Author Topic: Rule talk  (Read 1745 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline SCarpelan

  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 1047
Re: Rule talk
« Reply #135 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.

Offline niam2023

  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 3952
  • Gender: Male
  • The Forum Chad
Re: Rule talk
« Reply #136 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.
Living Life, Lifting, Waiting for Summer

Offline The_Queen

  • Royalty & Royalty-free
  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 1837
  • Gender: Female
  • And here we go...
Re: Rule talk
« Reply #137 on: July 07, 2019, 08:08:00 pm »
There is also the Junior Mod rule that Chaos should review
Does anyone take Donald Trump seriously, anymore?

Offline niam2023

  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 3952
  • Gender: Male
  • The Forum Chad
Re: Rule talk
« Reply #138 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.
Living Life, Lifting, Waiting for Summer

Online Chaos Undivided

  • Pope
  • ****
  • Posts: 465
  • Death to the False Emperor!
Re: Rule talk
« Reply #139 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.
Anti-authoritarian, anti-extremist, anti-bullshit.

Offline The_Queen

  • Royalty & Royalty-free
  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 1837
  • Gender: Female
  • And here we go...
Re: Rule talk
« Reply #140 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.
Does anyone take Donald Trump seriously, anymore?

Offline niam2023

  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 3952
  • Gender: Male
  • The Forum Chad
Re: Rule talk
« Reply #141 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.
Living Life, Lifting, Waiting for Summer