(July 10, 2016 at 7:58 pm)bennyboy Wrote:

(July 10, 2016 at 7:52 pm)Losty Wrote: I was responding to this mostly

Let me clarify: there's negativity in almost every line in every page on these forums, wherever ideas are being discussed and being debated.  Just saying, "You're wrong" is negative.

So the clause revolves around the word "excessive," which is so hopelessly poorly-defined and arbitrary that it represents an escape clause, which is a violation of the principle of the social contract at a fundamental level.

I have nothing against cat memes.  I used this as an example of the only members who weren't "negative," and thereby under the over-arching blanket of an arbitrary assessment of whether they were "excessively" negative.  Although. . . now that I think about it, some of the cats in those memes say some downright negative things.

What rule are you reading? It sounds like you've garbled up the rule in your head to make it say what you find objectionable.

Quote:Overwhelmingly Negative Influences
Members are not allowed to engage in any activity which has an overwhelmingly negative influence on the forums as a whole. The purpose of these forums is to promote discussion and debate between people of different belief systems, which all members should try to do in a non-disruptive manner. Whilst there are no points of view that a member can hold which would be considered a negative influence, a member can be a negative influence if their behavior is consistently disruptive and upsetting to active members.

Staff will judge whether a member has an overwhelmingly negative influence on the forums, and will punish that member appropriately. All punishments for violations of this rule will require active staff to vote during a 48 hour time period. A single vote of dissent will prevent punishment from being carried out. Only unanimous agreement of the staff who vote within the time period will see the punishment enforced.

BennyBoy. I agree with half the shit you say....But we don't live in a perfect world with perfect rules.... Let it go man... It's idealism, not reality...
Definitely not worth cutting your nose off...

Too many xtards here to shoot down daily... Let's do that...

(July 10, 2016 at 8:18 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote: What  rule are you reading?  It sounds like you've garbled up the rule in your head to make it say what you find objectionable.

I kudoed this because it's the right kind of question.

Quote:Overwhelmingly Negative Influences
. . . Whilst there are no points of view that a member can hold which would be considered a negative influence, a member can be a negative influence if their behavior is consistently disruptive and upsetting to active members. . . Staff will judge whether a member has an overwhelmingly negative influence on the forums, and will punish that member appropriately.

What does this even mean? What kind of "overwhelmingly negative influence" are these people capable of exerting that won't be caught by a few sensible well-defined rules?

(July 10, 2016 at 8:55 pm)ignoramus Wrote: BennyBoy. I agree with half the shit you say....But we don't live in a perfect world with perfect rules.... Let it go man...  It's idealism, not reality...

Nothing in society is reality until we agree to make it so. As a member of this society, I reserve the right to comment on those aspects of the social contract that I think are weak.

Quote:Definitely not worth cutting your nose off...

Eh? Am I getting myself in trouble by talking about the rules? Have I violated the first rule of Fight Club?

(July 10, 2016 at 9:44 pm)bennyboy Wrote:

(July 10, 2016 at 8:55 pm)ignoramus Wrote: BennyBoy. I agree with half the shit you say....But we don't live in a perfect world with perfect rules.... Let it go man...  It's idealism, not reality...

Nothing in society is reality until we agree to make it so.  As a member of this society, I reserve the right to comment on those aspects of the social contract that I think are weak.

Quote:Definitely not worth cutting your nose off...

Eh?  Am I getting myself in trouble by talking about the rules?  Have I violated the first rule of Fight Club?

Agree but I'm also of the philosophy that if you need to get to a subatomic level of granularity to get a point across, then you're probably flogging a dead horse to start with... But you are persistent . So you got that going for you, which is nice! Hehe
Relax, have some fun...Tell us a tittie joke or something?
No pictures, for God's sake!

(July 10, 2016 at 7:58 pm)bennyboy Wrote:

(July 10, 2016 at 7:52 pm)Losty Wrote: I was responding to this mostly

Let me clarify: there's negativity in almost every line in every page on these forums, wherever ideas are being discussed and being debated.  Just saying, "You're wrong" is negative.

So the clause revolves around the word "excessive," which is so hopelessly poorly-defined and arbitrary that it represents an escape clause, which is a violation of the principle of the social contract at a fundamental level.

I have nothing against cat memes.  I used this as an example of the only members who weren't "negative," and thereby under the over-arching blanket of an arbitrary assessment of whether they were "excessively" negative.  Although. . . now that I think about it, some of the cats in those memes say some downright negative things.

I think you just like having something to dislike. And that's fine by me

(July 10, 2016 at 10:36 pm)Losty Wrote: I think you just like having something to dislike. And that's fine by me

If I don't keep the right attitude, how am I ever going to achieve overwhelming negativity? My biggest problem is that I dare to dream!

(July 10, 2016 at 9:51 pm)The Valkyrie Wrote:

I propose a new rule against depictions of dog violence or implied dog violence!  Cats, though. . . you know, they're just cats.

I agree about the cats.




Can't trust those fuckers.