Author Topic: Clearing up any confusion  (Read 14343 times)

Offline EjoThims

  • DnD Handbook Writer
  • ***
  • Posts: 531
  • The Ferret
    • View Profile
Re: Clearing up any confusion
« Reply #20 on: December 31, 2011, 02:43:37 PM »
Firstly, I want to preface by saying that I can't believe I am coming to Josh's defense in any way. And not that he needs it, but I legitimately feel that you need me to, Soundwave, because you will continue to not understand what is going on here otherwise.

Secondly I want to point out that while talking about the manner in which things were done in the other thread are on topic, attempting to continue the argument from the other one would be quite off topic.

Frankly the majority of comments made in that thread by josh amounted to little more then personal attacks, when called out on it he deleted my post.

No, they weren't, at least not to Josh. He was quite insulting to your position, which to be honest, was terrible. He is either correct that it was entirely wrong, or you are so bad at illustrating what you mean that it was nonsensical. When he prodded you for examples or clarification, you ranted against how he was treating you and did not provide evidence of your claims.

This is why your post was removed, it did not contribute to the discussion even after being asked to, not because of attacks against you, and not to shut you up.

but frankly if silencing people you dont agree with is acceptable behavior here

It's not. I always (before now) have disagreed with Josh. Over just about everything. I've called him just about everything I could think to, and attacked him far more personally than he ever did you. I've been in shouting matches with Meg as well.

And I've actually been praised for it. By other posters and even some of the moderators.

Because while I may have been stepping out of line, I was still attempting to have a discussion and actually provide evidence for my points instead of going "nu-uh, X is x because, well... X!" Restating is not proof. Restating is not example. It should be done for clarification, but it is not evidence.

I find it odd that the person accusing others of anti intellectualism, delusions and stupidity is the same person behaving in such a manner.

Josh's views are... quite different than my own, but he is consistent. He is not stupid or delusional, despite everything I have had to say about him in the past, though he does have a rather strange way of expressing what he views as intellectualism.

Quote
He simply repeats his "point" over and over and Does not listen to anyone and makes no attempt to learn why.

There is a poster around these parts that follows this to a "T" so to speak, but it surely isnt me.

Josh, when assuming he is correct (correctly or not), can be quite a hypocrite in this area, but every time I have seen anyone actually rise to challenge his assumptions instead of just repeating themselves back, he has stepped up and defended his position properly. Which I did not see you do in the mentioned thread.



I want to end, again, with saying how ridiculous it is that I am siding with Josh here. Not for my benefit and not for Josh's, but for yours, Soundwave. If I am actually agreeing with him on this, what we are agreeing on is likely rather sensible. We would, for example, probably agree that usually the sky is a color that most would describe as generally blue (though I'm sure he would take issue with the way I phrase it).
« Last Edit: December 31, 2011, 02:46:15 PM by EjoThims »

Offline SorO_Lost

  • Epic Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 7197
  • Banned
    • View Profile
Re: Clearing up any confusion
« Reply #21 on: January 01, 2012, 09:31:39 PM »
I'm to lazy to read the thread, I don't care what Josh thinks or why people have problems with him and I agree Soundwave is an idiot (see below).

But with all of that aside. If party A, B, C, D, E, and F or whom ever all bitched about G, maybe G should have come up with a way to retire from the debate instead of repeating things over and over again. And if F asks if he made a good call to step in and end things, G sure the hell shouldn't jump in over here and start calling him names over it with total disregard for even addressing the question. Was typing "I think it was unfair" and explaining why so fracking hard the only option was to call them a doodoo head?

Whatever action was taken, more is needed.

Offline Soundwave

  • DnD Handbook Writer
  • **
  • Posts: 153
  • Science, it works.
    • View Profile
Re: Clearing up any confusion
« Reply #22 on: January 04, 2012, 01:06:06 AM »
Quote
Secondly I want to point out that while talking about the manner in which things were done in the other thread are on topic, attempting to continue the argument from the other one would be quite off topic.
I agree with this in principle but I find it difficult to refute your statements without quoting instances contained in the thread and its posts.

Quote
re: Soundwave

Well can't say I didn't try.  But as they say, can't fix stupid.

Quote
I love how you are so delusional

Quote
Anti-intellectuals (like soundwave)

If you had bothered to read the thread you would be aware he did infact, insult me personally, several times. Ignoring the fact that anti intellectual is misused and that he even agreed with the argument made as prime pointed out. Though he apparently is not aware of it.

