|
The point is, most of us have jobs and responsibilities and don't want to have to deal with this crap on the board we go to to relax. This isn't just about Pathfinder, it is about the Paizo community. You say you find it "amusing" when CoL has a go at someone. I am offended that people I respect are being disrespected by juvenile hooligans. The difference in our reactions probably means that you are not really connected with the community at large, and see this purely as "Pathfinder RPG" and not "the broader Paizo community". Up to you, but then please stop telling us ("man up", get thicker skins) what to do if you don't give a damn how any of us feel.
For me, it's about Pathfinder, which is why I'm here, engaging with the community. Nearly all the conversations in which I'm interested are about Pathfinder and certainly all the one's I'm talking about here are about Pathfinder. I'm aware that there are other discussions going on and I am more likely to take part in those once I've learnt a bit about people from the Pathfinder discussions -- the same as on rpg.net, where I was involved in the gaming discussions before going to Tangency -- but the reason I came here was to see what was going on with the game playtest, etc.
I find the way that CoL has a go at people 'amusing', not the fact of someone being had a go at. He's a pretty funny guy, I find. Personal taste again, obviously. Again, you call him (or people like him, I guess) "juvenile hooligans". That is obviously an insult of its own, in this case in response to how you feel that other people are treated; I say, 'insult away', same as I do for CoL.
I have also made abundantly clear that you can do what you want -- I said twice that not only do I have no authority over people but that even if I did, I wouldn't attempt to use it to tell people how to be -- and when I said 'man up' it was in a statement about possibility, to wit: "...I presume that everyone else can man up and take it". It's my preference, sure, that people are less sensitive to offence. It's your preference that people don't give offence to or in sight of those people that are sensitive to it. We each have preferences, which is no surprise. I'm don't mean to be telling you what to do, however (and if I unguardedly have appeared to be, I have in mitigation and in my defence, as I mentioned above, twice explicitly stated that I have no interest in telling people what to do even if I had the authority to tell them what to do, which I don't).
I will add, tediously and again, that this is just about opinions. Mine are different to yours. I don't think that CoL is a 'juvenile hooligan' and if I did, I would say it here. However, you are (as per my preference) welcome to, and he is welcome to call people 'retarded'. You can call me a 'juvenile hooligan', for that matter, and he can call me 'retarded', or vice versa, and I don't care about that, either; I won't agree with you, most likely, but then, I wouldn't (as almost no one thinks that they, themselves, are 'juvenile hooligans' or 'retarded'). Lastly, you can both apply those descriptions, or others, to anyone else on the boards and I also won't be offended (ironically, I would more likely be offended if the denigrating description 'retarded' was actually used to describe someone that genuinely was developmentally disabled, but I guess I must have a soft heart).
Anyhow. We disagree, which is to say that we have different opinions.
|
The point is, most of us have jobs and responsibilities and don't want to have to deal with this crap on the board we go to to relax. This isn't just about Pathfinder, it is about the Paizo community. You say you find it "amusing" when CoL has a go at someone. I am offended that people I respect are being disrespected by juvenile hooligans. The difference in our reactions probably means that you are not really connected with the community at large, and see this purely as "Pathfinder RPG" and not "the broader Paizo community". Up to you, but then please stop telling us ("man up", get thicker skins) what to do if you don't give a damn how any of us feel.For me, it's about Pathfinder, which is why I'm here, engaging with the community. Nearly all the conversations in which I'm interested are about Pathfinder and certainly all the one's I'm talking about here are about Pathfinder. I'm aware that there are other discussions going on and I am more likely to take part in those once I've learnt a bit about people from the Pathfinder discussions -- the same as on rpg.net, where I was involved in the gaming discussions before going to Tangency -- but the reason I came here was to see what was going on with the game playtest, etc.
I find the way that CoL has a go at people 'amusing', not the fact of someone being had a go at. He's a pretty funny guy, I find. Personal taste again, obviously. Again, you call him (or people like him, I guess) "juvenile hooligans". That is obviously an insult of its own, in this case in response to how you feel that other people are treated; I say, 'insult away', same as I do for CoL.
