|
This thread is for discussing recent bans. Don't discuss other topics here. Take it to website feedback if you disagree with a ban or want to raise an issue. Keep it civil.NOTE: For those of you who want to find the actual ABL thread where the bans are posted. Please look in here: https://tl.net/forum/closed-threads/ |
I don't have much to argue with your post, Probe1. It was very well articulated and I definitely see your thoughts on the issue and respect them. My only qualm is this:
I would rather let things break before they are fixed, though preventing them altogether could be wiser, even if the consequences of prevention could have unforeseeable repercussions.
To be brutally honest, I don't see why this is anything other than a fucking stupid idea. Why would letting things go to hell before fixing them be any better EVER than fixing things before they go to hell?
|
On June 24 2011 09:07 Aeres wrote:
I think it'd be better if people who commit one or more blatant offenses right after registering should be just instantly perm-banned. Even if the act was done out of ignorance, not malice, and even if the person seems to be a nice person but stepped over the line on a certain offense. The onus is on the user to read the cardinal rules of this website (The Ten Commandments, the Strategy Forum Guidelines, etc.), and if Mr. Joe One-Post decides to completely ignore all that (despite being explicitly instructed to read said rules upon registration), he shouldn't be given any lenience.
I don't really feel like temporary bans do anything to solidify the importance of heeding the cardinal rules, at least for these posters who think they can post on TL like they do on GameFAQs or the Battle.net forums. If I were in charge of administrative policy, I would issue auto-perms for any offense committed by these single-digit posters. They'd be welcome to reregister once they read the goddamn rules and understand what is permitted on TeamLiquid.
Then again, maybe it's a good thing I'm not dictating policy here. -_-
Why should someone that is not used to how strict TL is be perma-banned? Every site tells you to read the rules, and the rules ussually state a lot of things that aren't really enforced. They register, start posting like they would in any other forum and get banned, because TL is diferent. You can't expect people that don't know TL to know that things over here don't work like every other forum. After that, they will know how things work, and they may just get banned, or may actually improve. Basically, if they don't read the rules after the 2 day ban, they won't read them before register again anyway.
Of course that applies just to some of the new users, but I don't understand why someone that doesn't know how stricter TL is than regular forums just be given a worse punishment than someone who actually knows it, but chooses to ignore it, for whatever the reason. Unless it's a rage outbreak or something, shitty posting by someone that is used to the rules is actually worse for me.
I'm sure there are plenty of people that have been banned once or twice in the begging and learned, they may not be that many, but giving no chance at all seems too harsh. Ignorace sure is bad, but worse than pure and simple malice? Someone posting out of malice will never improve, and it's not a good person, someone ignorant of the rules may be.
|
17038 Posts
We usually give people a lot of chances, but occasionally there'll be instances where we decide it's better for a user to simply be permanently banned and try again on a new account.
|
We're speaking in absolutes and in an area without a wide median then you're totally correct. I'll use the plague example to describe my "let things break instead of prevention" thought.
There's a plague in the countryside and many people are migrating to cities to avoid dying from it. I would rather the cities remain open and harbor a few plagued individuals, sacrificing the overall health of the city. Then closing its doors once a dangerous endemic of sickness threatens the city as a whole, sacrificing a certain amount of the populous in turn for the lives of refugees instead of closing entry before any contaminate enters. It's a martyrdom complex obviously and it can only narrowly be applied. I don't think we should ignore our energy issues until self made doom threatens to end us, but in this situation, on these forums, I'd like there to be a pause before stronger responses are called for.
Of course, I doubt I'm entirely correct. As in almost all situations, the answer is likely to be found somewhere between polarities.
On June 24 2011 10:38 Empyrean wrote:
We usually give people a lot of chances, but occasionally there'll be instances where we decide it's better for a user to simply be permanently banned and try again on a new account.
As always, I think the community (which does not include the banned users being discussed) has the utmost faith in the moderators judgement. A site that does not favor compos mentis in those it gives power to is a site few would love.
+ Show Spoiler [Aside] +I mentioned in PM that I might get to ladder if there were no new reports. I was not so lucky, though as always those that were pitted against cheaters were even less lucky.
|
On June 24 2011 10:35 SKC wrote:
Why should someone that is not used to how strict TL is be perma-banned? Every site tells you to read the rules, and the rules ussually state a lot of things that aren't really enforced. They register, start posting like they would in any other forum and get banned, because TL is diferent. You can't expect people that don't know TL to know that things over here don't work like every other forum. After that, they will know how things work, and they may just get banned, or may actually improve. Basically, if they don't read the rules after the 2 day ban, they won't read them before register again anyway.
Of course that applies just to some of the new users, but I don't understand why someone that doesn't know how stricter TL is than regular forums just be receive a worse punishment than someone who actually knows it, but chooses to ignore it, for whatever the reason it. Unless it's a rage outbreak or something, shitty posting by someone that is used to the rules is actually worse for me.
Again, the onus is on the user to be aware of the standards of the site. Ignorance is no excuse. If you're unsure of the way a given site operates, lurk for a little while to get a feel for the place. Every site has rules, yes, and every site's rules should be honored if you want to remain posting there. TL is no different in that regard; if you don't read / heed the rules, your fate is sealed.
So, yes, you can and should expect that those who post here are aware of what is expected of them, and if they don't, then it doesn't really say much about the respect they have for the site.
On June 24 2011 10:35 SKC wrote:
I'm sure there are plenty of people that have been banned once or twice in the begging and learned, they may not be that many, but giving no chance at all seems too harsh. Ignorace sure is bad, but worse than pure and simple malice? Someone posting out of malice will never improve, and it's not a good person, someone ignorant of the rules may be.
I'm not saying that ignorance is worse than malice. My idea for the sort of policy we're discussing is meant only to make sure the posters who disregard TL's standards are weeded out until they understand and abide by them, while the posters who get it right on the first try have a leg up on this site and can be expected to know what they're doing. Whether that knowledge is derived from reading and comprehending site rules, inferring rights and wrongs from other posters, or just common sense is not as important, as all posters should expect to have those qualities in some degree before beginning to contribute to the site. As a general guideline, if you start posting on a site without those three things, you won't go far, and that counts for TL too.
Yeah, malicious intent is incurable, but ignorance is again no excuse for poor forum conduct.
|
On June 24 2011 10:40 Probe1 wrote:
We're speaking in absolutes and in an area without a wide median then you're totally correct. I'll use the plague example to describe my "let things break instead of prevention" thought.
There's a plague in the countryside and many people are migrating to cities to avoid dying from it. I would rather the cities remain open and harbor a few plagued individuals, sacrificing the overall health of the city. Then closing its doors once a dangerous endemic of sickness threatens the city as a whole, sacrificing a certain amount of the populous in turn for the lives of refugees instead of closing entry before any contaminate enters. It's a martyrdom complex obviously and it can only narrowly be applied. I don't think we should ignore our energy issues until self made doom threatens to end us, but in this situation, on these forums, I'd like there to be a pause before stronger responses are called for.
Of course, I doubt I'm entirely correct. As in almost all situations, the answer is likely to be found somewhere between polarities.
If you want to make a morality argument for or against tl's policy, you are barking up the wrong tree. Tl doesn't have it's rules because they are "absolutes" or for morality's sake. Tl has its rules because the mods want the forum to be a certain way, and enforcing the rules helps maintain it that way. If you do not like the rules you are not forced to post here 
|
On June 24 2011 10:47 Aeres wrote:Show nested quote +On June 24 2011 10:35 SKC wrote:
Why should someone that is not used to how strict TL is be perma-banned? Every site tells you to read the rules, and the rules ussually state a lot of things that aren't really enforced. They register, start posting like they would in any other forum and get banned, because TL is diferent. You can't expect people that don't know TL to know that things over here don't work like every other forum. After that, they will know how things work, and they may just get banned, or may actually improve. Basically, if they don't read the rules after the 2 day ban, they won't read them before register again anyway.
