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.
