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
That.
ಠ_ಠ
INUH, can we get a mod ruling on the insults in this thread? I don't think they're helping.
Uhhh
OK, so. Yeah, OTC is biased. I think we can agree on that. I am not the only mod who thinks this, either.
In this thread, I have been attempting to explain what Rottweiler did that got him banned, figure out what he'll have to do to be allowed back, and figure out how to avoid him being banned again.
Rottweiler was banned for:
Calling people idiots
So says the Fast One. Now, a couple of issues here. Obviously, the post which got you banned did not involve calling anybody an idiot, though it was inflammatory; if you wanted to write an apology, apologising for that post would be a good start, I think. Also, it's very rare that you actually have directly called anyone an idiot.
There was one notable exception to this, which is when Fast Eddie thumped you for calling somebody "dumb" and "retarded". Except, of course, you were quoting an Internet meme. Eddie was informed of this at the time, but felt it a poor excuse. I think if you made it crystal clear that your intent was not to offend, and that you will be more careful in future, that would certainly help your case.
Incivility/rudeness/"being a dick"
This seems to be the more general complaint. It would encompass calling people idiots, but it would also encompass condescension.
Having mentioned it on the mod board, I can confirm that your problem, or at least the greater part of it, is your tendency not to respect, or even to pretend to respect, or even to humour for the sake of argument, views which you perceive to be beneath your attention.
So, I'll say it plainly: if you want to debate on TV Tropes, and not get into trouble, I strongly advise that you make no negative assumptions about the people with whom you are arguing, and that you refrain from treating them like lost causes or mindless ideologues.
You don't need to say "You're right, too" if you don't think somebody is right. You can ask penetrating questions, politely worded, when relevant to the topic at hand.
Which brings me to the final point:
Derailing/"being attacked"
Derailing happens far too often in OTC. Fighteer insists that you keep derailing topics to make them about your personal views, but the way I see it, it takes at least two people to derail a thread, so if this happens, it can't possibly be solely the fault of one troper.
So, I figure, everybody needs to quit derailing threads, and if I or the other mods catch anyone derailing threads, regardless of political orientation, we'll thump 'em. Problem solved? I think so. Probably.
How's that? Clear as mud?
get into trouble, I strongly advise that you make no negative
assumptions about the people with whom you are arguing, and that you
refrain from treating them like lost causes or mindless ideologues.
I already promised that I won't debate at all, and to convey a less formal apology for the post that was the proximate cause. What more do you want?
Look, you admitted that you'd get in trouble with FE if you thumped every condescending post you see. So obviously being condescending is not, in and of itself, even thump-worthy. The problem seems to be causing hollers, something I do and the likes of Tongpu doesn't, because his views aren't causing offense.
Or to quote Mrs. Justice "I was sorry to hear about your ban. I can think of at least five much bigger dicks, and unfortunately a couple of them are mods."
Um. To be honest, I haven't really followed this thread for the last 500 posts or so. I only showed up because I misclicked and saw a broken embed.
your tendency not to respect, or even to pretend to respect, or even to
humour for the sake of argument, views which you perceive to be beneath
your attention.
Again, this is remotely unique to Rott? Every one of us does this. It's the same basic bullshit filter we apply every day, because if we humored every idea ever vomited at our shoes we wouldn't have enough time to take a bathroom break.
Now if you wanted to say Rott does this disproportionately...also no. Once more, people do this all the damn time in OTC.
Pykrete, it's... not unique to Rott, not by any means. Just, when Rott does it, it tends to spark derails because the people he's doing it towards are present and in the majority. Hence it causing holllers.
Rott, I was operating under the assumption that it would be preferable to arrive at a solution whereby you didn't have to do anything so drastic as abandoning OTC altogether. If you're fine with abandoning OTC, then I guess you can and that's problem solved. It just seems rather a shame, that's all.
IDK. I find myself rapidly becoming disillusioned with the whole site and everyone involved.
@Bobby: That would be preferable, yes. However, I don't think there's any way to please Eddie except causing no hollers, which means figuring out a reliable way to keep the leftists from hollering. The only one I can think of would be to keep quiet around them.