Of course that applies just to some of the new users, but I don't understand why someone that doesn't know how stricter TL is than regular forums just be receive a worse punishment than someone who actually knows it, but chooses to ignore it, for whatever the reason it. Unless it's a rage outbreak or something, shitty posting by someone that is used to the rules is actually worse for me. Again, the onus is on the user to be aware of the standards of the site. Ignorance is no excuse. If you're unsure of the way a given site operates, lurk for a little while to get a feel for the place. Every site has rules, yes, and every site's rules should be honored if you want to remain posting there. TL is no different in that regard; if you don't read / heed the rules, your fate is sealed. So, yes, you can and should expect that those who post here are aware of what is expected of them, and if they don't, then it doesn't really say much about the respect they have for the site. Show nested quote +On June 24 2011 10:35 SKC wrote:
I'm sure there are plenty of people that have been banned once or twice in the begging and learned, they may not be that many, but giving no chance at all seems too harsh. Ignorace sure is bad, but worse than pure and simple malice? Someone posting out of malice will never improve, and it's not a good person, someone ignorant of the rules may be. I'm not saying that ignorance is worse than malice. My idea for the sort of policy we're discussing is meant only to make sure the posters who disregard TL's standards are weeded out until they understand and abide by them, while the posters who get it right on the first try have a leg up on this site and can be expected to know what they're doing. Whether that knowledge is derived from reading and comprehending site rules, inferring rights and wrongs from other posters, or just common sense is not as important, as all posters should expect to have those qualities in some degree before beginning to contribute to the site. As a general guideline, if you start posting on a site without those three things, you won't go far, and that counts for TL too. Yeah, malicious intent is incurable, but ignorance is again no excuse for poor forum conduct.
I just don't understand how can something be acceptable a long term member but not a new member. If it warrants a perma ban for not knowing you shouldn't do it, why does it not warrant the same for actually knowing you shouldn't do it and still doing it? That's even worse in my opinion.
I'm fine with the way things work right now, like empyrean said, TL actually gives plenty of chances. If you look at the ban list, bans for people in their first posts are actuall quite rare, and those posters with 1 post that clearly trolling are actually perma banned, so I'm not even sure that's such a big problem.
|
On June 24 2011 10:47 Aeres wrote:
Ignorance is no excuse. If you're unsure of the way a given site operates, lurk for a little while to get a feel for the place. Every site has rules, yes, and every site's rules should be honored if you want to remain posting there. TL is no different in that regard; if you don't read / heed the rules, your fate is sealed.
I really agree with what you wrote here. I know i spent a while before i wrote my first post because i really wanted to make sure what i said was bot acceptable and would help someone out. I probably wrote and deleted like 10 posts before i made my first one.
|
On June 24 2011 10:56 SKC wrote:Show nested quote +On June 24 2011 10:47 Aeres wrote:On June 24 2011 10:35 SKC wrote:
Why should someone that is not used to how strict TL is be perma-banned? Every site tells you to read the rules, and the rules ussually state a lot of things that aren't really enforced. They register, start posting like they would in any other forum and get banned, because TL is diferent. You can't expect people that don't know TL to know that things over here don't work like every other forum. After that, they will know how things work, and they may just get banned, or may actually improve. Basically, if they don't read the rules after the 2 day ban, they won't read them before register again anyway.
Of course that applies just to some of the new users, but I don't understand why someone that doesn't know how stricter TL is than regular forums just be receive a worse punishment than someone who actually knows it, but chooses to ignore it, for whatever the reason it. Unless it's a rage outbreak or something, shitty posting by someone that is used to the rules is actually worse for me. Again, the onus is on the user to be aware of the standards of the site. Ignorance is no excuse. If you're unsure of the way a given site operates, lurk for a little while to get a feel for the place. Every site has rules, yes, and every site's rules should be honored if you want to remain posting there. TL is no different in that regard; if you don't read / heed the rules, your fate is sealed. So, yes, you can and should expect that those who post here are aware of what is expected of them, and if they don't, then it doesn't really say much about the respect they have for the site. On June 24 2011 10:35 SKC wrote:
I'm sure there are plenty of people that have been banned once or twice in the begging and learned, they may not be that many, but giving no chance at all seems too harsh. Ignorace sure is bad, but worse than pure and simple malice? Someone posting out of malice will never improve, and it's not a good person, someone ignorant of the rules may be. I'm not saying that ignorance is worse than malice. My idea for the sort of policy we're discussing is meant only to make sure the posters who disregard TL's standards are weeded out until they understand and abide by them, while the posters who get it right on the first try have a leg up on this site and can be expected to know what they're doing. Whether that knowledge is derived from reading and comprehending site rules, inferring rights and wrongs from other posters, or just common sense is not as important, as all posters should expect to have those qualities in some degree before beginning to contribute to the site. As a general guideline, if you start posting on a site without those three things, you won't go far, and that counts for TL too. Yeah, malicious intent is incurable, but ignorance is again no excuse for poor forum conduct. I just don't understand how can something be acceptable a long term member but not a new member. If it warrants a perma ban for not knowing you shouldn't do it, why does it not warrant the same for actually knowing you shouldn't do it and still doing it? That's even worse in my opinion. I'm fine with the way things work right now, like empyrean said, TL actually gives plenty of chances. If you look at the ban list, bans for people in their first posts are actuall quite rare, and those posters with 1 post that clearly trolling are actually perma banned, so I'm not even sure that's such a big problem.
+ Show Spoiler +On September 13 2004 22:42 mensrea wrote:
THOU SHALL RESPECT FORUM VETERANS
All other things being equal, we will give preferential treatment to site members who have been with us longer (as reflected in their post count + length of time with us as a registered member). It's a simple recognition of the quality of these people. Longevity and contribution are prized commodities around here. In a similar vein, "known" pro/semi-pro players will also be treated with deference (yes, quite a few hang out here). Don't complain - these guys have earned it.
Remember: we ban little kids all the time because they sign on thinking they can say and do whatever they want to whomever they want right from the get-go - just like they're used to doing at other sites. That attitude won't work here. That's a promise. As far as new users are concerned (i.e. anyone with less than 1000 or so quality posts to their name), this site is Holy Ground. The veterans are the users who've consistently shown respect to the site and to others and that's why they're still here. Show them some respect.
In practice, this policy means a user who has thousands of posts may be able to get away with a few minor transgressions in etiquette with just a warning. If you're at 50 posts and you try the same kind of stunt, then we may just ban you. Harsh? Yes. Unfair? Most definitely. But that's the way life is. Learn to live with it.
This also means you should think twice before calling that guy with 5000+ posts a jackass. If the guy's been with us that long, chances are YOU'RE the one being an idiot. Some battles are just not worth fighting - just move on.
That being said, if I were in charge of administrative protocol, I would ban anyone who commits some sort of offense, regardless of whether they're aware it shouldn't be done. But as the Commandment notes, veterans get preferential treatment. There IS a double standard on TL, and the staff knows it, the vets know it, everyone should.
Of course, Empyrean is a member of the moderation team, so his say rightly overrides mine. I'm just saying what my decisions would be if I were given the same tasks that Empy and the rest are assigned to. I'm obviously too much of a Rekrul to have this sort of policy implemented in any fashion, but this is just how I would do it. I have tons of respect for the mods and admins, and the way they do their work is fantastic as is, I agree. However, I just feel that sometimes the moderation is too lenient. The reasons for such are again understandable, but...
Meh. There's no use thinking about what a utopia would be like if you can't make it happen, I suppose.
|
17038 Posts
No one enjoys a police state :X
I think it's much better for users to learn from their mistakes and improve their posting than to get angry at the moderation and never come back. If certain posters are unsalvageable, then of course, it's an easy ban. In most cases, though, moderation should be taken as a learning experience, not as punishment.
Fun fact: I was warned back in 2006 for requesting a D2 CD Key (of all things). It wasn't a ban because I had been around a while so Twisted decided to simply warn instead of ban; it's also my only mod action. While it's easy to learn from warnings for requesting a CD Key, most people will take warnings for other things (like flaming, off topic posting, etc.) to heart as well.
|
On June 24 2011 11:09 Aeres wrote:Show nested quote +On June 24 2011 10:56 SKC wrote:On June 24 2011 10:47 Aeres wrote:On June 24 2011 10:35 SKC wrote:
Why should someone that is not used to how strict TL is be perma-banned? Every site tells you to read the rules, and the rules ussually state a lot of things that aren't really enforced. They register, start posting like they would in any other forum and get banned, because TL is diferent. You can't expect people that don't know TL to know that things over here don't work like every other forum. After that, they will know how things work, and they may just get banned, or may actually improve. Basically, if they don't read the rules after the 2 day ban, they won't read them before register again anyway.
