when you ignore all the messy reality that complicates this world of platonic ideas makes people like you feel more intelligent and logical than others.

Lemme get this straight: wanting rules against bad behavior to be enforced... makes me an arrogant, pretentious fart-sniffer?

The hell?

The forum has a long history of having people treated as chew toys in response to their repeated actions that have caused them to lose respect of the community and them showing no intention of reforming themselves. This has been the case for as long as I've been here (and longer, the previous chewtoys lived in the forum lore when I came). This dynamic is just more obvious now that the forum is almost dead and the chew toy is one of the most active members of the few that remain.

OK, first off, that's some blatant-ass appeal to tradition right there. "We've always done it this way!" doesn't justify asshole behavior. Especially not when change is long overdue. You know, maybe this forum wouldn't be "almost dead" if you weren't so hostile to people who didn't agree with you hard enough.

Now, let's talk about chew toys. You can't just say someone's a "chew toy" and expect that to be reason enough to mistreat them. I'm man enough to admit that I haven't been perfect. There are things I wish I hadn't said and done. But you've taken things far beyond the level of legitimate criticism to the point where it's blatantly clear that, like any fanatic, you just think anyone who doesn't agree with you wholeheartedly has some kind of problem. The fact that you keep using "centrist" as a snarl word only further serves as proof.

You're a hypocrite, you know that? You call me smug and arrogant, but you've been nothing but smug and arrogant when it comes to disagreeing with me. Take a gander at this:

I was musing based on your post but I was not answering to you. Arguing with your type about this is just a waste of energy. If this insults you you can blame a certain previous member of this forum: I simply don't have any fucks left to give when it comes to debating with pigheaded "centrists" about anything related to social justice.

Allow me to paraphrase this post: "I'm right, and anybody who disagrees with me has something wrong with them. In fact, I'm so right that I don't even have to bother defending my position, because my rightness is just that self-evident". Maybe you should learn to accept that not everyone who does not think like you is a bad person or somehow defective.

And yet, you’re still here
Title: Re: Rule talk
Post by: ironbite on June 27, 2019, 10:09:11 am
I have Central Chaos on ignore, is he still arguing he's the glue that keeps the forum hopping and that without him we're just gonna get lost in some rock and roll and drift away from here?

Ironbite-cause I'm not sure he knows how the internet works actually.
Title: Re: Rule talk
Post by: Chaos Undivided on June 28, 2019, 01:36:00 am
This is all bullshit when considering how fucking disingenuous you are. Everyone knows you are someone who has been here before. Unless you confront that, it rings very hollow to accuse anyone of self-righteousness, hypocrisy or bad faith.

In fact, it's a fucking joke cracker. Which is why you kept getting laughed at.

No, I'm not. You have no evidence for that. And as I've said before, any claim that can be made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. You might as well say I'm a dog that somehow learned to type.

Direct question: how would you feel about somebody accusing you of being a child molester or a war criminal without any kind of evidence beyond personal opinion?

The real difference between now and the old days wasn't the rules being enforced, but rather the rules were enforced which made everything boring.

When I joined there were several posters who would be categorised as 'chew toys'. In fact there was so much chewing that chew toys used to chew on each other. I mean there was Mr Mannnn, Skyfire and a couple of others who I've forgotten and then there was the 'Moby Dick', the great white whale, the greatest interactive nutjob of them all Nautical999, who never got tired and was in equal measures slimy and insane, so much so that it was just fucking riveting. His appearance was the great bright flare on this forum...

Even if that's true, the fact remains quite a few former users have left the forums and not come back because they considered them toxic. I posted multiple testimonials to that effect on the previous page. Why is it so hard for you to acknowledge that maybe being openly arrogant and hostile towards people with different opinions isn't helping your forum grow?

Blah blah blah.

How nice of you to further demonstrate your way of thinking that is the main target of my criticism. My arrogance towards you is precisely because I don't give a shit about you as a person and I'm only using you to discuss what is wrong with the positions you represent - or at least pretend to represent. It is also the result of a complete loss of respect and trust you have brought upon yourself. Attempting to manipulate the optics of the discussion with fake humility and moralization is part of the behavior pattern that has brought this upon you.

Yes, you can look at the form of what I said and present it as appealing to tradition - if you ingore the context of the claims that you made. This can be a dishonest rhetorical tactic or a genuinely naive, superficial way of interpreting logical concepts. You claim that the treatment you get is a reason for the forum's downfall when I am making the counter argument that it is just an aspect of the community that never prevented it from thriving in the past. Yes, we have become quite a circlejerk here compared to the past but in my opinion it is more a result of the community shrinking than a cause for it.

You are probably thinking about trying to point out that I have recently been as guilty of bad faith interpretation as those of which I am accusing you. The difference is that I am actually taking the full context of your history and expressed ideological tendencies and using that to logically infer your intentions, tactics and implied ideas. And no, there is no need for me to prove that you are Ultimately Anal if there is enough circumstantial evidence to infer that nor do I need to present this evidence if practically everyone else who is already aware of the same evidence has come to the same conclusion. This is not a competitive debate where your skills at rhetorical fencing can be more important than actual reality.

Well, at least you're honest about being an egotistical bully. But don't pretend your dislike of me is based on any kind of logic. No, it's based on your own prejudices and biases. I know this because 1. you wrote me off as a "pigheaded centrist" very early on and 2. you haven't presented any kind of evidence for your accusations beyond "we all know". You say your dislike of me is because you've pegged me as a ban-dodging, manipulative, arrogant prick, and it's not unlikely you actually believe it. But just because you say and believe something, doesn't make it true. Why don't you stop assuming you're always right and start trying to prove you're not just talking out of your ass?

And you haven't presented even circumstantial evidence for me to challenge, just your own opinions. Saying "everyone has come to the same conclusion" is a completely meaningless statement, since you yourself admitted that this board is a circlejerk. The fact that you, ironbite, Queen, Tol, dave, fluffy, and niam (and possibly some others I forgot) are all acting like dicks to me based on unfounded accusations and your own political extremism is not my fault. You want to disagree with me? Fine. Go ahead. I value freedom of thought, and freedom to express thought. What I'm not OK with is you treating me like I'm defective or a bad person for holding opinions you disagree with, accusing me of arguing in bad faith (or worse) without any kind of evidence, and constantly dogpiling me like I'm this football ref (https://external-preview.redd.it/a_N2pgNzFu15nipT-lo2tuhV4DlOMvyYFDygW9swf10.gif?format=mp4&s=a2783c34664bc70a7959d36a9b5e281362b5c326), among other things.

What the fuck did I do to deserve this? I've made mistakes, yeah, but that doesn't mean your harshness is warranted. You want to give me constructive criticism? No problem. I can handle that. But you're just being complete dicks to me based on harmless mistakes. Your responses were completely out of proportion. How did I hurt any of you? I didn't come here looking for fights, but fights keep finding me.

And what did I say that was so unreasonable? I am not Jacob Harrison. I haven't advocated absolute monarchy, theocratic government, or punishing gay people with chemical castration. I don't want to bring back having people hanged, drawn and quartered. And I haven't tried to justify the expulsions of the Spanish Jews or the California Genocide. And yet you guys keep talking like I'm somehow on par with him. That says a lot of unpleasant things about you. It says you're a bunch of closed-minded, judgmental, arrogant, hypocritical, and downright nasty douchebags who think backing up the claims you make with evidence is optional and lump everyone who doesn't agree with you hard enough into a group you think of as "the enemy". You're textbook religious fanatics, except your "religion" is warped progressivism. To think you call yourselves members of the skeptic community. What a fucking joke.

But you probably won't have to put up with me much longer. Unless the mods agree to have a serious conversation about the rules and their enforcement with me and the rest of the userbase, I'm going to leave this forum and not look back. Your forum can shrivel up and die like a fallen leaf for all I care.