I have also made abundantly clear that you can do what you want -- I said twice that not only do I have no authority over people but that even if I did, I wouldn't attempt to use it to tell people how to be -- and when I said 'man up' it was in a statement about possibility, to wit: "...I presume that everyone else can man up and take it". It's my...
Bagpuss, no disprespect but - you sounded almost grumpy there. A thicker skin needed?
It is quite easy to be amused by the negative antics of others if you are not on the receiving end. You agree with CoL (which is fine) but it also means that you don't get on the receiving end of his unpleasantness. I was curious to see how you would react to a moderately aggressive post and, actually, you didn't seem to like it much. Not so funny? Maybe you are beginning to understand now.
|
|
Hmmm. Most of the theoretical physicists I know are more of the mutter to themselves and stare at the ceiling while rolling their eyes types. ;-) Likewise, the conferences I've been to (not theoretical physics conferences) have been a lot calmer. I propose some pretty radical stuff in my presentations and I get strongly worded responses. I explore racism in textbooks and have had authors of those textbooks challenge me at conferences. I've always managed to have intelligent discussions with them without either of us throwing anything.
Personally, I was pretty amazed the first time I saw someone blow up like that (I am personally an unemotional sort, myself), but it does, as I said, take all sorts. And when two people have actually contradicted each other in print? Hoo boy, that occasionally does get hot (but that's OK, because it's the viewing community that decide the winner, really, and they do it by considering the merits and ignoring the emotion, which is obviously something that drives science, or at least ought to, so that we can do it even when some of us are emotional sorts).
Who was it who said that in academia the conflicts are so fierce precisely because the stakes are so low?
It was Kissinger, I think, and he was right. Of course, now that wages are approaching decent (at least in most of the sciences), the stakes are a little higher...
Not sure if I get you here. It is a 'juvenile' discourse style. It is something that most people grow out of. I could have called it 'youthful' but that doesn't carry the negative connotation. 'Retard' and 'retarded' are intended as insults and display insensitivity to the many people who are or have family members who are challenged by cognitive impairments.
As I said in my last post (written whilst you were posting this) I actually dislike the word being applied in a dismissive or taunting manner to developmentally disabled people; I'm not going to get into huge arguments over it, but I think that it's spiteful and unnecessary and the people in question are often unable to defend themselves. I don't really care when it's applied to people that aren't developmentally disabled, though; it's just a word, after all,in that case.
I don't agree with you about 'juvenile' but in any case your full description was 'juvenile power fantasy', which is stronger yet. My only point, though, was that you are prepared to offer what is clearly going to be seen by the target as something of an insult when you believe that it is merited; the key thing here is that different people have different opinions as to when it is merited. The general principle, though, that it's OK to offer insults on this board, so long as it's merited, seems to be something on which you and CoL and others agree, with the disagreement being on when a particular insult is merited. Let me again go on record as saying that I have no problem with that at all.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8
|
When I said 'man up' it was in a statement about possibility, to wit: "...I presume that everyone else can man up and take it". It's my preference, sure, that people are less sensitive to offence.
So, how is theoretical physics doing with the encouraging more women to get into science thing? I'd suggest that this discursive style you are advocating is a particularly 'macho' one.
|
|
Bagpuss, no disprespect but - you sounded almost grumpy there. A thicker skin needed?
No, I'm not grumpy. I am enjoying the discussion, actually (and am, to which I alluded in a previous post, relatively unemotional even in real life, let alone on a forum).
It is quite easy to be amused by the negative antics of others if you are not on the receiving end. You agree with CoL (which is fine) but it also means that you don't get on the receiving end of his unpleasantness. I was curious to see how you would react to a moderately aggressive post and, actually, you didn't seem to like it much. Not so funny? Maybe you are beginning to understand now.
Well, I don't agree with everything he's saying, I just think that he's sparking off a good debate. I do agree, in the thread in question, with more of what he's saying than with what others are saying and I do think that he's grasps the way that the game works underneath better than most or perhaps all of the other people in the thread (and certainly better than I do, of course).
On my response to a "moderately aggressive post", I honestly am not annoyed or irritated or anything like that, not with you or your post (which I hadn't considered to be remotely aggressive, incidentally). As I say, I am finding the discussion highly enjoyable.