Of course that applies just to some of the new users, but I don't understand why someone that doesn't know how stricter TL is than regular forums just be receive a worse punishment than someone who actually knows it, but chooses to ignore it, for whatever the reason it. Unless it's a rage outbreak or something, shitty posting by someone that is used to the rules is actually worse for me. Again, the onus is on the user to be aware of the standards of the site. Ignorance is no excuse. If you're unsure of the way a given site operates, lurk for a little while to get a feel for the place. Every site has rules, yes, and every site's rules should be honored if you want to remain posting there. TL is no different in that regard; if you don't read / heed the rules, your fate is sealed. So, yes, you can and should expect that those who post here are aware of what is expected of them, and if they don't, then it doesn't really say much about the respect they have for the site. On June 24 2011 10:35 SKC wrote:
I'm sure there are plenty of people that have been banned once or twice in the begging and learned, they may not be that many, but giving no chance at all seems too harsh. Ignorace sure is bad, but worse than pure and simple malice? Someone posting out of malice will never improve, and it's not a good person, someone ignorant of the rules may be. I'm not saying that ignorance is worse than malice. My idea for the sort of policy we're discussing is meant only to make sure the posters who disregard TL's standards are weeded out until they understand and abide by them, while the posters who get it right on the first try have a leg up on this site and can be expected to know what they're doing. Whether that knowledge is derived from reading and comprehending site rules, inferring rights and wrongs from other posters, or just common sense is not as important, as all posters should expect to have those qualities in some degree before beginning to contribute to the site. As a general guideline, if you start posting on a site without those three things, you won't go far, and that counts for TL too. Yeah, malicious intent is incurable, but ignorance is again no excuse for poor forum conduct. I just don't understand how can something be acceptable a long term member but not a new member. If it warrants a perma ban for not knowing you shouldn't do it, why does it not warrant the same for actually knowing you shouldn't do it and still doing it? That's even worse in my opinion. I'm fine with the way things work right now, like empyrean said, TL actually gives plenty of chances. If you look at the ban list, bans for people in their first posts are actuall quite rare, and those posters with 1 post that clearly trolling are actually perma banned, so I'm not even sure that's such a big problem. + Show Spoiler +On September 13 2004 22:42 mensrea wrote:
THOU SHALL RESPECT FORUM VETERANS
All other things being equal, we will give preferential treatment to site members who have been with us longer (as reflected in their post count + length of time with us as a registered member). It's a simple recognition of the quality of these people. Longevity and contribution are prized commodities around here. In a similar vein, "known" pro/semi-pro players will also be treated with deference (yes, quite a few hang out here). Don't complain - these guys have earned it.
Remember: we ban little kids all the time because they sign on thinking they can say and do whatever they want to whomever they want right from the get-go - just like they're used to doing at other sites. That attitude won't work here. That's a promise. As far as new users are concerned (i.e. anyone with less than 1000 or so quality posts to their name), this site is Holy Ground. The veterans are the users who've consistently shown respect to the site and to others and that's why they're still here. Show them some respect.
In practice, this policy means a user who has thousands of posts may be able to get away with a few minor transgressions in etiquette with just a warning. If you're at 50 posts and you try the same kind of stunt, then we may just ban you. Harsh? Yes. Unfair? Most definitely. But that's the way life is. Learn to live with it.
This also means you should think twice before calling that guy with 5000+ posts a jackass. If the guy's been with us that long, chances are YOU'RE the one being an idiot. Some battles are just not worth fighting - just move on. That being said, if I were in charge of administrative protocol, I would ban anyone who commits some sort of offense, regardless of whether they're aware it shouldn't be done. But as the Commandment notes, veterans get preferential treatment. There IS a double standard on TL, and the staff knows it, the vets know it, everyone should. Of course, Empyrean is a member of the moderation team, so his say rightly overrides mine. I'm just saying what my decisions would be if I were given the same tasks that Empy and the rest are assigned to. I'm obviously too much of a Rekrul to have this sort of policy implemented in any fashion, but this is just how I would do it. I have tons of respect for the mods and admins, and the way they do their work is fantastic as is, I agree. However, I just feel that sometimes the moderation is too lenient. The reasons for such are again understandable, but... Meh. There's no use thinking about what a utopia would be like if you can't make it happen, I suppose.
I just want to say that I didn`t mean real veteran, but someone with 50 posts and 3 months instead that someone with 5 posts and 3 days, so that rule, which I`m aware of, doesn`t apply. I`ve seen plenty of people, a lot of them on this thread, I believe, that said they got banned and improved, taking away that opportunity would not be fair. Hell, go look at Hot_Bid`s first posts, or plenty of other veterans. TL used to allow a lot more than it does now, did the rules change that much or just the way they are enforced? You can`t expect people to understand clearly how something is enforced, just how the rules are stated. The same cannot be said for someone with 50-500 posts.
Let`s look a Empyrean`s story above, wouldn`t someone asking for a SC2 cd-key be punished more harsly now? Did the rules change or was there no rule that said asking for cd-keys wasn`t allowed? Sometimes people just make mistakes.
|
On June 22 2011 12:51 Probulous wrote:Show nested quote +jdseemoreglass was just temp banned for 2 days by micronesia. That account was created on 2010-07-23 07:33:10 and had 1235 posts. Reason: On June 22 2011 10:39 jdseemoreglass wrote: + Show Spoiler +On June 22 2011 10:16 BlackJack wrote: + Show Spoiler +On June 22 2011 10:10 jdseemoreglass wrote:
One day mankind will solve death. If we just have enough of other people's money and we have scientific progress we can achieve immortality for everyone. Of course it won't happen in America, because we are backwards and get everything wrong and should learn from the other countries how to behave.
There is no reason for a person to die of cancer or any other deadly disease. Every time I hear about someone dying in the news, or taking great pains to try and survive as long as possible, I question where the system failed them. We've got a lot of ignorant capitalists here who believe in things like natural selection and think it's normal for people to die. Well it's not. We just haven't advanced politically far enough to end death, like many countries have ended poverty.
I just hope America isn't beat to solving mortality by a nation like Cuba or North Korea. That would be very embarrassing considering how many economic advantages we have.
Are you trolling or do you really believe what you write down? I hope it's the former What makes you think I'm trolling? Maybe I didn't explain what I meant very clearly. Let me try and rephrase the argument... There are many, many people who have died, right? I mean I hear about it all the time in the news and in history and stuff. And yet, at the same time, there are tons of people alive and living. Clearly that means that death isn't really necessary, or else we would all be dead. So how come some people die and so many other people haven't died? Well clearly it's because there is an unequal distribution of wealth. If all of the people who died had the same exact health care as the people who are alive, then no one would be dead. So to cure mortality, all we have to do is take the health care from the richest people and apply it to the poorest people. This is pretty much common sense. But our voters and politicians are so dumb they don't see this logic. People are really very immoral because they refuse to give up their money, essentially they want other people to die for their own greed. If it wasn't for greed we could have cured death a long time ago. You have to admire that his brain is capable of such weird logic. It is so illogical that it almost makes sense. Some kind of idiot-savant thing going on here. Death can't be necessary because people are alive? That's going to stick with me. Probably not in the way he intended but hey at least his point got across... Or did it...
On June 22 2011 13:18 Probe1 wrote:What the fuck.. Seldom do I use that phrase with full force. What. The. Fuck. + Show Spoiler + Seriously. What the fuck. My brain just stroked off trying to save me from thinking too hard about that post.
On June 22 2011 14:36 Probulous wrote:Show nested quote +On June 22 2011 14:29 Kinetik_Inferno wrote:On June 22 2011 12:51 Probulous wrote:jdseemoreglass was just temp banned for 2 days by micronesia. That account was created on 2010-07-23 07:33:10 and had 1235 posts. Reason: On June 22 2011 10:39 jdseemoreglass wrote: + Show Spoiler +On June 22 2011 10:16 BlackJack wrote: + Show Spoiler +On June 22 2011 10:10 jdseemoreglass wrote:
One day mankind will solve death. If we just have enough of other people's money and we have scientific progress we can achieve immortality for everyone. Of course it won't happen in America, because we are backwards and get everything wrong and should learn from the other countries how to behave.
There is no reason for a person to die of cancer or any other deadly disease. Every time I hear about someone dying in the news, or taking great pains to try and survive as long as possible, I question where the system failed them. We've got a lot of ignorant capitalists here who believe in things like natural selection and think it's normal for people to die. Well it's not. We just haven't advanced politically far enough to end death, like many countries have ended poverty.
I just hope America isn't beat to solving mortality by a nation like Cuba or North Korea. That would be very embarrassing considering how many economic advantages we have.
