|
Post by Venom65437 on Nov 11, 2007 17:28:01 GMT
And this is why I should be named Lord of Chaos. I woulda dropped the hammer like a bad habit! ;D
|
|
|
Post by LaFille on Nov 12, 2007 19:08:58 GMT
I don't have much time either, and you guys write faster than I can process but I just want to add something about a few points for now...
Bullying should not be welcomed, from anyone, in any way, period. And my two cents on the matter, for what it can be worth: valuing to bully people is the contrary of being bright; bullying freely makes nobody shine, on the contrary, it only shows clearly a lack in emotional intelligence or a lack of capacity to detach oneself from self-centered interests.
I agree that the crystal clear pointing out of the rules to Winterfox should have come much sooner, and for that I apologize (to SPS in particular) for my part in this mishandling. And if I don't agree with some of TD and SPS' leaving basis, I think that they deserve to be respected for standing up against the lead in what they saw as unfair treatments and for "having the balls" to contest it. Of course, Elliot can decide how he wants to run his board, who stays or what is accepted and not here; but it seems clear enough that the way he wants to run his board is one where personal favoritism doesn't have its place in the ruling, which makes contestation relevant if we think that things aren't done so and welcomes us to work so that Chaos be a place where everyone's interest is as equal as possible.
That said, though, I think that leaving or going for sensational attitudes aren't a good way to make things improve in a context like that nor a valid mean to put pressure in that sense, especially if what is fought for is fair and equal treatment. I share Killerzzz's view of this board as being one that is meant to be particularly friendly (I do believe it generally is) and I'm with Gal on inviting for constructive talk to the maximum before taking drastic means, please... People reacting when they see something that they consider wrong is normal and sane, but really not all ways to do so are productive, especially those that go along with drastic and spectacular reactions.
I really like this place this place because of the people that make it, and I'd like it to continue. ;D
|
|
|
Post by Winterfox on Nov 12, 2007 20:06:39 GMT
I don't have much time either, and you guys write faster than I can process but I just want to add something about a few points for now... Bullying should not be welcomed, from anyone, in any way, period. And my two cents on the matter, for what it can be worth: valuing to bully people is the contrary of being bright; bullying freely makes nobody shine, on the contrary, it only shows clearly a lack in emotional intelligence or a lack of capacity to detach oneself from self-centered interests. Call it a conflict, call it a flame war, but "bullying" usually implies there is a victim--a victim who can't fight back. On the Internet and particularly on grounds where all parties are equal, however, you can only be a victim if you let yourself be one; a text-based medium lends nobody any particular advantage the way real-life social station or physical superiority might. Unless some twit threatens to take it to real life or stalk the other person, or something of that nature. Btw, stalking != replying to the same person in a different thread on the same forum. Also, therapist?
|
|
|
Post by Ubereil on Nov 12, 2007 20:19:22 GMT
Call it a conflict, call it a flame war, but "bullying" usually implies there is a victim. On the Internet and particularly on grounds where all parties are equal, however, you can only be a victim if you let yourself be one; a text-based medium lends nobody any particular advantage the way real-life social station or physical superiority might. Blameing the victim because he can't defend himself? IMO that he/she can't defend himself just makes it even more wrong... Übereil
|
|
|
Post by Winterfox on Nov 12, 2007 20:23:29 GMT
Read it again slowly. I said the exact opposite.
Now tell me how, precisely, one may be unable to defend oneself in a text-based medium (all other things being equal--for example, if you go to someone's Livejournal and he/she decides to ban you from it, things would not be equal). Perhaps the "bully" uses threatening smilies? Holds an imaginary gun to your head? Yes, it is rather terrifying, isn't it.
|
|
|
Post by Ubereil on Nov 12, 2007 20:29:32 GMT
Read it again slowly. I said the exact opposite. Now tell me how, precisely, one may be unable to defend oneself in a text-based medium. Perhaps the "bully" uses threatening smilies? Or the victim is too stupid/untalented/whatever to defend himself. Interligence is a talent as well, you know. Some were gifted with more of it, some with less. And that you were gifted with more doesn't mean you can bully those who were gifted with less, just as you can't beat up pepole for kicks just because you're stronger than most pepole. Übereil
|
|
|
Post by Winterfox on Nov 12, 2007 20:31:56 GMT
Or the victim is too stupid/untalented/whatever to defend himself. Interligence is a talent as well, you know. Some were gifted with more of it, some with less. And that you were gifted with more doesn't mean you can bully those who were gifted with less, just as you can't beat up pepole for kicks just because you're stronger than most pepole. Übereil ...so you're calling people who think they are victims of "online bullying" stupid/intellectually inferior. Brilliant. See, unlike physical strength, wealth or social station, intelligence isn't immediately--or even objectively--measurable or visible. Do you call someone who wins a debate a bully, too? I'm willing to entertain the notion, for example, that using someone's personal information against them would constitute bullying (well, I'd rather call it being low and puerile, but neither here nor there) because I've seen someone go after someone else with "well, haha, you're a pathetic loser who's on welfare, so there", but I daresay no such thing has happened here. Well, except the "I BET YOU DON'T HAVE ANY FRIENDS, neener neener neener" banality, but that's closer to eight-year-old schoolchildren's mentality than bullies particularly.
|
|
|
Post by Ubereil on Nov 12, 2007 20:46:44 GMT
...so you're calling people who think they are victims of "online bullying" stupid/intellectually inferior. Brilliant. See, unlike physical strength, wealth or social station, intelligence isn't immediately--or even objectively--measurable or visible. Do you call someone who wins a debate a bully, too? I was talking about how YOU seemed to be saying that the bully victim only has himself to blame because he can't defend himself. And I believe that's rubbish, no matter how mesurable interligence is or wether you're a bully if you win a debate or not. Übereil
|
|
|
Post by Winterfox on Nov 12, 2007 20:51:05 GMT
I'm still waiting for you to point out how you can't defend yourself in a medium where everything is conveyed by words.