As an aside and for general background on how I see things in general, I'm always a little frustrated with myself when I am misunderstood, because I do make some effort to express my opinions clearly and am disappointed when I fail (as inevitably I sometimes will) but my failings are sufficiently frequent that the frustration isn't particularly uncomfortable. None of this, of course, should be taken as any indication that I lack a towering sense of self-worth -- I have it, oh yes -- but merely it should indicate that I instinctively look to myself as the cause of communications failure, which at least has the merit that I am within my own control. However, such confusions are inevitable in forum debate.
|
|
When I said 'man up' it was in a statement about possibility, to wit: "...I presume that everyone else can man up and take it". It's my preference, sure, that people are less sensitive to offence.So, how is theoretical physics doing with the encouraging more women to get into science thing? I'd suggest that this discursive style you are advocating is a particularly 'macho' one.
It's a good question, actually. My field was pretty good, which I think was in large part because it was relatively new. Other fields have had varying success, although my wife's field is also relatively good (and is one of the most macho). What you are saying about this being a macho/male-oriented approach is true, I think -- although there are some women that are in that game, too -- but the 'it takes all sorts' thing means that there's also enough room for other approaches.
To be honest, the big obstacles to women in the field are (at least in the US), in my opinion, pretty cruddy maternity consideration and latent sexism. The existence of abrasive debate could be a small part of the latter, but the problems as a whole are much bigger and wider (and, incidentally, I believe them to be significantly less in theoretical physics than in some of the more practical disciplines within physics, for what it's worth).
My feeling is simply that some sort of minimum productivity vs. insult ratio should be observed. Frank Trollman was insulting as hell, but he contributed original suggestions: a two-tiered game economy, specific mechanical fixes for monks, etc. I was happily willing to put up with his tone as long as he continued to deliver the goods. At some point, though, he and "K" (who, to his credit, early on suggested a possible fix for "scry and die" tactics) decided to rest on their laurels and just snipe at new ideas, instead of making any more positive contributions. At that point, I started to realize they could also be an impediment to discussion, rather than an asset.
Fast-forward. The message that, as written in the Beta, the fighter is a lame duck compared to the wizard, has been clearly made, and demonstrated in at least one place with playtest results. The next step is to propose and refine some actual mechanical fixes -- as Robert Brambley did in the alpha, and as Jess Door is notably trying to do currently. (Kudos also to Jason Nelson, who in particular seems to be spearheading this effort with respect to the paladin as well.) This second step gets derailed, though, if people still tying to "win" step 1 hurl nothing but snark and don't propose any solid, useable mechanics for step 2. ("Use non-OGL feat Q from copyrighted splatbook X" doesn't work unless that feat is altered sufficiently to pass muster. Go ahead and make the alteration, then post it when the feat discussion opens up.)
---
It reminds me of what a tough old industry veteran once told me: "You explained why this won't work, and we understood. But as of right now it's the only plan out there. Until you come up with another one, your contribution to the discussion is over."
|
|
Bagpuss:
So are you uninterested in the possibility that hostile posters, whilst 'toughening up' some posters that they spar with, are desensitizing and turning into possible future monsters others?
Apologies to others for multi-posting, but the forum functionality doesn't seem to include a multiquote button (unless like a moron I have missed it).
I think that the people to whom we might appositely apply the description 'monsters' are that before they even enter a forum. There's a certain sort of person who, it seems, enjoys griefing as an end in itself and it's those people I'd call 'monsters'. I don't think that CoL or any of the others that I've seen here (disclosure: I have only been here a couple of months and I haven't read all the threads) are going to do that to people. And I think that the people that take issue with the behaviour in question -- Aubrey, Tarren Dei, Paris Crenshaw, etc -- are welcome to point that out, too, which is in itself an influence on how things develop.
The clearest difference between CoL, say, and a griefer, other than the fact that he's relatively mild compared to the sort of spitefulness of those types, is that he's clearly putting in significant intellectual effort to making his posts and comments.