Are you trolling or do you really believe what you write down? I hope it's the former What makes you think I'm trolling? Maybe I didn't explain what I meant very clearly. Let me try and rephrase the argument... There are many, many people who have died, right? I mean I hear about it all the time in the news and in history and stuff. And yet, at the same time, there are tons of people alive and living. Clearly that means that death isn't really necessary, or else we would all be dead. So how come some people die and so many other people haven't died? Well clearly it's because there is an unequal distribution of wealth. If all of the people who died had the same exact health care as the people who are alive, then no one would be dead. So to cure mortality, all we have to do is take the health care from the richest people and apply it to the poorest people. This is pretty much common sense. But our voters and politicians are so dumb they don't see this logic. People are really very immoral because they refuse to give up their money, essentially they want other people to die for their own greed. If it wasn't for greed we could have cured death a long time ago. You have to admire that his brain is capable of such weird logic. It is so illogical that it almost makes sense. Some kind of idiot-savant thing going on here. Death can't be necessary because people are alive? That's going to stick with me. Probably not in the way he intended but hey at least his point got across... Or did it... In some way it makes sense to me. While death may be natural, it may be the next great thing for mankind to conquer. He didn't exactly state it in a completely understandable manner, and I get the feeling that he walked away from his computer and when he came back to writing the post he lost his train of thought, but when you break it down: Death is natural, yet it is one of the great things for man to conquer. He lost his train of sanity thought when he started talking about how conquering death would require research, and politicians are greedy and rich people are greedy. In some ways, I agree with the last statement. I believe that a family, be it rich or not, can comfortably live in a decent sized house, so one rich guy having his own 5 acre personal mansion is stupid, wasteful, and immoral. You are of course, correct. Death is only natural because we haven't found a cure yet. I guess the premise isn't a problem it is the very strange logic he tried to use to support it. People living != People living forever.
On June 22 2011 13:20 Torte de Lini wrote:
Jdseemoreglass is no stranger to temp. bans. A large shame because I think he is a generally nice guy, just very misguided to say the least.
On June 22 2011 14:15 koreasilver wrote:Show nested quote +On June 22 2011 13:20 Torte de Lini wrote:
Jdseemoreglass is no stranger to temp. bans. A large shame because I think he is a generally nice guy, just very misguided to say the least. After reading that quote, this is really understated.
I am quite honestly baffled by how many people took my post seriously. I mean, really? I tried to sound absurd the first time, and when someone got confused I upped the absurdity meter even more, but people still didn't get it and I got temp-banned in the process.
At least I had the consolation while banned of reading these hilarious responses. I think I might start writing a blog on "recognizing irony and satire." 
|
On June 24 2011 11:40 jdseemoreglass wrote:Show nested quote +On June 22 2011 12:51 Probulous wrote:jdseemoreglass was just temp banned for 2 days by micronesia. That account was created on 2010-07-23 07:33:10 and had 1235 posts. Reason: On June 22 2011 10:39 jdseemoreglass wrote: + Show Spoiler +On June 22 2011 10:16 BlackJack wrote: + Show Spoiler +On June 22 2011 10:10 jdseemoreglass wrote:
One day mankind will solve death. If we just have enough of other people's money and we have scientific progress we can achieve immortality for everyone. Of course it won't happen in America, because we are backwards and get everything wrong and should learn from the other countries how to behave.
There is no reason for a person to die of cancer or any other deadly disease. Every time I hear about someone dying in the news, or taking great pains to try and survive as long as possible, I question where the system failed them. We've got a lot of ignorant capitalists here who believe in things like natural selection and think it's normal for people to die. Well it's not. We just haven't advanced politically far enough to end death, like many countries have ended poverty.
I just hope America isn't beat to solving mortality by a nation like Cuba or North Korea. That would be very embarrassing considering how many economic advantages we have.
Are you trolling or do you really believe what you write down? I hope it's the former What makes you think I'm trolling? Maybe I didn't explain what I meant very clearly. Let me try and rephrase the argument... There are many, many people who have died, right? I mean I hear about it all the time in the news and in history and stuff. And yet, at the same time, there are tons of people alive and living. Clearly that means that death isn't really necessary, or else we would all be dead. So how come some people die and so many other people haven't died? Well clearly it's because there is an unequal distribution of wealth. If all of the people who died had the same exact health care as the people who are alive, then no one would be dead. So to cure mortality, all we have to do is take the health care from the richest people and apply it to the poorest people. This is pretty much common sense. But our voters and politicians are so dumb they don't see this logic. People are really very immoral because they refuse to give up their money, essentially they want other people to die for their own greed. If it wasn't for greed we could have cured death a long time ago. You have to admire that his brain is capable of such weird logic. It is so illogical that it almost makes sense. Some kind of idiot-savant thing going on here. Death can't be necessary because people are alive? That's going to stick with me. Probably not in the way he intended but hey at least his point got across... Or did it... Show nested quote +On June 22 2011 13:18 Probe1 wrote:What the fuck.. Seldom do I use that phrase with full force. If it wasn't for greed we could have cured death a long time ago. What. The. Fuck. + Show Spoiler + Seriously. What the fuck. My brain just stroked off trying to save me from thinking too hard about that post. Show nested quote +On June 22 2011 14:36 Probulous wrote:On June 22 2011 14:29 Kinetik_Inferno wrote:On June 22 2011 12:51 Probulous wrote:jdseemoreglass was just temp banned for 2 days by micronesia. That account was created on 2010-07-23 07:33:10 and had 1235 posts. Reason: On June 22 2011 10:39 jdseemoreglass wrote: + Show Spoiler +On June 22 2011 10:16 BlackJack wrote: + Show Spoiler +On June 22 2011 10:10 jdseemoreglass wrote:
One day mankind will solve death. If we just have enough of other people's money and we have scientific progress we can achieve immortality for everyone. Of course it won't happen in America, because we are backwards and get everything wrong and should learn from the other countries how to behave.
There is no reason for a person to die of cancer or any other deadly disease. Every time I hear about someone dying in the news, or taking great pains to try and survive as long as possible, I question where the system failed them. We've got a lot of ignorant capitalists here who believe in things like natural selection and think it's normal for people to die. Well it's not. We just haven't advanced politically far enough to end death, like many countries have ended poverty.
I just hope America isn't beat to solving mortality by a nation like Cuba or North Korea. That would be very embarrassing considering how many economic advantages we have.
Are you trolling or do you really believe what you write down? I hope it's the former What makes you think I'm trolling? Maybe I didn't explain what I meant very clearly. Let me try and rephrase the argument... There are many, many people who have died, right? I mean I hear about it all the time in the news and in history and stuff. And yet, at the same time, there are tons of people alive and living. Clearly that means that death isn't really necessary, or else we would all be dead. So how come some people die and so many other people haven't died? Well clearly it's because there is an unequal distribution of wealth. If all of the people who died had the same exact health care as the people who are alive, then no one would be dead. So to cure mortality, all we have to do is take the health care from the richest people and apply it to the poorest people. This is pretty much common sense. But our voters and politicians are so dumb they don't see this logic. People are really very immoral because they refuse to give up their money, essentially they want other people to die for their own greed. If it wasn't for greed we could have cured death a long time ago. You have to admire that his brain is capable of such weird logic. It is so illogical that it almost makes sense. Some kind of idiot-savant thing going on here. Death can't be necessary because people are alive? That's going to stick with me. Probably not in the way he intended but hey at least his point got across... Or did it... In some way it makes sense to me. While death may be natural, it may be the next great thing for mankind to conquer. He didn't exactly state it in a completely understandable manner, and I get the feeling that he walked away from his computer and when he came back to writing the post he lost his train of thought, but when you break it down: Death is natural, yet it is one of the great things for man to conquer. He lost his train of sanity thought when he started talking about how conquering death would require research, and politicians are greedy and rich people are greedy. In some ways, I agree with the last statement. I believe that a family, be it rich or not, can comfortably live in a decent sized house, so one rich guy having his own 5 acre personal mansion is stupid, wasteful, and immoral. You are of course, correct. Death is only natural because we haven't found a cure yet. I guess the premise isn't a problem it is the very strange logic he tried to use to support it. People living != People living forever. Show nested quote +On June 22 2011 13:20 Torte de Lini wrote:
Jdseemoreglass is no stranger to temp. bans. A large shame because I think he is a generally nice guy, just very misguided to say the least. Show nested quote +On June 22 2011 14:15 koreasilver wrote:On June 22 2011 13:20 Torte de Lini wrote:
Jdseemoreglass is no stranger to temp. bans. A large shame because I think he is a generally nice guy, just very misguided to say the least. After reading that quote, this is really understated. I am quite honestly baffled by how many people took my post seriously. I mean, really? I tried to sound absurd the first time, and when someone got confused I upped the absurdity meter even more, but people still didn't get it and I got temp-banned in the process. At least I had the consolation while banned of reading these hilarious responses. I think I might start writing a blog on "recognizing irony and satire."