Though before I go, I'd like to say one thing: I don't hate everyone else here. Hell, some of you I like. Ravy, Askold, Kanzen, dpareja, Sigma, and others come to mind (sorry in advance if I got any of your names wrong). While we're on the subject, I don't even hate Skybison, because he seemed to be at least trying to come to some kind of understanding with me. FWIW, I can at least respect him for that. We may not have always agreed, but that doesn't mean I think of you as enemies. And if I do end up leaving, it was nice knowing you guys, however briefly. Maybe we could be friends somewhere else? Just a thought.
Title: Re: Rule talk
Post by: niam2023 on June 28, 2019, 05:19:27 am
And now apparently accusing you of being Ultimate Paragon equates somehow to being accused of being a molester or war criminal.

You take all this shit sooooooooo incredibly seriously.
Title: Re: Rule talk
Post by: fluffyDbringer on June 28, 2019, 07:01:42 am
so when you come back next time could you bring back some nachos
Title: Re: Rule talk
Post by: ironbite on June 28, 2019, 09:57:33 am
Oh goody he's threatening to leave again.

Ironbite-when he comes back, can he pick up my laundry?
Title: Re: Rule talk
Post by: The_Queen on June 28, 2019, 07:22:16 pm
The fact that you, ironbite, Queen, Tol, dave, fluffy, and niam (and possibly some others I forgot) are all acting like dicks to me based on unfounded accusations and your own political extremism is not my fault.

As the modern philosopher Samoa Joe once said, “when you say my name, say it with respect.”
Title: Re: Rule talk
Post by: SCarpelan on June 28, 2019, 08:19:59 pm
Yadda yadda yadda.

There was a time when I thought I had you figured out well enough to have good faith debates with you despite you being a proven liar. The obvious purpose of the first lies was to try and increase your social capital in the forum and spend it to defend ideological issues like Gamergate. When you proved that you didn't argue in good faith about those either there was no reason to trust anything about you anymore.

When it is doubtful how honest you are about your centrist positions it is impossible to trust that your argumentation flaws are a result of naivety instead of dishonesty. Arguing with a gullible useful fool for the alt-right can produce constructive results, arguing with a concern troll who is hiding his power level is just waste of my limited energy. You keep showing that there is a good reason to suspect the latter (the latest example being your defense of Trump's statements about Charlottesville).

And no, I don't need to give you a tl;dr level logical proof for anything since I don't give a fuck what you think and you have zero credibility to demand anything. For someone who is arguing in good faith and has a problem with what I have said I can go through the effort to provide evidence since in that case there is an actual constructive goal to be achieved.
Title: Re: Rule talk
Post by: The_Queen on June 28, 2019, 10:05:47 pm
Yadda yadda yadda.

There was a time when I thought I had you figured out well enough to have good faith debates with you despite you being a proven liar. The obvious purpose of the first lies was to try and increase your social capital in the forum and spend it to defend ideological issues like Gamergate. When you proved that you didn't argue in good faith about those either there was no reason to trust anything about you anymore.

When it is doubtful how honest you are about your centrist positions it is impossible to trust that your argumentation flaws are a result of naivety instead of dishonesty. Arguing with a gullible useful fool for the alt-right can produce constructive results, arguing with a concern troll who is hiding his power level is just waste of my limited energy. You keep showing that there is a good reason to suspect the latter (the latest example being your defense of Trump's statements about Charlottesville).

And no, I don't need to give you a tl;dr level logical proof for anything since I don't give a fuck what you think and you have zero credibility to demand anything. For someone who is arguing in good faith and has a problem with what I have said I can go through the effort to provide evidence since in that case there is an actual constructive goal to be achieved.

And that really is the crux of it all: most people you can talk with, explain your position and the flaws in their position, listen to them, and reach some sort of understanding or agreement to disagree. In fact, I kind of have a history of being the dissenter in several instances. The difference is I stated my positions and argued them in good faith, as many others here have done.

Just about everything I see Dynamic Paragon of the Chaotic Reverse Anal arguing is more about scoring points than actually learning a deeper truth. Restated, it’s pure sophism and obviously in bad faith.

Also, Chaos, why the hell are threatening to leave when you have a history dating back more than six years of creating sock puppet accounts to dodge bans? I mean, I would believe a threat to leave from anyone else, but not someone who comes back after being shown the door four times.
Title: Re: Rule talk
Post by: Chaos Undivided on June 28, 2019, 10:21:33 pm
Yadda yadda yadda.

There was a time when I thought I had you figured out well enough to have good faith debates with you despite you being a proven liar. The obvious purpose of the first lies was to try and increase your social capital in the forum and spend it to defend ideological issues like Gamergate. When you proved that you didn't argue in good faith about those either there was no reason to trust anything about you anymore.

How about you stop making all these negative assumptions about me? Because unless you present evidence, I have to presume that's all they are: assumptions.

Why should I believe you were ever seriously interested in good-faith debates with me when you called me a "pigheaded centrist" and refused to talk to me only two weeks after I'd joined?

You calling me a "proven liar" is rich when you refuse to show this alleged proof. Like I said earlier, if you had evidence of wrongdoing on my part, you would've presented it by now. If I aggravate you so much and you're not going to defend your own position, why don't you just block me? Seriously, am I that interesting to you, do you think blocking me would be cowardly, or do you just get some kind of pleasure from this?

When it is doubtful how honest you are about your centrist positions it is impossible to trust that your argumentation flaws are a result of naivety instead of dishonesty. Arguing with a gullible useful fool for the alt-right can produce constructive results, arguing with a concern troll who is hiding his power level is just waste of my limited energy. You keep showing that there is a good reason to suspect the latter (the latest example being your defense of Trump's statements about Charlottesville).

OK, first off, I'm not a "centrist", and I never claimed to be. I'm center-left. Second, why are you so cynical about my positions? Are you hiding your powerlevel and projecting that onto me? Since you admitted you're arrogant and assumed I am too, the projection theory is looking pretty likely.

Now, about the Trump thing, you're again making negative assumptions. That wasn't a "defense", it was pointing out that Trump wasn't calling white supremacists "very fine people". If I point out that there's no evidence that Stalin actually said "one death is a tragedy, a million is a statistic", that's not automatically "defending" him. Or was Politifact "defending" Trump when they wrote this (https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2019/apr/08/tweets/tweet-leaves-out-context-donald-trumps-animals-rem/)?

And no, I don't need to give you a tl;dr level logical proof for anything since I don't give a fuck what you think and you have zero credibility to demand anything. For someone who is arguing in good faith and has a problem with what I have said I can go through the effort to provide evidence since in that case there is an actual constructive goal to be achieved.

The idea that I have "zero credibility to demand anything" is only your opinion. Granted, that opinion is probably shared by some of your buddies, but your opinions aren't automatically fact. Since you closed your mind to good-faith discussion with me almost from the very beginning (you called me a "pigheaded centrist" only two weeks after I joined), your claims that your opinions of me are based on "inductive reasoning" don't hold any water. When one of your earliest comments to me is explicitly saying you think you're better than me and won't bother giving me the time of day, you cannot seriously expect me to believe you're not just interpreting things I've said in a negative light due to your own biases.

Yadda yadda yadda.

There was a time when I thought I had you figured out well enough to have good faith debates with you despite you being a proven liar. The obvious purpose of the first lies was to try and increase your social capital in the forum and spend it to defend ideological issues like Gamergate. When you proved that you didn't argue in good faith about those either there was no reason to trust anything about you anymore.

When it is doubtful how honest you are about your centrist positions it is impossible to trust that your argumentation flaws are a result of naivety instead of dishonesty. Arguing with a gullible useful fool for the alt-right can produce constructive results, arguing with a concern troll who is hiding his power level is just waste of my limited energy. You keep showing that there is a good reason to suspect the latter (the latest example being your defense of Trump's statements about Charlottesville).

And no, I don't need to give you a tl;dr level logical proof for anything since I don't give a fuck what you think and you have zero credibility to demand anything. For someone who is arguing in good faith and has a problem with what I have said I can go through the effort to provide evidence since in that case there is an actual constructive goal to be achieved.

And that really is the crux of it all: most people you can talk with, explain your position and the flaws in their position, listen to them, and reach some sort of understanding or agreement to disagree. In fact, I kind of have a history of being the dissenter in several instances. The difference is I stated my positions and argued them in good faith, as many others here have done.

