Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
July 9, 2015 at 5:04 pm (This post was last modified: July 9, 2015 at 5:09 pm by Excited Penguin.)
(July 9, 2015 at 5:00 pm)Cthulhu Dreaming Wrote: "Off Topic" == not topical in any other specific subforum.
You are, AFAIK, the only person that's ever had an issue with this.
Yes, I got that, except that's actually not how off-topic is defined. It's just how it's used, apparently, in some places. That doesn't mean it's correct to do so.
Maybe that's because new comers are more shy about pointing out any problems while, ironically, being at the same time more likely to notice them? But then, after they get used to it all, it's not a problem anymore.
That's slightly how religion works when you think about it. Just trying to make an analogy.
You would think the staff on an atheist forum would try to be as precise and accessible as it can when it comes to how the whole thing works. Instead, what I find here, is these absurd, enigmatic instances where I end up just feeling unwelcome somehow.
(July 9, 2015 at 5:04 pm)excitedpenguin Wrote: Yes, I got that, except that's actually not how off-topic is defined.
It's how it's defined here.
Quote:You would think the staff on an atheist forum would try to be as precise and accessible as it can when it comes to how the whole thing works. Instead, what I find here, is these absurd, enigmatic instances where I end up just feeling unwelcome somehow.
If we were to be as precise as you seem to want us to be, then most threads would go in Off Topic because they wouldn't exactly match the description of the other forums. We're pretty flexible here. We don't often move threads unless it's blatantly obvious they fit better in another forum, and even in those instances, it's when either we spot it on the off-chance or someone reports a thread. We don't go around specifically hunting for misplaced threads.
We're not going to create a new forum that would essentially be another version of Off Topic.
July 9, 2015 at 11:07 pm (This post was last modified: July 9, 2015 at 11:25 pm by Excited Penguin.)
(July 9, 2015 at 9:38 pm)Tiberius Wrote:
(July 9, 2015 at 5:04 pm)excitedpenguin Wrote: Yes, I got that, except that's actually not how off-topic is defined.
It's how it's defined here.
Quote:You would think the staff on an atheist forum would try to be as precise and accessible as it can when it comes to how the whole thing works. Instead, what I find here, is these absurd, enigmatic instances where I end up just feeling unwelcome somehow.
If we were to be as precise as you seem to want us to be, then most threads would go in Off Topic because they wouldn't exactly match the description of the other forums. We're pretty flexible here. We don't often move threads unless it's blatantly obvious they fit better in another forum, and even in those instances, it's when either we spot it on the off-chance or someone reports a thread. We don't go around specifically hunting for misplaced threads.
We're not going to create a new forum that would essentially be another version of Off Topic.
Almost broke the rule about personal attacks.
You didn't provide a good argument. You just basically gave me the finger and shut me up 'cause you didn't like the idea. Very interesting. Nice politics going on here, too, I see.
There's a difference between policing hard on every single thread-maker out there, and providing them with more ways to be as accurate as warranted about where they place their own threads. Then, if someone wanted a dedicated audience, they would just post something in a given subforum, catering to their particular needs, instead of risking to 1) get buried under countless other threads that bare no similarities whatsoever(broadly speaking) with each others and 2) Get distasteful, offtopic and even downright stupid replies.
If, say, a team of people actually wrapped their heads around this, for a given set of days, they might actually come up with some pretty brilliant ideas about covering every single possible subject on the face of the earth(or the outlies of the universe, really) with a new sort of forums distribution. But hey, if I'm really the only one seeing the upsides in this things, then maybe it's not even worth it pushing the idea - you all might just dumb it down anyway, once it's up and running.
I hear alpha pups are not in much of a demand, though, nowadays.
Wow, dude. You're really not helping yourself here. Did you ever hear the expression, "you can catch more flies with honey"?
You've now, not only insulted at least four members of staff (whether you say that's what you were doing or not, you have by calling us lazy, etc.), but now you're giving a middle finger to the big guy. Niiiiice.
(July 9, 2015 at 11:07 pm)excitedpenguin Wrote: Almost broke the rule about personal attacks.
You didn't provide a good argument. You just basically gave me the finger and shut me up 'cause you didn't like the idea. Very interesting. Nice politics going on here, too, I see.
Excuse me? Cthulhu Dreaming literally defined "Off Topic" for you; there was an equal sign and everything, and then you respond to him going "that's actually not how off-topic is defined". Yes it is, one of the admins just defined it for you. You don't get more defined than when one of the very people who actually runs the site defines it.
I didn't give you the finger; I didn't even come close. I told you what's what, and that I don't find your argument for a new sub-forum convincing. You can interpret that as me giving you the finger and telling you to shut up if you want, but it's not at all the case.
Quote:There's a difference between policing hard on every single thread-maker out there, and providing them with more ways to be as accurate as warranted about where they place their own threads. Then, if someone wanted a dedicated audience, they would just post something in a given subforum, catering to their particular needs, instead of risking to 1) get buried under countless other threads that bare no similarities whatsoever(broadly speaking) with each others and 2) Get distasteful, offtopic and even downright stupid replies.
If, say, a team of people actually wrapped their heads around this, for a given set of days, they might actually come up with some pretty brilliant ideas about covering every single possible subject on the face of the earth(or the outlies of the universe, really) with a new sort of forums distribution. But hey, if I'm really the only one seeing the upsides in this things, then maybe it's not even worth it pushing the idea - you all might just dumb it down anyway, once it's up and running.