You should be temp banned either way. Trolling for the sake of trolling in the middle of a discussion is not exactly quality posting. I`ve seen more absurd opinions from people being serious, you never know in the Internet.
|
On June 24 2011 11:44 SKC wrote:Show nested quote +On June 24 2011 11:40 jdseemoreglass wrote:On June 22 2011 12:51 Probulous wrote:jdseemoreglass was just temp banned for 2 days by micronesia. That account was created on 2010-07-23 07:33:10 and had 1235 posts. Reason: On June 22 2011 10:39 jdseemoreglass wrote: + Show Spoiler +On June 22 2011 10:16 BlackJack wrote: + Show Spoiler +On June 22 2011 10:10 jdseemoreglass wrote:
One day mankind will solve death. If we just have enough of other people's money and we have scientific progress we can achieve immortality for everyone. Of course it won't happen in America, because we are backwards and get everything wrong and should learn from the other countries how to behave.
There is no reason for a person to die of cancer or any other deadly disease. Every time I hear about someone dying in the news, or taking great pains to try and survive as long as possible, I question where the system failed them. We've got a lot of ignorant capitalists here who believe in things like natural selection and think it's normal for people to die. Well it's not. We just haven't advanced politically far enough to end death, like many countries have ended poverty.
I just hope America isn't beat to solving mortality by a nation like Cuba or North Korea. That would be very embarrassing considering how many economic advantages we have.
Are you trolling or do you really believe what you write down? I hope it's the former What makes you think I'm trolling? Maybe I didn't explain what I meant very clearly. Let me try and rephrase the argument... There are many, many people who have died, right? I mean I hear about it all the time in the news and in history and stuff. And yet, at the same time, there are tons of people alive and living. Clearly that means that death isn't really necessary, or else we would all be dead. So how come some people die and so many other people haven't died? Well clearly it's because there is an unequal distribution of wealth. If all of the people who died had the same exact health care as the people who are alive, then no one would be dead. So to cure mortality, all we have to do is take the health care from the richest people and apply it to the poorest people. This is pretty much common sense. But our voters and politicians are so dumb they don't see this logic. People are really very immoral because they refuse to give up their money, essentially they want other people to die for their own greed. If it wasn't for greed we could have cured death a long time ago. You have to admire that his brain is capable of such weird logic. It is so illogical that it almost makes sense. Some kind of idiot-savant thing going on here. Death can't be necessary because people are alive? That's going to stick with me. Probably not in the way he intended but hey at least his point got across... Or did it... On June 22 2011 13:18 Probe1 wrote:What the fuck.. Seldom do I use that phrase with full force. If it wasn't for greed we could have cured death a long time ago. What. The. Fuck. + Show Spoiler + Seriously. What the fuck. My brain just stroked off trying to save me from thinking too hard about that post. On June 22 2011 14:36 Probulous wrote:On June 22 2011 14:29 Kinetik_Inferno wrote:On June 22 2011 12:51 Probulous wrote:jdseemoreglass was just temp banned for 2 days by micronesia. That account was created on 2010-07-23 07:33:10 and had 1235 posts. Reason: On June 22 2011 10:39 jdseemoreglass wrote: + Show Spoiler +On June 22 2011 10:16 BlackJack wrote: + Show Spoiler +On June 22 2011 10:10 jdseemoreglass wrote:
One day mankind will solve death. If we just have enough of other people's money and we have scientific progress we can achieve immortality for everyone. Of course it won't happen in America, because we are backwards and get everything wrong and should learn from the other countries how to behave.
There is no reason for a person to die of cancer or any other deadly disease. Every time I hear about someone dying in the news, or taking great pains to try and survive as long as possible, I question where the system failed them. We've got a lot of ignorant capitalists here who believe in things like natural selection and think it's normal for people to die. Well it's not. We just haven't advanced politically far enough to end death, like many countries have ended poverty.
I just hope America isn't beat to solving mortality by a nation like Cuba or North Korea. That would be very embarrassing considering how many economic advantages we have.
Are you trolling or do you really believe what you write down? I hope it's the former What makes you think I'm trolling? Maybe I didn't explain what I meant very clearly. Let me try and rephrase the argument... There are many, many people who have died, right? I mean I hear about it all the time in the news and in history and stuff. And yet, at the same time, there are tons of people alive and living. Clearly that means that death isn't really necessary, or else we would all be dead. So how come some people die and so many other people haven't died? Well clearly it's because there is an unequal distribution of wealth. If all of the people who died had the same exact health care as the people who are alive, then no one would be dead. So to cure mortality, all we have to do is take the health care from the richest people and apply it to the poorest people. This is pretty much common sense. But our voters and politicians are so dumb they don't see this logic. People are really very immoral because they refuse to give up their money, essentially they want other people to die for their own greed. If it wasn't for greed we could have cured death a long time ago. You have to admire that his brain is capable of such weird logic. It is so illogical that it almost makes sense. Some kind of idiot-savant thing going on here. Death can't be necessary because people are alive? That's going to stick with me. Probably not in the way he intended but hey at least his point got across... Or did it... In some way it makes sense to me. While death may be natural, it may be the next great thing for mankind to conquer. He didn't exactly state it in a completely understandable manner, and I get the feeling that he walked away from his computer and when he came back to writing the post he lost his train of thought, but when you break it down: Death is natural, yet it is one of the great things for man to conquer. He lost his train of sanity thought when he started talking about how conquering death would require research, and politicians are greedy and rich people are greedy. In some ways, I agree with the last statement. I believe that a family, be it rich or not, can comfortably live in a decent sized house, so one rich guy having his own 5 acre personal mansion is stupid, wasteful, and immoral. You are of course, correct. Death is only natural because we haven't found a cure yet. I guess the premise isn't a problem it is the very strange logic he tried to use to support it. People living != People living forever. On June 22 2011 13:20 Torte de Lini wrote:
Jdseemoreglass is no stranger to temp. bans. A large shame because I think he is a generally nice guy, just very misguided to say the least. On June 22 2011 14:15 koreasilver wrote:On June 22 2011 13:20 Torte de Lini wrote:
Jdseemoreglass is no stranger to temp. bans. A large shame because I think he is a generally nice guy, just very misguided to say the least. After reading that quote, this is really understated. I am quite honestly baffled by how many people took my post seriously. I mean, really? I tried to sound absurd the first time, and when someone got confused I upped the absurdity meter even more, but people still didn't get it and I got temp-banned in the process. At least I had the consolation while banned of reading these hilarious responses. I think I might start writing a blog on "recognizing irony and satire." You should be temp banned either way. Trolling for the sake of trolling in the middle of a discussion is not exactly quality posting. I`ve seen more absurd opinions from people being serious, you never know in the Internet.
Making a satirical argument is not the same thing as trolling. I would hope people would be able to recognize this. Trolling is designed to specifically mislead people or evoke an emotional response. I was trying to make an argument, by responding to absurdity with absurdity. I can't help the fact that people can't read between the lines.
|
Jd, I'm usually good at reading between those lines, and even I was sure that you were just trolling. The Internet isn't a good medium for conveying such sentiments, so it would've helped a lot if you added a disclaimer in spoilers about your intent... though that does sort of ruin the intent of your words somewhat.
|
On June 24 2011 11:48 jdseemoreglass wrote:Show nested quote +On June 24 2011 11:44 SKC wrote:On June 24 2011 11:40 jdseemoreglass wrote:On June 22 2011 12:51 Probulous wrote:jdseemoreglass was just temp banned for 2 days by micronesia. That account was created on 2010-07-23 07:33:10 and had 1235 posts. Reason: On June 22 2011 10:39 jdseemoreglass wrote: + Show Spoiler +On June 22 2011 10:16 BlackJack wrote: + Show Spoiler +On June 22 2011 10:10 jdseemoreglass wrote:
One day mankind will solve death. If we just have enough of other people's money and we have scientific progress we can achieve immortality for everyone. Of course it won't happen in America, because we are backwards and get everything wrong and should learn from the other countries how to behave.
There is no reason for a person to die of cancer or any other deadly disease. Every time I hear about someone dying in the news, or taking great pains to try and survive as long as possible, I question where the system failed them. We've got a lot of ignorant capitalists here who believe in things like natural selection and think it's normal for people to die. Well it's not. We just haven't advanced politically far enough to end death, like many countries have ended poverty.
I just hope America isn't beat to solving mortality by a nation like Cuba or North Korea. That would be very embarrassing considering how many economic advantages we have.
Are you trolling or do you really believe what you write down? I hope it's the former What makes you think I'm trolling? Maybe I didn't explain what I meant very clearly. Let me try and rephrase the argument... There are many, many people who have died, right? I mean I hear about it all the time in the news and in history and stuff. And yet, at the same time, there are tons of people alive and living. Clearly that means that death isn't really necessary, or else we would all be dead. So how come some people die and so many other people haven't died? Well clearly it's because there is an unequal distribution of wealth. If all of the people who died had the same exact health care as the people who are alive, then no one would be dead. So to cure mortality, all we have to do is take the health care from the richest people and apply it to the poorest people. This is pretty much common sense. But our voters and politicians are so dumb they don't see this logic. People are really very immoral because they refuse to give up their money, essentially they want other people to die for their own greed. If it wasn't for greed we could have cured death a long time ago. You have to admire that his brain is capable of such weird logic. It is so illogical that it almost makes sense. Some kind of idiot-savant thing going on here. Death can't be necessary because people are alive? That's going to stick with me. Probably not in the way he intended but hey at least his point got across... Or did it... On June 22 2011 13:18 Probe1 wrote:What the fuck.. Seldom do I use that phrase with full force. If it wasn't for greed we could have cured death a long time ago. What. The. Fuck. + Show Spoiler + Seriously. What the fuck. My brain just stroked off trying to save me from thinking too hard about that post. On June 22 2011 14:36 Probulous wrote:On June 22 2011 14:29 Kinetik_Inferno wrote:On June 22 2011 12:51 Probulous wrote:jdseemoreglass was just temp banned for 2 days by micronesia. That account was created on 2010-07-23 07:33:10 and had 1235 posts. Reason: On June 22 2011 10:39 jdseemoreglass wrote: + Show Spoiler +On June 22 2011 10:16 BlackJack wrote: + Show Spoiler +On June 22 2011 10:10 jdseemoreglass wrote:
One day mankind will solve death. If we just have enough of other people's money and we have scientific progress we can achieve immortality for everyone. Of course it won't happen in America, because we are backwards and get everything wrong and should learn from the other countries how to behave.
There is no reason for a person to die of cancer or any other deadly disease. Every time I hear about someone dying in the news, or taking great pains to try and survive as long as possible, I question where the system failed them. We've got a lot of ignorant capitalists here who believe in things like natural selection and think it's normal for people to die. Well it's not. We just haven't advanced politically far enough to end death, like many countries have ended poverty.
I just hope America isn't beat to solving mortality by a nation like Cuba or North Korea. That would be very embarrassing considering how many economic advantages we have.
Are you trolling or do you really believe what you write down? I hope it's the former What makes you think I'm trolling? Maybe I didn't explain what I meant very clearly. Let me try and rephrase the argument... There are many, many people who have died, right? I mean I hear about it all the time in the news and in history and stuff. And yet, at the same time, there are tons of people alive and living. Clearly that means that death isn't really necessary, or else we would all be dead. So how come some people die and so many other people haven't died? Well clearly it's because there is an unequal distribution of wealth. If all of the people who died had the same exact health care as the people who are alive, then no one would be dead. So to cure mortality, all we have to do is take the health care from the richest people and apply it to the poorest people. This is pretty much common sense. But our voters and politicians are so dumb they don't see this logic. People are really very immoral because they refuse to give up their money, essentially they want other people to die for their own greed. If it wasn't for greed we could have cured death a long time ago. You have to admire that his brain is capable of such weird logic. It is so illogical that it almost makes sense. Some kind of idiot-savant thing going on here. Death can't be necessary because people are alive? That's going to stick with me. Probably not in the way he intended but hey at least his point got across... Or did it... In some way it makes sense to me. While death may be natural, it may be the next great thing for mankind to conquer. He didn't exactly state it in a completely understandable manner, and I get the feeling that he walked away from his computer and when he came back to writing the post he lost his train of thought, but when you break it down: Death is natural, yet it is one of the great things for man to conquer. He lost his train of sanity thought when he started talking about how conquering death would require research, and politicians are greedy and rich people are greedy. In some ways, I agree with the last statement. I believe that a family, be it rich or not, can comfortably live in a decent sized house, so one rich guy having his own 5 acre personal mansion is stupid, wasteful, and immoral. You are of course, correct. Death is only natural because we haven't found a cure yet. I guess the premise isn't a problem it is the very strange logic he tried to use to support it. People living != People living forever. On June 22 2011 13:20 Torte de Lini wrote:
Jdseemoreglass is no stranger to temp. bans. A large shame because I think he is a generally nice guy, just very misguided to say the least. On June 22 2011 14:15 koreasilver wrote:On June 22 2011 13:20 Torte de Lini wrote:
Jdseemoreglass is no stranger to temp. bans. A large shame because I think he is a generally nice guy, just very misguided to say the least. After reading that quote, this is really understated. I am quite honestly baffled by how many people took my post seriously. I mean, really? I tried to sound absurd the first time, and when someone got confused I upped the absurdity meter even more, but people still didn't get it and I got temp-banned in the process. At least I had the consolation while banned of reading these hilarious responses. I think I might start writing a blog on "recognizing irony and satire." You should be temp banned either way. Trolling for the sake of trolling in the middle of a discussion is not exactly quality posting. I`ve seen more absurd opinions from people being serious, you never know in the Internet. Making a satirical argument is not the same thing as trolling. I would hope people would be able to recognize this. Trolling is designed to specifically mislead people or evoke an emotional response. I was trying to make an argument, by responding to absurdity with absurdity. I can't help the fact that people can't read between the lines.
But by denying the fact you were trolling, on the second post, what exactly were you trying to do? You clearly weren`t adding anything to the discussion. You saw it wasn`t clear wether you were joking, then what did you expect by keeping to play the fool, if not mislead people, hence to troll? Did you expect that by doing the same thing again people would soon realize your failed attempt at sarcasm?
|
On June 24 2011 11:48 jdseemoreglass wrote:Show nested quote +On June 24 2011 11:44 SKC wrote:On June 24 2011 11:40 jdseemoreglass wrote:On June 22 2011 12:51 Probulous wrote:jdseemoreglass was just temp banned for 2 days by micronesia. That account was created on 2010-07-23 07:33:10 and had 1235 posts. Reason: On June 22 2011 10:39 jdseemoreglass wrote: + Show Spoiler +On June 22 2011 10:16 BlackJack wrote: + Show Spoiler +On June 22 2011 10:10 jdseemoreglass wrote:
One day mankind will solve death. If we just have enough of other people's money and we have scientific progress we can achieve immortality for everyone. Of course it won't happen in America, because we are backwards and get everything wrong and should learn from the other countries how to behave.
There is no reason for a person to die of cancer or any other deadly disease. Every time I hear about someone dying in the news, or taking great pains to try and survive as long as possible, I question where the system failed them. We've got a lot of ignorant capitalists here who believe in things like natural selection and think it's normal for people to die. Well it's not. We just haven't advanced politically far enough to end death, like many countries have ended poverty.
I just hope America isn't beat to solving mortality by a nation like Cuba or North Korea. That would be very embarrassing considering how many economic advantages we have.
Are you trolling or do you really believe what you write down? I hope it's the former What makes you think I'm trolling? Maybe I didn't explain what I meant very clearly. Let me try and rephrase the argument... There are many, many people who have died, right? I mean I hear about it all the time in the news and in history and stuff. And yet, at the same time, there are tons of people alive and living. Clearly that means that death isn't really necessary, or else we would all be dead. So how come some people die and so many other people haven't died? Well clearly it's because there is an unequal distribution of wealth. If all of the people who died had the same exact health care as the people who are alive, then no one would be dead. So to cure mortality, all we have to do is take the health care from the richest people and apply it to the poorest people. This is pretty much common sense. But our voters and politicians are so dumb they don't see this logic. People are really very immoral because they refuse to give up their money, essentially they want other people to die for their own greed. If it wasn't for greed we could have cured death a long time ago. You have to admire that his brain is capable of such weird logic. It is so illogical that it almost makes sense. Some kind of idiot-savant thing going on here. Death can't be necessary because people are alive? That's going to stick with me. Probably not in the way he intended but hey at least his point got across... Or did it... On June 22 2011 13:18 Probe1 wrote:What the fuck.. Seldom do I use that phrase with full force. If it wasn't for greed we could have cured death a long time ago. What. The. Fuck. + Show Spoiler + Seriously. What the fuck. My brain just stroked off trying to save me from thinking too hard about that post. On June 22 2011 14:36 Probulous wrote:On June 22 2011 14:29 Kinetik_Inferno wrote:On June 22 2011 12:51 Probulous wrote:jdseemoreglass was just temp banned for 2 days by micronesia. That account was created on 2010-07-23 07:33:10 and had 1235 posts. Reason: On June 22 2011 10:39 jdseemoreglass wrote: + Show Spoiler +On June 22 2011 10:16 BlackJack wrote: + Show Spoiler +On June 22 2011 10:10 jdseemoreglass wrote:
One day mankind will solve death. If we just have enough of other people's money and we have scientific progress we can achieve immortality for everyone. Of course it won't happen in America, because we are backwards and get everything wrong and should learn from the other countries how to behave.
There is no reason for a person to die of cancer or any other deadly disease. Every time I hear about someone dying in the news, or taking great pains to try and survive as long as possible, I question where the system failed them. We've got a lot of ignorant capitalists here who believe in things like natural selection and think it's normal for people to die. Well it's not. We just haven't advanced politically far enough to end death, like many countries have ended poverty.
I just hope America isn't beat to solving mortality by a nation like Cuba or North Korea. That would be very embarrassing considering how many economic advantages we have.
Are you trolling or do you really believe what you write down? I hope it's the former What makes you think I'm trolling? Maybe I didn't explain what I meant very clearly. Let me try and rephrase the argument... There are many, many people who have died, right? I mean I hear about it all the time in the news and in history and stuff. And yet, at the same time, there are tons of people alive and living. Clearly that means that death isn't really necessary, or else we would all be dead. So how come some people die and so many other people haven't died? Well clearly it's because there is an unequal distribution of wealth. If all of the people who died had the same exact health care as the people who are alive, then no one would be dead. So to cure mortality, all we have to do is take the health care from the richest people and apply it to the poorest people. This is pretty much common sense. But our voters and politicians are so dumb they don't see this logic. People are really very immoral because they refuse to give up their money, essentially they want other people to die for their own greed. If it wasn't for greed we could have cured death a long time ago. You have to admire that his brain is capable of such weird logic. It is so illogical that it almost makes sense. Some kind of idiot-savant thing going on here. Death can't be necessary because people are alive? That's going to stick with me. Probably not in the way he intended but hey at least his point got across... Or did it... In some way it makes sense to me. While death may be natural, it may be the next great thing for mankind to conquer. He didn't exactly state it in a completely understandable manner, and I get the feeling that he walked away from his computer and when he came back to writing the post he lost his train of thought, but when you break it down: Death is natural, yet it is one of the great things for man to conquer. He lost his train of sanity thought when he started talking about how conquering death would require research, and politicians are greedy and rich people are greedy. In some ways, I agree with the last statement. I believe that a family, be it rich or not, can comfortably live in a decent sized house, so one rich guy having his own 5 acre personal mansion is stupid, wasteful, and immoral. You are of course, correct. Death is only natural because we haven't found a cure yet. I guess the premise isn't a problem it is the very strange logic he tried to use to support it. People living != People living forever. On June 22 2011 13:20 Torte de Lini wrote:
Jdseemoreglass is no stranger to temp. bans. A large shame because I think he is a generally nice guy, just very misguided to say the least. On June 22 2011 14:15 koreasilver wrote:On June 22 2011 13:20 Torte de Lini wrote:
Jdseemoreglass is no stranger to temp. bans. A large shame because I think he is a generally nice guy, just very misguided to say the least. After reading that quote, this is really understated. I am quite honestly baffled by how many people took my post seriously. I mean, really? I tried to sound absurd the first time, and when someone got confused I upped the absurdity meter even more, but people still didn't get it and I got temp-banned in the process. At least I had the consolation while banned of reading these hilarious responses. I think I might start writing a blog on "recognizing irony and satire." You should be temp banned either way. Trolling for the sake of trolling in the middle of a discussion is not exactly quality posting. I`ve seen more absurd opinions from people being serious, you never know in the Internet. Making a satirical argument is not the same thing as trolling. I would hope people would be able to recognize this. Trolling is designed to specifically mislead people or evoke an emotional response. I was trying to make an argument, by responding to absurdity with absurdity. I can't help the fact that people can't read between the lines.
If the writer isn't making himself understood to his target audience then it's the fault of the writer, not the readers. I've seen variations of that exact post written seriously, as a troll, and ironically, there's literally no way to tell without knowing anything about who's behind the keyboard.
|
On June 24 2011 11:40 jdseemoreglass wrote:Show nested quote +On June 22 2011 12:51 Probulous wrote:jdseemoreglass was just temp banned for 2 days by micronesia. That account was created on 2010-07-23 07:33:10 and had 1235 posts. Reason: On June 22 2011 10:39 jdseemoreglass wrote: + Show Spoiler +On June 22 2011 10:16 BlackJack wrote: + Show Spoiler +On June 22 2011 10:10 jdseemoreglass wrote:
One day mankind will solve death. If we just have enough of other people's money and we have scientific progress we can achieve immortality for everyone. Of course it won't happen in America, because we are backwards and get everything wrong and should learn from the other countries how to behave.
There is no reason for a person to die of cancer or any other deadly disease. Every time I hear about someone dying in the news, or taking great pains to try and survive as long as possible, I question where the system failed them. We've got a lot of ignorant capitalists here who believe in things like natural selection and think it's normal for people to die. Well it's not. We just haven't advanced politically far enough to end death, like many countries have ended poverty.
I just hope America isn't beat to solving mortality by a nation like Cuba or North Korea. That would be very embarrassing considering how many economic advantages we have.
Are you trolling or do you really believe what you write down? I hope it's the former What makes you think I'm trolling? Maybe I didn't explain what I meant very clearly. Let me try and rephrase the argument... There are many, many people who have died, right? I mean I hear about it all the time in the news and in history and stuff. And yet, at the same time, there are tons of people alive and living. Clearly that means that death isn't really necessary, or else we would all be dead. So how come some people die and so many other people haven't died? Well clearly it's because there is an unequal distribution of wealth. If all of the people who died had the same exact health care as the people who are alive, then no one would be dead. So to cure mortality, all we have to do is take the health care from the richest people and apply it to the poorest people. This is pretty much common sense. But our voters and politicians are so dumb they don't see this logic. People are really very immoral because they refuse to give up their money, essentially they want other people to die for their own greed. If it wasn't for greed we could have cured death a long time ago. You have to admire that his brain is capable of such weird logic. It is so illogical that it almost makes sense. Some kind of idiot-savant thing going on here. Death can't be necessary because people are alive? That's going to stick with me. Probably not in the way he intended but hey at least his point got across... Or did it... Show nested quote +On June 22 2011 13:18 Probe1 wrote:What the fuck.. Seldom do I use that phrase with full force. If it wasn't for greed we could have cured death a long time ago. What. The. Fuck. + Show Spoiler + Seriously. What the fuck. My brain just stroked off trying to save me from thinking too hard about that post. Show nested quote +On June 22 2011 14:36 Probulous wrote:On June 22 2011 14:29 Kinetik_Inferno wrote:On June 22 2011 12:51 Probulous wrote:jdseemoreglass was just temp banned for 2 days by micronesia. That account was created on 2010-07-23 07:33:10 and had 1235 posts. Reason: On June 22 2011 10:39 jdseemoreglass wrote: + Show Spoiler +On June 22 2011 10:16 BlackJack wrote: + Show Spoiler +On June 22 2011 10:10 jdseemoreglass wrote:
One day mankind will solve death. If we just have enough of other people's money and we have scientific progress we can achieve immortality for everyone. Of course it won't happen in America, because we are backwards and get everything wrong and should learn from the other countries how to behave.
There is no reason for a person to die of cancer or any other deadly disease. Every time I hear about someone dying in the news, or taking great pains to try and survive as long as possible, I question where the system failed them. We've got a lot of ignorant capitalists here who believe in things like natural selection and think it's normal for people to die. Well it's not. We just haven't advanced politically far enough to end death, like many countries have ended poverty.
I just hope America isn't beat to solving mortality by a nation like Cuba or North Korea. That would be very embarrassing considering how many economic advantages we have.
