Subtle
Full Member
Dynamic Sentai Vic Riot!
Posts: 716
|
Post by Subtle on Mar 3, 2008 20:06:35 GMT -5
Just an intro, nothing to disect
|
|
|
Post by Ninmast on Mar 3, 2008 20:21:19 GMT -5
Very well, since you hadn't seen my warning, I'll let you get away with it this time. Do it again, however, and you will receive a temporary ban, no questions asked.
|
|
|
Post by LotusBlackfire on Mar 3, 2008 20:26:12 GMT -5
Ok this is very simply solved, the reason this was brought up is because i did not allow ninmast into an rp, that is because in the past arguements got so bad it halted things altogether, so to avoid more arguements im simply not going to allow ninmast in the rp to fix the problem ahead of time, there is no discrimination involved, its mearly learning from mistakes and experience to not let things happen again. Its for the better of the board that it not be allowed to start rather than squable over it after its happened.
|
|
|
Post by Ninmast on Mar 3, 2008 21:01:42 GMT -5
Yes, so you keep saying, but that isn't the issue and that isn't why you're doing it. And as I've said before, if you think that's going to keep me from watching it and calling on you when you violate the rules and fair play, you're mistaken.
Arguments have gotten "so bad it halted things altogether" in the past because you wouldn't drop issues and insisted on making mountains out of mole hills. You were the problem, Lotus, not me. I merely called you on it, and because you do not believe you could make such mistakes, it must be another's fault. And because not only am I in a position of authority, but you also dislike me and my tendency to actually *gasp* enforce rules, I was an ideal target. It's really handy to have a scapegoat. You go from being a murderer to being a martyr.
Rest assured, however, that I won't "force" my way in. I'm not a jerk. However, that doesn't mean you have the right to treat other members in such a manner. You don't, and you need to be aware of it or face the consequences. You said you no longer care about the EAB or what goes on in it, to the point where you admit you have no interest in showing respect or mannerisms. If this is so, I feel compelled to ask.
Why are you still here?
|
|
|
Post by EJP on Mar 3, 2008 22:08:17 GMT -5
I don't have time to read whats been posted since the first few posts I read this morning while at school. I'll say this, the rule is fine the way it is. Sure there is a loop hole that can be used in many ways, but oh well. The rule stays in my opinion and I don't care who has what to say about my opinion on this and what ever arugments they come up with.
I will say this though, I think Subtle spawned this just to one up me in temp bans... and I don't care if you believe me or not.
|
|
|
Post by TrueBlue© on Mar 3, 2008 22:09:36 GMT -5
Now before somebody gets hurt, let's all look at everything that's probably already been said, repeated in a more condensed fashion/perspective for us dumb folks. =D
The rule potentially up for changing:
Discrimination is bad. You're gay, I don't want you in. You're jewish, I don't want you in. These things are obvious, of course. Not allowed. That is the 'discrimination' meant in this rule. Not personal bias.
Personal bias. Example: Personally, I feel that the illustrious Kon Ton Robo and I are entirely incompatible. She dodges every bullet and screams bloody murder every time I complain about this fact. Therefore, I would rather her not enter my RP. Her and I would go back and forth, bogging it down with bickering, and she could ruin my story.
Is this wrong of me to do? Not really. Who I want in my RP is my own business, isn't it? But for Mogg's sake, use your head! Be gentle about it. We're not the Elitist Author's Board. This community is certainly intended in part to help new RPers grow, veterans get more veterany. In part. It's mostly for dorks like us to have some fun.
Thus, at the same time, there must be a balance. All things in moderation. Suppose Kon Ton Robo makes a fuss over not being allowed in my RP. Will that solve anything? Suppose I make a fuss about not letting her in my RP, ranting and raving about her lameness. Will this really solve anything, either?
Essentially, I believe that the rule should remain unchanged. But I also believe that you guys should just not get all offended over every little thing. Kicked out of an RP? Too bad. Think about why. Think about what you can do to remedy this fact next time. If the fault isn't yours, was the RP really worth it, anyway? Go start your own.
Also, and I just remembered this idea, implementing the change suggested would really only widen the gaps in currently existing cliques. Being a community, that's not something we really want to do. Just sayin'.