Just about everything I see Dynamic Paragon of the Chaotic Reverse Anal arguing is more about scoring points than actually learning a deeper truth. Restated, it’s pure sophism and obviously in bad faith.

Also, Chaos, why the hell are threatening to leave when you have a history dating back more than six years of creating sock puppet accounts to dodge bans? I mean, I would believe a threat to leave from anyone else, but not someone who comes back after being shown the door four times.

Again, mods: why are accusations of ban-dodging not backed up by any evidence allowed?
Title: Re: Rule talk
Post by: niam2023 on June 29, 2019, 12:17:50 am
Okay then, if your political opinions are such a sore spot, then why don't you just go ahead and lay out your exact political opinions.
Title: Re: Rule talk
Post by: fluffyDbringer on June 29, 2019, 09:08:42 am
who would win:
- similar debate style
- similar rhetorical errors
- using discussions years before his signup date as arguments
- the mods never telling people to stop saying he's a ban-dodging dynamic/ultimate/reverse

vs
- one "where's your proof" boi

Title: Re: Rule talk
Post by: Eiki-mun on June 29, 2019, 08:47:01 pm
Again, mods: why are accusations of ban-dodging not backed up by any evidence allowed?

Minor point before I go back into the ether; the accusations are in fact backed up by evidence. Circumstantial evidence, like an extremely similar posting style, similar views, knowledge of things that happened a long time ago and things like that are in fact evidence. You'd have more of a point if you said that they aren't backed up by proof, but then most people don't rely on 100% proof for most things anyway. A preponderance of the evidence, metaphorically speaking, is more than enough to sway most, and one has to admit that for a longtime observer, there is definitely more evidence for or against.

That is all.
Title: Re: Rule talk
Post by: Tolpuddle Martyr on June 29, 2019, 10:06:02 pm
OK, first off, I'm not a "centrist", and I never claimed to be. I'm center-left. Second, why are you so cynical about my positions? Are you hiding your powerlevel and projecting that onto me?
This is an excellent reason not to judge someone's political position by what they do rather than what they say. If someone claims to be "centre left" but spends most of their energy defending the Right, the rest of us can fill in the gaps.

"Centre left", this will filed and used at a later date. I will be merciless.
Title: Re: Rule talk
Post by: SCarpelan on June 30, 2019, 12:08:26 am
OK, first off, I'm not a "centrist", and I never claimed to be. I'm center-left. Second, why are you so cynical about my positions? Are you hiding your powerlevel and projecting that onto me?
This is an excellent reason not to judge someone's political position by what they do rather than what they say. If someone claims to be "centre left" but spends most of their energy defending the Right, the rest of us can fill in the gaps.

"Centre left", this will filed and used at a later date. I will be merciless.
But that's just because the forum is too left-leaning so he needs to defend the poor right wingers because balance is everything, all sides do everything equally and sticking to the golden mean is the epitome of intellectual honesty.

By the way, I didn't even notice that he tried to blame me for hiding my power level since I just skimmed through his post. I am pretty sure nobody has any illusions about me being one of the more leftist members here and very much anti-capitalist. Any vagueness is just because I don't subscribe to any political faction which is a result of lack of energy to study theory enough to be comfortable with endorsing any of them.
Title: Re: Rule talk
Post by: Chaos Undivided on June 30, 2019, 02:06:33 am
Okay then, if your political opinions are such a sore spot, then why don't you just go ahead and lay out your exact political opinions.

Fair enough. I guess you deserve a summation of my positions. But you're gonna have to wait, since it's gonna take a while and I'm tired. You'll have it tomorrow.

Again, mods: why are accusations of ban-dodging not backed up by any evidence allowed?

Minor point before I go back into the ether; the accusations are in fact backed up by evidence. Circumstantial evidence, like an extremely similar posting style, similar views, knowledge of things that happened a long time ago and things like that are in fact evidence. You'd have more of a point if you said that they aren't backed up by proof, but then most people don't rely on 100% proof for most things anyway. A preponderance of the evidence, metaphorically speaking, is more than enough to sway most, and one has to admit that for a longtime observer, there is definitely more evidence for or against.

That is all.

OK, lemme take a look at this. First off, you haven't proved that this "circumstantial evidence" objectively exists, but I can roll with that. So I'm gonna go over the examples you cite.

1. You say I have a similar writing style to this banned user. I believe you believe it, and for all I know, it might be true. But if it is true, so what? There are plenty of other explanations than me secretly being him. As evidence, I'd like to submit this database (http://www.wcl.govt.nz/popular/fictionwriters.html) of authors with similar writing styles. I doubt anyone suspects Anthony Bourdain was the real author of Fight Club.

2. Again, I don't know how accurate this claim is, but I can believe it. On the other hand, I don't really consider this "evidence", because plenty of people have similar political views.

3. Of course I know about things that happened long ago. Why is that considered evidence? None of it is secret, and I'm able to look it up whenever I want. Remember how I disappeared for a few days? That was me doing research.

OK, first off, I'm not a "centrist", and I never claimed to be. I'm center-left. Second, why are you so cynical about my positions? Are you hiding your powerlevel and projecting that onto me?
This is an excellent reason not to judge someone's political position by what they do rather than what they say. If someone claims to be "centre left" but spends most of their energy defending the Right, the rest of us can fill in the gaps.

"Centre left", this will filed and used at a later date. I will be merciless.

I resent that, not least because I've spent far more energy defending myself than "the Right". Don't bother "filing this away for later", you can come at me right now.

OK, first off, I'm not a "centrist", and I never claimed to be. I'm center-left. Second, why are you so cynical about my positions? Are you hiding your powerlevel and projecting that onto me?
This is an excellent reason not to judge someone's political position by what they do rather than what they say. If someone claims to be "centre left" but spends most of their energy defending the Right, the rest of us can fill in the gaps.

"Centre left", this will filed and used at a later date. I will be merciless.
But that's just because the forum is too left-leaning so he needs to defend the poor right wingers because balance is everything, all sides do everything equally and sticking to the golden mean is the epitome of intellectual honesty.

Well, you'd know a lot about that, wouldn't you? After all, instead of either having a good-faith debate with me or just ignoring me, you're taking the middle ground of attacking a strawman version of me.
Title: Re: Rule talk
Post by: SCarpelan on June 30, 2019, 02:28:14 am
A caricature, not a strawman. I am not making any serious arguments, I'm mocking you.

Edit: To be more precise, I am still implying that you are using dishonest debating methods to try to move people more to the right which in this forum means more towards the center. So, there is a repetition of my earlier position implied in addition the mockery.

I had to expand my post with this edit for honesty. I wouldn't want anyone to think I am being dishonest and desceptive, after all.
Title: Re: Rule talk
Post by: davedan on June 30, 2019, 10:15:33 pm
This is all bullshit when considering how fucking disingenuous you are. Everyone knows you are someone who has been here before. Unless you confront that, it rings very hollow to accuse anyone of self-righteousness, hypocrisy or bad faith.

In fact, it's a fucking joke cracker. Which is why you kept getting laughed at.

No, I'm not. You have no evidence for that. And as I've said before, any claim that can be made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. You might as well say I'm a dog that somehow learned to type.

Direct question: how would you feel about somebody accusing you of being a child molester or a war criminal without any kind of evidence beyond personal opinion?

The real difference between now and the old days wasn't the rules being enforced, but rather the rules were enforced which made everything boring.

When I joined there were several posters who would be categorised as 'chew toys'. In fact there was so much chewing that chew toys used to chew on each other. I mean there was Mr Mannnn, Skyfire and a couple of others who I've forgotten and then there was the 'Moby Dick', the great white whale, the greatest interactive nutjob of them all Nautical999, who never got tired and was in equal measures slimy and insane, so much so that it was just fucking riveting. His appearance was the great bright flare on this forum...

Even if that's true, the fact remains quite a few former users have left the forums and not come back because they considered them toxic. I posted multiple testimonials to that effect on the previous page. Why is it so hard for you to acknowledge that maybe being openly arrogant and hostile towards people with different opinions isn't helping your forum grow?

