NOTE: I had this typed out 5 or so mins after Epi posted what I quoted. L0L git.
An interesting and pertinent note.
When you stop and think about it, by fundamentally changing the environment, like in the context of an April Fools, is it still the same forum and obliged to the same functional rules as the forum (i.e. this) from whence it was spawned?
Take for a case example of 'Christian Forums' -- we put Xtian labels, etc all over the place to make everyone out to be a Christfan. By doing that, we directly changed how everyone was perceived. In essence, we made everyone (albeit temporarily) appear to be not who they truly are.
Is that not the very base definition of deceit?
You may have appreciated and given tacit approval to previous April Fools, despite the deception they endemically entailed, despite the changes to the very core of AF.org to twist it to reach that "better than before" height.
Granted, we should have better primed things. We should have certainly questioned the thought of a fake poster personally attacking a moderator -- who would've known that posters here would fly to LMA's defense despite objectively provoking it?
We failed to take into account a very important bit -- the subjective. We failed to consider, what if some posters didn't give us the benefit of the doubt.
And that was a grave mistake.
In retrospect, perhaps we should've gave up the second people started taking LMA seriously, just called it quits and come clean when some people started to complain.
But we didn't. We wanted, even when things started to sour for a few, give the magic of April Fools to the rest.
We agree fully.
(April 5, 2012 at 10:01 pm)Epimethean Wrote: the feelings were simply that the moderators violated rules to mess with people and not everyone likes that fact.
An interesting and pertinent note.
When you stop and think about it, by fundamentally changing the environment, like in the context of an April Fools, is it still the same forum and obliged to the same functional rules as the forum (i.e. this) from whence it was spawned?
Take for a case example of 'Christian Forums' -- we put Xtian labels, etc all over the place to make everyone out to be a Christfan. By doing that, we directly changed how everyone was perceived. In essence, we made everyone (albeit temporarily) appear to be not who they truly are.
Is that not the very base definition of deceit?
You may have appreciated and given tacit approval to previous April Fools, despite the deception they endemically entailed, despite the changes to the very core of AF.org to twist it to reach that "better than before" height.
Granted, we should have better primed things. We should have certainly questioned the thought of a fake poster personally attacking a moderator -- who would've known that posters here would fly to LMA's defense despite objectively provoking it?
We failed to take into account a very important bit -- the subjective. We failed to consider, what if some posters didn't give us the benefit of the doubt.
And that was a grave mistake.
In retrospect, perhaps we should've gave up the second people started taking LMA seriously, just called it quits and come clean when some people started to complain.
But we didn't. We wanted, even when things started to sour for a few, give the magic of April Fools to the rest.
(April 5, 2012 at 10:01 pm)Epimethean Wrote: Moros has the best point, though. It needs to blow over and the fallout needs to move wherever the emotional winds blow it.
We agree fully.
Slave to the Patriarchy no more
