Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
If you have an email ending in @hotmail.com, @live.com or @outlook.com (or any other Microsoft-related domain), please consider changing it to another email provider; Microsoft decided to instantly block the server's IP, so emails can't be sent to these addresses.
If you use an @yahoo.com email or any related Yahoo services, they have blocked us also due to "user complaints"
-UE
If you use an @yahoo.com email or any related Yahoo services, they have blocked us also due to "user complaints"
-UE
Comments
(I feel disloyal when I say this kind of thing. Please forgive the unprofessionalism here.)
Did you see my edit above, btw?
You certainly didn't say anything you would need to apologize or bow out of the thread for.
Also, "I wouldn't dare thump Fighteer" cuts to the issue that there are no consistent rules beyond "Don't be considered a dick by the owner." That being true, a sincere apology for any annoyance to the owner seems more productive for both us than one for a specific behavior, there being no consistent standard of what behaviors are thump-worthy.
Sure, please create a new thread!
Keep dreaming. I'm sure everybody wants that...
Not true.
Look. I am being horrendously unprofessional here. I am pretty much the worst mod for this reason.
Mods don't generally thump other mods. To do so is to undermine their authority. Kind of like going on another site and admitting that said other mod made a strawman argument.
I think the only mod that I can recall thumping other mods on TV Tropes is Maddy, and she outranks us.
But there are consistent rules. There's a whole list of them. They aren't consistently enforced, which is due to our inability to read every thread, and that's a problem, I'll admit. But there are behaviours which are consistently thump-worthy, and your last post on TV Tropes contained one example of such behaviour.
But there are consistent rules. There's a whole list of them. They
aren't consistently enforced, which is due to our inability to read
every thread, and that's a problem, I'll admit.
Do you mean those are consistent rules for all commoners regardless of popularity, albeit inconsistently enforced? Because y'all did read Fighteer's personal attack and it remained, so at minimum there must be a mod/commoner distinction such that rules like "Don't be a dick" and "no personal attacks" don't apply to mods.
And yeah, I meant the post Eddie thumped, not your actual last post, sorry.
have been the first tip you were going to be banned. Fast Eddie has
declared that he is not going to install a quote function specifically
so people cannot do this.
> It seems to only be the person known for writing overly long replies to a topic to the point that people recognize him for it.
Actually, I'm also known for doing this. Just that I do this rarely, in part because it takes a lot of time to do this, and I will only do this for issues I care enough about.
> You have any idea how many people would be banned if expressing fashionable beliefs in a condescending way was counted as "being a dick"?
BonSequitur, whom you see a few posts up, is a strongly left-wing poster and he was banned from TVT for expressing his beliefs in insulting and mocking ways. GuitarBizarre (who hasn't commented on this thread and usually just hangs out on IRC) said nothing more controversial than insisting on high-quality audio and video systems (outside of my arguments with him at least), yet he got banned for being a dick.
For what it's worth, they both have accounts here, so if they want to chime in about this they should feel free and are invited to do so.
> "Umm, this is a wrong thing to do? This one tends to do it often when she catches up with a thread that moved quite a lot in her absence..."
Yes- Fast Eddie dislikes this practice.
I personally prefer this practice, but that's because I prioritize conversation content and covering all bases (and am a huge fan of Continuity Nods), while Fast Eddie prioritizes flow of conversation (according to his own commentary about this subject). Then again, I'm not the one running the site. (For what it's worth, I also don't mind nested quotes in quotes. I find them amusing, frankly. But many other people do mind this. I know that the Caves of Narshe forum doesn't do nested quotes in quotes, for exactly this reason.)
Though I don't think it's a bannable offense, unless you do it so often that people find your posts aggravating to read.
That said, it is NOT advisable to spend one such "gigantpost" (as I call it) refuting others' points in desperation--"in desperation" being the key here--if you're going to spend such a post refuting others' points, make sure you do it respectfully and with deference to others' viewpoints even as you argue against them.
> 4) It very pointedly ignores all the posts between the quoted material and the reply. This jerks the flow of the conversation backwards and or fractures the conversation, causing there to be multiple 'threads' within the conversation. Confusing, and somebody is bound to be shorted.
Yeah, I disagree with this assessment. As well as the "trolling in progress" idea. While trolls may very well use this method, I think that's a case of Hitler Ate Sugar.
Also, as long as I'm replying to every (or nearly every) post, up to the one right before mine, I don't think my gigantpost would neglect any content--the point of it is to avoid content neglect, and the current subtopic of conversation right before a gigantpost would still be present after a gigantpost. The only complaint one might have is that it ALSO brings up a large number of other subtopics, simultaneously. However, generally speaking, such other subtopics are themselves very relevant to the topic at hand.
> But when it stretches back to quoting things from the past several pages, like Rottweiler has done occasionally, it becomes disruptive to the flow of conversation.
I've done entire threads of over ten pages long, in gigantposts. Sometimes I half-jokingly call them "Let's Read [thread title]".
Heck, I'm doing this right now.
> If noone's going to enforce it, why have the rule at all?
I don't think it's a rule; it's just a minor pet peeve of the founding admin.
> It isn't liked because it disrupts the flow of discussion, not generally because it's used to troll, although that is a concern.
For what it's worth, though, Eddie's reasoning put usable-for-trolling before disrupting flow.
> ^ It's not a rule. No such rule exists.
See? I told ya that ain't a rule.
> In any case, if such behaviour were seriously regarded as a "black mark" on a troper's record, Glenn would have been banned ages ago, so I think there's more to it than that.