.

To your direct question, cracker: It may well depend on whose accusing me. If it were you I would laugh my arse off. Because I don't give a fuck what you think. In much the same way I didn't care when you called me a racist.  Now if it were my kids or my relatives calling me a child molester I would be very upset. But that wouldn't happen because I'm not. Probably would feel the same about being called a war criminal. If it were you I would laugh. If it were anyone else I would be puzzled, as I'm only armed with my cock.

As an aside you do take this shit really seriously.

To your second point, why the fuck do you care what happens to the forum.

Why don't you simply tell us who you are...
Title: Re: Rule talk
Post by: niam2023 on June 30, 2019, 10:48:59 pm
Okay. New day.

Now. Tell us your actual political opinions.
Title: Re: Rule talk
Post by: Chaos Undivided on July 01, 2019, 02:17:25 am
A caricature, not a strawman. I am not making any serious arguments, I'm mocking you.

Edit: To be more precise, I am still implying that you are using dishonest debating methods to try to move people more to the right which in this forum means more towards the center. So, there is a repetition of my earlier position implied in addition the mockery.

I had to expand my post with this edit for honesty. I wouldn't want anyone to think I am being dishonest and desceptive, after all.

I'm not trying to "move people more to the right". And if you want to prove you're not being "dishonest and deceptive", why don't you back up your allegations? If I'm really what you say I am, it shouldn't be that hard to prove. Unless, of course, you're just pulling these accusations out of your ass Joe McCarthy-style.

To your direct question, cracker: It may well depend on whose accusing me. If it were you I would laugh my arse off. Because I don't give a fuck what you think. In much the same way I didn't care when you called me a racist.  Now if it were my kids or my relatives calling me a child molester I would be very upset. But that wouldn't happen because I'm not. Probably would feel the same about being called a war criminal. If it were you I would laugh. If it were anyone else I would be puzzled, as I'm only armed with my cock.

As an aside you do take this shit really seriously.

To your second point, why the fuck do you care what happens to the forum.

Why don't you simply tell us who you are...

I don't. Like I said, this forum can rot away for all I care.

Anyway, since I promised to come clean about my politics today, here goes.

Economically, I'm a capitalist. But I don't believe in the kind of capitalism supply-side economists espouse. I believe that large corporations have too much power over the lives of average citizens, and that we need to be wary of industries being dominated by handfuls of big companies. I'm in favor of an increase to the minimum wage, pro-workers' rights and consumers' rights, and anti-corporate personhood. But I'm skeptical of socialism, because I believe well-regulated capitalism is the best economic system out there. Just look at how good things were economically between the fifties and the seventies.

While I think war is horrible, I can acknowledge that sometimes it's necessary. But it should never be entered into lightly or without an exit strategy. We must always ask if war is really the best way to achieve our goals.

There's quite a lot to say about my views on foreign policy. In general, I think America should be more of a deal maker and less of a chess player. But we have to be willing to get tough with rogue states and authoritarian regimes. For more specific stuff, I'm in favor of a two-state solution to the Israel-Palestine conflict, believe we should work on containing Russia and Iran, and I'm not sure we're concerned enough about China and Saudi Arabia trying to spread their influence abroad.

Socially, while I'm anti-SJW and anti-PC, as well as skeptical of quite a few "social justice" claims and narratives, I consider myself a progressive. I am a supporter of LGBT rights. I believe there's institutionalized racism and sexism. I'm in favor of religious freedom, but firmly support separation of church and state. I'm against censorship, pro gun-rights, pro-choice, and anti-tort reform.

Now for the other stuff. I'm an environmentalist who thinks we should phase out the use of fossil fuels for energy. I am in favor of the Paris Agreement. I'm against illegal immigration, but I still think detained illegals should be held in humane conditions, and I have nothing against immigrants coming to America legally. I'm a civic nationalist, and I don't much like ethnic nationalism. Net neutrality is important. We need to fix our infrastructure.

Overall, there are broad concepts I support. Nuance. Kindness. Individual liberty. Reason. Human dignity.

Sorry if this isn't up to your standards, I was really tired when I typed it. If you have any questions, don't hesitate to ask.
Title: Re: Rule talk
Post by: niam2023 on July 01, 2019, 02:19:31 am
Okay then.

Define for us what SJW and PC mean for you.
Title: Re: Rule talk
Post by: davedan on July 01, 2019, 02:51:11 am
Yes, who are you cracker?
Title: Re: Rule talk
Post by: SCarpelan on July 01, 2019, 10:18:09 am
My final thoughts for Ultimate Chaos:

You white knight right wingers regularly and while you don't endorse explicit bigotry you demand bigots are given the benefit of a doubt while interpret anything by a "SJW" or a far-left activist in the worst possible light. Obsession (usually a selective one) with political correctness and anti-SJW obsession are the main giveaways of an alt-right sympathizer.

You were an open Gamergate fan back when it was still a topical issue but proved that even you didn't believe in your defense of them. You also have regularly commented on links you post with an obvious alt-right skew that either directly contradicts the content behind the link or presents it in an dishonest manner. There are two likely interpretations: you either intentionally lie or you get both the commentary and the links from the same source that you don't bother to fact-check since it confirms your own bias.

Thing is, if I trusted you are honest about yourself and your opinions I would think you are just a misguided and naive alt-light centrist. Since you have proved that you don't care about honesty I have chosen to interpret your behavior in a more malicious light - you might be an alt-right troll who just hides his power level since this is a common tactic they use and explicitly endorse. There is no way to know your actual thoughts so I judge you based on your demonstrated priorities. I don't care how you feel or if you think this is fair, my priority is to confront the harmful ideas you express in the most effective way possible.

Edit: or, to be more precise, I alternate between confronting the flaws of the "centrist" world view you claim to have and mocking your dishonesty when I don't think see anything worth putting any intellectual effort in.
Title: Re: Rule talk
Post by: Chaos Undivided on July 01, 2019, 02:10:46 pm
Okay then.

Define for us what SJW and PC mean for you.

OK then.

SJW (Social Justice Warrior): Someone who takes social justice politics to extremes. They frequently act obnoxious and/or smug about their beliefs, and generally have a "with us or against us" attitude. And they hold a lot of the blame for "social justice" developing similar connotations to "family values".

PC (Political Correctness): Overreaching attempts to avoid offending certain groups. It's generally associated with socially left-wing individuals and groups, but some have claimed that it's not unique to them. When George Carlin described it as "fascism pretending to be manners", he was too kind, since a lot of PC types don't even try to be polite anymore.

My final thoughts for Ultimate Chaos:

You white knight right wingers regularly and while you don't endorse explicit bigotry you demand bigots are given the benefit of a doubt while interpret anything by a "SJW" or a far-left activist in the worst possible light. Obsession (usually a selective one) with political correctness and anti-SJW obsession are the main giveaways of an alt-right sympathizer.

You were an open Gamergate fan back when it was still a topical issue but proved that even you didn't believe in your defense of them. You also have regularly commented on links you post with an obvious alt-right skew that either directly contradicts the content behind the link or presents it in an dishonest manner. There are two likely interpretations: you either intentionally lie or you get both the commentary and the links from the same source that you don't bother to fact-check since it confirms your own bias.

Thing is, if I trusted you are honest about yourself and your opinions I would think you are just a misguided and naive alt-light centrist. Since you have proved that you don't care about honesty I have chosen to interpret your behavior in a more malicious light - you might be an alt-right troll who just hides his power level since this is a common tactic they use and explicitly endorse. There is no way to know your actual thoughts so I judge you based on your demonstrated priorities. I don't care how you feel or if you think this is fair, my priority is to confront the harmful ideas you express in the most effective way possible.

It's easy to say all these things, but without evidence to back them up, this is just a witch hunt. I could say you're a Russian spy or that you sacrificed a black cat to Satan yesterday, but unless I present evidence, that would just be empty words.