(Apologies to Kon Ton Robo for using her name as an example. She is probably the best RPer ever invented. That is all.)
|
|
|
Post by Ninmast on Mar 3, 2008 22:41:22 GMT -5
I agree with you completely, True. Except the example you used has to do with those that have not yet shown themselves willing to be good enough role-players or accept that they require improvement. The issue here is different. It's not about the quality of my character or my roleplaying, but that I don't treat his characters as the universal best. He doesn't care about my roleplaying or even finding out if I can.
If I have a character that is every bit as qualified as every other character he's permitting, I should have just as much opportunity to enter that RP as anyone else, because as has been said over and over, the RPs here are open. His was not an invite-only RP, despite the comparisons that have been made to one.
The problem that we keep seeming to run into is that people seem to forget that yes, I am a roleplaying member of the forum, but I am also an administrator, and it is just as much my job to enforce rules, however unpleasant or inconvenient, as it is my job to participate and follow the story. Because this seems to be forgotten, I get blamed for abusing power, arguing and killing RPs, when this isn't the case. They expect me to be just another member, and I can't meet that expectation because of the duties I have to fulfill.
|
|
|
Post by Teh Donut on Mar 4, 2008 0:24:18 GMT -5
Haha, that's it, Subtle? That's your arguement? Oh dear lord, this is going to be easier than I thought... ;D
FALLACY OF COMPOSITION
One cannot take individual pieces of an arguement, break them down into little chunks (initial arguement, supporting evidence, examples, and all) and address them all as separate, individual arguements within themselves. The individual characteristics of the separate parts of a whole do not determine the characteristics of the whole; a viable counter-arguement cannot be made by disecting an arguement into each individual scentence, judging each as an individual arguement, and calling it a fallacy. Each individual bit is simply a piece to a larger puzzle, that is left unadressed when one makes an irrelevant Red Herring by drawing attention to insignificant details.
To use an example of your reasoning from your beloved Nizkor, "Sodium and Chloride are both dangerous to humans. Therefore any combination of sodium and chloride will be dangerous to humans."
Thank you, English 111. Come back when you have a viable arguement to make, Subtle. I'll be here.
|
|
Subtle
Full Member
Dynamic Sentai Vic Riot!
Posts: 716
|
Post by Subtle on Mar 4, 2008 0:41:12 GMT -5
Your bringing this up out of context. Ninmast only stated a single premise to support his argument. If he had multiple premises to back up his claim, then this could come into play, and most likely would.
My argument is in the first post, not in any of the ones. Please use terminology correctly
|
|
|
Post by Kagetsuki on Mar 4, 2008 0:44:41 GMT -5
I would like to preface this by saying I have never thought of myself as good at arguing. I've never really had to...and even when I do it's just not my trade. So please forgive me if one, I make no sense, or two, I sound...cruel? Bitchy? Take your pick of words.
So. Argument at hand: Should a GM be allowed to choose who can join and RP and who can't?
I want to look at a post Ninmast made previously. Sorry about this, but it kind of bothered me...I want to show that this isn't just Subtle speaking out.
And don't one of you dare go thinking that I'm supporting him/making this post just because I'm his girlfriend. I'm not a puppet, and I'm definitely not one of those brainless girls who doesn't bother to formulate her own opinion and just goes prancing around agreeing with whatever her boyfriend says. To think I'm making this post for that reason is an insult. (I doubt any of you will view this that way, though, you're all smart. =D )
Um...Hm. Are you sure this isn't just your opinion of what he's doing? That kind of seems a little like a flame, too. Not a vicious one, but a flame nevertheless.
It looks to me like you're trying to convince everyone that he could possibly be including personal bias in his definition of etc.--when he specifically states otherwise.
Right there. He said that discrimination in its legal definition doesn't include any amount of personal bias--so how could that etc., which is part of the definition, suggest personal bias?
It kind of frustrates me that you keep including these soft flames in your words. Like I said before, it isn't vicious--but it still is one. Also, you don't allow it? But...you allowed me. I won't include Sly because he isn't very active, but you did allow me to create an RP where I was inviting only people I wanted. And yes, in my intro post I did say that you could talk to me to try to get in, but my sole reason for putting that was so that I wouldn't sound so harsh. I really only had one person in mind who could have asked me to join and would have gained my approval. If certain other people had asked me if they could join...I would have said no outright. I still have the conversation saved where I asked if I could do that...and you did say yes.
