Login is disabled. This forum is read-only.
Imperial Forum → Posts by The Great Eye
Um... we kind of are discussing that very issue:
1: The question of whether or not trolling itself is good (BG's argument) is a prerequisite issue to the question of whether trolls should be banned.
2: I've brought up the issue of moderator vs. player retaliation against trolls.
There's a couple discussions that are distracting, but there very much is engagement in your topic (plus some trolling of you, but that's a side issue).
1: Give me at least 2 empirical examples of people in the Politics forum deciding "hey, I used to think I was right, but when this person called me an idiot... boy, that changed my perspective on life!"
2: More often than not, your mockery only does the exact opposite: You place people in a position where defending an idea is much more important. An idea can be discarded at will. Rather, you are forcing people like xeno to defend their identity. When a person is placed in that defensive position, they are much more likely to do two things:
A: Hold onto their position, even if they think it's wrong. You've framed the debate as an ego contest through your mockery... if he admits he is wrong in this context, it is simply surrendering to bullying, as opposed to gaining enlightenment.
B: Retaliate with his own mockery. Let the flame-fest begin!
> Blind Guardian wrote:
> I don't have to "prove" anything, Zarf BeebleBrix. If I did, he would obviously disagree, regardless that he was wrong. So it wouldn't be acknowledged anyway.
1: How do you know he's wrong without winning over his disagreements?
2: If there's no standard for proof, then you justify endless mockery of people just because they think the other side is wrong.
> I did engage him legitimately. I generally do, unless something is SO absurd I go straight to mockery--in which case I start relatively light, and I am of course always open to "legitimate" engagement, but xeno just ignored those attemps over, and over, and over again. And rambled on, and on, and on. He wasn't interested in any discussion, so he got mocked. He can cry about it now all he wants. I only have to make fun of him once--he has to repeat his ramblings over and over because he cannot respond to content in a "discussion." 
My last post was very clear. It's no surprise to anyone that he didn't respond to the content in what is the longest post on this page. Go ahead and reread it. You'll see content where I explain myself frankly. You won't find him responding to that content or any content in any of his posts. Anywhere. Ever. And that's my point.
Then what's the purpose of the mockery? Give one reason why it is GOOD to mock other people.
@Blind Guardian
So by your own logic, you have to first win that xeno's argument is stupid before you can mock him for it. That puts you in this problem:
1: Before you even get a right to mock him, you have to prove his post is idiotic, which means you are required by your own standard to engage him legitimately.
2: If you win that the argument is ridiculous, then there's no reason to mock him anymore.
3: Your argument creates infinite regression of what's considered "stupid." A good portion of people on this forum might say many of Flint's stuff is stupid. Hell, any new idea is automatically considered "stupid." In fact, I considered xeno's arguments to be nothing near utterly ridiculous... (I disagreed, but it doesn't mean they're dismissible). There's no set standard for what is "stupid," and thus it's best to allow argument to be discussed.
@narrutto
In addition, discussions of the way in which we debate are inherently part of the political process. If anything, this is one of the most important politics debates in this forum, as effective communication of ideas is a prerequisite to effective implementation.
Double post!
> Blind Guardian wrote:
> You are a troll, xeno syndicated, and should be banned.
There's something about threads about fluffy bunnies bribing the Czech government into poisoning the wheat supply of the underground Gnomes of Poland that just begs for hijacking. And you make such threads. Who can take such psychosis seriously? Nobody who deserves not to get trolled!
How is that trolling? Because he made a thread about a concept you view as outlandish?
@xeno
1: I also believe I stated that rule-based ignores take precedence over what I said.
2: There's a definite difference between:
A: Responding to people hurling personal attacks on you, and
B: Responding to legitimate points about issues
You can, and should, ignore the former, just as you said. What I stated only assumes a situation in which two people are actually discussing issues, not people.
If you're talking about what xeno's saying, then yes. In regards to the Constitution I mentioned (and am in the process of producing a draft copy of), then... no... sort of... hard to explain just yet. 
> Justinian I wrote:
> > Zarf BeebleBrix wrote:
> 1: Logic is still meant as a way to determine the approach. If you want to kill people, you have to somehow determine a method to most effectively do so. Otherwise, you're doomed to failure.>
Right. Logic can weigh the costs and benefits of your perceived options, and most people pursue the one that has the fewest risks and costs and highest returns. However, it isn't telling you what to do. It is telling you that if you want a, then you must do xyz.
But emotion is telling you what to do? You can ignore an emotion or value just as easily as you can ignore a logical chain.
<2: How do you deal with conflicting desires, then?>
That's why we have diplomacy and its many options for conflict resolution.
1: What guides diplomacy?
2: What tells people to pursue diplomacy in the first place?
3: How about internal conflicting desires?
<3: How about the way society as a unit should move? Is there a collective emotion, aside from those associated with major events, such as 9/11 or victory at WW2?>
It can't decide that. It may be able to predict the outcome based on conditions prevalent in humanity and the circumstances faced by one or more human societies.
Just checking you on this.
So the proposed alternative... is just to sit on your ass and whine randomly?
1: Logic is still meant as a way to determine the approach. If you want to kill people, you have to somehow determine a method to most effectively do so. Otherwise, you're doomed to failure.
2: How do you deal with conflicting desires, then?
3: How about the way society as a unit should move? Is there a collective emotion, aside from those associated with major events, such as 9/11 or victory at WW2?
Then what is the tool to reveal the path people should choose, if not logic?
@Key
Not to mention that if you can't logically defend your emotional appeals, there is no basis upon which to follow your view.
Someone who tells a sympathetic story about poverty in Africa may rally people behind them. But unless they can logically explain what to do and where to go, they are simply leading people blindly.
> xeno syndicated wrote:
> @ Acolyte and Zarf
I think that if we are going to improve this forum, we will need to have a way to address the problem of ignored points / posts. I realize it is not conducive to an effective debate for posts and points to be ignored, however nor can we expect every post and every point to be responded to.
This is a casual, relaxed venue for discussion without formal rules you would expect at a debate seminar hosted by a university. I find this relaxed atmosphere refreshing. However, a constitution and perhaps a set of more detailed 'guidlines' for this politics forum would improve the level of discourse and yet retain the relaxed, casual atmosphere we enjoy here.
Therefore, instead of assuming a point or post is conceded if it is ignored, we'll need to make it clear that on this forum, posters are expected to state when a point or a post is conceded.
Example:
"I agree with your first and 3rd points, but as for your second point it discounts the possibility that blah blah blah..."
If we make it a requirement that posters are to state when points are conceded, we don't have to go ahead and say we are going to ignore someone for trolling or flaming them each and every time. That would get as tedious as responding to every ridiculous point / post some people <cough, cough> (look above for example) make.
I agree 100% with this (yes, including that my posts are ridiculous) , and it's in no way competitive with anything I said. It would be 100% preferrable to see a person responding to someone acknowledge every point made by the previous poster.
That being said, your system, while ideal, would still require the person conceding points to actively concede points. That is problematic for two reasons:
1: Some people have trouble admitting defeat on an issue, and will actively try to skirt an issue as opposed to answering it head on (hence why I number my arguments in order to prevent such from happening)
2: Some people simply don't know the code (although that would be solved through finalization and promotion of the constitution)
In regards to #1 specifically, we would need a contingency plan so that when a person is irresponsible in answering points (deliberately ignoring the 1st and 3rd point in your example, as opposed to acknowledging them), we can:
A: punish them accordingly
B: recognize the person who made the original points, yet was abused with being ignored
In this case, an assumed concession, as I have argued, may be considered the best option, as the punishment fits the crime, and for the reasons I have stated above.
Are you being serious?
> xeno syndicated wrote:
> You Fool,
Well, according to Zarf, if you ignore a post, you conceed whatever point that post was making.
Correction: If you ignore a specific point yet post anyway, you concede the argument. I fully understand if you just stop posting in a thread for some reason. However, at the point where you keep the discussion alive, yet ignore the posts of other people, I would argue that is a concession.
As a model
Post 1: OP, contains 3 points
Post 2: Disagrees with OP, answers all 3 of OP's points, plus introduces 4 arguments
Post 3: OP, answers all 3 responses to his points, plus answers 3 of Post 2's arguments
In this scenario, I would say that for the sake of fairness and promoting debate, OP should be considered to have functionally conceded that argument.
Reason being:
1: Such a stance prevents sides from doing a giant rehashing of old stuff every post.
2: Debaters had their chance in their post just after the answer.
3: Possible solution to concerns with the system: Non-answering answers (I dunno, I'm researching this) should probably be accepted as answers. That being said, a poster is still held to their non-answering answer in later posts (i.e.: if someone said they were still doing research about a particular answer, we should expect an answer at a later date. If they simply ignore it in future posts, with no question as to what has occurred with the research to date, it should be considered functionally conceded).
4: Go ahead and provide one alternative explanation as to why you would answer points 1-7 and 9-14, but skip #8 without a reason posted, assuming I numbered my points correctly? Note: This argument is uniquely true when debating against me. If you've noticed, I number all my arguments most of the time, especially with you. That means you could literally look at your post and say "hmm... a number's missing!"
5: Such a viewpoint encourages debaters to engage one another's posts, rather than spend more time rambling about their side. Your stance would encourage people to simply ignore the points of others and wax poetically about their side of the debate. Without that clash, there's never room for the debate to go further than step 1. Since the Politics forum is about stepping beyond that first layer of talking points and exploring people's viewpoints, we should promote the structure of political discourse which best encourages this.
Now I could understand if your reason for not answering an argument was because you just didn't know it was there. Hence, I would say that for such a rule/guideline to exist, it must complement a rule/guideline that says posters must somehow have a method to ensure individual points are clearly identifiable.
Now in terms of ignoring entire posts, I would say there is an easy way to discern whether it is justified or simply a way of getting out of a debate.
1: We can identify trolling posts easily.
2: If people, such as Flint, decide they are going to ignore others, warning people in advance that they are ignored prevents readers from having the problems of distinguishing between conceded and ignored posts.
3: A simple "I refuse to answer-troll" could suffice, as it is a method to acknowledge that someone did post something, yet not dignify them with a substantive response.
I would say not yet.
We can't start enforcing the rules tightly unless we've first done a rehabilitation campaign of some sort.
I would agree to this, in time. Once non-rule based programs (such as the promotions I am conducting) start to take effect, then the standards in IC Politics will have been raised enough to where we can then start doing a more harsh enforcement of the rules. Until then, you'll simply end up banning way too many people all at once, like WFS said.
I don't mean to be self-promoting, but xeno, you should really get involved in the IC Politics Constitution I'm working on... it seems exactly like your type of thing, actually... IRC, sometime?
That's in extremely bad tastes, WFS... X(
Let's try this again.
Godwin, not Goodwin!
Godwin, not Goodman!
Three! Three wonderful duplicate threads! Ah ah ah ah! [Thunder]
One! One thread!
Which dead white political scholars? Locke, who gave a detailed train of logic to explain what I cited above, at least for the rights he laid out? The US Constitution, which derived its rights from Locke?
And if that's the case, where are the utterly arbitrary rights that, when created, had no functional benefit to being declared rights? For your argument to be true that some people just decided to ride the high horse of rights, there would have to be at least a couple anomalies in terms of rights and their correlation to utility.
> Justinian I wrote:
> The probability of an effect given certain conditions is testable, but it is a stretch of Logic to suddenly call those conditions rights.
So people just sat around and randomly said, "I've got an idea! Let's pull a bunch of random things out of our ass and say everyone deserves them! We'll call them rights!"
@Justinian
What if something is stated as a right because it has benefits to preserve life and improve the state? Isn't "this is beneficial to the well-being of society" an empirically testable hypothesis, thus resulting in an empirically testable right?
Imperial Forum → Posts by The Great Eye
Powered by PunBB, supported by Informer Technologies, Inc.