Accusing somebody of secretly following a toxic ideology is a pretty scummy move, so unless you have evidence to back it up, I'd say my McCarthy comparison is pretty spot-on.
Title: Re: Rule talk
Post by: The_Queen on July 01, 2019, 02:19:14 pm
The reason everyone is dog piling you and the mods are sitting it out is because it is painfully apparent that you’re the Dynamic paragon of chaotic reverse anal. The evidence is you’re endgame and argumentation style. Demand more all you want, nobody takes your ass seriously.
Title: Re: Rule talk
Post by: fluffyDbringer on July 01, 2019, 02:47:44 pm
okay I guess I'm doing this again

direct question, mr "8chan has the right to post child porn": what is the mildest possible thing a person can believe or do that constitutes being an SJW or PC
Title: Re: Rule talk
Post by: niam2023 on July 01, 2019, 03:23:25 pm
And why does it matter so much to you if some percentile of social justice types act "smug" or "Obnoxious"? And what in your view constitutes smug and obnoxious behavior? Are you saying that you are against people trying to keep out right wing opinions?

And, given certain groups are currently discriminated against heavily, why does it matter to you so much if people try and avoid harming certain groups verbally or with messaging? What harm does it do to you? And why the emphasis on politeness? I'd argue politeness isn't mandatory.
Title: Re: Rule talk
Post by: Chaos Undivided on July 01, 2019, 05:08:26 pm
okay I guess I'm doing this again

direct question, mr "8chan has the right to post child porn": what is the mildest possible thing a person can believe or do that constitutes being an SJW or PC

Direct answer: I will never respond to you again until you stop accusing me of being pro-CP and a ban-dodger. Or until the mods finally start cracking down on that bullshit. Whichever comes first.

And why does it matter so much to you if some percentile of social justice types act "smug" or "Obnoxious"? And what in your view constitutes smug and obnoxious behavior? Are you saying that you are against people trying to keep out right wing opinions?

It's for the same reason many Christians hate holier-than-thou religious right types. Even when I'm in agreement with these people, they're just so arrogant, rude and closed-minded that I just can't deal with them.

To me, smug and obnoxious behavior includes (but isn't limited to) the following:
- Saying you're on the "right side of history" or anything along those lines. It's the secular equivalent of claiming to be carrying out God's will.
- Refusing to acknowledge that you might be wrong.
- Suggesting those who disagree with you must automatically have something wrong with them, whether it's ignorance, malice, stupidity, or anything else.
- Relying on personal attacks and accusations of wrongdoing in arguments.
- Trying to silence dissenters.
- Insulting anyone who asks for decorum.

And yes, I'm against people trying to keep out right-wing opinions, just as much as I'm against people trying to keep out left-wing or centrist positions. We need a free and open exchange of ideas.

And, given certain groups are currently discriminated against heavily, why does it matter to you so much if people try and avoid harming certain groups verbally or with messaging? What harm does it do to you? And why the emphasis on politeness? I'd argue politeness isn't mandatory.

Well, for one thing, the PC crowd's ideas about what's "offensive" are often completely ridiculous. For another, they claim to be "protecting" certain groups, only to ignore or brush off members of those groups that disagree with them. I have more reasons - as well as specific examples - if you want them.

Just FYI, I wasn't trying to put any special emphasis on politeness.

And I asked a direct question that never got answered:

Oh look, more unsubstantiated, unfalsifiable claims that I'm actually a ban-dodging former user. Direct question to the mods: why is this shit allowed?

So, why is it? Or is it not allowed, but you just let it happen for some reason?
Title: Re: Rule talk
Post by: fluffyDbringer on July 01, 2019, 05:33:53 pm
so the "dudewhodefendedchildpornandwasonceultimateparagonsayswhat" gambit actually worked. neat. also appreciate you being honest with your answer that your definition of a SJW is facile and unreasonably wide and basically only ever includes "leftists" whose advocacy begins and ends with "can't everyone just get aloooooooooooong", that was refreshingly good-faith of you. could use some actual commentary on what you think the "PC crowd" considers offensive rather than just giving the usual "oh no, I totally have examples, my examples are the best examples" spiel that you did back you when you were UP. 4/10 see me after class
Title: Re: Rule talk
Post by: davedan on July 01, 2019, 05:47:12 pm
The reason everyone is dog piling you and the mods are sitting it out is because it is painfully apparent that you’re the Dynamic paragon of chaotic reverse anal. The evidence is you’re endgame and argumentation style. Demand more all you want, nobody takes your ass seriously.

And the fact that he constantly brings things up from the distant past which couldn't possibly interest anyone who wasn't there. Like those old quotes from the mainpage. I mean you wouldn't even know where to find that shit unless you knew where to look.

And that he has some weird obsession with the forums which wouldn't simply spring up from being a recent user.
Title: Re: Rule talk
Post by: Tolpuddle Martyr on July 01, 2019, 06:33:34 pm
Exact a mundo, if he really believed the line about this being a dying relic of the old web packed with crazed SJWs falsely accusing him of all manner of imaginary sins, he'd make good on his promise to ragequit.

Mate, if you know the people you're talking to won't believe if you tell them the sky's blue without popping their heads out to check there's no room for changing minds or dialogue. If it's trying to sway those 'on the fence' it's not working because the majority of the forum has already little to no confidence in the accuracy or sincerity of anything you say.

If you're quote mining for KiA or Kiwi Farms wouldn't  they be royally bored shitless of this little psychodrama by now? It's not as if they've run out of content creators failing to be conservatively correct to flip out over or women, minorities and trans people to harass.

The same sad git returning to have the same sad arguments is, unfortunately looking more credible than either a genuine centrist looking to sway fence sitters or change minds or a drive by Kiwi Farms raider because both of those would have fucked off by now!
Title: Re: Rule talk
Post by: niam2023 on July 01, 2019, 06:43:50 pm
Including when right wing opinions inevitably boil down to "you are a sinner, and this is wrong because it is against the words of 3000 year old goat herders"? Including when right wing opinions are just "everything is fine, nothing should change - ever"?

The right wing cannot and will not accede to a similar course of action. They advocate for a free and open exchange of ideas only insofar as it gets them in the door. Inevitably whenever I bring up a left wing opinion to a right winger, they go right ahead into their usual list of insults and I get blocked for "being anti-American." Which is honestly fine with me - I consider every single time I've been called Anti-American a badge of honor.

These "NotYourShield" individuals are most often fake identities put on by (white) members of a designated hate mob. And even if there are members of these groups with these opinions, it doesn't stop them from being wrong, heinous and disgusting. Just because there is a member of those groups that disagree and advocate for inevitably a right wing covering / right wing opinion... that doesn't mean anything.
Title: Re: Rule talk
Post by: Chaos Undivided on July 01, 2019, 09:34:58 pm
You know what? Fuck it. I'm done talking to you guys.

Where you at, mods?
Title: Re: Rule talk
Post by: The_Queen on July 01, 2019, 11:16:02 pm
You know what? Fuck it. I'm done talking to you guys.

Does that mean you’re finally quitting?
Title: Re: Rule talk
Post by: davedan on July 01, 2019, 11:28:10 pm
No it means he's not talking to us plebs, and wants to speak to our manager.

Sure Karen
Title: Re: Rule talk
Post by: niam2023 on July 02, 2019, 12:39:32 am
You don't get to just demand the mods respond to you.

They do or they don't, but you don't just make demands.
Title: Re: Rule talk
Post by: The_Queen on July 02, 2019, 12:39:49 am
No it means he's not talking to us plebs, and wants to speak to our manager.

Sure Karen

Seriously, fuck Karen and her entitled-to-manager attitude
Title: Re: Rule talk
Post by: davedan on July 02, 2019, 01:11:45 am
No it means he's not talking to us plebs, and wants to speak to our manager.

Sure Karen

Seriously, fuck Karen and her entitled-to-manager attitude

Look, I have kids in the car, so if you mods could just go and get the Manager, that would be great mmm'kay.
Title: Re: Rule talk
Post by: niam2023 on July 02, 2019, 01:23:09 am
NO! NO KAREN NO! YOUR KIDS DO NOT - ABSOLUTELY DO NOT - ENTITLE YOU TO SUCH BEHAVIOR!!
Title: Re: Rule talk
Post by: davedan on July 02, 2019, 01:59:00 am
NO! NO KAREN NO! YOUR KIDS DO NOT - ABSOLUTELY DO NOT - ENTITLE YOU TO SUCH BEHAVIOR!!