You cannot dispute the comments he made are personal attacks.

Quote
He is either correct that it was entirely wrong, or you are so bad at illustrating what you mean that it was nonsensical.

Quote
Soundwave said that a gamer is a person who games, and nothing about whether anyone would refer to them as gamers. In fact, he has implied they wouldn't (bolded for emphasis).

Prime understood quite clearly as did the majority of posters in the first few pages of said thread.

Eg: Reply #13:,Reply #15:,Reply #16:,Reply #22:,Reply #32,Reply #39:,Reply #44

These posters would seem to disagree with your assertion Ejo, as do I.

Quote
I know how much I like games, but other people may not.  And it may be the case that I don't realize how passionate about games I am compared to others.

Quote
SDK it is absolutely true that people might call themselves or others gamers and others may not.

Here he acknowledges the possibility that bias exists.

Quote
Subjectivity, a subject's personal perspective, feelings, beliefs, desires or discovery, as opposed to those made from an independent, objective, point of view.

Objective vs subjective.
    Objective: Information or data that is based in fact. Often numerical. It can be verified by an independent third party. Math tests are generally objective in nature.

    Subjective: Information or opinions that are open to interpretation. Generally, subjective information is seen through the eyes of the person collecting or presenting it. Literature essay tests are subjective in nature.

SneeR the OP of said thread seemed to think that the objectivity I added to the discussion was quite engaging and a good contribution.

Not at all a waste to read.

Deleting my argument because he did not agree with its content whether im incorrect or not is not an appropriate response.

Judging from the post here he made my being "wrong" seemed to be his majority concern. Calling it harping would appear to be at best a red herring and at worse deliberately misleading.

@Soro, since you chose not to actually read up on the original discussion itself I normally wouldn't reply but you did post something that I think makes a good example.

Quote
I'm to lazy to read the thread, I don't care what Josh thinks or why people have problems with him and I agree Soundwave is an idiot (see below).
Quote
But with all of that aside. If party A, B, C, D, E, and F or whom ever all bitched about G, maybe G should have come up with a way to retire from the debate instead of repeating things over and over again.

In this example G is myself, this is a fair example with one caveat: A, B, C, D, E, and F are all the same person.

If you had read said thread you would understand this.

I understand your dislike for me Soro as our first conversation here involved JaronK's tier list and your dislike for it but personal bias is a poor substitute for a well reasoned argument and an informed position.

While I did disagree with your position on JaronK's tier list for example I have no intention of allowing that to color all my interactions with yourself. If you find calling names preferable, well, to each their own.

I talked to a couple of mods about the issue and I'll leave the matter to them. If they think the deletion was incorrect perhaps they will restore the post if not, such is life.
« Last Edit: January 04, 2012, 01:12:04 AM by Soundwave »

Offline SorO_Lost

  • Epic Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 7197
  • Banned
    • View Profile
Re: Clearing up any confusion
« Reply #23 on: January 04, 2012, 06:32:32 AM »
In this example G is myself, this is a fair example with one caveat: A, B, C, D, E, and F are all the same person.

If you had read said thread you would understand this.
As noted, too lazy to. There are several people posting in that thread and over here Josh's words portray multiple people and Ejo says you didn't provide any evidence to you're claims. That is at least two by my count and good enough for me. If nothing else over here you've made three people oppose you in some manner so the numbers are going up somewhere.

I understand your dislike for me Soro as our first conversation here involved JaronK's tier list and your dislike for it but personal bias is a poor substitute for a well reasoned argument and an informed position.
Really I get people to disagree with me daily and it took me a month to remember Gia is the monk troll and I still can't spell his name.

This may shock you, now hold your pants and sit down, but all I recall was someone (not JaronK) jumping to JaronK's defense over my suggestion for an update and more neutral view from it's author. And then later someone posted the very thread I had hoped for. Great story really, nice happy ending. The bad news is all you were then is "not JaronK" and now, hell I don't have to remember this thread let alone you. You'll just remind me next time I side against you so I'm good on my end.

I talked to a couple of mods about the issue and I'll leave the matter to them. If they think the deletion was incorrect perhaps they will restore the post if not, such is life.
It looks like you reposted your deleted post into this thread. Interesting thing to include in a post about wanting to talk to them about it being restored...

On the flip side. As least it seems you finally stopped with your very public posts where you run off on some tangent completely based on putting someone else down rather than posting anything close to a rebuttal to points made against you. You're taking things to PMs now, it's progress!

I'd like to think I helped and things are moving along now. Be sure to mention this part the next time you remind me of something. Really, it will help and that means you can be helpful too.

Offline EjoThims

  • DnD Handbook Writer
  • ***
  • Posts: 531
  • The Ferret
    • View Profile
Re: Clearing up any confusion
« Reply #24 on: January 04, 2012, 06:24:59 PM »
I agree with this in principle but I find it difficult to refute your statements without quoting instances contained in the thread and its posts.

Then you should probably make another thread to talk specifically about that action instead of dragging it out in a thread meant for general discussions on moderation styles.

I'll go ahead and respond to the pertinent points here, but if you wish to continue trying to elucidate us on specifics, your next reply should merely be a link to the new thread in which you would like to do so.

If you had bothered to read the thread

I did. I wouldn't waste either of our times responding if I had not.

I do appreciate the poorly veiled insult though.

And you see, that's the difference between a direct insult to me and a direct insult to my position.

Josh, though he is harsh, is simply insulting the stance you are taking and your failure to understand it's failings.

You, however, have just said that I am the kind of tool to respond as if I knew what I was talking about without taking the time to make sure that I do (or at least think I do).

You cannot dispute the comments he made are personal attacks/

I can and do.

"You are delusional" carries the implication of meaning "You are delusional (if you X)." This is the same as "You are an idiot (if you X)." Now, had he, for example said something like "If you had bothered to take your medication this morning you delusional imbecile" or calling you a "raging asscuntfartsmoosher" (or something equally inflammatory with no connection to a stance you are taking) then he would be personally insulting you.

In fact, I think the old boards will still be up long enough for me to find the thread discussing this distinction. I will edit in the link if I am able to find it.

Prime understood quite clearly as did the majority of posters in the first few pages of said thread.

If that is true, and I am at this point refusing to look back because you (seemingly intentionally) do me the disservice of quoting without leaving intact the link to the post the quote came from and of simply referring to post numbers in a different thread instead of linking and/or quoting them (you may as well be citing page numbers without a book title; very poor form), then you had no reason to be squabbling with Josh.

But, as you continued your squabbling, I must continue to assume that you either could not see his fault with your position or simply were so poor at getting your point across to him (the person you were discussing with) that he could not see it.

Either way, beating it over and over in the main thread (as opposed to in PMs or in another thread focused on that distinct point) is exactly the type of derailment Josh was discussing in this thread and why he removed the post in question.

SneeR the OP of said thread seemed to think that the objectivity I added to the discussion was quite engaging and a good contribution.

Here I will, for the sake of completeness (and hopefully to make you understand enough that you drop this or make your own thread), try to explain why Josh is correct and you are not.

The objectivity you were quibbling with Josh over was meaningless. It was the equivalent of saying "on all days that end with Y, the day ends in Y." "if you play games, you are a gamer" is meaningless, because that is, in actuality, the definition of that type of noun construction. And it is irrelevant to discussing the meaning of ascribing the word to a particular social group when 99.5+% of the population has, at one time or another, played tag or hide and seek.

Now, some of the other things that came from that thread that attempted to establish objective ideals (I can't remember if they were yours or not), such as one who currently games versus one who has previously gamed and how to draw said line, were interesting. But after having read it, such things were obviously not the main goal of the post that was removed.

Deleting my argument because he did not agree with its content whether im incorrect or not is not an appropriate response.

He did not delete your post because he disagreed with your argument. He deleted your post because of the bulk content of that post.

This is what you quite obviously do not understand.

So I will use repetition as an emphasis device.

He did not delete your post because he disagreed with your argument. He deleted your post because of the bulk content of that post.

He did not delete your post because he disagreed with your argument. He deleted your post because of the bulk content of that post.

He did not delete your post because he disagreed with your argument. He deleted your post because of the bulk content of that post.

Judging from the post here he made my being "wrong" seemed to be his majority concern. Calling it harping would appear to be at best a red herring and at worse deliberately misleading.

You misunderstand him entirely. The reason was that you harped on something he had shown you to be wrong about (from my understanding, the idea that a generic objectivity was irrelevant to the discussion as it had to already be assumed for the discussion to even take place). And you harped on it more. And you harped on it more.

It doesn't matter that you had other things in the post as well.

Perhaps this is something you have not realized, so I will end with pointing it out:

BG policy is to remove whole posts when they contain offending material, so as to be free of any legal ramifications of editing another's words.

Offline SneeR

  • Legendary Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1531
  • Sneering
    • View Profile
Re: Clearing up any confusion
« Reply #25 on: January 05, 2012, 02:02:57 AM »
That Soundwave constantly posted his opinion in that thread forced me to look at his defninition critically (mostly so that I could grant or rescend credence inarguably), which did help me with a minor breakthrough, but the repetition actually derailed the thread from more subjective "hippy" ideas that could have surfaced and perhaps lended a more feel-good definition.

In short, SW got me thinking, but he wasn't very helpful to the discussion at large.
A smile from ear to ear
3.5 is disappointingly flawed.

Offline awaken_D_M_golem

  • Epic Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 7639
  • classique style , invisible tail
    • View Profile
Re: Clearing up any confusion
« Reply #26 on: January 17, 2012, 05:46:59 PM »

 :D ... You mean like when they clarified which one was Josh ??



I'm behind baldy.
There is a huge difference between:

-posting something slightly off topic - "speaking of gobots I just watchedthe movie"
-posting something off topic - "transformers are better"
-the discussion evolving - "evil gobots are the best"
and
-posting to disrupt the thread - "I am the meta gobot master and you all meta suck"

Slightly Off topic And evolution are fine.  Don't do the other two.

It makes it impossible to have a discussion when someone is yelling in your face. 

I am in favor of any system where non contributors cant drown out the people who are trying to do something and have fun with it.

So ... umm ...  :??? ... behind "baldy" is a (real) "transformer" = Josh

I'm still confused ; but that would be really awesome.
Your codpiece is a mimic.

Offline Soundwave

  • DnD Handbook Writer
  • **
  • Posts: 153
  • Science, it works.
    • View Profile
Re: Clearing up any confusion
« Reply #27 on: January 18, 2012, 01:22:52 AM »
Quote
You're taking things to PMs now, it's progress!

heh, i took it to pms the moment the deletion occurred and somewhat before that regarding said admins conduct. Several members have given me advice in regards to speaking to walls in the time since then.

As for making things public? well the thread was referenced here so why wouldnt a person involved reply?

Offline SorO_Lost

  • Epic Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 7197
  • Banned
    • View Profile
Re: Clearing up any confusion
« Reply #28 on: January 18, 2012, 02:17:45 AM »
As for making things public? well the thread was referenced here so why wouldnt a person involved reply?
I think they would, it's just I would have thought they would have listed a reason.

You can fine comb things, like Josh really should have asked someone else to handle moderation since he was active in the discussion which is what probably led to this series of posts or maybe the question should have been asked a week later after people have gotten a chance to cool off. But those are just nitpicks, the heart of the matter is was it a good call or not. Simply coming over here and jumping into name calling suggests it was a bad call, because temp ban is more appropriate (to force cooling down). And that's just how I see things here and how some things could have been handled better.

As for the thread in question, TL;DR. :p

Offline Soundwave

  • DnD Handbook Writer
  • **
  • Posts: 153
  • Science, it works.
    • View Profile
Re: Clearing up any confusion
« Reply #29 on: January 18, 2012, 02:29:07 AM »
Your inability to read both here and in other threads/forums is not my concern.

Just how I see things ;)

Offline zugschef

  • DnD Handbook Writer
  • ***
  • Posts: 699
    • View Profile
Re: Clearing up any confusion
« Reply #30 on: January 18, 2012, 03:41:59 AM »
You cannot dispute the comments he made are personal attacks/
I can and do.

"You are delusional" carries the implication of meaning "You are delusional (if you X)." This is the same as "You are an idiot (if you X)." Now, had he, for example said something like "If you had bothered to take your medication this morning you delusional imbecile" or calling you a "raging asscuntfartsmoosher" (or something equally inflammatory with no connection to a stance you are taking) then he would be personally insulting you.
what kind of nonsense is this?

if i say "you are an idiot if you like the color blue" and you happen to like the color blue, then this is no personal insult? and wtf has this if clause got to do with anything? if i say to you that you are an idiot, then i mean that you are an idiot, and it sure as heck IS personal.

what you mean is, that if someone says "what you have written there is, in my opinion, idiotic." now that's not a personal attack.

Offline EjoThims

  • DnD Handbook Writer
  • ***
  • Posts: 531
  • The Ferret
    • View Profile
Re: Clearing up any confusion
« Reply #31 on: January 18, 2012, 06:35:31 PM »
what you mean is, that if someone says "what you have written there is, in my opinion, idiotic." now that's not a personal attack.

