|
Haji: Pardon?
And Infested:
On July 10 2008 02:04 himurakenshin wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2008 15:09 evanthebouncy! wrote:
It's the same tactic used by good o' communists in the cultural revolution, by the end of every day, we gather around in a circle discussing our guity deeds of captialism(Mr. Zhang has bought an obsenely amount of potatoes, such action is despeakable) and to confess in order not to be prosecuted. Bey I hope you realize the nasty implications and connotations of this thread, it is a truly ugly paranoia ridden place.
A confident forum will not need periodic witch hunts but a consistent daily reinforcement of the rules, much like how the world is run, police man enforcing the laws constantly and consistently. It is not some hit on the forehead hot headed whim "oh shit yeah let's ban a load of people!" but rather a long term commitment.
The need of a purge shows that teamliquid is not confident enough in its management powers and resort to threats to keep orders in place. I would ask the mods to be more confident in their abilities to cope with the bad posters consistently throughout the years instead of having a huge ban spike and then withdrawn into a lull. I agree with you 100%
He did not explain, why should that be more of a brillant post? He just said: I agree. That is not better. Yet, you did not point it out. Strange, isn't it?
Why do I disagree? Because I totally do not think it has anything to do with confidence. It's not a way for mods to hide behind a large-scale purge because they do not have the balls to do it otherwise. Not at all. I rather believe that this is a moment to say: Listen, that's enough, all bad posters will be wiped and we will be good to go until another crisis points out, if a crisis there is. It is an opportunity to channel all necessary bans within one great purge. It is a symbol. And God knows how symbols are powerful. It will go down in TL's history, already very rich in drama moments.
|
On July 10 2008 03:01 SpaCe)Ment-rA wrote:Haji: Pardon? And Infested: Show nested quote +On July 10 2008 02:04 himurakenshin wrote:On July 09 2008 15:09 evanthebouncy! wrote:
It's the same tactic used by good o' communists in the cultural revolution, by the end of every day, we gather around in a circle discussing our guity deeds of captialism(Mr. Zhang has bought an obsenely amount of potatoes, such action is despeakable) and to confess in order not to be prosecuted. Bey I hope you realize the nasty implications and connotations of this thread, it is a truly ugly paranoia ridden place.
A confident forum will not need periodic witch hunts but a consistent daily reinforcement of the rules, much like how the world is run, police man enforcing the laws constantly and consistently. It is not some hit on the forehead hot headed whim "oh shit yeah let's ban a load of people!" but rather a long term commitment.
The need of a purge shows that teamliquid is not confident enough in its management powers and resort to threats to keep orders in place. I would ask the mods to be more confident in their abilities to cope with the bad posters consistently throughout the years instead of having a huge ban spike and then withdrawn into a lull. I agree with you 100% He did not explain, why should that be more of a brillant post? He just said: I agree. That is not better. Yet, you did not point it out. Strange, isn't it? Why do I disagree? Because I totally do not think it has anything to do with confidence. It's not a way for mods to hide behind a large-scale purge because they do not have the balls to do it otherwise. Not at all. I rather believe that this is a moment to say: Listen, that's enough, all bad posters will be wiped and we will be good to go until another crisis points out, if a crisis there is. It is an opportunity to channel all necessary bans within one great purge. It is a symbol. And God knows how symbols are powerful. It will go down in TL's history, already very rich in drama moments.
It's kind of like, uhmm...
When you are taking a test in school, a lot of times it will say something like this:
"Next 10 Statements are true or false*, if answered false please give correct definition"
People tend to question No's instead of Yes'
It's kind of like quoting other people, you quote them because you think the same way and no need to write anything else in case you want to add something to it, but then again... quoting too much is bad imo
p.s. Was holylight banned? and that was jensofsweeden?
|
Have you never run into those tests where they ask your opinion on a text and, may you agree or disagree, you've got to bring justifications? Wait, how was it called again? Yeah, philosophy.
Quoting and saying: "I agree" is as much of a bad post as only saying: "I disagree".
Nevertheless, did I bring enough justifications to my opinion, oh noble sir?
|
I disagree.
"I agree" lends creedence to an established argument. A poster may not have anything substantive to contribute to the argument, but nonetheless is establishing his support for a proposal / idea / argument. It lets other forum goers see who supports which side (though who supports an argument shouldn't be as important as an arguments content, it often is).