No you need to listen to me, I'm a mother.
Title: Re: Rule talk
Post by: niam2023 on July 02, 2019, 03:15:54 am
Wonder what his opinion is about TVTropes forums, where the rules ARE stringently enforced, and posts are regularly "thumped" / deleted if they're found in violation.

...And they also don't let Trump Supporters due to said rules.
Title: Re: Rule talk
Post by: niam2023 on July 03, 2019, 03:29:56 pm
Welp, it seems the mod team has decided - they don't care, and are ignoring your "requests" to speak to them.

Now back to the more important thing - the unfolding drama about Karen!
Title: Re: Rule talk
Post by: Chaos Undivided on July 04, 2019, 04:39:42 pm
Mods, you haven't answered my direct question yet. Where are you? TBH, this is kinda starting to tick me off.

I'd like to think you have reasons for things being the way they are I can at least understand. Really, I would. But the longer you maintain radio silence, the harder it is for me to believe that. Like I said, I'm willing to listen if you're willing to talk, and I think a conversation about the rules and their enforcement among the staff and users is necessary.
Title: Re: Rule talk
Post by: ironbite on July 04, 2019, 06:12:33 pm
Man it sure is nice to have someone dumb on ignore right guys?
Title: Re: Rule talk
Post by: davedan on July 04, 2019, 06:43:54 pm
Mods, you haven't answered my direct question yet. Where are you? TBH, this is kinda starting to tick me off.

I'd like to think you have reasons for things being the way they are I can at least understand. Really, I would. But the longer you maintain radio silence, the harder it is for me to believe that. Like I said, I'm willing to listen if you're willing to talk, and I think a conversation about the rules and their enforcement among the staff and users is necessary.

You seem to be the only user who wants to talk about the enforcement of the rules. So I guess the question is are there any rules which you consider should be changed or clarified?

I suspect you want to talk about the 'Don't be a dick rule'.

Now that rule has always been coloured by a rather subjective approach, having said that, I'm not sure you want that rule enforced rigidly.

~ davedan ~ suck my salty balls cracker.
Title: Re: Rule talk
Post by: niam2023 on July 04, 2019, 06:46:07 pm
Everyone finds you hilarious over on the Discord, Chaos Undivided. Let that be a little hint. The mods are actively ignoring you, they do not honestly care about your discussion about the rules and their enforcement.
Title: Re: Rule talk
Post by: Chaos Undivided on July 04, 2019, 06:53:07 pm
Man it sure is nice to have someone dumb on ignore right guys?

What's the point of putting me on ignore if you're not gonna, you know, actually ignore me?

Mods, you haven't answered my direct question yet. Where are you? TBH, this is kinda starting to tick me off.

I'd like to think you have reasons for things being the way they are I can at least understand. Really, I would. But the longer you maintain radio silence, the harder it is for me to believe that. Like I said, I'm willing to listen if you're willing to talk, and I think a conversation about the rules and their enforcement among the staff and users is necessary.

You seem to be the only user who wants to talk about the enforcement of the rules. So I guess the question is are there any rules which you consider should be changed or clarified?

I suspect you want to talk about the 'Don't be a dick rule'.

Now that rule has always been coloured by a rather subjective approach, having said that, I'm not sure you want that rule enforced rigidly.

~ davedan ~ suck my salty balls cracker.

Are you sure it's not you who doesn't want that?

Everyone finds you hilarious over on the Discord, Chaos Undivided. Let that be a little hint. The mods are actively ignoring you, they do not honestly care about your discussion about the rules and their enforcement.

I'll believe it when I see it.
Title: Re: Rule talk
Post by: niam2023 on July 04, 2019, 07:02:02 pm
Okay then - if by the end of a week from now you don't get any response whatsoever from them, you'll have your answer.
Title: Re: Rule talk
Post by: davedan on July 04, 2019, 08:54:49 pm
Man it sure is nice to have someone dumb on ignore right guys?

What's the point of putting me on ignore if you're not gonna, you know, actually ignore me?

Mods, you haven't answered my direct question yet. Where are you? TBH, this is kinda starting to tick me off.

I'd like to think you have reasons for things being the way they are I can at least understand. Really, I would. But the longer you maintain radio silence, the harder it is for me to believe that. Like I said, I'm willing to listen if you're willing to talk, and I think a conversation about the rules and their enforcement among the staff and users is necessary.

You seem to be the only user who wants to talk about the enforcement of the rules. So I guess the question is are there any rules which you consider should be changed or clarified?

I suspect you want to talk about the 'Don't be a dick rule'.

Now that rule has always been coloured by a rather subjective approach, having said that, I'm not sure you want that rule enforced rigidly.

~ davedan ~ suck my salty balls cracker.

Are you sure it's not you who doesn't want that?

Everyone finds you hilarious over on the Discord, Chaos Undivided. Let that be a little hint. The mods are actively ignoring you, they do not honestly care about your discussion about the rules and their enforcement.

I'll believe it when I see it.

Am I sure I don't want what? Also you haven't gotten any response from the Mods so, what do you want to see to see if they are actively ignoring you?

Have you been replaced by Ravy's robot?
Title: Re: Rule talk
Post by: ironbite on July 04, 2019, 08:58:30 pm
God he's adorable.

Ironbite-in a drowning man kind of way.
Title: Re: Rule talk
Post by: Skybison on July 05, 2019, 01:15:00 am
(https://i.cbc.ca/1.4906309.1542246691!/fileImage/httpImage/image.JPG_gen/derivatives/16x9_780/sea-lions.JPG)
(https://media.giphy.com/media/jEYHmbIYMB3gY/giphy.gif)
(https://news.nationalgeographic.com/content/dam/news/2016/08/11/sea-lions-falklands/01sea-lions-falklands.ngsversion.1470923949933.adapt.1900.1.jpg)
(https://media.giphy.com/media/7zApYc8tI0fpsR4Rny/giphy.gif)
(https://adventurebaycharters.com.au/wp-content/uploads/sea-lion-underwater-7134.jpg)
(https://www.sheknows.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/zpyckfrwrj7xvtl7r3en.jpeg)
(https://giphy.com/gifs/business-insider-seals-jEYHmbIYMB3gY)
Title: Re: Rule talk
Post by: Chaos Undivided on July 05, 2019, 01:31:41 am
Oh, act your age. ;)
Title: Re: Rule talk
Post by: niam2023 on July 05, 2019, 03:57:52 am
Please do not connect him to seals.

I love those adorable things. In fact, if he's not willing to take an answer, let's turn this thread into "Adorable Seal Pics and Gifs" thread.
Title: Re: Rule talk
Post by: The_Queen on July 05, 2019, 05:56:20 am
This is now the sea lion thread where we shall discuss the greatness of our acquatic mammalian brethren. Did you know they can dive down 600 feet? They can also stay submerged for forty minutes. They swim at 10 mph, though can swim at 25 if threatened by they main predators sharks or killer whales. They are also very nimble underwater and will swim around and through icebergs to hide from and escape predators until said predators lose interest and move on.
Title: Re: Rule talk
Post by: ironbite on July 05, 2019, 10:49:48 am
Hey it's Friday and not a single mod has popped up!

Ironbite-is he gonna leave now?
Title: Re: Rule talk
Post by: Skybison on July 05, 2019, 11:17:55 am
^Of course not.  Male Sea Lions try to take control of territory they want and drive away any rivals they see, it how they reproduce.
Title: Re: Rule talk
Post by: The_Queen on July 05, 2019, 12:07:54 pm
It is why the males are called bulls and the females cows.

Speaking of, there is a lot of bullshit in this thread.
Title: Re: Rule talk
Post by: Sigmaleph on July 05, 2019, 05:39:49 pm
Mods, you haven't answered my direct question yet. Where are you? TBH, this is kinda starting to tick me off.

I missed it, apologies.