How has he been trying to cast doubt on the character of the rest of the board? Where has he explicitly done that? I don't see that anywhere...unless you're using his posts and assuming he is. I dunno about you, but every time I try to do that with my parents I get a big scolding. I really don't think you've done much to disprove his claim that that was a fallacy of logic.
And again...you did allow me...
This really does, again, sound like soft/indirect flaming. As for the elitist part...hmmm...
You know...I think that I'm a bit of an elitist. Forgive me, but there are some people on this board that I just would not ever want in one of my RPs (And that really is only a few people...). Not at this point in time. If one day they can prove that they've improved, perhaps I'll consider it, but as of right now...That's why I wanted to start an invitation RP. To keep people I didn't want in, out. Now, my reasons were because I didn't think they RP'd well enough to be in, or because they were in possession of no characters I liked/who could fit, but I will admit that in one or two peoples' cases, I did want to exclude them also because I just didn't like them that much as a person. I will not have somebody in my RP who I think will ruin it, whether it be by crappy posting or crappy characters. Or just...characters that might be perfectly compatible but find some reason for dislike in my mind. Sure, it might be the courteous thing to do, but why would I subject a story I like and want to flourish to an RPer or character who I think might lessen its potential? I wouldn't.
It's like...like a mother allowing Uncle Bob to smoke around her newborn baby. Sure, he smokes, but he's such a good person! She says. He means no harm to the baby, and he's so wonderful otherwise. Hm. What about indirect harm, lady? Gonna try to ignore that?
Well, he's mentioned a fallacy that you haven't really disproved...
Are you sure Member A is treating Member B like a lesser being? Or is Member B just taking it that way? =X It's not that we're trying to treat them as lesser beings; we just don't want to have to openly confront the members who don't mesh well with us. Is that so bad?
Sooo...I don't know if I have my definition right, but isn't lawyering picking apart arguments and stuff? Aren't, ah, you doing that?
Well, I kind of see some more soft/indirect flaming here. Ragh. It also seems a bit like you've gone from arguing on-topic to just sort of...Putting down Subtle. He was replying to your on-topic argument, but this last part here has nothing to do with the thread. And honestly, I don't see how he's trolling the entire forum. All he's doing is arguing the matter at hand...
Now then. With that over...A little more on my opinion? Well, I suppose I should just say I wouldn't mind a change like this at all. I do think the GM should have the power to say who's in and who's out, as long as they're polite about it. If they don't say something like "Lol NO GTFO STUPID," but rather, "I'm sorry, but I just don't think you'd work in this RP," I don't see the problem. And hey--if the person is really upset about being rejected, well then, the rejector is just missing out, eh? That's their problem.
It's true that this might widen cliques, but I believe that can easily be remedied by the fact that we have enough helpful people on this board to keep public RPs open at all times. Sure, there'll be private RPs...But people like Ninmast and others will always have public ones open to join everybody together, right? I think both could co-exist in harmony, without any sort of setbacks. People aren't so stupid and childish that they'll reject people because, oh, he/she rejected me in that one RP! REVENGE! If they are, they don't belong here.
I don't think discrimination is truly the problem here. It can play a part, sure, but for me personally it's for the well-being of the RP itself. Discrimination is found far more readily in other topics and threads than it is in RP. I'm not going to name names, but take a look around some threads here, in the introduction board, in the L33t board...I can find examples if you'd really like.
I think that's all. Sorry if I argued poorly or, again, sounded bitchy.
Thank you.
|
|
|
Post by TrueBlue© on Mar 4, 2008 0:46:54 GMT -5
While I have a pretty good idea, I'm not filled in on all the details of the new issue between you and Lotus (and to be honest, I don't particularly want to be), therefore I wrote the argument as would have most probably benefited the majority of the populace.
Even so, it might be best just to leave him be. It's only one RP. If it becomes a big problem, we'll make a bigger deal out of it then. This topic is really just for the debate over this rule. Even if his RP is what started it, that should probably be confined to the RP Discussion.