Where as "I disagree" thrown nakedly establishes your opposition, but doesn't give others a reason to support your disagreement. If somebody were to post first against the idea, with backing, you could agree with that person without being a bad poster. But when you're the first wqith a disagreement, you should feel obliged to illustrate why precisely that is.
|
On July 10 2008 03:30 SpaCe)Ment-rA wrote:
Quoting and saying: "I agree" is as much of a bad post as only saying: "I disagree".
I agree.
|
On July 10 2008 03:41 Funchucks wrote:Show nested quote +On July 10 2008 03:30 SpaCe)Ment-rA wrote:
Quoting and saying: "I agree" is as much of a bad post as only saying: "I disagree". I agree.
I love you Funchucks. This is the best two word post I've ever seen.
|
Russian Federation4235 Posts
On July 10 2008 03:52 GeneralStan wrote:Show nested quote +On July 10 2008 03:41 Funchucks wrote:On July 10 2008 03:30 SpaCe)Ment-rA wrote:
Quoting and saying: "I agree" is as much of a bad post as only saying: "I disagree". I agree. I love you Funchucks. This is the best two word post I've ever seen.
I disagree.
|
On July 10 2008 03:40 GeneralStan wrote:
I disagree.
"I agree" lends creedence to an established argument. A poster may not have anything substantive to contribute to the argument, but nonetheless is establishing his support for a proposal / idea / argument. It lets other forum goers see who supports which side (though who supports an argument shouldn't be as important as an arguments content, it often is).
Where as "I disagree" thrown nakedly establishes your opposition, but doesn't give others a reason to support your disagreement. If somebody were to post first against the idea, with backing, you could agree with that person without being a bad poster. But when you're the first wqith a disagreement, you should feel obliged to illustrate why precisely that is.
I agree! =)
+ Show Spoiler +I am not trying to joke about the whole "I agree" "I don't agree" thing but I do agree ^^
GeneralStan covered pretty much what I was trying to say in better words ^_^
|
On July 10 2008 05:14 BluzMan wrote:Show nested quote +On July 10 2008 03:52 GeneralStan wrote:On July 10 2008 03:41 Funchucks wrote:On July 10 2008 03:30 SpaCe)Ment-rA wrote:
Quoting and saying: "I agree" is as much of a bad post as only saying: "I disagree". I agree. I love you Funchucks. This is the best two word post I've ever seen. I disagree.
I a-tree.
|
On July 10 2008 05:16 ShaLLoW[baY] wrote:Show nested quote +On July 10 2008 05:14 BluzMan wrote:On July 10 2008 03:52 GeneralStan wrote:On July 10 2008 03:41 Funchucks wrote:On July 10 2008 03:30 SpaCe)Ment-rA wrote:
Quoting and saying: "I agree" is as much of a bad post as only saying: "I disagree". I agree. I love you Funchucks. This is the best two word post I've ever seen. I disagree. I a-tree.
OMG this made me laugh so hard, everyone was lookin at me at work like wtzor o_O
|
I don't really post much, more a lurker. So I doubt banning me will cleanse the forums of anything substantial. I give myself a 6 (mostly to escape the radar and fit the bell curve =D ).
|
yea same with yellowmarker, dont' really post much ill say a 7
|
I'm going to put myself at a 6. I rarely contribute but I want some analysis from the mods =D
|
2-3, occasional useful post, 90% argumentative pointless tosh, 90% one liner support for topics that i like. I'd ban me.
|
Well i dont post a lot, tryied to help some people thought, but im more of a lurker. Didnt Post any offensive post, and im not bm so i would give me a 6 cause i dont post a lot and i should contribute more.
|
I just joined quite recently, but I'd give myself a 6.
Not all my posts are very long, but I try to give them some meaning. It doesn't take an essay to say what I want to say often times.
|
I'd give myself a 6 really
I have a lot of 1 liners though, gotta improve that 
|
On July 10 2008 05:14 BluzMan wrote:Show nested quote +On July 10 2008 03:52 GeneralStan wrote:On July 10 2008 03:41 Funchucks wrote:On July 10 2008 03:30 SpaCe)Ment-rA wrote:
Quoting and saying: "I agree" is as much of a bad post as only saying: "I disagree". I agree. I love you Funchucks. This is the best two word post I've ever seen. I disagree.
Worst post ever
|
|
|
Belgium8305 Posts
that prompted me to check your posting history and the sheer amount of suck almost tore my head off
try to post better in a week okay
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://www.freefoto.com/images/15/19/15_19_1---Tree--Sunrise--Northumberland_web.jpg)