I hear alpha pups are not in much of a demand, though, nowadays.
We have added subforums at the request of users before; I understand the concept of making more subforums to let people create threads which match a new theme. However, that is not what you are asking for. You asked for a new forum where the theme would be "diverse topics". That's not a theme. That's basically an anti-theme. Not only that, the forum you speak of already exists, and we've pointed that out to you numerous times. What would be the point of having two forums which serve the exact same purpose, and whose names are effectively synonyms?
Y'know what you can do to prevent a thread from getting buried? Make it a great thread from the offset. Make it a thread which people *want* to comment in, and the thread will always be high up in the list. Also, just because the forum is called "Off Topic" doesn't mean the replies you get will be "distatasteful, offtopic and even downright stupid". There are rules in place to ensure that people don't do that, even in Off Topic threads. You still have to stay on topic in "Off Topic" threads, because the thread itself has a topic; the topic just doesn't belong in any other forum.
Honestly, if you are going to be THAT nit-picky about not getting your way, then start up your own forum and do as you please on it. I've run across countless topics where people posted but they announced they weren't sure if the forum or sub-forum they were posting in was the right one. You've already been told more than once that no one person makes the decisions. They discuss things together. You've got quite a few admin and mods here explaining things to you. Just because it's not what you wanted to hear is no reason to be rude to those who VOLUNTEER their time here.
It's one thing to make a suggestion, but now you're just flat out trying to bully the staff here into giving you what you want by insulting and arguing with them. I can guarantee you that you won't get it. Not like that.
Disclaimer: I am only responsible for what I say, not what you choose to understand.
(November 14, 2018 at 8:57 pm)The Valkyrie Wrote: Have a good day at work. If we ever meet in a professional setting, let me answer your question now. Yes, I DO want fries with that.
(July 9, 2015 at 11:53 pm)Tiberius Wrote: Y'know what you can do to prevent a thread from getting buried? Make it a great thread from the offset. Make it a thread which people *want* to comment in, and the thread will always be high up in the list.
Protip: titling a thread "Meh" pretty much ensures that sort of response.
(July 9, 2015 at 11:33 pm)rexbeccarox Wrote: Wow, dude. You're really not helping yourself here. Did you ever hear the expression, "you can catch more flies with honey"?
You've now, not only insulted at least four members of staff (whether you say that's what you were doing or not, you have by calling us lazy, etc.), but now you're giving a middle finger to the big guy. Niiiiice.
I was claiming he was giving me the middle finger, not the other way around. Pay attention, if you would.
Let me school you on the meaning of the word insult, as per dictionary, seeing as how you might desperately need it:
Insult:speak to or treat with disrespect or scornful abuse.
Let us then further break this down by providing some further explaining as to what 'disrespect' or 'scornful abuse' might imply:
disrespect: lack of respect or courtesy.
courtesy: the showing of politeness in one's attitude and behavior toward others.
Politeness is a noun which is a derived form of the adjective 'polite': polite:having or showing behavior that is respectful and considerate of other people.
Respectful: feeling or showingdeference and respect deference:humble submission and respect submission:the action or fact of accepting or yielding to a superior force or to the will or authority of another person.
I don't really see how I'm not yielding to or accepting the authority of God or of the holy book...uuuuh, I mean of the staff and of the rules.
Ironically, [humble] submission is exactly what I did, at least according to these definitions: submission: the action of presenting a proposal, application, or other document for consideration or judgment. humble:having or showing a modest or low estimate of one's own importance.
not this one , seeing how it's irrelevant[,]anyway, this one: humble: of low social, administrative, or political rank.
Let us move on now, shall we?Other meaning of courtesy ahead... courtesy: a polite speech or action, especially one required by convention.
Who gives a damn about convention anyway? Oh, you do, apparently. Not the red dude though, if we were to abide by his thinking concerning loose thread placement guidelines.
In whatever which way was I anything but polite? Just a reminder, right this way(downstairs).
polite: of or relating to people who regard themselves as more cultured and refined than others.
respect: a feeling of deep admiration for someone or something elicited by their abilities, qualities, or achievements.
I don't see anything criminal about not idolatrizing somebody in every given scenario, if only because of their perceived mishaps.
scornful -feeling or expressing contemptor derision. abuse -the improper use of something.
contempt:the feeling that a person or a thing is beneath consideration, worthless, or deserving scorn. That is clearly exagerating my stance here. But there are also: contempt: disregard for something that should be taken into account. I am still waiting for anyone at all to point out what I failed to take into account or address. contempt: the offense of being disobedient to or disrespectful of a court of law and its officers. This is no court of law, by any stretch of the imagination. That is, unless we start making up our own definitions of words, as certain people have been shown to do.
But there is this, I'll give you that:
contempt:the offense of being similarly disobedient to or disrespectful of the lawful operation of a legislative body (e.g., its investigations) But then, we would have to understand this concept: disobedient: refusing to obey rules or someone in authority
I did not refuse to obey any rules or anyone in authority. I dare you to prove I did.
I would hope this is enough to prove my innocence of said crime[insulting]. If you wish though, I may continue revising what I said thus far and adding further material for my client's[my own, really] defense.
In the last few pages you've called the staff lazy, insinuated that I gave you the finger and told you to shut up, insinuated that even if the staff did implement your idea, we would probably "dumb it down", and then penned a long winded derogatory post about the meaning of the word "insult".
But yes, please tell us how you aren't insulting us.
, seeing how it's irrelevant[,]anyway, this one: