Tremulous Forum
Community => Off Topic => Topic started by: floodbud on May 18, 2007, 06:28:14 pm
-
http://www.flamewars.freepowerboards.com
Flame there instead of here.
-
Allow guests. I'm not wasting my time logging in just to flame.
-
Allow guests. I'm not wasting my time logging in just to flame.
I only intend to have loyal visitors. And what does it take, five minutes to register, if that?
If you only want to post 1 flame, you're not the right customer.
And guest accounts cause way too much trouble for one person to handle anyway.
-
I'd go there, but all the flame-whores (Lava, Caveman, Plague) are already here. What's the point of going away from where all the action is at?
-
(Lava, Caveman, Plague)
Don't mention my name together with those two. It doesn't look right.
-
(Lava, Caveman, Plague)
Don't mention my name together with those two. It doesn't look right.
Oh, but it does. Every thread that I've been flamed by one of you, it's been by all of you. You're like the three amigos of internet flame-whorage.
-
(Lava, Caveman, Plague)
Don't mention my name together with those two. It doesn't look right.
Oh, but it does. Every thread that I've been flamed by one of you, it's been by all of you. You're like the three amigos of internet flame-whorage.
I suggest you to keep my pretty ass out of that misunderstanding you seem to have with V-Caveman. I suggest it very strongly.
-
(Lava, Caveman, Plague)
Don't mention my name together with those two. It doesn't look right.
Oh, but it does. Every thread that I've been flamed by one of you, it's been by all of you. You're like the three amigos of internet flame-whorage.
I suggest you to keep my pretty ass out of that misunderstanding you seem to have with V-Caveman. I suggest it very strongly.
I would've loved to, but you had to insert you "pretty ass" in there, and make some pretty bitchy comments.
I'll back down, but you'll have to first. Prove you're a better man than I.
-
(Lava, Caveman, Plague)
Don't mention my name together with those two. It doesn't look right.
Oh, but it does. Every thread that I've been flamed by one of you, it's been by all of you. You're like the three amigos of internet flame-whorage.
I suggest you to keep my pretty ass out of that misunderstanding you seem to have with V-Caveman. I suggest it very strongly.
I would've loved to, but you had to insert you "pretty ass" in there, and make some pretty bitchy comments.
I'll back down, but you'll have to first. Prove you're a better man than I.
are you a man? but you act like alittle girl. and this makes me horny
edit: :P ZOMG! pedophiles on my tremulous
-
are you a man? but you act like alittle girl. and this makes me horny
:eek: You scare me!
Lol, I don't even know how else to reply to a gay-rape threat.
-
Flame there instead of here.
I think people missed the point here...?
-
Flame there instead of here.
I think people missed the point here...?
No, I got the point, I just took shameless advantage of it to diss up on Caveman, Lava and Plague. 8)
-
It's not rape if it's consensual, Kobra.
// Well, technically it can be. Gah.
-
Flame there instead of here.
I think people missed the point here...?
No, I got the point, I just took shameless advantage of it to diss up on Caveman, Lava and Plague. 8)
And the next time you do that I will just remove your post.
-
Flame there instead of here.
I think people missed the point here...?
No, I got the point, I just took shameless advantage of it to diss up on Caveman, Lava and Plague. 8)
And the next time you do that I will just remove your post.
And that would be abuse. You're getting too emotionally involved. Have one of the other mods make the calls on a thread if you start getting mad/upset like this again. It clouds your judgement.
-
No, I got the point, I just took shameless advantage of it to diss up on Caveman, Lava and Plague.
It appears not as you are the one always looking like the jerk here. I can't believe how clueless you appear sometimes.
-
(Lava, Caveman, Plague)
Don't mention my name together with those two. It doesn't look right.
Oh, but it does. Every thread that I've been flamed by one of you, it's been by all of you. You're like the three amigos of internet flame-whorage.
Now there's a clan idea!
-
No, I got the point, I just took shameless advantage of it to diss up on Caveman, Lava and Plague. 8)
That is in violation of forum rules. Do not do such things please.
-
No, I got the point, I just took shameless advantage of it to diss up on Caveman, Lava and Plague. 8)
That is in violation of forum rules. Do not do such things please.
Better.
And yes, I'll try to refrain in the future.
EDIT: Diggs, please don't make my posts appear more flammatory than they already are. The smiley indicated it was a playful post. Intentionally omitting it in your qoute shows you have no intention of reasoning with me.
-
And that would be abuse. You're getting too emotionally involved. Have one of the other mods make the calls on a thread if you start getting mad/upset like this again. It clouds your judgement.
i would probably do more than just remove your post if i was lava...
edit: and i don't see how he's getting emotionally involved, you hijacked a thread just to flame him (and others), he warned you that you are violating forum rules. lava croft doesn't care what other people think of him.
-
And that would be abuse. You're getting too emotionally involved. Have one of the other mods make the calls on a thread if you start getting mad/upset like this again. It clouds your judgement.
i would probably do more than just remove your post if i was lava...
Well, you are a moderator. Do your worst.
-
EDIT: Diggs, please don't make my posts appear more flammatory than they already are. The smiley indicated it was a playful post. Intentionally omitting it in your qoute shows you have no intention of reasoning with me.
I definetly don't want to do that. You don't need any help from me. :wink:
-
EDIT: Diggs, please don't make my posts appear more flammatory than they already are. The smiley indicated it was a playful post. Intentionally omitting it in your qoute shows you have no intention of reasoning with me.
I definetly don't want to do that. You don't need any help from me. :wink:
Once again, inflamatory. Don't denounce someone as a flamer and bait them in the same sentance, please.
-
KobraKaine, shut up.
-
Where's the irony police!? People start flaming in a topic that's about shunting their flame-whoreage somewhere else...
I guess their response time over here is just crappy?
-
Wow Lava and Kobra should get married and adopt Caveman and Plague as their children.
just kidding.. btw
Why war?Make Peace!
-
EDIT: Diggs, please don't make my posts appear more flammatory than they already are. The smiley indicated it was a playful post. Intentionally omitting it in your qoute shows you have no intention of reasoning with me.
I definetly don't want to do that. You don't need any help from me. :wink:
Once again, inflamatory. Don't denounce someone as a flamer and bait them in the same sentance, please.
Lava, how was this post out of line?
-
im havin trouble following this
so lava is a guy, i thought he was a girl lol
you forgot to add THORN as a big flamer!!
-
im havin trouble following this
so lava is a guy, i thought he was a girl lol
you forgot to add THORN as a big flamer!!
I guess he (Thorn) just hasn't targetted me with his flames, so I didn't feel it necissary.
(Yeah, the tomb raider referrence threw me off too)
-
I'm quite sure it's not a reference. The name makes sense in its own right.
-
I'm quite sure it's not a reference. The name makes sense in its own right.
How so? I don't understand.
-
I can understand how Lava doesn't want to be associated with Caveman or Plague, because half his flame-wars are with those two people.
-
wtf is wrong with you people.. the man posts a board for this shit and yet you continue to do it here in this very thread.
-
How so? I don't understand.
Go grab a dictionary?
-
The forum rules are actually fairly lax when it comes to flaming. The rule on flaming parenthetically clarifies that flaming that has degraded to mere insults is an offense. It is also stated that moderate insults are allowed.
Though this flaming might not be preferable, no post yet seems to breach the rules. The only post that comes close I'd say was-
KobraKaine, shut up.
What purpose does such a post serve? It is unlikely to encourage KobraKaine to do so. KobraKaine could very easily have been insulted by such an antagonistic phrase. Just catalyst for more flaming.
-
wtf is wrong with you people.. the man posts a board for this shit and yet you continue to do it here in this very thread.
why would i reregister to flame when i could just do it here and have so much more gratification
-
wtf is wrong with you people.. the man posts a board for this shit and yet you continue to do it here in this very thread.
why would i reregister to flame when i could just do it here and have so much more gratification
LOLz
-
I definetly don't want to do that. You don't need any help from me. :wink:
Once again inflamatory.. blah blah blah
EDIT: Diggs, please don't make my posts appear more flammatory than they already are. The smiley indicated it was a playful post. Intentionally omitting it in your qoute shows you have no intention of reasoning with me.
Just pointing out the selfownage before I fall asleep.
-
wtf is wrong with you people.. the man posts a board for this shit and yet you continue to do it here in this very thread.
why would i reregister to flame when i could just do it here and have so much more gratification
Can't go into much detail.. but you won't have to sleep with your eyes open anymore.
-
Seriously, guys...
Flaming sucks!
Those who flame have no sense of guilt, no brain, and usually, no HONOUR.
Why flame people?
Why be nasty?
People doing things like this are the reasons there's ain't world peace yet!
We have no world peace because people just can't UNDERSTAND.
Can't understand EACH OTHER.
When people see one's opinion, and it differs from their own even slightly, they will home in on that point and start telling the other they're wrong!
If one simply see another's opinion, and carelessly misses the point, doesn't try to understand, they will flame!
PLEASE, people! Don't you realise every single person on this forum... on the internet, is a real person with real feelings, behind a real computer, and, most likely, has a real life APART from this!
Others ALSO have friends, family, school, jobs, etc!
I realise I'm being a total hypocrit here by flaming flamers, but someone has to be able to stand up and tell everyone what's really at stake here.
GAWD, It's been a long time since I had an outburst like this...
Now I kindly request the mods to lock this thread.
-
that was heartfelt
and i fully agree
which why i won't say
when i saw the title to this thread
i thought it was something entirely different
-
Cause everyone on the net is a badass.
ROFL at what this produced in responses. Does noone have a sarcasm detector? Does noone realize that the net is where lots of people go to live out their Jet Li/Arnold schwarzenegger fantasies? I always thought that people that get owned in real life enjoy seeing and/or owning people on the net.
And no war? Idealism is nice, useful and gives us something to aspire to, but lack of food tends to throw all of that out of the window. We can discuss philosophy, methods or even social changes that could bring about a world without war, and it will last as long as there is food.
As an experiment, go 4-5 days without food. Then go to the local grocer without your cards or cash. Will you steal some fruit? Will you snag a couple grapes? Will you hold out knowing that the experiment is about to end?
Morality is an extraordinarily beneficial concept for humanity, but it is quite expensive. The price is built in though, so we typically don't notice it anymore.
-
That's pretty ironic. You just don't get it, do you?
Heck, I've had enough of explaining things to people.
@player1, Thank you for having the ability to understand, and use it at the same time. Thank you very much.
-
...maybe it is you who doesn't understand me.
-
That's pretty ironic. You just don't get it, do you?
Heck, I've had enough of explaining things to people.
@player1, Thank you for having the ability to understand, and use it at the same time. Thank you very much.
+1
-
Thanks, bringer.
...maybe it is you who doesn't understand me.
I do understand. But everyone else acting like a fags is NOT a reason to do so yourself. Can you understand that? If we want world peace to be at all vaguely possible each person much start with themselves.
That includes you, and anyone else who reads this, and also everyone who doesn't. DO - YOU - UNDERSTAND?!
-
i can
feel teh heat
flowing through my
bloodstream(like a long and liquid orgasm)
plz stop teh flames
they resurrect
evil
inside of me
<3
-
If we want world peace to be at all vaguely possible each person much start with themselves.
Don't get the philosophy engine started. World peace has not, does not and will never exist. It is proposed as a perfect solution to a non-perfect world and as such a useless idea in itself.
As for this board, flaming, as has been stated by timbo, is allowed. The reason? Because some people on this forum do not feel secure enough to battle with wits instead of harmful words, yet their ideas might still be worth it once they've been run through a sieve of knowledge and relative comparison. Instead of trying to make the world perfect try to make it better.
-
I like how you said "Don't get the philosophy engine started" and promptly followed it with a philosophical view that will no doubt spur on others to do so =D and when i say there is 'no doubt', I know that is so since I shall now make some philosophics in response!
Before I start, I'd like to add that I agree with what you say and that my taking of an opposing view is simply in the best interests of a good discussion.
Have you considered that it might very well be that sort of thinking that keeps the world from major breakthrough? That, you might be perpetuating the idea that such a thing is not possible?
Also, people might have interesting things to say, but their harmful words impede the flow of logical and well structured discussion. Maybe some people have been put off posting on these forums after seeing the manner of the average post.
-
Have you considered that it might very well be that sort of thinking that keeps the world from major breakthrough? That, you might be perpetuating the idea that such a thing is not possible?
It is not possible because conflicts will exist as long as we maintain 'freedom'. And even if we were to contain/eradicate 'freedom' there would still be people resisting. T
he human race is not capable of living without discussions with our current population cap. It wouldn't have been able to with a population cap just over 100.000 and even a 1000 popcap would still result in difference in opinion. Ultimately it is the fact that so many people carry their opinion over to shape other people that is the problem, not the difference in opinion itself.
Also, people might have interesting things to say, but their harmful words impede the flow of logical and well structured discussion. Maybe some people have been put off posting on these forums after seeing the manner of the average post.
Sorry to say but we cannot cater all in all places. The mapping/modding forums are cleared of such posts and should not stop anyone from posting there while feedback has only a small to moderate amount. I expect anyone on the internet to know there are people pretending to be 'e-tough' while being nothing more than arrogant and anyone who could not handle that could probably not handle himself on tremulous servers either.
-
Thanks, bringer.
...maybe it is you who doesn't understand me.
I do understand. But everyone else acting like a fags is NOT a reason to do so yourself. Can you understand that? If we want world peace to be at all vaguely possible each person much start with themselves.
That includes you, and anyone else who reads this, and also everyone who doesn't. DO - YOU - UNDERSTAND?!
Please take the time to fix your self instead of worrying about everyone else first. You can't fix them. Thanks for including me in this particular analysis.. because i need you to tell me this.
-
Tremulous FTW!!! lol.
-
It is not possible because conflicts will exist as long as we maintain 'freedom'. And even if we were to contain/eradicate 'freedom' there would still be people resisting. The human race is not capable of living without discussions with our current population cap. It wouldn't have been able to with a population cap just over 100.000 and even a 1000 popcap would still result in difference in opinion. Ultimately it is the fact that so many people carry their opinion over to shape other people that is the problem, not the difference in opinion itself.
Freedom is ill-defined. Going by my interpretation of 'freedom', I'd say that conflict doesn't have to be part and parcel with freedom. So long as the desire to cause conflict is gone, conflict will never be a freedom exercised.
Opposing opinion doesn't necessitate conflict (by which I mean insults, threats, physical attacks and the like). People can discuss their differing views without need for personal attacks. There might be people willing to impose their beliefs on others at present, but that doesn't mean there will always be.
Sorry to say but we cannot cater all in all places. The mapping/modding forums are cleared of such posts and should not stop anyone from posting there while feedback has only a small to moderate amount. I expect anyone on the internet to know there are people pretending to be 'e-tough' while being nothing more than arrogant and anyone who could not handle that could probably not handle himself on tremulous servers either.
It's quite true that in certain places on this forum, there is little to no flaming. For these places, the discussion is less likely to involve conflicting views/personalities. Where opposing opinion does exist however, discussions easily boil down to flame-wars. These are the places of concern. Even for those who don't play much tremulous, they might come here for a discussion and find abusive comments which turn them away. If that is acceptable then there's no problem. If there are people who don't like the abusive comments, they might want to openly complain about it.
Glunnators comments in particular seemed to reflect his frustration with some people and their tendency to cause grief and upset. He seems to merely want a more well-mannered forum with kinder conversation. He might speak of world peace exaggeratively to help inspire reflection on misdeeds.
Don't think I believe world peace is anything more than an idealised pipe-dream. My personal view is that conflict is a natural occurance when dealing with large scale populations. That said, it is a pleasant thought which might be fun to fight for.
I also believe that forums can become 'well-mannered' if there are enough people visiting the forum to make such things important.
-
've got tears in my eyes.
-
It is not possible because conflicts will exist as long as we maintain 'freedom'. And even if we were to contain/eradicate 'freedom' there would still be people resisting. The human race is not capable of living without discussions with our current population cap. It wouldn't have been able to with a population cap just over 100.000 and even a 1000 popcap would still result in difference in opinion. Ultimately it is the fact that so many people carry their opinion over to shape other people that is the problem,
not the difference in opinion itself.
Freedom is ill-defined. Going by my interpretation of 'freedom', I'd say that conflict doesn't have to be part and parcel with freedom. So long as the desire to cause conflict is gone, conflict will never be a freedom exercised.
Imagine 2 rotating arrows next to each other. They are free to turn 360 degrees. If they point in roughly the same direction they are in agreement. If they point in roughly opposite directions the matters do not cross and if they point towards each other they are in conflict.
This means that 3/4 of the time there will not be a problem. But the time they are pointing at each other is when there will be a problem. They want to convince the other party they are right and the opponent is wrong.
If they did not care for that it would show apathy, nor does it give progress, apathy is when they are pointing in opposite directions and no outcome is made. Now see my next bolded part
Opposing opinion doesn't necessitate conflict (by which I mean insults, threats, physical attacks and the like). People can discuss their differing views without need for personal attacks. There might be people willing to impose their beliefs on others at present, but that doesn't mean there will always be.
Ultimately it is the fact that so many people carry their opinion over to shape other people that is the problem, not the difference in opinion itself.
If they did not want to press their opinion on other people they are no longer thinking, they are merely accepting. There would be no progress.
Sorry to say but we cannot cater all in all places. The mapping/modding forums are cleared of such posts and should not stop anyone from posting there while feedback has only a small to moderate amount. I expect anyone on the internet to know there are people pretending to be 'e-tough' while being nothing more than arrogant and anyone who could not handle that could probably not handle himself on tremulous servers either.
It's quite true that in certain places on this forum, there is little to no flaming. For these places, the discussion is less likely to involve conflicting views/personalities. Where opposing opinion does exist however, discussions easily boil down to flame-wars. These are the places of concern. Even for those who don't play much tremulous, they might come here for a discussion and find abusive comments which turn them away. If that is acceptable then there's no problem. If there are people who don't like the abusive comments, they might want to openly complain about it.
We cannot cater for the poor lost soul who went looking for Bob the Builder and found a thread about deconners and the ensuing flamewar.
Should we cater to that group? No, we cater to people for tremulous. Not for people who want a philosophical, sports or any other kind of discussion. If that means accepting some amount of flaming then yes, we will let it through. But as stated by timbo pure flamewars without any relevance to the discussion are to be locked, and are on occasion.
It would be like a christian anti videogame group coming here and demanding that we cease to play, develop and discuss tremulous. But we are not here for them, we are here for the tremulous community and as such we would not give in. Yet we should give in to a group who has less extreme demands (remove all flaming so we can all live in a happy happy world) but no more relevance than the anti videogame group.
Glunnators comments in particular seemed to reflect his frustration with some people and their tendency to cause grief and upset. He seems to merely want a more well-mannered forum with kinder conversation. He might speak of world peace exaggeratively to help inspire reflection on misdeeds.
He wishes to change the people that post ill mannered material here. But in that way i could ask for all spam to be removed because it upsets threads. But he wouldn't want the fun spam to be removed.
Where would you draw the line? And the fact is it has been drawn, by the responsible administrator timbo, at flames with interweaved useful comments. That's all there is to it.
Don't think I believe world peace is anything more than an idealised pipe-dream. My personal view is that conflict is a natural occurance when dealing with large scale populations. That said, it is a pleasant thought which might be fun to fight for.
Remember the quote fighting for peace is like screwing for virginity? This is why world 'peace' is unattainable and will be unless a single country overthrows all others, a dictator/tyrant is put in place and the population is kept under control. But that isn't real peace either is it.
I also believe that forums can become 'well-mannered' if there are enough people visiting the forum to make such things important.
The more people the more conflict. What you wish for is enough members who discuss without resorting to insults, not mere numbers of members. But if that were the case flaming would hardly exist anyway so that point is moot.
-
Imagine 2 rotating arrows next to each other. They are free to turn 360 degrees. If they point in roughly the same direction they are in agreement. If they point in roughly opposite directions the matters do not cross and if they point towards each other they are in conflict.
This means that 3/4 of the time there will not be a problem. But the time they are pointing at each other is when there will be a problem. They want to convince the other party they are right and the opponent is wrong.
If they did not care for that it would show apathy, nor does it give progress, apathy is when they are pointing in opposite directions and no outcome is made.
In this, the model with which I assume you wish to illustrate your point, you are in my view 'begging the question'. In your model, there will always be a time where the arrows can face each other. This is to sauy there will always be a time where people will impose their beliefs on each other. This is both your premise and your conclusion. Though it might be only natural for this to occur at present, I ask why it should always? In short, I'm proposing a far more dynamic system.
If they did not want to press their opinion on other people they are no longer thinking, they are merely accepting. There would be no progress.
