Rules and Moderator information

[Res Ipsa]

Wrong! If I met Madonna and called her a pink vagina hat PROGRESSIVE, she would probably be proud I viewed her that way.

Question, if pink vagina hat has been used as a cudgel as of late, how bout TROLL, how bout trumptards or trumpsters? Are you saying Lem can call me a troll everytime she post about me, because she does? How do you know I'm not deathly afraid of trolls and everytime I hear the word troll I get triggered?

This is a very very solid point. Pay attention, Res.

Your little Gilligan will want to spin this around and say “I know you are but what am I?” But focus, pay attention here.

Do you seriously think that I've never considered this? I'm hurt that you think so little of me.

[Chap]

<lengthy calm and logical explanations of various blindingly obvious matters to Cultellus> .... The range of permissible actions and responses are limited by the terms and conditions that Shades sets.

Yup. How odd that you had to tell him that.

You have the patience of a saint.

[Lem]

Not to be indelicate, but if describing a dick as “throbbing” is what adds the sexual connotation, then we are discussing arousal, unless there is some new, urban dictionary-type definition I am unaware of.

That’s right. But you also wrote, “Arousal is an element of using these sexual organs in a positive and meaningful way, …”

I’m not yet convinced that all instances of throbbing dicks necessarily reflect or indicate a positive or meaningful sexual circumstance, especially when considering how some folks are absolutely bent on getting their rocks off by trolling.

Metaphorically speaking, of course.

And also not.

Also not when connected to a tapir*, necessarily. I suppose I was waxing hopeful about the term, but yes, I concede your point, metaphorically, as well as not.

(*I spent a fair number of minutes yesterday, trying to explain how a tapir got involved in this mormondiscussions thread (let alone their genitalia, throbbing or otherwise), to members of my never-mo family whose faces became more and more incredulous as I went on. So there was that. )

[Res Ipsa]

<lengthy calm and logical explanations of various blindingly obvious matters to Cultellus> .... The range of permissible actions and responses are limited by the terms and conditions that Shades sets.

Yup. How odd that you had to tell him that.

You have the patience of a saint.

Maybe once in a blue moon...

Actually, I enjoy working my way through someone else's argument without the pressure of deadlines or winning a case.

[Cultellus]

Yup. How odd that you had to tell him that.

You have the patience of a saint.

Maybe once in a blue moon...

Actually, I enjoy working my way through someone else's argument without the pressure of deadlines or winning a case.

Hey Res,

You are still wrong! Can you believe that?

I saw your post after me and the family finished pheasant hunting. 15 roosters. Its gonna be a feast. More on the moderation stuff later.

[Res Ipsa]

Maybe once in a blue moon...

Actually, I enjoy working my way through someone else's argument without the pressure of deadlines or winning a case.

Hey Res,

You are still wrong! Can you believe that?

I saw your post after me and the family finished pheasant hunting. 15 roosters. Its gonna be a feast. More on the moderation stuff later.

Me? Still wrong? Inconceivable!!

Nice hunt.

[Atlanticmike]

Maybe once in a blue moon...

Actually, I enjoy working my way through someone else's argument without the pressure of deadlines or winning a case.

Hey Res,

You are still wrong! Can you believe that?

I saw your post after me and the family finished pheasant hunting. 15 roosters. Its gonna be a feast. More on the moderation stuff later.

Chew carefully and don't break a tooth.

[Cultellus]

This is a very very solid point. Pay attention, Res.

Your little Gilligan will want to spin this around and say “I know you are but what am I?” But focus, pay attention here.

Do you seriously think that I've never considered this? I'm hurt that you think so little of me.

Nah. But damn that little Pavlovian buddy of yours never misses the bell.

[Cultellus]

Counselor! Hasa Diga Lawyers.

Indeed.

Terms. Your use of “terms” makes me wonder if you can have in real life relationships that are not contractually bound by a retainer or fee. Your application of terms, and the quoting of a rule, makes me think you would be a great moderator, a great lawyer, and a crappy neighbor. If I was considering buying a house in your HOA, you would be on the Cons side of the ledger. (ETA: rhetoric, you get the point).

I would avoid at all costs living in any place that involves an HOA. In my experience, HOA boards are dominated by adults who still carry a grudge over the fact that they lost the election for fifth grade class president. I've had many "bad neighbor" cases. In fact, I'm working on one this morning. Hands down, they involve the worst displays of behavior of any other kind of case I work with. I value being on good terms with my neighbors much more than, say, losing six inches of land because of a fence built in the wrong place

The ONLY thing that matters on this board is my entertainment. That is it. Nothing else matters. And that is true for every person on this board and for every person in every role on this board. Including the founder. Including the moderators. Including that bigot Gadianton and whatever he does here.

It strikes me that this could be true, but only if you are defining "entertainment" so broadly that it encompasses every possible reason a person could give for participating on the board. Are you making an argument similar to "there are no altruistic acts because people only do things because they get some kind of benefit from it?"

If I am not entertained, I do not come back. That is true for everyone. There are no exceptions. I cooperate, or not, as part of the entertainment process. That is true for everyone. There are no exceptions.

We choose to participate, we are not bound by it or to it. We get something from it. And we contribute, even going so far that some volunteer to moderate, because we get something from it.

OK, there it is. A friend of mine used to say "I love tautologies because they are so true." They are also trivial and boring. So far, I'm getting:

1. All human motivations are included in the definition of "entertainment"
2. People who participate in this forum do so because of some motivation
3. Therefore, people who participate in this form do so for "entertainment"

There is a notorious case (or maybe just an apocryphal story about a case) where a lawyer argues that a horse is a bridge because it has vertical supports at each end and a horizontal section in between. Humpty Dumpty would be proud.

I disagree with assertion number one. People participate here for different reasons. You can't legitimately change that fact by simply giving them all a uniform label. My intent to communicate with, say, Kishkumen about the history of the Roman Empire is qualitatively different that someone's intent to prevent me from communicating me with Kishkumen.

The disruption you describe is not because of anything other than, someone derives entertainment from something that is not cool with you or not your cup of tea. Even though, the board in general, entertains you.

Again, you are simply defining away a qualitative difference. If I am entertained by talking about history with Kishkumen and another poster is entertained by stopping me from talking with Kishkumen, he is destroying my "entertainment" but I am not reducing his in any way. You are treating two fundamentally different situations as identical simply by playing with the definition of "entertainment."

Here's the closest I can get to agreeing with your argument: People participate here for a reason. Some of those reasons are can coexist with no conflict. Others conflict. Some are completely contradictory. Theses are important and qualitative differences in reasons for participation. Rules are created to resolve these conflicts in motivation.

Not liking Atlanticmike or me is no goddamn different than not liking The Fly episode of Breaking Bad. We disrupted your entertainment for a bit, but overall, the season worked out and participation was up.

Liking another poster is irrelevant to me. I can co-exist on a message board with people I don't like. There are also people here whose behavior frustrates my motivation for being here. There is a qualitative difference between those people and someone who is motivated to frustrate my reasons for being here.

There are no legal terms here. There are the terms that apply when people interact. Not legal. Life. People. On this board the people are cartoons and avatars. I have met Shades and a few others on here. Many others, actually, but the board is mostly just cartoons.

LOL! There are legal terms everywhere, whether you acknowledge them or not. You expressly agreed to a set of legal terms when you joined the forum. Treating other users as "cartoons" as opposed to real fellow humans is a choice you make. No one forces you to treat people as "cartoons."

When I apply the terms and conditions concept, it is not the legal sense or the interpretation of rules and laws. It is more literal: if you connect with me, I will react. If I connect with you, you will react. If you bomb me with stereotype comments about me, my mother, and my kids who did not go to college, I will accept those terms (conditions for being on the board), and react.

If I call you a bigot, a pissboy, a person who nannys the board with battered woman syndrome, it will set the terms of engagement for connection. The same is true when the board accepts the majority and mob rules against populists, republicans or people that do not choose to vote for Monica Lewinsky’s ex-boyfriend’s wife.

OK, this is the answer to my question. However, I disagree with your use of the term "term." When I engage in conversation with you, you do not know what my "terms" are unless I tell you. You cannot "agree" to something that you don't even know exists.

I did not disrupt this board. I accepted the terms and conditions, and entertained myself and you accordingly. Atlanticmike could not possibly be more transparent in anything he has done or anything he is doing. Even with that fake K. Graham sock puppet he is using, or Graham Cracker or whatever it is next, he could not be more transparent. This is entertainment, and he is doing that!

I don't think I said you disrupted the board. I said Shades has set a rule that applies to disruption. I quoted it. You accepted terms and conditions when you joined the forum, and none of them involve entertainment. You also are, as a practical matter, bound by whatever terms and conditions Shades sets as rules.