I trust that after pages of me defending CoL's right to post that way, he'll come in here and call me and everyone else 'retards'. Which will make me laugh again (I'm obviously a cheap date, forumwise).
|
|
No, I'm not grumpy. I am enjoying the discussion, actually (and am, to which I alluded in a previous post, relatively unemotional even in real life, let alone on a forum).
OK, maybe I misjudged.
I agree that CoL has a good grasp of the game. My reasons for disagreeing with him are actually not about his posting style, but the fact that there are nevertheless serious shortcomings in his analysis (for reference, the 50/50 character level v CR "rule" and the non-buffing/buy-your-own-stuff-your-not-geting-any-spells-from-me "rule"). I pointed them out on the buffing fighters thread but, you see, I don't feel like I entered a debate but instead a shouting match. Instead, he tries a serious of low tricks to get you to go away. We have already been over figments and golems - he couldn't prove me wrong, so suddenly he accused my of being a sock for The Authority - what was the relevance of that? And it went downhill from there.
I don't mind being wrong - I see it as an opportunity to increase my knowledge. But I'm still waiting for CoL to prove me wrong. He seems incapable of doing it. I wait for the analysis. It never comes. He seems unable to grasp that some things are not black and white, even in D&D. I suspect many of us find his credibility quite low because of this.
|
|
It reminds me of what a tough old industry veteran once told me: "You explained why this won't work, and we understood. But as of right now it's the only plan out there. Until you come up with another one, your contribution to the discussion is over."
The particular thread in question, though, is about a cry to stop buffing the fighter/make sure it's not buffed any more. Clearly the response to that is an illustration of why the fighter is still too weak. The reason it's gone on so long is because plenty of people don't agree that the fighter's still too weak (you accept that it is, but not everyone does), in which case the discussion should have continued. In the end, sure, all arguments will have been offered and maybe that's been reached now, but last I looked there was still some merit to what was being discussed.
As for suggestions to fix it, surely some of that is centred around feats, which aren't up for discussion yet? I mean, the fighter is a feat accumulator in 3.x, after all (and moreso in PFRPG)...
Of course, there's also the Bo9S route, by which I mean exploring a more mystical approach (assuming that actually grabbing stuff from Bo9S is sailing too close to the legal wind). He hasn't offered a 20-level progression for something like that, sure, but then there's no real chance that the fighter is going to get replaced by something like that. The answer, if there is one, has to come in feats (and I hope to God they undo the changes to Power Attack...).
|
I suspect many of us find his credibility quite low because of this.
Personally I just find myself ignoring any input from people who feel they must be insulting. I don't care how smart he is, if he's not smart enough to write without insults I figure his ideas aren't important enough for me to even read. I tend to just glide my eyes over certain posts because of this.
|
|
OK, maybe I misjudged.I agree that CoL has a good grasp of the game. My reasons for disagreeing with him are actually not about his posting style, but the fact that there are nevertheless serious shortcomings in his analysis (for reference, the 50/50 character level v CR "rule" and the non-buffing/buy-your-own-stuff-your-not-geting-any-spells-from-me "rule"). I pointed them out on the buffing fighters thread but, you see, I don't feel like I entered a debate but instead a shouting match. Instead, he tries a serious of low tricks to get you to go away. We have already been over figments and golems - he couldn't prove me wrong, so suddenly he accused my of being a sock for The Authority - what was the relevance of that? And it went downhill from there.
I don't mind being wrong - I see it as an opportunity to increase my knowledge. But I'm still waiting for CoL to prove me wrong. He seems incapable of doing it. I wait for the analysis. It never comes. He seems unable to grasp that some things are not black and white, even in D&D. I suspect many of us find his credibility quite low because of this.
I actually agree with him on the golems/figments thing, but it mostly suggests to me that either the rules need to be clearer or else that golem owners need to be more careful about where they use them (once you know that golems have this weakness, however, it should be possible to arrange things to make it much harder to exploit, after all). However, I do think that accusing you of being a sock is pointless (much as it was when CoL was accused by someone of being a LogicNinja sock). On the plus side, it also won't convince anyone and will, thus, achieve nothing.