For one, I don't see why people wouldn't be able to think and not force those thoughts on other at the same time. Secondly, I'm not disputing that through conflict there can be considerable progress. The subject of my argument is whether it is possible, not whether it is best.
If you want to discuss what is best, then yes I agree that conflict is very healthy and beneficial. Even in this discussion there is conflict of opinion. Yet we will carry on discussing because it's interesting to do so. That said, you will notice that we haven't resorted to petty name-calling and such. Don't you think this discussion is so much more meaningful without them?
We cannot cater for the poor lost soul who went looking for Bob the Builder and found a thread about deconners and the ensuing flamewar.
Should we cater to that group? No, we cater to people for tremulous. Not for people who want a philosophical, sports or any other kind of discussion. If that means accepting some amount of flaming then yes, we will let it through. But as stated by timbo pure flamewars without any relevance to the discussion are to be locked, and are on occasion.
It would be like a christian anti videogame group coming here and demanding that we cease to play, develop and discuss tremulous. But we are not here for them, we are here for the tremulous community and as such we would not give in. Yet we should give in to a group who has less extreme demands (remove all flaming so we can all live in a happy happy world) but no more relevance than the anti videogame group.
So this forum can only be about tremulous? The general discussion and even the off-topic? If so, you'd better tell me now before I breach the rules any further.
He wishes to change the people that post ill mannered material here. But in that way i could ask for all spam to be removed because it upsets threads. But he wouldn't want the fun spam to be removed.
Where would you draw the line? And the fact is it has been drawn, by the responsible administrator timbo, at flames with interweaved useful comments. That's all there is to it.
In which sense of the word do you mean when you say 'spam'? I don't see repitition or advertising (apart from people advertising their new forums, to which I remain apathetic). So long as you don't define spam as some kinf of post I and others find useful/meaningful/enjoyable then I have no quarrel with you removing them.
Don't think I am arguing for the deletion of flamey-posts. If anything, I would argue against such needless censorship. I'm merely arguing for world peace. Is that so much to ask? ;)
I see why timbo made th rules as such. If you'd kindly look to my original post (the one with my signiture, I mean) You'll see I am willing to highlight this when moderators might forget themselves.
Remember the quote fighting for peace is like screwing for virginity? This is why world 'peace' is unattainable and will be unless a single country overthrows all others, a dictator/tyrant is put in place and the population is kept under control. But that isn't real peace either is it.
My first point would be, to fight for something wouldn't necessarily mean physical attack. You can fight for your breath. You can fight yourself away from temptation. This is the sense I meant it in. To strive for. To work for. To fight for.
You make the assumption that war cannot bring peace. Fighting for peace isn't fighting for there never having been peace (Now that's a screwed-up-tense sentence if ever I've uttered one xD). The idea is to fight now and have peace later.
The more people the more conflict. What you wish for is enough members who discuss without resorting to insults, not mere numbers of members. But if that were the case flaming would hardly exist anyway so that point is moot.
Having more members wouldn't be the solution in itself. The idea is that a consequence of that is for stricter moderation to keep the forum users happy. With the greater number comes greater demand from your average user. If this forum had the same number of users as something like slashdot, we would have a greater pool from which to select mods. We might have a cream of well-mannered high standard posters who could make the points better than the rest, who wouldn't resort to flaming.
I can't be sure about this though. This last point was largely speculation. This is afterall a forum focused around a game that isn't to everyones interest and doesn't always offer that much to be said.
Edit: I think the interest I have in this discussion might be partly motivated by my reading of George Orwell's '1984'. It's a fantastic read and I highly recommend it to you if you haven't yet read it.
-
In this, the model with which I assume you wish to illustrate your point, you are in my view 'begging the question'. In your model, there will always be a time where the arrows can face each other. This is to sauy there will always be a time where people will impose their beliefs on each other. This is both your premise and your conclusion. Though it might be only natural for this to occur at present, I ask why it should always? In short, I'm proposing a far more dynamic system.
Yes, as long as freedom exists there will always be the posibility of conflict. Were you to restrict these metaphorical arrows from rotating towards each other by setting boundaries in the circle you would prevent conflict, but at what cost and what gain?
And please specify your dynamic system. Because saying world peace would mean less discussions is logical, but how are you going to obtain this world peace. Your 'dynamical' system is a name for something which has not been explained.
For one, I don't see why people wouldn't be able to think and not force those thoughts on other at the same time. Secondly, I'm not disputing that through conflict there can be considerable progress. The subject of my argument is whether it is possible, not whether it is best.
Imagine all members of a nuclear energy producing facility. Now there is a problem, and each one thinks for him/herself in a solution and executes it. But some of these solutions are contradictory in that they work against each other and might even worsen the situation. So we reverse, divert and get to a discussion, and all points of view are explained. Yet now we must choose one, preferably the best. How? Discussion, some will have to be forced to be swayed from their opinion or it would go on ad infinitum. Yet this is what your idea would go to. So it is possible, just as it is possible we are in 'the Matrix'. But it is either highly unlikely or simply unwanted because of practical reasons.
If you want to discuss what is best, then yes I agree that conflict is very healthy and beneficial. Even in this discussion there is conflict of opinion. Yet we will carry on discussing because it's interesting to do so. That said, you will notice that we haven't resorted to petty name-calling and such. Don't you think this discussion is so much more meaningful without them?
I am not trying to sway you silly bugger from your opinion :). I am trying to make people(asses) like you understand mine. I fully enjoy in people(idiots) disagreeing with me because as I said how would people understand/how else would I get my day full. I could just as easily rewrite my discussion with flames, you bastard.
See what I did there? My point did not really change, nor what I was saying, merely the method. This is the difference between flaming pur sang and mere embers of arrogance.
So this forum can only be about tremulous? The general discussion and even the off-topic? If so, you'd better tell me now before I breach the rules any further.
No, like in a school there is not only talk of learning and teaching but also gossip, fun, remembrance. But like a school the line is drawn at fights and mere shouting matches because that is not what a school is about, if it were a boxing stadium it might be different. This is how I mean it. This is mainly about tremulous and as such tremulous sets the main line.
In which sense of the word do you mean when you say 'spam'? I don't see repitition or advertising (apart from people advertising their new forums, to which I remain apathetic). So long as you don't define spam as some kind of post I and others find useful/meaningful/enjoyable then I have no quarrel with you removing them.
Spam as in meaningless, not advertisement.
1.6 minutes? roflol
o rly.
I could say the same off the huge ass sigs some members have like i_love_iris_flammea or ShadowNinjaDudeMan because these members usually post 2/3 line replies while having 12 line sigs.
But the fact is this line
So long as you don't define spam as some kind of post I and others find useful/meaningful/enjoyable then I have no quarrel with you removing them.
So we should listen to you and others, and some others which might contradict you, which would ultimately result in people not being able to post at all or post anything they want.
Don't think I am arguing for the deletion of flamey-posts. If anything, I would argue against such needless censorship. I'm merely arguing for world peace. Is that so much to ask? ;)
I'm arguing for comprehension of the human nature. Which is far harder than it should be since humans have it ingrained since they live with it every second of their life.