However, the idea that not everyone is worthy to debate with you, or even intellectually honest, was definitely part of it. You have a bad tendency to assume everyone else is an idiot because they can't read your mind. That's essentially the root of the "women are mammals" hoopla; even if you meant an entirely coherent and valid argument, what you said was essentially equivalent to Fighteer's strawman of you.
Be explicit. Communicating badly and then anything is not cleverness. If Aristotle refuted your opponent's argument say how; simply asserting that he did will not only not convince anyone, it will piss everyone off that you are deliberately withholding information from them. If you think your opponent has given two contradictory positions, say how they conflict; merely giving a statement illustrating the flaw will get you misinterpreted.
Oh, also: Though it is true Rott was unusually polite when arguing with Tribute, the contention that he never attacked an intellectual is not true unless you define intellectual to exclude anyone who Rott has argued with.
Here Rott strawmans and mocks Aprilla in the very same thread containing the post for which he was banned. Aprilla, from his other posts, is an intellectual by any reasonable sense of the word. Though the argument doesn't progress further, that's to Aprilla's credit for not taking Rott's bait.
Bon was also very knowledgeable and he and Rott were at each other's throats in seriously any thread either of them posted in.
This isn't a problem with Beholderess, because she has a philosophy that can stand up outside an echo chamber (being an agnostic Kantian liberal in Russia) or even Tribune.
I just gave two examples of you starting or attempting to start or taking part in drama with people who could express their philosophy intelligently.
What you are doing now is called Moving The Goalposts. You are now removing the explicit "regardless of what it was" tag from your original argument, and even that wouldn't cover jumping on Aprilla.
(Last line added in an edit.)
don't see the difference between respectfully approaching someone else's
position to argue against it and what Rottweiler does?
I see that difference just fine. I just see no difference between Rott dismissing a position as idiotic, and anyone else dismissing a position as idiotic. Which OTC does all the fucking time -- see right-bashing.
@Pykrete: I agree that merely being condescending did not alone get Rott banned (else Kara and Major Tom and a load of other people would've been also); however it certainly didn't help.
EDIT: Or, actually, not. I'd say this qualifies as "expressing your beliefs intelligently". Bugman in the same topic, too. They weren't polite, but then if that was a requirement you yourself have rarely expressed your beliefs intelligently.
>I don't think there's any way to please Eddie except causing no hollers, which means figuring out a reliable way to keep the leftists from hollering.
The best way is to not give them a legitimate reason to holler. They'll still holler, and we'll look at your posts, see that everything is in order, and move on. Eddie can't ban you if you don't give him a reason. (If you do get banned again without a legitimate reason, I'll do my best to persuade the mod/admin responsible to lift it.)
Quoth Black Humor:
>If Aristotle refuted your opponent's argument say how; simply asserting that he did will not only not convince anyone, it will piss everyone off that you are deliberately withholding information from them.
This, a thousand times, and Rott is definitely not the only person who needs to hear this. There are few things more annoying than somebody who insists that you're wrong but won't explain why. It's very poor debating.
Quoth Vandro:
>Bobby, honestly, I feel that if you are disillusioned with the site and the people involved, you shouldn't wallow in those feelings and just try to speak your mind to the other mods...
Yeah, you're right, and I have told them how I feel about OTC. But it's not really even the mods themselves that I'm feeling disillusioned with right now.
Probably shouldn't have said anything.
They'll still holler, and we'll look at your posts, see that everything
is in order, and move on. Eddie can't ban you if you don't give him a
reason.
Yes he can; he owns the server.
So the thing to do is obey his will, not try to stay within specific rules. He can Screw the Rules, He Made Them. As Mrs. Justice said, he can even have dicks as mods.
As far as I can guess his will, it includes getting an informal apology for the post that was the ban's proximate cause and never getting another holler about OTC. I can do that without compromising my morals.
And I don't know, maybe I'm not seeing the nastier side of them, but I don't think any of the mods are dicks. I don't plan on telling them you said that, but still, I think you can appreciate that that kind of talk puts me in kind of an awkward position, given that I'm one of them and that I am, in a sense, representative of Eddie when I speak as a mod?
Additionally, might I ask what part of my suggestion to you involved compromising your morals?