That is, quite literally, equivalent (though for less rude) to saying "you are an idiot" in the context of having a debate over differences of opinion (or fact) on a particular topic, which is the context we were discussing.

Now, if I came out of the blue and said these things, they would not have that context and thus not be equivalent to your politer phrasing; they would not carry the implications of the omitted clauses and would be simple personal attacks.

Harshness and/or lack of tact do not negate context.

Offline SneeR

  • Legendary Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1531
  • Sneering
    • View Profile
Re: Clearing up any confusion
« Reply #32 on: January 18, 2012, 07:38:42 PM »
That one writes something idiotic does not make one an idiot. That one tells a joke does not make them a comedian. That one plays a game once does not make them a gamer.

Instances do not lend credibly to tendencies; suggesting one does not suggest the other. To call someone an idiot is not equivalent to saying they have said something idiotic, for the instance does not invariably suggest the norm.

By calling SW an idiot rather than suggesting he said something idiotic, in his opinion, Josh was very rude, in my opinion. Of course, SW was providing little in the way of fresh blood to the discussion.
« Last Edit: January 18, 2012, 07:40:33 PM by SneeR »
A smile from ear to ear
3.5 is disappointingly flawed.

Offline EjoThims

  • DnD Handbook Writer
  • ***
  • Posts: 531
  • The Ferret
    • View Profile
Re: Clearing up any confusion
« Reply #33 on: January 18, 2012, 07:43:52 PM »
That one writes something idiotic does not make one an idiot.

In regards to that instance, it does.

If have done something idiotic, if we are discussing that particular action, it is fully appropriate to refer to me as an idiot within that context.

If I hold an idiotic opinion or put forth an idiotic idea in a discussion, then it is fully appropriate to refer to me as an idiot within the context of that discussion.

This is not, however, an attack on the rest of my character in any way; as you so astutely pointed out, "instances do not lend credibly to tendencies."

Just because I am an idiot now does not mean I will be later. And just because you are calling me out on being an idiot now does not mean that you are implying I am an idiot always.

Offline zugschef

  • DnD Handbook Writer
  • ***
  • Posts: 699
    • View Profile
Re: Clearing up any confusion
« Reply #34 on: January 19, 2012, 12:38:12 AM »
this is outright ridiculous. i wonder how you keep social relations in your rl.

Offline Soundwave

  • DnD Handbook Writer
  • **
  • Posts: 153
  • Science, it works.
    • View Profile
Re: Clearing up any confusion
« Reply #35 on: January 19, 2012, 01:09:10 AM »
as your well aware sneer my goal is objectivity ;) Nothing productive comes without it imo.

Offline SneeR

  • Legendary Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1531
  • Sneering
    • View Profile
Re: Clearing up any confusion
« Reply #36 on: January 19, 2012, 01:18:06 AM »
as your well aware sneer my goal is objectivity ;) Nothing productive comes without it imo.
True, but later posts could have suggested alternative ways to think of the definition. Objectivity without consideration of its effect is a serious ethical decision! You need to bridge the official definition with others' thoughts on the subject, otherwise you are not unlike Navi from Legend of Zelda: "Hey! Listen! Listen to what I've already told you!"
A smile from ear to ear
3.5 is disappointingly flawed.

Offline Soundwave

  • DnD Handbook Writer
  • **
  • Posts: 153
  • Science, it works.
    • View Profile
Re: Clearing up any confusion
« Reply #37 on: January 19, 2012, 01:33:29 AM »
Oh i dont disagree there at all, if you peruse the posts before i was distracted by BGJ you'll notice I was attempting to gather a consensus we could all agree upon. Thus began my attempt to classify subtypes et el under a common umbrella.

A derailed effort however.

Offline EjoThims

  • DnD Handbook Writer
  • ***
  • Posts: 531
  • The Ferret
    • View Profile
Re: Clearing up any confusion
« Reply #38 on: January 19, 2012, 07:03:19 PM »
Josh was very rude, in my opinion.

I agree.

But being rude is a useful tool at times.

this is outright ridiculous. i wonder how you keep social relations in your rl.

Quiet easily. But I don't care for people who cannot handle when I feel being blunt is the best tool and who cannot place the things said in a discussion (heated or not) into the context of that discussion without thinking it somehow means my views for them elsewhere have changed in any way unless I have specifically said such.