I see why timbo made the rules as such. If you'd kindly look to my original post (the one with my signiture, I mean) You'll see I am willing to highlight this when moderators might forget themselves.
You need not highlight any of these occasions. We are the forum's moderators. Not the member's. If any moderator would break the set rules he would be relieved of his duties by timbo. This means doing, not saying. That would mean we should ban anyone who posted the words 'kill you', 'rape your ...' etc. But in the heat of discussions, as I have stated a few times already, people are exagarating at exponential levels.
Like I stated in the other thread against Kobrakaine my summary of this issue is the following:
As long as noone is (ab)using their mod powers they are not necessarily acting as a moderator, merely as members of this community.
My first point would be, to fight for something wouldn't necessarily mean physical attack. You can fight for your breath. You can fight yourself away from temptation. This is the sense I meant it in. To strive for. To work for. To fight for.
You make the assumption that war cannot bring peace. Fighting for peace isn't fighting for there never having been peace (Now that's a screwed-up-tense sentence if ever I've uttered one xD). The idea is to fight now and have peace later.
No, the idea to fighting is having your idea/being conquer all the others, but there will always be people disagreeing with you who in turn will fight you again. People disagree on the weirdest issues. Monogamists vs polygamists, maximum speed limit, age of consent. It's all silly buggers.
There is no peace, only at best calm and usually tension between wars.
Having more members wouldn't be the solution in itself. The idea is that a consequence of that is for stricter moderation to keep the forum users happy. With the greater number comes greater demand from your average user. If this forum had the same number of users as something like slashdot, we would have a greater pool from which to select mods. We might have a cream of well-mannered high standard posters who could make the points better than the rest, who wouldn't resort to flaming.
It is all about the quality of the mods as you stated. But this does not mean a bigger pool of users will supply better moderators. Nor will it most likely result in more good moderators. Why? Because the increase in number of 'mod quality' users will pale in comparison to that of members whose posts need moderation and the acting moderators will be forced to a far harsher policy then the one we are currently employing to maintain standards.
Also I would like to detach well-mannered from high standard. Lava again as example of a high standard member, but he isn't someone to dance around the issue as well-mannered people would do. In the same way there are generally well-mannered people posting utter bollocks and deceiving people, it might be in jest but still.
The following example is a member with quite a few posts stating something which might have turned the new member away from tremulous.
The download is free but the activation key costs $49.99, then there's a $5.99 per month subscription fee if you wish to connect to internet servers. There's no fee for hosting servers on your private LAN, though all players will need their own unique key.
I can't be sure about this though. This last point was largely speculation. This is afterall a forum focused around a game that isn't to everyones interest and doesn't always offer that much to be said.
See above.
-
Survivor, Nux
What's with the 20 pages' worth of debate? Somebody hurry up and lose!
-
Seriously, I really can't be bothered to read an entire pages worth of 100 line philosiphical arguments.
-
Seriously, I really can't be bothered to read an entire pages worth of 100 line philosiphical arguments.
which is why flaming is so much more fun
but seriously @ the anti-flamers, plz realize that sometimes ppl don't have all day to read informed, well-thought-out, extensive posts
so "STFU & GTFO" sum up their position nicely and they can move on to the next thread
people read these forums with differing levels of involvement
and sometimes a quick
"you so stupid"
is what wraps up their thoughts most cogently
-
OK, GUYS! I get it! I give up!
Sure, you want to ruin the only hope of world peace by saying it's not possible?
sure, ruin it for not only yourself, but for all of us.
Go ahead, be a mindless drone in the machine of society.
one day, I will break free! :evil:
-
OK, GUYS! I get it! I give up!
Sure, you want to ruin the only hope of world peace by saying it's not possible?
sure, ruin it for not only yourself, but for all of us.
Go ahead, be a mindless drone in the machine of society.
one day, I will break free! :evil:
I'm with you! :evil: I will break free!
-
I'll divorce and break free from you, with half your assets!
Mwahahahahaaa.
-
OK, GUYS! I get it! I give up!
Sure, you want to ruin the only hope of world peace by saying it's not possible?
sure, ruin it for not only yourself, but for all of us.
Go ahead, be a mindless drone in the machine of society.
one day, I will break free! :evil:
Heroric dreams or foolish disillusions?
The latter.
-
Read if you are 'Survivor'
These quotes are getting awkward. Hopefully this will still make sense without them.
The dynamical system I speak of, is a world in which certain tendancies can alter over time and can even dissappear completely. Tendancies like conflict. You hold the belief that conflict will always exist (in all honesty, I'd agree with you). I wouldn't call world peace impossible though, just unlikely. What is more likely is the far less ambitious conception of 'forum peace'. This wouldn't mean no opposing opinion, but an absense of harsh terminology. People can get along in small groups- they don't have to but they can!
Your point about the need for explicit decision is a very good one and I fully appreciate how such situations are at the heart of much conflict.
Your hurtful words shocked me at first :'(. If we weren't on better terms, I could have seen that as a genuine verbal attack. Were I not so well-mannered I might have retaliated, or vowed to burn effigies in your likeness.. but yes, I understand that the 'manner' of the post doesn't always reflect it's content.
Good to know I can carry on discussing this without it being about tremulous =) It's a nice and big discussion (though it's a shame only us two seem to enter into it).
So long as enough people are posting long and meanful posts and that these people don't care for the 'spam', there should be little consequence from deleting the smaller less meaningful posts, or 'spam'. If however, what you see as spam is what the majority sees as meaningful (say for example f0rqu3 who recently gave resignation to this forum with much protest from it's fellow users) then this might cause unnecessary upset. So spam, I would argue, isn't necessarily equivelant to flaming. Flaming is defined somewhat by it's intention to upset.
I see your points about human nature. I could have just as easily put myself on your side of this debate, but I feel as though that would have been less interesting.
If the mods can be seen as mere members of this community, why needn't I highlight such things?
I mention my original post because it demonstrates my understanding of what the rules are. If this understanding is somehow inaccurate, it gives you the oppurtunity to point that out.
Constant bickering between strongly opinionated peoples certainly seems like the usual state of affairs. We can only hope it doesn't have to be this way. You evidentally have little hope for such a thing. I don't blame you. ;)
Statistically speaking, with a bigger pool will comes a greater likelyhood of finding your preferable case. You are right in pointing out that this doesn't necessarily out-weigh the problems in dealing with a larger pool.
Well mannered isn't the same as high standard, you're quite right. Though I meant only to list the two preferable characteristics it is still a good point to make. I would hope that you don't see what I post as 'empty'. I try to offer views on the subject that might not have been fully explored.
Lastly that post that might have 'turned the new member away' is not the sort of post I was refering to. Though this post might have turned him away, at least it was for a technical reason and not an insulting one.
Read if you are 'Anyone'
Sorry guys for the huge posts =)
-
Heroric dreams or foolish disillusions?
The latter.
Stfu. You're just a sad ol' fart behind a puter saying life's shit, aren't you?
If you're not, you're sadder than I thought.
