Warrior General Games

Originally posted by Catullus 16
Originally posted by Azure Dreams

Originally posted by Catullus 16

Originally posted by Azure Dreams

not my cup of tea but some people do. But liking something tha tisn't against the rules isn't... against the rules.
sure, but don't be surprised at the results.

also... trolling?
saying "loldots" or "MY DOTS COULD BEAT YOUR DOTS" or linking to something that just says "we don't care" are not trolling.

not what i was saying.

my point is that it's very easy to troll someone using only posts that by themselves are completely legal... but trolling itself is completely illegal.

bump that up a hierarchy, and you get the effect where individual users are by themselves not doing anything illegal, but the aggregate effect is that an "entire forum" (deliberately in quotes) successfully trolls a person in a way that they can never satisfactorily respond to.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Eichmanns

they need to be satisfied more readily imo.

Originally posted by Azure Dreams
Originally posted by Catullus 16
Originally posted by Azure Dreams
Originally posted by Catullus 16
Originally posted by Azure Dreams
Originally posted by Catullus 16
Originally posted by Azure Dreams
Originally posted by Catullus 16
Originally posted by Azure Dreams

because they're terrible mods who can't stand people who don't submit to them in every way. They're power-hungry and unprofessional.
You'd have a point if we had mods that were established as good or even decent but these are fucking terrible mods so their horrible behavior is in no way surprising. It wasn't BigT invading our forum, it was voltron. the feudel of mods.
so... mods that agree with you = awesome and mods that disagree with you = terrible, power-hungry, and unprofessional?
this isn't a convincing argument, even if you are right.
I cite such people as Jed and BigT to invalidate your claim. Jed does a lot of disagreeing with me and supporting the administration and other mods when I think he's wrong (and have a suspicion he sometimes knows they're wrong), but he isn't a terrible mod usually.
Hell, voltron, darkus, and NMV have all agreed with me on various occasions, but they were still terrible mods. Bones doesn't generally agree with me and I don't dislike the fellow, but he's a terrible mod. I have never had a run-in with a number of other people, but they're still terrible mods.
I argue with VT all the fucking time, on the other hand, and he's still a pretty good mod. BigT isn't here supporting me and I've been maintaining that he's the best mod (though less active) since we lost Ash.
i'm not sure how this invalidates my claim... especially since i'm not sure i even made one.
i mean, you're the one who specified a population of "fucking terrible mods"... so all you've really done here is furnish a list of people who you're saying aren't in that category.
or maybe i'm missing something here.
You said this:Originally posted by cat

so... mods that agree with you = awesome and mods that disagree with you = terrible, power-hungry, and unprofessional?
looks like a claim to me, and is completely invalidated by me naming mods I argue with a lot who I don't consider terrible.
not really a claim... just clarifying.
and bolded.
the thing you bolded wasn't the claim.
no kidding.
(it's my rejoinder.)
But ... you claimed that the criterion for me calling someone a shitty mod was disagreeing with me. I contested that point by naming mods I've argued with that i don't consider horrible. In fact, I argue far more with the mods I like because the other ones either won't sustain a conversation for long (because they know they abused their power and are wrong) or are too stupid to be worth it imo.

do i have to whip out the venn diagrams here?

let's start with this -- who do you consider to be in the population of "fucking terrible mods"?

Originally posted by Catullus 16
Originally posted by Azure Dreams

Originally posted by Catullus 16

Originally posted by Azure Dreams

not my cup of tea but some people do. But liking something tha tisn't against the rules isn't... against the rules.
sure, but don't be surprised at the results.

also... trolling?
saying "loldots" or "MY DOTS COULD BEAT YOUR DOTS" or linking to something that just says "we don't care" are not trolling.

not what i was saying.

my point is that it's very easy to troll someone using only posts that by themselves are completely legal... but trolling itself is completely illegal.

bump that up a hierarchy, and you get the effect where individual users are by themselves not doing anything illegal, but the aggregate effect is that an "entire forum" (deliberately in quotes) successfully trolls a person in a way that they can never satisfactorily respond to.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Eichmanns

Trolling is something that ultimately cannot be moderated. It's possible to troll by agreeing with people. Literally, trying to get rid of trolling would only work if you only allowed cut and dry words to be strung together- like some sort of refrigerator magnet game, only on the internet

Ultimately, the only defense against trolling is the ancient adage "don't feed the trolls"