Are you trolling or do you really believe what you write down? I hope it's the former What makes you think I'm trolling? Maybe I didn't explain what I meant very clearly. Let me try and rephrase the argument... There are many, many people who have died, right? I mean I hear about it all the time in the news and in history and stuff. And yet, at the same time, there are tons of people alive and living. Clearly that means that death isn't really necessary, or else we would all be dead. So how come some people die and so many other people haven't died? Well clearly it's because there is an unequal distribution of wealth. If all of the people who died had the same exact health care as the people who are alive, then no one would be dead. So to cure mortality, all we have to do is take the health care from the richest people and apply it to the poorest people. This is pretty much common sense. But our voters and politicians are so dumb they don't see this logic. People are really very immoral because they refuse to give up their money, essentially they want other people to die for their own greed. If it wasn't for greed we could have cured death a long time ago. You have to admire that his brain is capable of such weird logic. It is so illogical that it almost makes sense. Some kind of idiot-savant thing going on here. Death can't be necessary because people are alive? That's going to stick with me. Probably not in the way he intended but hey at least his point got across... Or did it... In some way it makes sense to me. While death may be natural, it may be the next great thing for mankind to conquer. He didn't exactly state it in a completely understandable manner, and I get the feeling that he walked away from his computer and when he came back to writing the post he lost his train of thought, but when you break it down: Death is natural, yet it is one of the great things for man to conquer. He lost his train of sanity thought when he started talking about how conquering death would require research, and politicians are greedy and rich people are greedy. In some ways, I agree with the last statement. I believe that a family, be it rich or not, can comfortably live in a decent sized house, so one rich guy having his own 5 acre personal mansion is stupid, wasteful, and immoral. You are of course, correct. Death is only natural because we haven't found a cure yet. I guess the premise isn't a problem it is the very strange logic he tried to use to support it. People living != People living forever. Show nested quote +On June 22 2011 13:20 Torte de Lini wrote:
Jdseemoreglass is no stranger to temp. bans. A large shame because I think he is a generally nice guy, just very misguided to say the least. Show nested quote +On June 22 2011 14:15 koreasilver wrote:On June 22 2011 13:20 Torte de Lini wrote:
Jdseemoreglass is no stranger to temp. bans. A large shame because I think he is a generally nice guy, just very misguided to say the least. After reading that quote, this is really understated. I am quite honestly baffled by how many people took my post seriously. I mean, really? I tried to sound absurd the first time, and when someone got confused I upped the absurdity meter even more, but people still didn't get it and I got temp-banned in the process. At least I had the consolation while banned of reading these hilarious responses. I think I might start writing a blog on "recognizing irony and satire."
I would hardly call what you wrote as satire. What exactly were you trying to parody? If you would like to learn what satire is take a look here
http://www.teamliquid.net/blogs/viewblog.php?topic_id=232866
I stand by what I said. It is a fact that there is no reason for death other than we have not found a cure. Aging is the primary cause of death and this in itself can be classified as a disease. Aging is just the cumulation of defects during cell replication which eventually leads to full breakdown. Stop that and you stop death. Like I said the premise isn't far fetched but the way you described it was.
|
Straight outta Johto18973 Posts
So I was searching for an old post of mine by using my own Username as a keyword when I stumbled upon the posts in this thread and the one about giving LR Posters Blue Post Status. So, um, my post here will kinda be in two parts.
Firstly, I'll talk about the idea of giving LR-ers Blue Post Status and Posting UI changes for LR-ing. I think giving LR-ers Blue Post status would be a great idea. Sometimes when I post and I want to quote myself, it's hard to find my own post I just made to re-quote. My method normally is to scroll rapidly down and look for the Kyuubey emotion in my signature. Taking time out to Ctrl-F makes it harder for me to try and get all the detail about the match posted in a timely manner for whose following the LR by posts. I remember when I relied on BW LR when I was in class for SKT matches. I'd sometimes see a flood of "MINE DAEBAK!" and then I'd keep mashing F5 on my iPhone to see whether Fantasy blew himself up or managed to do something successful. That experience really motivates me to try and keep my LR as timely as possible and put in as much detail as I can so those following the LR can still get the closest experience they can to an actual stream.
Something that was mentioned was a sort of Twitter like function for LR-ing. I think something like that would be useful because the current method of quoting yourself is sub-optimal. Firstly, if you have many layers of embedded quotes the text in the first quote at the top is constricted to a really narrow box. Secondly, once you hit a certain level of embedded quotes, you post will only show the latest 10 or so embedded quotes even though the code is there for everything else. This is problematic in matches with a lot of action. In order to have a final LR-ed post, I would have to go back and reformat it all to remove enough quote tags to reveal everything. At the same time though I also want to be starting my formatting for the next match.
While it may be difficult to code in a Twitter-like function at the moment, perhaps there could be a Quote-Like Link. Let's call it Quotev2. Instead of adding an additional Quote Box like the quote system currently works, your old post you're Quotev2-ing would merge with the already quoted material and then you could just add new stuff underneath. That would make things a lot cleaner.
Anyway those are my thoughts from am LR-er's perspective on the current UI and how I use it and what features I'd like.
Okay now for the second part of my post.
Yes, I've been really sucked into League of Legends, hahaha. I'm normally found in the sub-forum there. I'm really sorry for not LR-ing more; I really should. After the TSL Finals I had my Finals at Uni so I had to stop LR-ing to focus on studies. And after my exams were over, I went back to LoL and stopped watching SC. I did watch some MLG and did a little LR there though, but nothing major. And during Dreamhack I was too busy watching LoL to LR the SC. 
I have to give mad props to Drazerk who's done loads of LR. Your dedication is really, really admirable. There are probably others who LR as well but I haven't really been following SC much so I'm sorry I don't know your names. But still, props to you guys as well! I'm really happy every time I open a Tourney Thread and see a link to the LR Round-up in the OP. Hopefully some day we will have really high quality LR threads. I still hold onto that dream.
I'm working this Summer and will be pretty busy so I don't think I'll be able to LR. It most likely will be a while before I am able to get back to LR-ing. But don't worry, I haven't forgotten about it! I hear the quality of games has gotten a lot better since the days of BitByBit in the GSL, and from the few snippets of MLG and DH I saw I'm looking forward to watching SC again and LR-ing it for you guys. <3
Okay, that was a huge wall of text from me so I will stop writing now. Hopefully this explains a bit why I've disappeared for a while from the LR threads and also the stuff I've written about my experience LR-ing gives some useful insight to the Mods as to what new features might be useful for LR-ers.
|
jdseemoreglass,
As Probulous pointed out even Mikilatov has to have a cheeky spoiler to guard his ass from people misunderstanding the tone. You can't convey sarcasm subtly solely through text, especially in a fast paced environment like the internet. Next time just try to be a little less obfuscating and people won't misconstrue your joke as serious intent.
Even now I'm not sure if you meant the entire thing satirically or not. If most of the audience doesn't understand that you're joking, you're either a literary genius rivaled by Jonathan Swift or you did not convey your message.
MoonBear I didn't start following Live Reports till MLG, what bad timing >,< (admitting your a noob is the first step towards acceptance). I think the matter is somewhat closed// the site admins will be taking a different approach but i'd love it if you posted this in that website feedback thread.
+ Show Spoiler [Dear Chill] +I'll give you my lucky shoes if I can have a report button before my account is old enough to receive one by default. I assure you, these shoes are very, very lucky. I once won a game of ping pong versus the time traveling emperor Cao Cao in 1994. I feel very bad every time I PM the last moderator to put someone on a ban list, but I have no other way to notify the mod squad that someone has, inevitably made a subpar post or thread. My lucky shoes come with a 100% guarantee from الجني, and there are no backsies. If you give me a report button in the next 60 seconds or less I'll even mail you a set of ginsu knives FOR FREE (slightly used for ritual purposes only; only used on sundays) + Show Spoiler +Disclaimer-All assurances of shipment come with stipulated that you will pay for all shipping costs, possible travel costs and damages multiplying beyond original agreement. Any dissatisfaction with said shoes or any other assurances is null and void unless you meet me in Botswana for a deciding BO5 match of the 1987 arcade edition of Street Fighter . Please let me have a report button, if you need any further incentives or assurances, I have a hand written note from Santa that says I'm good and also I should be given sponsorship by team liquid in the form of shirts and posters. If you won't listen to Santa you should at least give me a report button. Pleeeeeeeaaaaaaaase :3
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
