Shame on Whom?

[SpaceYeti]

Rule Zero.

Fair is what he/she who makes the rules says it is.

Oh, sure, tyrants are totally fair people, hence the term.

 

[Hawkeye]

Rule Zero.

Fair is what he/she who makes the rules says it is.

Fair is equitable which means unbiased, therefore subjective rules such as "don't be a nuisance" cannot not be fair.

Your "Rule Zero" is wrong.

 

[Cognisant]

Those are both your subjective opinions.

Objectively rule zero still applies, has always applied and will always apply.

The fact of the matter is this forum is not a democracy, Ragnar is ruler supreme and he delegates the day to day management to the admins and as such their discretion is law, not the legal kind either, the laws of physics kind.

The very fact that we're having this discussion merely illustrates the extent of their relative benevolence, relative that is to a douche like me who would reacquaint you with what tyranny really is.

 

[Jennywocky]

Rule Zero.

Fair is what he/she who makes the rules says it is.

Fair is equitable which means unbiased, therefore subjective rules such as "don't be a nuisance" cannot not be fair.

Your "Rule Zero" is wrong.

Oh, you guys.

You're both talking about different things here.
Or did you each fail to see that?
Or are we just picking at each other because of the inherent differences in style that people can find irritating?

 

[Cognisant]

I'm not saying Hawkeye or SpaceYeti are wrong, heavens no, if I thought such a thing I'd say it outright, rather what I'm say is that I'm right and their points are stupid.

 

[Hawkeye]

I get I'm bringing up a different issue, however my issue is not a subjective opinion - it's fact.

The "don't be a nuisance" rule is stupid (in its wording). It cannot be enforced fairly ergo not fair.

Spoiler

Please don't fall into the trap of thinking I care about such things.
I'm just creating debates for my own amusement.

I feel the need to post this because people forget sometimes

By the way, your Rule Zero is not objective (in its current wording), but I understand what you are trying to say.

 

[Duxwing]

A subjective, and therefore unfair as it doesn't apply to everyone equally, judgment. That rule is essentially a "We don't like you, so we're kicking you out" pass-card. It's a bad rule. Unfair rules are still unfair even though they're rules.

You said that he didn't break any rules, not that those rules were unfair. However, the distinction is meaningless considering that unfair rules oughtn't be followed in the first place.

-Duxwing

 

[TheScornedReflex]

What's done is done and will not be undone. Bickering about it will solve nothing. We all know the rules (not that I have ever read them), and joined this forum anyway. Thereby agreeing we would follow and be subject to them. It is up to the mods to dish out holy punishment as they see fit.

Now bend over and take it!!

 

[SpaceYeti]

You said that he didn't break any rules, not that those rules were unfair. However, the distinction is meaningless considering that unfair rules oughtn't be followed in the first place.

-Duxwing

Hence my wording; "actual rules". Rules that cannot be complied with in any meaningful sense aren't really rules.

 

[SpaceYeti]

What's done is done and will not be undone. Bickering about it will solve nothing. We all know the rules (not that I have ever read them), and joined this forum anyway. Thereby agreeing we would follow and be subject to them. It is up to the mods to dish out holy punishment as they see fit.

Now bend over and take it!!

We agree to abide by them through technicality alone. It's silly to agree to a rule you cannot actually know that you're breaking or not, because it's purely up to the subjective whims of the mods. I think it's a bad rule, and should be done away with in the name of fairness, but the mods want to be able to kick people out simply because they don't like them. That's pretty much what the rule boils down to, and this thread especially is to inform the mods that we disagree with them, and their subjective whims can and do negatively effect the forum members.

Yes, I thought Da Blob was a nuisance, but he wasn't trolling, he wasn't spamming. He was merely an irritating sophist. Nothing more. Most of the posters when I first joined fell under the same category, mentally masturbating all over the emo place. If I didn't like one of their posts, which happened commonly, I either argued or ignored. Da Blob, like many of those other posters, didn't do anything that couldn't be ignored, but people didn't ignore him.

 

[BigApplePi]

Now bend over and take it!!

Yes master. Now give me another pleeze.

Spoiler

Over an upturned ‘dining-room’ chair, we see an elderly bespectacled man, his posterior exposed ...

 

[EyeSeeCold]

We agree to abide by them through technicality alone. It's silly to agree to a rule you cannot actually know that you're breaking or not, because it's purely up to the subjective whims of the mods. I think it's a bad rule, and should be done away with in the name of fairness, but the mods want to be able to kick people out simply because they don't like them. That's pretty much what the rule boils down to, and this thread especially is to inform the mods that we disagree with them, and their subjective whims can and do negatively effect the forum members.

So far how many people have been kicked out on what you consider to be unreasonable grounds? In theory yeah, the vagueness seems problematic, but you should also consider the actual cases of bans and the actual treatment of troublesome members.

 

[SpaceYeti]

So far how many people have been kicked out on what you consider to be unreasonable grounds? In theory yeah, the vagueness seems problematic, but you should also consider the actual cases of bans and the actual treatment of troublesome members.

One is enough.

 

[Hawkeye]

I feel a Star Trek quote is needed

How many people does it take, Admiral, before it becomes wrong? Hmm? A thousand, fifty thousand, a million? How many people does it take, Admiral?

 

[EyeSeeCold]

DaBlob was a member for 5 years. I wouldn't call that a whim.

 

[Hawkeye]

DaBlob was a member for 5 years. I wouldn't call that a whim.

I know you didn't mean it this way, but it looks like you're implying there was some sort of 5 year plan to ban him.

 

[Puffy]

DaBlob was a member for 5 years. I wouldn't call that a whim.

And with that, you've surpassed his post count. Congratulations!

 

[BigApplePi]

I know you didn't mean it this way, but it looks like you're implying there was some sort of 5 year plan to ban him.

Does that mean after 5 years one outlives their usefulness or does it mean it takes 5 years and repeated voting will statistically finally bring in a ban?

 

[Hawkeye]

Does that mean after 5 years one outlives their usefulness or does it mean it takes 5 years and repeated voting will statistically finally bring in a ban?

a bit of both

 

[BigApplePi]

Sounds like a conspiracy.

 

[InvisibleJim]

When the inbreeding and circular thought amongst the moderators reaches epidemic levels...

 

[Cognisant]

How many people does it take, Admiral, before it becomes wrong? Hmm? A thousand, fifty thousand, a million? How many people does it take, Admiral?

 

[SpaceYeti]

Haha, "Exterminauts"! I think they meant "Exterminatus", if going for the WH40K reference. But whatevs, yo!

 

[C.Hecker88]

I feel a Star Trek quote is needed

Picard is the (second) fucking best!

Data is always the best, though.

 

[Fukyo]

When the inbreeding and circular thought amongst the moderators reaches epidemic levels...

When cheetos consumption and inbreeding amongst the moderators reaches epidemic levels...

 

[C.Hecker88]

When cheetos consumption and inbreeding amongst the moderators reaches epidemic levels...

Oh my god, that .gif is simply amazing.