If you mean this one:

Quote
Oh look, more unsubstantiated, unfalsifiable claims that I'm actually a ban-dodging former user. Direct question to the mods: why is this shit allowed? Like, if these people had any actual evidence, they'd have presented it by now.

then the reason 'this shit' is allowed is that the forum does have a pattern of ban dodgers who have been detected first via circumstantial evidence. It seems rather unreasonable to say nobody is allowed to suggest that someone might be a former user dodging a ban, when that has absolutely happened before.



Quote
I'd like to think you have reasons for things being the way they are I can at least understand. Really, I would. But the longer you maintain radio silence, the harder it is for me to believe that. Like I said, I'm willing to listen if you're willing to talk, and I think a conversation about the rules and their enforcement among the staff and users is necessary.

I disagree, I think my opinion that I don't think that conversation would be productive has been clearly stated, and I don't intend to answer requests to that effect. I believe this is what you are interpreting as 'radio silence'.

I will, of course, continue to answer direct questions, as per the rules. Once again apologies for missing yours.
Title: Re: Rule talk
Post by: ironbite on July 05, 2019, 05:48:23 pm
The thing is, and this is probably gonna label me as nuts, the "rules" around here aren't really hard and fast "rules" per se.  Cept for Direct Question and Don't Be a Dick, there's really not that many rules that are adhered to.  Or, as a wiser man put it...

(https://i.imgflip.com/1suyyk.gif)

Ironbite-which I think Chaos Dumbass hasn't quite grasped yet.
Title: Re: Rule talk
Post by: Sigmaleph on July 05, 2019, 06:33:37 pm
The thing is, and this is probably gonna label me as nuts, the "rules" around here aren't really hard and fast "rules" per se.  Cept for Direct Question and Don't Be a Dick, there's really not that many rules that are adhered to.  Or, as a wiser man put it...


Not quite accurate. There are plenty of rules that are very much 'hard and fast', like not posting content that breaks the law or no sock-puppets. There's a whole section of the rules I called "The Serious Stuff" for a reason.

Other rules can't really be that hard and fast, being open to interpretation. Which is why the 'Don't be a dick' section has the disclaimer it has:

Quote
Don't be a dick: Guidelines to make sure we don't piss each other off too much. You might be given a pass for breaking these, depending on context. Note: The list is not exhaustive, try to be guided by the general spirit rather than specific rules alone.
Title: Re: Rule talk
Post by: SCarpelan on July 06, 2019, 01:00:54 am
Quote
Oh look, more unsubstantiated, unfalsifiable claims that I'm actually a ban-dodging former user. Direct question to the mods: why is this shit allowed? Like, if these people had any actual evidence, they'd have presented it by now.

then the reason 'this shit' is allowed is that the forum does have a pattern of ban dodgers who have been detected first via circumstantial evidence. It seems rather unreasonable to say nobody is allowed to suggest that someone might be a former user dodging a ban, when that has absolutely happened before.

But this this is just like McCarthyism! His hurt feelings are equivalent to people's lives being destroyed! Actual real world consequences are irrelevant, because abstract ideas and superficial similarities!
Title: Re: Rule talk
Post by: niam2023 on July 06, 2019, 03:21:37 am
And me saying the rules are not going be followed absolutely is TEH EXACT SAEM as Southern Politicians and Jim Crow.

BECAUSE SUPERFICIAL SIMILARITIES MATTER!!
Title: Re: Rule talk
Post by: Tolpuddle Martyr on July 06, 2019, 05:46:42 am
Damn, Chaos you're obsessed. This site is not a nation state and it's rules are not formal laws. The same goes for every other forum, subreddit, Medium page, website and YouTube channel. They can interpret their own rules as they bloody well please and they owe nobody an explanation. You don't like it? Leave!
Title: Re: Rule talk
Post by: SCarpelan on July 06, 2019, 09:24:32 am
Damn, Chaos you're obsessed. This site is not a nation state and it's rules are not formal laws. The same goes for every other forum, subreddit, Medium page, website and YouTube channel. They can interpret their own rules as they bloody well please and they owe nobody an explanation. You don't like it? Leave!

That is an aspect of rigid thinking that many online sceptics fall victim to when they try to be as rational as possible and almost fetishize logic. Logical structures (rigid rules in this case) and rhetoric become so important that they are blinded to underlying weaknesses and/or subjectivity in their premises. This causes people to miss their own prejudices and is the reason also well-meaning people participate in the alt-right/reactionary driven anti-SJW circlejerk of which Chaotic Paragon obviously is a big fan.
Title: Re: Rule talk
Post by: niam2023 on July 07, 2019, 06:54:00 pm
And of course he is gonna pretend none of this discussion even happened and comment like two weeks from now hoping everybody forgot.
Title: Re: Rule talk
Post by: The_Queen on July 07, 2019, 08:08:00 pm
There is also the Junior Mod rule that Chaos should review
Title: Re: Rule talk
Post by: niam2023 on July 07, 2019, 09:29:53 pm
Is that one a rule about trying to play Mod when you're not one?

Because if so he's definitely violating it.
Title: Re: Rule talk
Post by: Chaos Undivided on July 07, 2019, 09:34:57 pm
Mods, you haven't answered my direct question yet. Where are you? TBH, this is kinda starting to tick me off.

I missed it, apologies.

That's fine. Apology accepted.

If you mean this one:

Quote
Oh look, more unsubstantiated, unfalsifiable claims that I'm actually a ban-dodging former user. Direct question to the mods: why is this shit allowed? Like, if these people had any actual evidence, they'd have presented it by now.

then the reason 'this shit' is allowed is that the forum does have a pattern of ban dodgers who have been detected first via circumstantial evidence. It seems rather unreasonable to say nobody is allowed to suggest that someone might be a former user dodging a ban, when that has absolutely happened before.

Hmm... when you put it that way, it does make sense. Still, there are quite a few users (not all, but some) who are talking about me allegedly being a ban-dodger not like it's a possibility, but like it's a certainty. This despite the fact that they haven't even proved their circumstantial evidence objectively exists. For all I know, the alleged similarities could just be a matter of perception. And even if we are similar in the ways they say we are - we very well might be - there are other explanations than us secretly being the same person. Political positions? AOC and Ilhan Omar have some very similar ideas (wanting to abolish ICE, supporting single-payer healthcare, etc.). Writing style? Like I said before, there are entire lists of authors with similar writing styles. The example I pointed to was the late Anthony Bourdain writing similarly to Chuck Palahniuk, despite them being different in plenty of ways (not least of which is the stuff they wrote). And yet these people constantly harp on about how I'm a former user like there's no other explanation.

That really sums up a lot of my frustrations, I think. Those who most vocally disagree with me always seem to gravitate towards possibilities that reflect negatively on me. It doesn't matter what other possibilities there are, or how likely they are. They always go with the ones that would paint me in a bad light. And they never show me evidence to support their conclusions, so I can't defend myself from the accusations. They keep harping on and on and on about these things I've supposedly done, but they never show any examples of me actually doing what they say I've done. Do you know how frustrating it is to deal with people assuming bad things about me and slinging around allegations they won't back up? This isn't just people voicing their suspicions, it's borderline character assassination. And the only reason I added the qualifier "borderline" is because I don't know whether they actually believe what they're saying about me or just want to destroy my reputation. But that doesn't really matter, since it's a witch hunt either way.

Look, I can admit that I haven't always toed the line myself. There are things I said that were unwise and unkind. And maybe I could've responded better to being disrespected. But the shit I get is completely out of proportion to what I've done. Not my fault this guy lives in their heads rent-free.

Maybe there's some kind of compromise we could come up with? Or maybe I could find some way to get them to back off.

Quote
I'd like to think you have reasons for things being the way they are I can at least understand. Really, I would. But the longer you maintain radio silence, the harder it is for me to believe that. Like I said, I'm willing to listen if you're willing to talk, and I think a conversation about the rules and their enforcement among the staff and users is necessary.

I disagree, I think my opinion that I don't think that conversation would be productive has been clearly stated, and I don't intend to answer requests to that effect. I believe this is what you are interpreting as 'radio silence'.