I would say that the strength of his arguments are most when it's numerical or based on combinations of things. However, outside of that there's much more difficulty in 'proving wrong'; indeed, as you allude to with the 'buy your own' thing, the choice of metrics of goodness is, itself, opinion-dependent.
|
|
I think that the people to whom we might appositely apply the description 'monsters' are that before they even enter a forum. There's a certain sort of person who, it seems, enjoys griefing as an end in itself and it's those people I'd call 'monsters'. I don't think that CoL or any of the others that I've seen here (disclosure: I have only been here a couple of months and I haven't read all the threads) are going to do that to people. And I think that the people that take issue with the behaviour in question -- Aubrey, Tarren Dei, Paris Crenshaw, etc -- are welcome to point that out, too, which is in itself an influence on how things develop.
CoL is clearly passionate about D&D, and has dedicated a serious portion of his life to it. I can (sort of) respect that. The problem is that I think CoL has a mixed agenda - an ambasador for the Games Den, showing off to Frank, bolstering his ego, and steering PFRPG in a specific direction. The last I have no problem with. It saddens me a bit that the other stuff gets in the way.
The clearest difference between CoL, say, and a griefer, other than the fact that he's relatively mild compared to the sort of spitefulness of those types, is that he's clearly putting in significant intellectual effort to making his posts and comments.
I haven't been anywhere else much, but I suspect you are right. We did have a complete right-wing lunatic on the board a couple of years ago, but fortunately he was quickly banned (the first banning, I think). However, it is probably a question of degree rather than a hard dividing line.
|
The big problem I see, however, is that a very large percentage of these issues seem to come up because of one (or, in some cases, a one or two) posters.
Bottom line is that the vast majority of people come to these boards to talk about the new Pathfinder RPG and Paizo products in general and it simply is not fair that one person is allowed, by his antisocial behavior, to ruin it for everyone else.
Look, this is not a freedom of speech issue, no matter how much some people want to try and hide behind that. We do NOT have absolute freedom of speech in this country and that is a good thing. We have defamation of character laws, we have laws against liable etc.
Heck, you can't walk into a crowded restaurant and yell FIRE! and you should not be allowed to come onto a private company's web site and spew bile at just about every turn, just because you happen to get some childish kick out of ruining everyone else's experience.
Sorry for the soapbox rant, but these kind of people really need to be knocked down a few pegs ...
Stuff
Pretty much an amen here.
I'm pretty dubious of the claims that it serves a greater good. But as has been pointed by others, that is just an opinion, and we're all free to disagree with each other.
The problem is when anything can be nullified by being 'an opinion with which you can disagree' then we might as well not even speak to one another.
The goal of improving the game just doesn't require the snarking and the sniping, and I frickan refuse to accept that it does.
|
|
The big problem I see, however, is that a very large percentage of these issues seem to come up because of one (or, in some cases, a one or two) posters.
Bottom line is that the vast majority of people come to these boards to talk about the new Pathfinder RPG and Paizo products in general and it simply is not fair that one person is allowed, by his antisocial behavior, to ruin it for everyone else.
Look, this is not a freedom of speech issue, no matter how much some people want to try and hide behind that. We do NOT have absolute freedom of speech in this country and that is a good thing. We have defamation of character laws, we have laws against liable etc.
Heck, you can't walk into a crowded restaurant and yell FIRE! and you should not be allowed to come onto a private company's web site and spew bile at just about every turn, just because you happen to get some childish kick out of ruining everyone else's experience.
Sorry for the soapbox rant, but these kind of people really need to be knocked down a few pegs ...
I think that only one person has said that it's a freedom of speech issue (and did they make it a legal one? I don't recall that they did, although I could be wrong; if they did, I would say that it was a serious mistake on their part, because 'freedom of speech' is mostly about government interference with speech; corporations can censor their own hosted messageboards as much as they want).
Anyhow, is this one person really 'ruining it for everyone else'? I think that's a bit strong, don't you? As for 'knocking people down a few pegs', I don't see how you're going to get that. At best you'll get their posts edited or them banned or otherwise constrained. I doubt that it'll negatively affect their feelings of self-worth (which is what I understand 'knocking down a few pegs' to mean).
|
|
The goal of improving the game just doesn't require the snarking and the sniping, and I frickan refuse to accept that it does.