Stop pissing me off. If a guy has a dream, let him dream. Just because you don't think it's possible doesn't mean it isn't. There are many historic proofs to that. Remember columbus?
I'll find my way here. Now, to sum it up, stfu and gtfo. It seems the only language you can understand, dun't it? Hell, I hate when people act like you do.
Stop. Pissing. Me. Off.
I will break free, and I'll take everyone with me who I think'd be worthy. That last post proved yourself doomed to be a cog in the system.
I'm gonna get outta here. Back to humanity.
Oh, and learn to spell. Or type.
-
Your heart seems to be in the right place, Glunny. Try not to let people who criticise so baselessly get to you. They can say these things casually with no regard for your feelings. Chin up =)
I might point out though that:
Following Washington Irving's myth-filled 1828 biography of Columbus, Americans commonly believed Columbus had difficulty obtaining support for his plan because Europeans thought the Earth was flat.[2] In fact, few at the time of Columbus’s voyage, and virtually no sailors or navigators, believed this.[3] Most agreed Earth was a sphere.
But I understand your meaning anyway =)
-
Thanks Nux.
-
Half of that stuff you wrote is way over my head; I'm startingg an essay that's due tomorrow, all I understand is this stupid book right now. Regardless of that, I'm on your side Glunn.
-
Heroric dreams or foolish disillusions?
The latter.
Stfu. You're just a sad ol' fart behind a puter saying life's shit, aren't you?
If you're not, you're sadder than I thought.
Stop pissing me off. If a guy has a dream, let him dream. Just because you don't think it's possible doesn't mean it isn't. There are many historic proofs to that. Remember columbus?
I'll find my way here. Now, to sum it up, stfu and gtfo. It seems the only language you can understand, dun't it? Hell, I hate when people act like you do.
Stop. Pissing. Me. Off.
I will break free, and I'll take everyone with me who I think'd be worthy. That last post proved yourself doomed to be a cog in the system.
I'm gonna get outta here. Back to humanity.
Oh, and learn to spell. Or type.
Yes, obviously. Why didn't I get a personal rant? :(
-
Heroric dreams or foolish disillusions?
The latter.
Stfu. You're just a sad ol' fart behind a puter saying life's shit, aren't you?
If you're not, you're sadder than I thought.
Stop pissing me off. If a guy has a dream, let him dream. Just because you don't think it's possible doesn't mean it isn't. There are many historic proofs to that. Remember columbus?
I'll find my way here. Now, to sum it up, stfu and gtfo. It seems the only language you can understand, dun't it? Hell, I hate when people act like you do.
Stop. Pissing. Me. Off.
I will break free, and I'll take everyone with me who I think'd be worthy. That last post proved yourself doomed to be a cog in the system.
I'm gonna get outta here. Back to humanity.
Oh, and learn to spell. Or type.
Lol.
Just because I don't believe that world peace is possible (which it isn't.. not unless someday we become cyborgs/andriods and are specifically programmed not to have conflict/difference of opinion) doesn't mean I don't want world peace. I don't think anyone truely wants to have conflict in their lives. I'm merely pointing out the realism of world peace - it's not going to happen. Besides, what kind of world would the earth be everyone co-existed alongside each other without ANY conflict? Aside from an impossible one, it would be a fascist society.
-
No one cares what you think, Plague. Do you want to know why?
It's because your are a fucktard, that's why.
-
Read if you are 'Nux'
The dynamical system I speak of, is a world in which certain tendancies can alter over time and can even dissappear completely. Tendancies like conflict. You hold the belief that conflict will always exist (in all honesty, I'd agree with you). I wouldn't call world peace impossible though, just unlikely. What is more likely is the far less ambitious conception of 'forum peace'. This wouldn't mean no opposing opinion, but an absense of harsh terminology. People can get along in small groups- they don't have to but they can!
Yes, but again I can call a parallel to school. They're known as cliques. And they can work just about with some other allied cliques when they have to without too many problems. But when a certain point comes up the allegiances shift.
In a forum this problem is that it happens all the time since these points can differ from thread to thread. Would it not be far better for people to be themselves, so other people know how to interpret someone's post instead of suddenly having to read a feisty post from someone who in the last thread was friendly and submissive? I am for clarity of method in dealing with someone more than for short-term solutions.
Your hurtful words shocked me at first :'(. If we weren't on better terms, I could have seen that as a genuine verbal attack. Were I not so well-mannered I might have retaliated, or vowed to burn effigies in your likeness.. but yes, I understand that the 'manner' of the post doesn't always reflect it's content.
And that is why removing all flaming might just as well remove a lot of useful information. Maybe even more than we would gain from the calm people that you suppose would settle.
Good to know I can carry on discussing this without it being about tremulous =) It's a nice and big discussion (though it's a shame only us two seem to enter into it).
The others who are interested read, but they might be afraid to enter their opinions on matters. Maybe they are scared by our calm, as if we are Zen-masters of discussion :p
So long as enough people are posting long and meanful posts and that these people don't care for the 'spam', there should be little consequence from deleting the smaller less meaningful posts, or 'spam'. If however, what you see as spam is what the majority sees as meaningful (say for example f0rqu3 who recently gave resignation to this forum with much protest from it's fellow users) then this might cause unnecessary upset. So spam, I would argue, isn't necessarily equivelant to flaming. Flaming is defined somewhat by it's intention to upset.
f0rqu3's resignation came almost immediatly after I had to edit a post of his twice for containing images not allowed on this board. And it is vxczet, who has left many times before and will probably still be back. But the thing that matters is that he was not above the rules. The warning was out and he chose to go himself, some call it honorable, others call it attentionwhoring. Were he banned with the reason posted less people would have protested his leave. And to define the meaning of spam on a forum. Spam: "posts with the intention of disrupting a discussion by derailing a thread or getting it locked."
As such flames can be included in spam, and most often true flames are spam as correlated by the fact that a discussion which has degraded in purely namecalling has derailed a thread. But spam might also be posting 'waffles' after which the discussion proceeds about foodgoods. Yet still it does not serve the thread's discussion. See what I mean?
I see your points about human nature. I could have just as easily put myself on your side of this debate, but I feel as though that would have been less interesting.
Yes, you need two sides to discuss.
If the mods can be seen as mere members of this community, why needn't I highlight such things?
No, when they are not using their moderation privileges they are members. They are moderaters only when acting their part in keeping this forum clean by using their powers. You cannot report someone for moderator abuse when the most he has done is doing as much as a normal member can while staying within the rules.
I mention my original post because it demonstrates my understanding of what the rules are. If this understanding is somehow inaccurate, it gives you the oppurtunity to point that out.
It is not inaccurate, it is misapplied. To understand this the following. Lava was replying to
EDIT: Diggs, please don't make my posts appear more flammatory than they already are. The smiley indicated it was a playful post. Intentionally omitting it in your qoute shows you have no intention of reasoning with me.
I definetly don't want to do that. You don't need any help from me. :wink:
Once again, inflamatory. Don't denounce someone as a flamer and bait them in the same sentance, please.
That act can be seen as trolling (he is doing exactly that which he says diggs shouldn't do, or impersonating a moderator (telling diggs to stop according to the rules).