If the terms of engagement/connection include being in a pit of leftists and feminists who want to cancel the phrase vagina hat but keep the word pussyhat, great. And be prepared to be mocked like this was roasting night at the comedy club because that bozo stuff is funny AF.

If calling people accomplices to murderers and cocksuckers is entertaining for you, great. Go for it. Enjoy. But you do not also get to choose the reactions those acts generate. And that, regardless of the legal definition of terms, is the human experience. We act, others react. And they may disrupt our flow if we misbehave.

I think you are simply equivocating between different meanings of the "terms of engagement." One meaning is a person's own rules that they set for the conditions under which they will engage with another. The other is rules set by a forum owner that govern how individuals interact with each other. They are qualitatively different, as only the latter are involve the question of access to the forum.

I fully agree that I don't control the actions of others. I choose to act. Someone chooses to respond. Each of us are responsible for those choices. Someone else chooses to act, I choose to respond. Same thing. The range of permissible actions and responses are limited by the terms and conditions that Shades sets.

Thanks again for the post. Particularly the final paragraph. We agree fully. Well, d’oh. Except for the last part. Shades has rules for the forum. These are not terms and conditions. These are the rules. And, I can choose to act or react outside of those rules. So can you. So does Lem. So can Atlanticmike. So can my sock puppet, K Graham.

Part of getting a reaction inside the lines or rules involves connection and respect, the rules are not enough.

On assumption 1 above, I never said that all human motivations are based in entertainment, nor do I believe it. You made a point I did not make or believe, and shot it down. Easy, we actually agree on your response to the fake point. Life Motivations can be other basic needs, like belonging and safety.

This board, with cartoons, is a form of entertainment. It is not a basic need. The end. Same for video games and board games.

We are getting closer here. Again nails on your final paragraph. Thank you.

[Res Ipsa]

Thanks again for the post. Particularly the final paragraph. We agree fully. Well, d’oh. Except for the last part. Shades has rules for the forum. These are not terms and conditions. These are the rules. And, I can choose to act or react outside of those rules. So can you. So does Lem. So can Atlanticmike. So can my sock puppet, K Graham.

Part of getting a reaction inside the lines or rules involves connection and respect, the rules are not enough.

On assumption 1 above, I never said that all human motivations are based in entertainment, nor do I believe it. You made a point I did not make or believe, and shot it down. Easy, we actually agree on your response to the fake point. Life Motivations can be other basic needs, like belonging and safety.

This board, with cartoons, is a form of entertainment. It is not a basic need. The end. Same for video games and board games.

We are getting closer here. Again nails on your final paragraph. Thank you.

Cool. You’re welcome. And thank you for the response. In my experience, most disagreements are about distinctions: how do we distinguish X from Y? And what consequences to we attach to X as opposed to Y? And my approach is not to argue about what X and Y are, but how they function in the relevant context.

So, I’m seeing two distinctions on the table: terms and conditions/rules and entertainment/basic needs.

I don’t understand why, in the context of this discussion board, you place importance on this distinction. In my view, they function exactly the same in this context. There is a formalized set of rules we all agreed to when we registered that has a fancy name like terms and conversations or terms of service. But, they simply function for us as a set of rules that we must follow in order to participate. Shades’ rules function the same way. Ultimately, as with the terms and conditions out terms of service, he has the power to deny participation as a consequence of not following those rules.

So, for purposes of this discussion, I don’t think there is a relevant distinction. But your posts indicate that you do. So, to understand your argument, I need to ask for clarification. So, first, how can I tell whether something is a “rule” as opposed to a “term and condition”? Second, what different consequences flow from something that is a “rule” as opposed to a “term and condition?”

The other distinction is entertainment/basic human need. As a preliminary question, I need to ask whether there are human motivations that are neither entertainment nor basic human needs? In other words, is the distinction X/Y, X/Y/Z, etc.?

Regardless of the number of categories we are dealing with, I’ll have the same two questions: If I propose a specific human motivation, how so we know which category it fits into? And, once we’ve assigned it to a category, what consequences flow from being assigned to one category to the other?

I agree that we’re making progress. And by progress, I mean drilling down to and identifying what we actually disagree about without kicking each other in the teeth.

Enjoy the day. I’m hanging Election materials on doors for a friend and playing something with my co-op friends. It’s a gorgeous fall day in the Pacific Northwest.