I don't think that I've said that it 'requires' it (I certainly didn't mean to, because necessity would be a thesis I personally feel unable to defend, given that it would require considerable analysis). My point is specificically more that it happens that some of the people doing the best work in terms of pointing out flaws or exploits are also doing it and, given that there's absolutely no sign that they're going to change, I personally think that the input is significantly more valuable than the offence is bad. In general, my point is that such discourse also happens elsewhere and it can equally be very/most productive there, too, in my experience (so obviously anecdotal).
|
so suddenly he accused my of being a sock for The Authority - what was the relevance of that? And it went downhill from there.
For some reason all the folks at the gamer den seem to be under the impresion that you and the authority are the same person. Ignoring the fact the you and him have at times posted things within seconds of each other and your posting styles are completly diifrent.
|
For some reason all the folks at the gamer den seem to be under the impresion that you and the authority are the same person. Ignoring the fact the you and him have at times posted things within seconds of each other and your posting styles are completly diifrent.so suddenly he accused my of being a sock for The Authority - what was the relevance of that? And it went downhill from there.
That's how they fool ya man! Become a completely different person in style and thought and everything! </tinfoil hat>
Although you can open two different programs and be logged in to two different accounts at the same time. (IE/Opera/Firefox.)
Not that I buy into the Aubrey/Authority conspiracy.
I don't think that I've said that it 'requires' it (I certainly didn't mean to, because necessity would be a thesis I personally feel unable to defend, given that it would require considerable analysis). My point is specificically more that it happens that some of the people doing the best work in terms of pointing out flaws or exploits are also doing it and, given that there's absolutely no sign that they're going to change, I personally think that the input is significantly more valuable than the offence is bad. In general, my point is that such discourse also happens elsewhere and it can equally be very/most productive there, too, in my experience (so obviously anecdotal).
Mayhaps.
Unfortunately, none of us are going to be in a position to evaluate if that is true or not.
I can't say that you're wrong.
I suppose only the Development Team, in hindsight when the project is finished, will be able to say one way or another.
Director of Sales
|
For some reason all the folks at the gamer den seem to be under the impresion that you and the authority are the same person. Ignoring the fact the you and him have at times posted things within seconds of each other and your posting styles are completly diifrent.so suddenly he accused my of being a sock for The Authority - what was the relevance of that? And it went downhill from there.
That's how they fool ya man! Become a completely different person in style and thought and everything! </tinfoil hat>
Although you can open two different programs and be logged in to two different accounts at the same time. (IE/Opera/Firefox.)
Not that I buy into the Aubrey/Authority conspiracy.
I can say with 100% certainty that this is not true.
|
|
For some reason all the folks at the gamer den seem to be under the impresion that you and the authority are the same person. Ignoring the fact the you and him have at times posted things within seconds of each other and your posting styles are completly diifrent.so suddenly he accused my of being a sock for The Authority - what was the relevance of that? And it went downhill from there.
That's how they fool ya man! Become a completely different person in style and thought and everything! </tinfoil hat>
Although you can open two different programs and be logged in to two different accounts at the same time. (IE/Opera/Firefox.)
Not that I buy into the Aubrey/Authority conspiracy.
Weird. Well, I'm glad I am giving them something to think about. Anyway, I would never give myself a hubristic title like "The Authority". My authoritativeness is obvious without it.
Edit: There you have it - the definitive answer from the management. Unless, of course, Cosmo is also one of my socks....
And no, don't send your customer queries to me.
Tarren, you should be banned. Or at least forced to change your alias to Trollin' Day. ;)For example, some guy came up with a 'CyborgRodent_of_Logic' avatar and used it to infer that CoL had the discursive style of the borg. That's just low. That guy should get a warning.You're my hero. :)
Only Canadians will understand that last bit.
A Canadian politician by the name of Stockwell Day proposed that if 3% of the Canadian population signed a petition that should be adequate to force parliament to debate the proposed issue. Rick Mercer, a television comedian, collected that number of signatures on a petition to have 'Stockwell Day' change his name to 'Doris Day' thus killing the proposal.