Originally posted by Catullus 16
Originally posted by Azure Dreams

Originally posted by Catullus 16

Originally posted by Azure Dreams

Originally posted by Catullus 16

Originally posted by Azure Dreams

Originally posted by Catullus 16

Originally posted by Azure Dreams

Originally posted by Catullus 16

Originally posted by Azure Dreams


because they're terrible mods who can't stand people who don't submit to them in every way. They're power-hungry and unprofessional.
You'd have a point if we had mods that were established as good or even decent but these are fucking terrible mods so their horrible behavior is in no way surprising. It wasn't BigT invading our forum, it was voltron. the feudel of mods.
so... mods that agree with you = awesome and mods that disagree with you = terrible, power-hungry, and unprofessional?
this isn't a convincing argument, even if you are right.
I cite such people as Jed and BigT to invalidate your claim. Jed does a lot of disagreeing with me and supporting the administration and other mods when I think he's wrong (and have a suspicion he sometimes knows they're wrong), but he isn't a terrible mod usually.
Hell, voltron, darkus, and NMV have all agreed with me on various occasions, but they were still terrible mods. Bones doesn't generally agree with me and I don't dislike the fellow, but he's a terrible mod. I have never had a run-in with a number of other people, but they're still terrible mods.
I argue with VT all the fucking time, on the other hand, and he's still a pretty good mod. BigT isn't here supporting me and I've been maintaining that he's the best mod (though less active) since we lost Ash.
i'm not sure how this invalidates my claim... especially since i'm not sure i even made one.
i mean, you're the one who specified a population of "fucking terrible mods"... so all you've really done here is furnish a list of people who you're saying aren't in that category.
or maybe i'm missing something here.
You said this:Originally posted by cat


so... mods that agree with you = awesome and mods that disagree with you = terrible, power-hungry, and unprofessional?
looks like a claim to me, and is completely invalidated by me naming mods I argue with a lot who I don't consider terrible.
not really a claim... just clarifying.
and bolded.
the thing you bolded wasn't the claim.
no kidding.
(it's my rejoinder.)
But ... you claimed that the criterion for me calling someone a shitty mod was disagreeing with me. I contested that point by naming mods I've argued with that i don't consider horrible. In fact, I argue far more with the mods I like because the other ones either won't sustain a conversation for long (because they know they abused their power and are wrong) or are too stupid to be worth it imo.

do i have to whip out the venn diagrams here?

let's start with this -- who do you consider to be in the population of "fucking terrible mods"?

DrkSandman.

Originally posted by Azure Dreams
Originally posted by Catullus 16
Originally posted by Azure Dreams
Again, there's no rule against not-tiptoe-ing. You can't hold an entire league responsible for one person being oversensetive, nor should you.
is that what i'm doing?
and i'm not sure we should so easily assume that a person is being over-sensitive for suddenly getting hit with 2-3 pages of snobbery (even if just in their perception).
i'm to some degree referencing the boltz thing here... it's not a question of right or wrong, but there's a little bit of shared responsibility for the effects, right? i mean, if all the CPL regulars stopped posting for a day, there wouldn't be any of these problems right? and i realize the reverse is also true, but that just proves my point about it being an emergent effect.
so the question becomes: is there something that CPL regulars can do to not shoot themselves in the foot?
Of course there is, but again, you can't expect 30 people to suddenly act differently to accomodate one person most of them don't like when what they're doing in the first place is only against the rules by the strictest definition (a definition that no other forum abides by)

hence the "little eichmanns" reference.

i guess the argument is this -- if we've established that those 30 people behaving in a certain way eventually results in random mods cracking down and handing out bans, does it then behoove those 30 people to adjust their behavior?

or if that seems contrary to some collection of principles, is there a structural way we can prevent the problem?

Originally posted by Gturtle
Originally posted by Catullus 16

Originally posted by Azure Dreams


Originally posted by Catullus 16


Originally posted by Azure Dreams


not my cup of tea but some people do. But liking something tha tisn't against the rules isn't... against the rules.
sure, but don't be surprised at the results.

also... trolling?
saying "loldots" or "MY DOTS COULD BEAT YOUR DOTS" or linking to something that just says "we don't care" are not trolling.

not what i was saying.

my point is that it's very easy to troll someone using only posts that by themselves are completely legal... but trolling itself is completely illegal.

bump that up a hierarchy, and you get the effect where individual users are by themselves not doing anything illegal, but the aggregate effect is that an "entire forum" (deliberately in quotes) successfully trolls a person in a way that they can never satisfactorily respond to.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Eichmanns

Trolling is something that ultimately cannot be moderated. It's possible to troll by agreeing with people. Literally, trying to get rid of trolling would only work if you only allowed cut and dry words to be strung together- like some sort of refrigerator magnet game, only on the internet
Even then, you could be facetious. Get enough people to agree how to be facetious off-site and suddenly you have an awesome troll attempt with impunity going.

