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
But just what is one supposed to do if quite a few interesting posts this one would like to respond to were made in this one's absence and the thread had moved since?
And if it is not a reason to ban this one, then it is not a reason to ban anyone else. Rules apply to all or not at all.
(sigh) That is exactly the thing that bothers this one. When a popular person gets banned for a clear and direct violation of the rule (say, against personal attacks) there is an outcry that said person should have been allowed to stay because they are just so cool and interesting and bring so much in the conversation etc. But with a not so popular person banned for "violating" a "rule" that is extremely ill-defined, vague and can be spinned either way by nothing but preference, a few people care.
go rattling off a list of points made in a discussion in real life, do
you?
Actually, this one does that, especially if she listened to numerous people before getting an opportunity to say her piece
1) Rules should not be written in such a way as to allow interpretation and personal judgement
2) Everyone should be held to them equally. Again, without popularity entering in the equation in any way whatsoever
How far is a mark against from a warning?
>You were just saying you don't like the idea of natural purpose and would prefer that existentialism be true?
Partly that, but also that I find it very unlikely that anything has a "natural purpose". When different people may use different items and actions for different purposes, who is to say that any one of those purposes is more correct than any other? And even if we accept that claim, how exactly are we to determine which purpose is the correct one?
>Tongpu spams Lick.
This sentence is highly disturbing.
>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'm actually pretty strongly in disagreement with both you and Eddie on this one. A discussion thread is not a linear conversation. They are fundamentally different, and I see no reason to limit a forum thread by imposing what I see as being one of the biggest drawbacks of spoken conversation upon it.
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. The post which Rott was banned for was rude and blatantly false. If a new user had made a post like that they would have been immediately dismissed as a troll.
>1) Rules should not be written in such a way as to allow interpretation and personal judgement
I completely disagree with this. Flexibility allows for common sense. Rigid rules encourage callous by-the-bookness and rules-lawyering.
>2) Everyone should be held to them equally. Again, without popularity entering in the equation in any way whatsoever
I think you'll find that Eddie disagrees with you on that one, since he's said in the past that unpopularity is often (not always) a sign that somebody is an unpleasant person to be around.
I never said a black mark- I said a mark against, which only particularly counts against you if they're looking at your actions and behaviours in regards as to whether or not to ban you.
Or from pushing the rules in such a way as to allow a popular poster to remain, considering their acidic insults a biting humour? Or to insist that certain people should be an exception of the rules because they are oh so cool and intelligent?
(sigh) This one had been a victim of more than enough decisions based on popularity and being perceived as "trouble" in high school. Luckily, the headmaster eventually came to her cences and understood that this one constantly being in a centre of scandal does not mean that this one is necessary the party that should be corrected. But this one is still very afraid of the perspective of ever being at the mercy of popular judgement again (shudders)
Rott, you hate to leave an argument unanswered. That's admirable. People don't want to have huge, intimidating blocks of text, though. So what if instead of addressing old arguments in the thread, you either PMed the user with your rebuttal? That way, you'd be able to argue things, and it wouldn't break up the page.
Alternatively, if the person was talking about something only semi-related to the topic at hand, you could simply create a new topic about it.
Would that work?
@ Beholderess: That Pykrete is disruptive is demonstrably false, so there isn't really room for interpretation there.
That he is a jerk is a statement no mod would make, because only somebody with absolutely bizarre views would think that.
>Alternatively, if the person was talking about something only semi-related to the topic at hand, you could simply create a new topic about it.
This is very good advice, I think.