What I was saying--and what you failed to understand--is that I don't think online text-based conflicts are anything remotely like "bullying" because there is no cut-and-dried victimhood.
|
|
|
Post by Lews on Nov 12, 2007 21:07:45 GMT
So you are saying there is no such thing as bullying over the internet?
|
|
|
Post by Venom65437 on Nov 12, 2007 21:09:03 GMT
Not everyone is as good as others with words you know...
|
|
|
Post by Winterfox on Nov 12, 2007 21:13:46 GMT
So you are saying there is no such thing as bullying over the internet? Sure there is. You do know better than commit a straw man fallacy, right? Right? I simply don't happen to consider forum conflicts to be any such thing--again, provided that all users have equal power; on Laurell K Hamilton's forum, for example, the moderators regularly bully people who dare to criticize LKH's craptastic pornfest fiction (and who are often banned for completely spurious reasons). Why do I call this bullying? Because the mods wield authority that normal posters don't. This inequality creates a victim.
|
|
|
Post by Lews on Nov 12, 2007 21:16:39 GMT
And if you are better with words, and smarter then people, then if you are using that to look down on people and make them feel stupid, that is inequality as well. That is bullying.
|
|
|
Post by Winterfox on Nov 12, 2007 21:22:26 GMT
And if you are better with words, and smarter then people, then if you are using that to look down on people and make them feel stupid, that is inequality as well. That is bullying. Ah, so you are saying that these supposed victims are intellectually inferior. Here's... a thought: maybe telling the world at large that you think people you're trying to defend are stupid may not be the best of ideas. A lovely display of digging your own grave and I didn't even have to do a thing. Congratulations!
|
|
|
Post by Lews on Nov 12, 2007 21:26:08 GMT
I didn't say they are stupid. There is a difference between calling someone 'not as smart' and 'stupid' It is a fact that some people are smarter then other people. There brains work in different ways, or they are older ( ) or many other different things. It is not an insult to say that. Look in schools, different kids get different grades. It is a fact that some people are smart, some people are not. How is that insulting? It's not. Have a cookie.
|
|
|
Post by Winterfox on Nov 12, 2007 21:30:56 GMT
I'm sorry, but if you're telling people who see themselves as victims "well, sorry, but you are not as smart as the other person so you're victims" and you fail to see how this may be insulting, then I'm not sure we share very many social mores. Or at all.
I'd unload that gun. Continuing to pull the trigger while aiming at your own foot can't possibly be healthy. But then, you are someone who thinks screeching "BET YOU DUN HAVE ANY FRIEEEENDS, nyah nyah nyah" helps your cause in some way, shape, or form, so... I've nothing more to say, really.
|
|
|
Post by Venom65437 on Nov 12, 2007 21:36:21 GMT
Somehow I highly doubt that.
|
|
|
Post by Lews on Nov 12, 2007 21:57:31 GMT
Can you please stop trying to insult me and actually respond to my post?
How is saying that some people are smart, and some people are not smart insulting? It isn't at all.
I have friends who are honors students, and I have friends who get 69% on tests, and are going to barely make it through High School. We might make fun of each other for grades, but nothing too seriously.
Yet, if you are going around showing off your intelligence, and making other people feel inferior to you, that is insulting. To patronize someone is also insulting.
People have different talents, but that doesn't mean you have to make other people feel stupid.
There is a HUGE different between not smart, and stupid. Calling someone stupid is an insult.
You are being insulting by flaunting your intelligence, and making others feel stupid, just because they are not as smart as you.
|
|
|
Post by ss on Nov 12, 2007 22:12:02 GMT
Wow, How did I miss this magnificent Thread...Must be losing it.. I have to go out, but will be back shortly... Don't know Winterfox, but did not see anywhere that he/she said they were smarter than us serfs.... but most people here are probably smarter than me, just not as arrogant... ;D
|
|
|
Post by Winterfox on Nov 12, 2007 22:26:06 GMT
Can you please stop trying to insult me and actually respond to my post? Am I? Go back to the post you started this thread with. I'm not insulting you so much as contesting your credibility as a debater. You think school grades are reliable measures of intelligence. Oh dear. Say, you launched into an almighty rant about me in the first post of this thread, leaping from one puerile ad hominem banality to the next. Do you think your first post is not at all insulting? 'Cause it sure looks like a bunch of insults to me. OH GOD YOU HORRIBLE HORRIBLE BULLY. I AM LEAVING THIS PLACE UNLESS YOU ARE BANNED. WAH WAH WAH. Plus, how am I "going around showing off" my intelligence? Do I shove my school grades or standardized test results into people's faces? Strangely, I don't recall doing any of that. You do realize that you are repeating yourself, right? About four times.
|
|