EDIT: Confound you all. I take like five minutes to post and it's like BAM WE'RE ALL GOING TO POST NOW WHILE YOU'RE POSTING.
|
|
|
Post by Teh Donut on Mar 4, 2008 1:00:55 GMT -5
Your bringing this up out of context. Ninmast only stated a single premise to support his argument. If he had multiple premises to back up his claim, then this could come into play, and most likely would. Regardless of how poor Ninmast's arguement is, your "rebuttal" is still a Fallacy of Composition. Come back when you have a viable rebuttal, Subtle. I'll be waiting.
|
|
|
Post by Ninmast on Mar 4, 2008 1:30:09 GMT -5
I would like to preface this by saying I have never thought of myself as good at arguing. I've never really had to...and even when I do it's just not my trade. So please forgive me if one, I make no sense, or two, I sound...cruel? Bitchy? Take your pick of words. No sweat, that's what this is for. Thanks for apologizing in advance, it shows us that if there is anything that seems offensive, it's not meant to be that way. Actually, it's should a game maker be allowed to choose who can and can't join his or her RP based on discrimination. I know, it's a small addition that may not seem like much, but it's a very important distinction. If we wanted to discuss clarifying and defining just what kind of limits an RP maker has, that's one thing, but the question Subtle seemed to be raising was, should we allow people to be shunned simply because we don't like something about them that has nothing to do with what kind of roleplayer they are? It wasn't my intention to flame. And I truly believe that was what he was doing, yes. No, my point was that he was not excluding it. I'm well aware that he stated that it was not a part, but the definition that he provided was open-ended, allowing for personal bias. An easy misunderstanding to make. Again, this was not an attempt by me to flame him, but rather to point out how he was flaming us. And when I gave you that approval, it was because I thought it was going to be open. If I had known you intended to refuse people just because you didn't like them, I would have pointed you toward that rule, as well. Please see the above part. If you don't see it, I'm afraid you're the only one that I've talked to that doesn't. His constant tirade about how stupid we are and what big liars we are offended not just myself, but several others both in the staff and among the members. And Subtle isn't anyone's parent on this site. He doesn't have the right to take the tone that parents can, because he doesn't have the right to scold us all like little children. And if you look at his post, you'll see that it was very inflammatory. I'll get the quote for you. That was the tone of his entire post, KT. Insulting, slanderous and rude. That's what I was pointing out. I don't recall saying being elitist was a terrible thing. I'm guilty of it to a certain degree, as well. It was no more meant to be an insult than when Donut said I was authoritarian. It's a trait, nothing more. In all but the one or two cases you mentioned, you were in the right, and it seems to me that the reason why you refused the other two was because you did not believe their roleplaying skill was yet adequate enough to contribute in a setting as complex as yours. That's also not discrimination. However, if I have misunderstood, and you did it simply because you didn't like the person instead of having anything to do with their ability and willingness to RP with a character suitable for the RP, then yes, you are breaking the rules. It's not when you try to remain peaceful that it's a problem, but when somebody does treat them as lesser beings. Not everyone does it, and not everyone who does it does so all the time, but when it is done, it is incredibly disrespectful, incredibly rude and incredibly elitist in a very bad way. No, Lawyering is picking apart the rules of the forum to try to use the letter of the law to make a loophole in the face of the spirit of the law. If we had a rule that said you couldn't eat apples in the square, then you proceeded to sit in the square and eat apple pie, apple fritters, applesauce, apple butter and apple cobbler, then when we came down on you, tried claiming that you didn't actually eat apples specifically and thus didn't break the rule, you would be lawyering. If it didn't seem that it was on the same topic as the post, that's because it wasn't. That wasn't part of the discussion. It was me telling him as an administrator to a member that he couldn't behave in such a manner and that he was going to be in serious trouble if he continued to do so.
|
|
Subtle
Full Member
Dynamic Sentai Vic Riot!
Posts: 716
|
Post by Subtle on Mar 4, 2008 1:35:57 GMT -5
Your bringing this up out of context. Ninmast only stated a single premise to support his argument. If he had multiple premises to back up his claim, then this could come into play, and most likely would. Regardless of how poor Ninmast's arguement is, your "rebuttal" is still a Fallacy of Composition. Come back when you have a viable rebuttal, Subtle. I'll be waiting. Donut, your not arguing with logic. If you want to show that I'm using the fallacy of composition, then show that there are two valid claims to support the premise
|
|
|
Post by Ninmast on Mar 4, 2008 1:38:30 GMT -5
You see, KT? That's lawyering. He's refusing a case based on that it doesn't fit the absolute letter of the definition.
|
|