What lava was trying to do was end this trollspree. But while I would have sayed 'stop trolling'/'quit with the lures' kaine he said 'shut up' kaine. But to understand this you have to know the person posting it. And everyone knows Lava, some people just not as good as they should to interpret his posts.
Constant bickering between strongly opinionated peoples certainly seems like the usual state of affairs. We can only hope it doesn't have to be this way. You evidentally have little hope for such a thing. I don't blame you. ;)
Everybody is strongly opinionated, there simply are some people who are more vocal about it then others.
Statistically speaking, with a bigger pool will comes a greater likelyhood of finding your preferable case. You are right in pointing out that this doesn't necessarily out-weigh the problems in dealing with a larger pool.
:)
Well mannered isn't the same as high standard, you're quite right. Though I meant only to list the two preferable characteristics it is still a good point to make. I would hope that you don't see what I post as 'empty'. I try to offer views on the subject that might not have been fully explored.
It is not empty, your points are certainly in the right direction. But sometimes I must point out fallacies because they are exactly that, false. An argument based on false facts is worthless and by showing your opponent that you hope he does better the next time to persuade you in another discussion. That is what makes these threads so interesting. Not the instawins but the battles of wits.
Lastly that post that might have 'turned the new member away' is not the sort of post I was refering to. Though this post might have turned him away, at least it was for a technical reason and not an insulting one.
It wasn't a technical one. It was about tremulous. And it was made by taiyo.uk. A respected member with a medium postcount. Yet someone who didn't know better, with less than 10 posts got this advice from someone who seems trustworthy. This is why I say well-mannered is not really as necessary as trustworthy and knowledgable. Now is it not a far worse lie because it seemed so trustworthy?
-
Geez guys, I already made a different forum for this. Take your flaming there...its free. Also make your own powerboard using freepowerboards.com cause I get stuff if you do.
Who am I quoting here?
Arguing on the internet is like entering the special olympics...
even if you win, you're still retarded.
Be sensible.
-
...on this side of the breach
No one cares what (Kobra) think(s), Plague. Do you want to know why?
It's because (he likes to say) fucktard, that's why.
@Nux: well-fought
@Survivor: I doff my hat to your reason & logic, sir
-
maybe this should be locked, and all but my posts deleted. :roll:
Play with fire in the containment area plz.
can't we all be brothers?
This forum was made for the express purpose of discussing Tremulous, not flaming. It was made for social territory as well (not anti-social territory). There is a forum for flaming, it's in my sig. Stop ruining this thread with your ironic flaming.
-
maybe this should be locked, and all but my posts deleted. :roll:
Play with fire in the containment area plz.
yes, this off-topic thread about flaming
thx 4 making one
can't we all be brothers?
This thread was made for the express purpose of discussing my sig (http://www.freepowerboards.com/flamewars/login.php), wich is about flaming. It was made for social territory as well as anti-social territory. There is a forum for flaming, it's this thread (http://tremulous.net/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=4818). Stop ruining this thread with your ironic flaming.
:grenade: :eek: :P
-
@Plague
Ever thought the reason it's not possible would be because of guys like you?
It is possible. In fact, it's VERY possible. All we need is enough of the right people in the right places to say the right words at the right people who'd LISTEN.
And I'm done discussing this. I already said I've had enough of explaining things to people. If you can't figure it all out yourself by now you're truly nothing but a meddlesome f*cktard, pardon my french. And I hate french.
I am now DONE posting in this flame-forsaken thread, and won't post more, and so won't listen to any more of your shite. If you want to say more, PM me. I now request that a mod re-posts the link to the flame forums and then LOCK THIS THREAD NOW.
Thank you.
-
glunny, you've just proven the point of those who you say are wrong...
-
Survivor, you've got 1 message
That which I have not quoted I feel as though we are in agreement.
No, when they are not using their moderation privileges they are members. They are moderaters only when acting their part in keeping this forum clean by using their powers. You cannot report someone for moderator abuse when the most he has done is doing as much as a normal member can while staying within the rules.
I wouldn't call lavas post mod-abuse. Nor would I call it a breach of the rules. In my mention of it, I stated how no post in this thread seemed to break the rules. I highlighted lavas post because it was the closest i could find to a breach of the rules. In the same post I asked what purpose the post served. It could be seen as an effort to keep things in check, but if so it would be a poor one. As I said originally "It is unlikely to encourage KobraKaine to do so. KobraKaine could very easily have been insulted by such an antagonistic phrase. Just catalyst for more flaming".
It is not empty, your points are certainly in the right direction. But sometimes I must point out fallacies because they are exactly that, false. An argument based on false facts is worthless and by showing your opponent that you hope he does better the next time to persuade you in another discussion. That is what makes these threads so interesting. Not the instawins but the battles of wits.
False, eh? ;)
It wasn't a technical one. It was about tremulous. And it was made by taiyo.uk. A respected member with a medium postcount. Yet someone who didn't know better, with less than 10 posts got this advice from someone who seems trustworthy. This is why I say well-mannered is not really as necessary as trustworthy and knowledgable. Now is it not a far worse lie because it seemed so trustworthy?
Out of context I must have misunderstood the post. This post was about tremulous? Was he intentionally misleading? If so, though it might have been in jest, taiyo.uk should have shown more consideration and tact.
Player1, you've got less than a full message
It aint over till the fat lady ___?
-
dies
me am love mad libs
edit:
mini-poll
Who will lock this thread? _________
Who will provide the lockable post? __________
-
ok angry time done now we all do group hug
-
ok angry time done now we all do group hug
thank you
how's t3h nu clan?
was rooting for cg~
where ya playin' l8tly?
ok cya ig i hope
on my team
btw, @ OP: ur posts wouldn't be even half as funny without our posts
-
No, when they are not using their moderation privileges they are members. They are moderaters only when acting their part in keeping this forum clean by using their powers. You cannot report someone for moderator abuse when the most he has done is doing as much as a normal member can while staying within the rules.
I wouldn't call lavas post mod-abuse. Nor would I call it a breach of the rules. In my mention of it, I stated how no post in this thread seemed to break the rules. I highlighted lavas post because it was the closest i could find to a breach of the rules. In the same post I asked what purpose the post served. It could be seen as an effort to keep things in check, but if so it would be a poor one. As I said originally "It is unlikely to encourage KobraKaine to do so. KobraKaine could very easily have been insulted by such an antagonistic phrase. Just catalyst for more flaming".
Seems I've misread it then. If you were going for 'seems closest to' you were correct.
It is not empty, your points are certainly in the right direction. But sometimes I must point out fallacies because they are exactly that, false. An argument based on false facts is worthless and by showing your opponent that you hope he does better the next time to persuade you in another discussion. That is what makes these threads so interesting. Not the instawins but the battles of wits.
False, eh? ;)
I usually hate reusing my examples but this one fits the bill just right. I used it to explain to a friend of mine, she's doing something along the lines psychology, that not all facts are as clearcut as they seem. Be reminded that I use a precept here which has not been proven but been put in by me to make my case clear. Here it comes.