Rick Mercer is my hero.
Pshaw, what if he's using proxies? There should be an MSNBC investigation.
I hear on good Authority that Michael Moore and Oliver Stone are making movies about it.
I can say that I'm reluctant to add to some of the debates for fear of being drawn into a flaming contest. Overly aggressive/dismissive counterpoints may put another into a 'why bother' mode. Possibly good points get lost along the way, due to 'overly passionate' responses.
No, some suggestions aren't improvements. Others improve one thing but create other problems.
Trying to enforce groupthink among posters makes the discussion near worthless. Flame wars do the same. Too many differing POVs just pass the thread on by. If you're one of the people that say 'good' to this you may be part of the problem.
|
Chief Technical Officer
|
... I say, 'insult away', same as I do for CoL... I have also made abundantly clear that you can do what you want... you are (as per my preference) welcome to, and he is welcome to call people 'retarded'.
The general principle, though, that it's OK to offer insults on this board, so long as it's merited, seems to be something on which you and CoL and others agree, with the disagreement being on when a particular insult is merited. Let me again go on record as saying that I have no problem with that at all.
You don't get to allow people to do things that our forum rules specifically disallow. We don't have a lot of rules here, but "you may not abuse others" is one of them.
Regarding moderation, our community has been very good at self-moderating, so we don't jump in every time somebody violates that rule, but if—after other community members have reminded folks that that sort of behavior is unacceptable—there's still a problem, we will send official warnings, lock threads, give time-outs, and, if need be, ban people to solve the problem. The fact that we don't directly act on every insult does *not* mean that it's ok to insult people here.
|
|
My feeling is simply that some sort of minimum productivity vs. insult ratio should be observed.Sorry. Being a genius does NOT give you the right to be a jerk in our forums. (Not that I'm calling anybody in particular either one of those things.)
man, just when i was going to post something so jerky, yet totally genius, that the rpg world would be changed forever...
darn the luck!
Sorry. Being a genius does NOT give you the right to be a jerk in our forums. (Not that I'm calling anybody in particular either one of those things.)
Understood. And especially relevant, in light of the fact that most people drawn to this hobby are of above-average IQ. Sometimes I feel like a jerk, but hopefully I usually avoid coming across as one... (as for aspiring to be a genius, my wife disillusions me of that on a daily basis!)
|
|
... I say, 'insult away', same as I do for CoL... I have also made abundantly clear that you can do what you want... you are (as per my preference) welcome to, and he is welcome to call people 'retarded'.The general principle, though, that it's OK to offer insults on this board, so long as it's merited, seems to be something on which you and CoL and others agree, with the disagreement being on when a particular insult is merited. Let me again go on record as saying that I have no problem with that at all.You don't get to allow people to do things that our forum rules specifically disallow. We don't have a lot of rules here, but "you may not abuse others" is one of them.
Regarding moderation, our community has been very good at self-moderating, so we don't jump in every time somebody violates that rule, but if—after other community members have reminded folks that that sort of behavior is unacceptable—there's still a problem, we will send official warnings, lock threads, give time-outs, and, if need be, ban people to solve the problem. The fact that we don't directly act on every insult does *not* mean that it's ok to insult people here.
I should be clear that I was just saying what my preferences are (and the latter point about the 'general principle' was again about preferences, in this case of CoL and the poster to whom I was replying), although to my knowledge I haven't, myself, insulted anyone; my point is just that I, personally, don't care if other people do insult each other, or me. Regarding the actual forum rules and moderation policy: it's your sandpit, you're paying for it and it's here in furtherance of your business, so you can obviously have whatever rules you want (regardless of my preferences...).
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8
|
I don't agree with you about 'juvenile' but in any case your full description was 'juvenile power fantasy', which is stronger yet. My only point, though, was that you are prepared to offer what is clearly going to be seen by the target as something of an insult when you believe that it is merited;...