See? I told ya I'm the Original Gigantposta!
> Annoying progressives with dissent leads to them hollering at the mods, causing annoyance to authority (FE) that I don't wish to repeat.
Rotty, the problem is NOT that people are disagreeing with you on a philosophical basis and trying to shoo you off the boat for their own gain. Heck, Major Tom is still around and if anything he's far more of a strawman conservative than you are anyway.
> No traditionalist would believe in the absolute equality of fertile intercourse and homosexual acts, precisely because we reject the new-fangled claim that all behaviors are equal.
Perhaps this is indicative of the problem:
YOU (singular) reject the new-fangled claim that all behaviors are equal. There is no "we". You speak for yourself; do not hide what is your opinion behind a cloak made of the names and writings of famous people.
Additionally:
> Furthermore, I was "dismissive and disparaging" of revising school curricula to celebrate homosexual Americans precisely because of my traditional beliefs.
There is a difference between stating and explaining your opposition to an issue, calmly and in an even tone, and being "dismissive and disparaging" of the issue.
> Tone is the issue, not the reaction itself.
Exactly as Khwarizmi put it.
First questions first: for reference, Rottweiler...
1. Do you believe that all homosexuals enjoy anal sex?
2. Do you dislike anal sex or find it unsatisfactory in any way (morally, socially, or other)?
3. What would you say is involved in an anthropological scholarly study of homosexuality and its role in human culture?
4. What would you say is involved in an anthropological scholarly study of anal sex practices?
intercourse and homosexual acts, precisely because we reject the
new-fangled claim that all behaviors are equal."
I don't see how that follows here. It's possible to believe in "absolute equality of fertile
intercourse and homosexual acts" and "reject the new-fangled claim that all behaviors are equal". If you regarded the people who oppose you as having diverse options, rather then a unified Hive Mind, you'd have a less antagonizing attitude.
Perhaps, TvTropes forum which is indeed largely circle-jerkish is bad for you and some other, more politically diverse forum would be better. Being caught up in a debate between a Liberal Progressive, a Libertarian, a Neocon and a Christian Orthodox Stalinist would be good for you.
Yes.
>It's not permanent, is it?
Not according to Eddie, no.
>Perhaps, TvTropes forum which is indeed largely circle-jerkish is bad for you and some other, more politically diverse forum would be better. Being caught up in a debate between a Liberal Progressive, a Libertarian, a Neocon and a Christian Orthodox Stalinist would be good for you.
Do you know of any such forum with quality debates? Sounds like it might be worth a read.
You didn't add an Objectivist to the list of loonies at the end? For shame.
By the way, does anyone actually use Neocon for anything besides an insult?
Since you've informed me what post caused it since I made the first apology, should I have someone relay the new apology based on that knowledge?
I also second your question to Wolf.
Given the reception your first apology met with, a second apology to help clear things up might be advisable, but for that same reason, I think you want to be very careful to stress that it's sincere.
I also think it might be advisable to wait a little bit, because it doesn't sound to me like the ban will be lifted immediately in any case.
How do you even know a formal apology for that post wouldn't be received as insincerely narrow?
I think the important thing is to take responsibility for your own mistakes. Like, I know you know better than to say this, but for example, don't say "I'm sorry that my views were too unusual for this place, I'll be careful to censor them in future", or "I'm sorry that Eddie was annoyed by my posts". The former suggests that TV Tropes is more draconian than it actually is, the latter may be taken to imply that Eddie is the one at fault.
See, that's exactly what I can't do, because it's so vague as to admit fault where I don't rationally see it.
I can say "I'm sorry for ungentlemanly use of an obscene inaccuracy and the offense it caused", because it's true. I can say "I apologize for annoying authority", because it's true. I cannot in good conscience make a blanket apology for every time an equalitarian materialist's sensitive feelings were hurt.
Rott, this is starting to honestly frustrate me. What are you not understanding here? What am I failing to explain?
On the topic of Rotty's phrasing: I think I can explain his opinion on homosexuality.
Contention: Homosexuality is wrong.
Line of argument:
First Assumption: The purpose of sexual pleasure and people's enjoyment of it is to result in the production of offspring.
Second Assumption: When things are not used for their purpose, they are being wrongly used.
Intermediate Conclusion: Enjoyment of sexual pleasure in ways that do not result in the production of offspring is wrongly using such enjoyment.
Third Assumption: Homosexuals will (necessarily) engage in non-procreative sexually-pleasurable practices.
Given: Homosexuals cannot produce offspring through any sexual activities between two homosexuals.
Observation: Homosexuals are enjoying sexual pleasure but their enjoyment does not result in the production of offspring.
Final Conclusion: Homosexuals' enjoyment of sexual pleasure is wrongly using such enjoyment, because such enjoyment does not result in the production of offspring.
(Before you start yelling at me, let me remind you that the term "assumption" means nothing as to whether that statement is true in real life, or even whether it can or cannot be true. It is merely assumed to be true for the purpose of this argument. Similarly, by "observation" here I mean I'm just putting two and two
together within this line of argument.)
Now, see, this did not need to involve any mentions of anal sex. (Speaking of which, the "history of people who like anal sex" includes heterosexuals, and not all homosexuals like anal sex either.)
To put this in a format that is more conducive to normal forum reading, how about this:
What would you all say about this phrasing? Remember, I'm not asking about the morality, logic, or airtightness of this argument. I am asking about the phrasing.
(However, I would say that it was off-topic had it been posted in a thread regarding a Californian education proposal regarding the study of gay history.)