How will you know if you don't try? Maybe I'm being too optimistic, but I think any conversation can be productive with the right participants.
Title: Re: Rule talk
Post by: The_Queen on July 07, 2019, 10:08:21 pm
Quote
I'd like to think you have reasons for things being the way they are I can at least understand. Really, I would. But the longer you maintain radio silence, the harder it is for me to believe that. Like I said, I'm willing to listen if you're willing to talk, and I think a conversation about the rules and their enforcement among the staff and users is necessary.

I disagree, I think my opinion that I don't think that conversation would be productive has been clearly stated, and I don't intend to answer requests to that effect. I believe this is what you are interpreting as 'radio silence'.

How will you know if you don't try? Maybe I'm being too optimistic, but I think any conversation can be productive with the right participants.

I couldn’t agree more; you’re clearly a wrong participant for an intellectually honest conversation to discover facts and craft a workable interpretation of events.
Title: Re: Rule talk
Post by: niam2023 on July 07, 2019, 10:35:36 pm
I think we should focus more on his actual misdeeds under his current name instead of fixating on a perceived common identity. He most definitely HAS made questionable, bad and malignant posts on here. Bear in mind that some of our membership also makes fun of Lady Checkmate for insisting everyone is a sockpuppet of one individual going after her.

So let's focus for now on the centrist concern troll before us instead of insisting he's Ultimate Paragon.
Title: Re: Rule talk
Post by: DukeTheCat on August 12, 2019, 10:32:23 pm
This is all bullshit when considering how fucking disingenuous you are. Everyone knows you are someone who has been here before. Unless you confront that, it rings very hollow to accuse anyone of self-righteousness, hypocrisy or bad faith.

In fact, it's a fucking joke cracker. Which is why you kept getting laughed at.

No, I'm not. You have no evidence for that. And as I've said before, any claim that can be made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. You might as well say I'm a dog that somehow learned to type.

Direct question: how would you feel about somebody accusing you of being a child molester or a war criminal without any kind of evidence beyond personal opinion?

The real difference between now and the old days wasn't the rules being enforced, but rather the rules were enforced which made everything boring.

When I joined there were several posters who would be categorised as 'chew toys'. In fact there was so much chewing that chew toys used to chew on each other. I mean there was Mr Mannnn, Skyfire and a couple of others who I've forgotten and then there was the 'Moby Dick', the great white whale, the greatest interactive nutjob of them all Nautical999, who never got tired and was in equal measures slimy and insane, so much so that it was just fucking riveting. His appearance was the great bright flare on this forum...

Even if that's true, the fact remains quite a few former users have left the forums and not come back because they considered them toxic. I posted multiple testimonials to that effect on the previous page. Why is it so hard for you to acknowledge that maybe being openly arrogant and hostile towards people with different opinions isn't helping your forum grow?

Blah blah blah.

How nice of you to further demonstrate your way of thinking that is the main target of my criticism. My arrogance towards you is precisely because I don't give a shit about you as a person and I'm only using you to discuss what is wrong with the positions you represent - or at least pretend to represent. It is also the result of a complete loss of respect and trust you have brought upon yourself. Attempting to manipulate the optics of the discussion with fake humility and moralization is part of the behavior pattern that has brought this upon you.

Yes, you can look at the form of what I said and present it as appealing to tradition - if you ingore the context of the claims that you made. This can be a dishonest rhetorical tactic or a genuinely naive, superficial way of interpreting logical concepts. You claim that the treatment you get is a reason for the forum's downfall when I am making the counter argument that it is just an aspect of the community that never prevented it from thriving in the past. Yes, we have become quite a circlejerk here compared to the past but in my opinion it is more a result of the community shrinking than a cause for it.

You are probably thinking about trying to point out that I have recently been as guilty of bad faith interpretation as those of which I am accusing you. The difference is that I am actually taking the full context of your history and expressed ideological tendencies and using that to logically infer your intentions, tactics and implied ideas. And no, there is no need for me to prove that you are Ultimately Anal if there is enough circumstantial evidence to infer that nor do I need to present this evidence if practically everyone else who is already aware of the same evidence has come to the same conclusion. This is not a competitive debate where your skills at rhetorical fencing can be more important than actual reality.

Well, at least you're honest about being an egotistical bully. But don't pretend your dislike of me is based on any kind of logic. No, it's based on your own prejudices and biases. I know this because 1. you wrote me off as a "pigheaded centrist" very early on and 2. you haven't presented any kind of evidence for your accusations beyond "we all know". You say your dislike of me is because you've pegged me as a ban-dodging, manipulative, arrogant prick, and it's not unlikely you actually believe it. But just because you say and believe something, doesn't make it true. Why don't you stop assuming you're always right and start trying to prove you're not just talking out of your ass?

And you haven't presented even circumstantial evidence for me to challenge, just your own opinions. Saying "everyone has come to the same conclusion" is a completely meaningless statement, since you yourself admitted that this board is a circlejerk. The fact that you, ironbite, Queen, Tol, dave, fluffy, and niam (and possibly some others I forgot) are all acting like dicks to me based on unfounded accusations and your own political extremism is not my fault. You want to disagree with me? Fine. Go ahead. I value freedom of thought, and freedom to express thought. What I'm not OK with is you treating me like I'm defective or a bad person for holding opinions you disagree with, accusing me of arguing in bad faith (or worse) without any kind of evidence, and constantly dogpiling me like I'm this football ref (https://external-preview.redd.it/a_N2pgNzFu15nipT-lo2tuhV4DlOMvyYFDygW9swf10.gif?format=mp4&s=a2783c34664bc70a7959d36a9b5e281362b5c326), among other things.

What the fuck did I do to deserve this? I've made mistakes, yeah, but that doesn't mean your harshness is warranted. You want to give me constructive criticism? No problem. I can handle that. But you're just being complete dicks to me based on harmless mistakes. Your responses were completely out of proportion. How did I hurt any of you? I didn't come here looking for fights, but fights keep finding me.

And what did I say that was so unreasonable? I am not Jacob Harrison. I haven't advocated absolute monarchy, theocratic government, or punishing gay people with chemical castration. I don't want to bring back having people hanged, drawn and quartered. And I haven't tried to justify the expulsions of the Spanish Jews or the California Genocide. And yet you guys keep talking like I'm somehow on par with him. That says a lot of unpleasant things about you. It says you're a bunch of closed-minded, judgmental, arrogant, hypocritical, and downright nasty douchebags who think backing up the claims you make with evidence is optional and lump everyone who doesn't agree with you hard enough into a group you think of as "the enemy". You're textbook religious fanatics, except your "religion" is warped progressivism. To think you call yourselves members of the skeptic community. What a fucking joke.

But you probably won't have to put up with me much longer. Unless the mods agree to have a serious conversation about the rules and their enforcement with me and the rest of the userbase, I'm going to leave this forum and not look back. Your forum can shrivel up and die like a fallen leaf for all I care.

Though before I go, I'd like to say one thing: I don't hate everyone else here. Hell, some of you I like. Ravy, Askold, Kanzen, dpareja, Sigma, and others come to mind (sorry in advance if I got any of your names wrong). While we're on the subject, I don't even hate Skybison, because he seemed to be at least trying to come to some kind of understanding with me. FWIW, I can at least respect him for that. We may not have always agreed, but that doesn't mean I think of you as enemies. And if I do end up leaving, it was nice knowing you guys, however briefly. Maybe we could be friends somewhere else? Just a thought.
Evidently, you have a lot of knowledge of what Jacob posted as if you were on this site while he was here. It is absurd that a new user would read 9 entire pages of his blogs and all the comments. And Jacob changed his views on homosexuals when he realized that 3 Medieval English kings Richard I, Edward II, and Richard II were bisexual.

Anyway, he thinks that it is cowardly that you are so offended by what strangers on a far left board say to you that you whined to the mods to censor their opinions. What did you expect, posting center left views on a far left forum. When Jacob was here, he knew what he was getting into and was not fazed by the insults he received because he knew that he had to do what is necessary to promote his English monarchist cause.