Start simulation.
Subject environment: Driver's license test
Subject: Which sex is the better driver.
Facts:
It is only a differentiation between succeeding in a single vs multiple tests.
Males: 80% succeed first try, 20% do not.
Females: 40% succeed first try 60% do not.
Common assumption: Men are better drivers since more of them pass first try.
Misinterpretation of incomplete facts possible.
Backstudy: 90% of the people who played with cars when they were little succeed first try. This groups includes members of the male sex as well as those of the female sex.
Backstudy facts:
Males: 89% played with cars, 11% didn't
Females: 45% played with cars , 55% didn't
End example. (Do note the backstudy is fictious. But it has been proven that the driver's sex has no influence on driving skill, I merely put in a clear example of what could be the real reason for simplicity's sake.)
Interpretation when you are not in possesion of all the facts is risky. Especially if the analytical mind gets persuaded about things it asumes to be right, or describes as right but which are actually wrong or irrelevant. It's like building a bridge on a pillar that is made of wood when it should have been made of concrete to withstand the expected storm. If you do not prepare at the start of a discussion your words will come to bite you later. Especially on a forum where each and every post in a discussion is recorded.
It wasn't a technical one. It was about tremulous. And it was made by taiyo.uk. A respected member with a medium postcount. Yet someone who didn't know better, with less than 10 posts got this advice from someone who seems trustworthy. This is why I say well-mannered is not really as necessary as trustworthy and knowledgable. Now is it not a far worse lie because it seemed so trustworthy?
Out of context I must have misunderstood the post. This post was about tremulous? Was he intentionally misleading? If so, though it might have been in jest, taiyo.uk should have shown more consideration and tact.
:)
-
This has been a hilarious thread, and I just wanted to give a shoutout to all my peoples what participated in this here discussion. Especially those who did so without registering for any other board. You know who you are. Much respect.
To the OP, floodbud, I just gotta say, nobody can start 'em like you can, my man. Your threads spontaneously combust like a Spinal Tap drummer with a pyro fetish. Bravo. Spot on. First, the Rules (http://tremulous.net/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=4118). Then, the Guest Account (http://tremulous.net/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=4771). I'll assume for a minute the clan was in earnest. Oh yeah, the Mods Suck (http://tremulous.net/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=4479) thread. floodbud should have run further from his own nade...:grenade::grenade::grenade::grenade::grenade: zp4m!
To Nux and Survivor, who provided the bulk of the evening's entertainment, kudos. Nicely fought.
@Glunnator: Cheer up, it's just t3h intarwebz. We're gamerz, and might not have social skillz.
To all the participatory posterz: Yo, big ups, y'all! :grenade: NADE!
edited for linkage to OP's literary progeny
-
That statistical demonstration there reminded me of 'Simpson's paradox'. In essence it demonstrates that percentages by themselves don't give the full story. It does this by giving two cases in which Choice A has a better percentage than Choice B, yet when the two cases are combined for each choice it is Choice B that has the better overall percentage. If you want more clarification I suggest you visit the wikipedia article:
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simpson's_paradox" <--(couldn't get link to do what I wanted =/)
But yeah, the facts can be a bugger to find sometimes. Sorta like blood out of stone but less messy.
Though entertaining you guys has been a happy bi-product, it's been a good discussion to be a part of =) Thanks Mr. Survivor, it was really.. Hold on.. Aaaargh!! A NADE!!!
-
That statistical demonstration there reminded me of 'Simpson's paradox'. In essence it demonstrates that percentages by themselves don't give the full story. It does this by giving two cases in which Choice A has a better percentage than Choice B, yet when the two cases are combined for each choice it is Choice B that has the better overall percentage. If you want more clarification I suggest you visit the wikipedia article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simpson's_paradox <--(couldn't get link to do what I wanted =/) me neither
But yeah, the facts can be a bugger to find sometimes. Sorta like blood out of stone but less messy.
Though entertaining you guys has been a happy bi-product, it's been a good discussion to be a part of =) Thanks Mr. Survivor, it was really.. Hold on.. Aaaargh!! A NADE!!!
I thought Simpson's paradox was whether to say "Doh!" or "Woo-Hoo!".... :D :) :wink: 8)
http://exploringdata.cqu.edu.au/sim_par.htm <- alt source
http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.cfm?release=2007-061 <- wet mars?
-
@Plague
Ever thought the reason it's not possible would be because of guys like you?
It is possible. In fact, it's VERY possible. All we need is enough of the right people in the right places to say the right words at the right people who'd LISTEN.
And I'm done discussing this. I already said I've had enough of explaining things to people. If you can't figure it all out yourself by now you're truly nothing but a meddlesome f*cktard, pardon my french. And I hate french.
I am now DONE posting in this flame-forsaken thread, and won't post more, and so won't listen to any more of your shite. If you want to say more, PM me. I now request that a mod re-posts the link to the flame forums and then LOCK THIS THREAD NOW.
Thank you.
:roll: If you don't want to face reality, cut off all outside communications and hide in your bedroom. Honestly, the concept of world peace is noble but foolish. It is NOT possible. You certaintly haven't shown any effort on your part to embrace me peacefully, demonstrating that conflict is commonplace and, most importantly, a NORMAL occurence among human beings.
-
If the world were conflict-free, wouldn't we all eventually get so bored that we'd say "Fuck it" and commi-- oh, whoops. That'd be conflict.
-
@everyone:
I plead the fifth?
Seriously, why can't we all poke some fun at each other in a place where racist, sexist, religionist, specific anger, etc. has its place?
I'm not going to register an account just to flame
Oh really? Could have fooled me.
To the OP, floodbud, I just gotta say, nobody can start 'em like you can, my man. Your threads spontaneously combust like a Spinal Tap drummer with a pyro fetish. Bravo. Spot on. First, the Rules. Then, the Guest Account. I'll assume for a minute the clan was in earnest. Oh yeah, the Mods Suck thread. floodbud should have run further from his own nade...GrenadeGrenadeGrenadeGrenadeGrenade zp4m!
Uh, thanks I guess. Is it the way I talk? Maybe my tone of voice is too deep and impressive?
The Rules. :oops: I'm still embarassed about that, even though I do follow those rules. Maybe an audience who appreciates being allowed to play on all servers, not just some, would like that more.
Re-read the Guest account thread. I apologized, admitted it was a stupid idea, and backed down with no flaming from me.
The no more moderation thread was a spoof, re-read that one too. I really do love mods, and I have more respect for risujin (for his Balance mod and Relic mod), and the maker of TremX, than for anyone else on this forum.
The clan was in earnest, I really do use the clan tag .:AoH:., and I talk with Fragged sometimes. Mormons rock!!!!!! -and don't you forget it.
I apologize for inadvertently starting flames by not flaming. I think the bandwagon is trying to kill me. At least nobody knows where I live...
@Plague: Conflict is necessary, personal attacks are not. I got sick of flaming at the very beginning, and decided never to do it again.
-
dude
we still <3 u man
u play tremulous
so you're cool by association