Originally posted by Catullus 16
Originally posted by Azure Dreams

Originally posted by Catullus 16

Originally posted by Azure Dreams

Again, there's no rule against not-tiptoe-ing. You can't hold an entire league responsible for one person being oversensetive, nor should you.
is that what i'm doing?
and i'm not sure we should so easily assume that a person is being over-sensitive for suddenly getting hit with 2-3 pages of snobbery (even if just in their perception).
i'm to some degree referencing the boltz thing here... it's not a question of right or wrong, but there's a little bit of shared responsibility for the effects, right? i mean, if all the CPL regulars stopped posting for a day, there wouldn't be any of these problems right? and i realize the reverse is also true, but that just proves my point about it being an emergent effect.
so the question becomes: is there something that CPL regulars can do to not shoot themselves in the foot?
Of course there is, but again, you can't expect 30 people to suddenly act differently to accomodate one person most of them don't like when what they're doing in the first place is only against the rules by the strictest definition (a definition that no other forum abides by)

hence the "little eichmanns" reference.

i guess the argument is this -- if we've established that those 30 people behaving in a certain way eventually results in random mods cracking down and handing out bans, does it then behoove those 30 people to adjust their behavior?

or if that seems contrary to some collection of principles, is there a structural way we can prevent the problem?

I have no recollection of a crackdown on CPL by mods that were not already considered terrible mods before they cracked down on CPL.

Soooooooo DOT DOT DOT

Originally posted by Azure Dreams
Originally posted by Catullus 16
Originally posted by Azure Dreams
Originally posted by Catullus 16
Originally posted by Azure Dreams
not my cup of tea but some people do. But liking something tha tisn't against the rules isn't... against the rules.
sure, but don't be surprised at the results.
also... trolling?
saying "loldots" or "MY DOTS COULD BEAT YOUR DOTS" or linking to something that just says "we don't care" are not trolling.
not what i was saying.
my point is that it's very easy to troll someone using only posts that by themselves are completely legal... but trolling itself is completely illegal.
bump that up a hierarchy, and you get the effect where individual users are by themselves not doing anything illegal, but the aggregate effect is that an "entire forum" (deliberately in quotes) successfully trolls a person in a way that they can never satisfactorily respond to.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Eichmanns
they need to be satisfied more readily imo.

but i'm saying it's impossible. they can never even the score... not only because of the asymmetry involved, but because the CPL is playing a completely different game (a game they can never lose).

and did you look at the link?

Originally posted by Catullus 16
Originally posted by Azure Dreams

Originally posted by Catullus 16

Originally posted by Azure Dreams

Originally posted by Catullus 16

Originally posted by Azure Dreams

not my cup of tea but some people do. But liking something tha tisn't against the rules isn't... against the rules.
sure, but don't be surprised at the results.
also... trolling?
saying "loldots" or "MY DOTS COULD BEAT YOUR DOTS" or linking to something that just says "we don't care" are not trolling.
not what i was saying.
my point is that it's very easy to troll someone using only posts that by themselves are completely legal... but trolling itself is completely illegal.
bump that up a hierarchy, and you get the effect where individual users are by themselves not doing anything illegal, but the aggregate effect is that an "entire forum" (deliberately in quotes) successfully trolls a person in a way that they can never satisfactorily respond to.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Eichmanns
they need to be satisfied more readily imo.

but i'm saying it's impossible. they can never even the score... not only because of the asymmetry involved, but because the CPL is playing a completely different game (a game they can never lose).

and did you look at the link?

what's your point, though?

And no.

Originally posted by Gturtle
Trolling is something that ultimately cannot be moderated. It's possible to troll by agreeing with people. Literally, trying to get rid of trolling would only work if you only allowed cut and dry words to be strung together- like some sort of refrigerator magnet game, only on the internet

couldn't agree more.

and my further point is that the best trolls work in groups. it's not just about manipulating people with isolated posts... it's about manipulating people with entire forums or even entire cultures.

i'm not sure if even "meta-trolling" is an accurate description of what the CPL does to people. it's not just that you take the contextual rug out from under people... it's like you do away with the very concepts of floors/walls/ceilings themeselves.

Originally posted by Catullus 16
Originally posted by Gturtle

Trolling is something that ultimately cannot be moderated. It's possible to troll by agreeing with people. Literally, trying to get rid of trolling would only work if you only allowed cut and dry words to be strung together- like some sort of refrigerator magnet game, only on the internet

couldn't agree more.

and my further point is that the best trolls work in groups. it's not just about manipulating people with isolated posts... it's about manipulating people with entire forums or even entire cultures.

i'm not sure if even "meta-trolling" is an accurate description of what the CPL does to people. it's not just that you take the contextual rug out from under people... it's like you do away with the very concepts of floors/walls/ceilings themeselves.

ya its pretty awesome.

Originally posted by Gturtle
Ultimately, the only defense against trolling is the ancient adage "don't feed the trolls"

kind of tough for some people who's very existence is trollfood.

But keep in mind, it isn't true that we indescriminately do it to everyone and they can't cope. As evidenced by the presence of r87, Iceman16, Chessey, and you in this forum.

Originally posted by Catullus 16
Originally posted by Gturtle

Ultimately, the only defense against trolling is the ancient adage "don't feed the trolls"

kind of tough for some people who's very existence is trollfood.

can't blame a dog for eating meat though.