Sorry, had to go to the library for storytime with my daughter and couldn't follow up. While I was there, I picked up some 'juvenile readers' for my son. I asked the mousy little librarian where the 'retard readers' were and she started hitting me with the puppet she used for storytime. As much as being spanked by a librarian has always been a fantasy of mine, I'm not so keen on it happening while so many people are watching. I got out of there fast and have been hiding in the corner crying in frustration since.
Anyhow, to make a long story short, the librarian agrees that the difference between 'retard' and 'juvenile' is subjective but strongly feels there is a difference.
Seriously though, I agree that it is difficult to draw clear lines when describing behaviour, which is why I'm ambivalent about moderation. If there is moderation, I prefer it to be done by intelligent, albeit inherently flawed, human beings not boy-robots with their cold, cold hearts.
|
|
Sorry, had to go to the library for storytime with my daughter and couldn't follow up. While I was there, I picked up some 'juvenile readers' for my son. I asked the mousy little librarian where the 'retard readers' were and she started hitting me with the puppet she used for storytime. As much as being spanked by a librarian has always been a fantasy of mine, I'm not so keen on it happening while so many people are watching. I got out of there fast and have been hiding in the corner crying in frustration since.
I think you're supposed to give them an apple first...
Anyhow, to make a long story short, the librarian agrees that the difference between 'retard' and 'juvenile' is subjective but strongly feels there is a difference.
Sure, they're not the same thing; they're both insults of some sort, was my point.
Seriously though, I agree that it is difficult to draw clear lines when describing behaviour, which is why I'm ambivalent about moderation. If there is moderation, I prefer it to be done by intelligent, albeit inherently flawed, human beings not boy-robots with their cold, cold hearts.
Cold hearts last longer!
Parable of the Librarian
You might be my new favorite poster. That one is certainly worthy of the lofty standards earlier set by The Jade and a few others.
It was Kissinger, I think, and he was right. Of course, now that wages are approaching decent (at least in most of the sciences), the stakes are a little higher...
It was indeed Kissinger. You're wrong on the pay, however. The 70 percent of the faculty that are contingent are making less than we ever have (according to the AAUP) and it's extremely rare for us to have any benefits whatsoever.
And yet... college expenses keep going up. If it's not going to labor, where is it going....
I've taught in universities for 13 years. If I allowed this tone of discussion to take place in my classroom, I'd be brought before the dean.I'm not talking about classrooms, I'm talking about researchers brainstorming and at conferences. I've seen shouting matches, chairs being kicked around, insults, all sorts (this is in physics, mostly theoretical physics). ...
That's fascinating. In the humanities--where we talk about racism, sexism, xenophobia, and fascism--I've never seen anyone even raise their voice at a conference. I've certainly never seen anyone even imply that the presenter or a colleague teaching at my schools was flat out wrong. It's thought to be not collegial. Granted, I think that's a bit stultifying, but I find your experience fascinating.
|
|
It was indeed Kissinger. You're wrong on the pay, however. The 70 percent of the faculty that are contingent are making less than we ever have (according to the AAUP) and it's extremely rare for us to have any benefits whatsoever.
And yet... college expenses keep going up. If it's not going to labor, where is it going....
Well, I did say 'in the sciences' (and as a physicist, I'm talking about physics/astronomy, chemistry and most of biology when I'm being generous...). In research physics, the wages aren't bad, particularly for faculty. For teaching (which wasn't what I was thinking of) things are much more variable.
Well, I did say 'in the sciences' (and as a physicist, I'm talking about physics/astronomy, chemistry and most of biology when I'm being generous...).
That's OK. As a geologist, I consider you theoretical physics guys to be mathematicians, not scientists (and we refer to many biologists and especially paleontologists as "stamp collectors").
Well, I did say 'in the sciences' (and as a physicist, I'm talking about physics/astronomy, chemistry and most of biology when I'm being generous...).That's OK. As a geologist, I consider you theoretical physics guys to be mathematicians, not scientists (and we refer to many biologists and especially paleontologists as "stamp collectors").
As an (admittedly) failed biologist, I can assure you we thought of the physicists locked away in their labs as quite brainy; the geologists we never got to know too well cause they were always trompin away out in the field, but they did seem quite manly. I did, however, spend quite a bit of time explaining the important work both were doing while comforting their girlfriends ;)