Master_Uxi posted:Calling individuals out would certainly only lead to an escalation. Look how defensive you are in thinking he was even talking about you to begin with.
Uxi posted:Seeing your response, I would imagine your reaction to being named would have been worse rather than if others had been named.
Uxi posted:The fact that you're openly derisive about the possibility of Karen's return is what demonstrates the problem this thread was meant to avoid, not your conduct during the GAR thread, which I thought proper for the most part (even if a tad obstinate).
Uxi posted:While I myself thought you provided some good points, you've apparently taken this far too personally, much less seriously. Note that I haven't, nor do I care to, see what exactly transpired on Karen's blog. Do you think so highly of yourself that you think that if the choice was between having you on the board versus Karen that you would be chosen by the majority, much less the powers that be?
Uxi posted:GAJ spoke in discrete and vague terms. The only one who made you an issue in this thread was YOU. Catering to the overdefensiveness of random uknown people on the Internet who might unknowingly take offense certainly sounds like a losing proposition.
Uxi posted:It would seem that the only possibilities we're left with are either not having open VIPs or having any interaction heavily moderated. I'd much rather have the VIPs in an open discussion (even KJA and the other poorer authors of the Bantam line), but it's definitely sad that it's come to this.
Master_Keralys posted:The2ndQuest, thank you. I appreciate your work as a mod on this issue. I also appreciate the fact that as a board, we're not willing to put up with flaming.
Keralys posted:Borleias - I may have time to respond to the rest of your post later. But as for your comment that I was just flaming without using flaming phrases - I apologize if that's how you took it. I was doing nothing of the sort. It seems to me that a lot of people in certain sectors of the board have a tendency to read way too much into a simple reply. Seems to me, in fact, that this is the basic cause of our current set of contentions at its most basic level. When I argue with you and poke holes in your premise aggressively, I am not flaming. When I insult your intelligence, I am. There's a difference.
Keralys, last post posted:Please get it through your head.
Keralys posted:Oh - and if people want to see what the real behavior of certain posters on these boards has been like elsewhere, and see just how out of line it's been, by all means follow the link posted by Borleias above, talking about Karen's allegedly attacking other authors' numbers. Read and learn. Makes it pretty clear how things really are.- Keralys
Master_Keralys posted:A few of us would still beg to differ to the contrary - that she did no such thing, did not in fact start any fight.
Master_Keralys posted:That in fact, her replies were cordial, if - as we've come to expect from Karen - a tad sarcastic, and simply trying to answer the questions.
Keralys posted:I've read everything she's said on the subject, and I really don't find a hint of venom or provocation. I find only answers to questions posed, answers that people didn't like/didn't care for.
Keralys posted:There's nothing inherently directed at any side, contrary to popular opinion.
Keralys posted:There's nothing specifically addressing the validity of either side's argument, nothing specifically addressing the argument at all, in fact - just a note that she finds it dumb to get so worked up over something so trivial. She wasn't trying to "stop a war," she was trying to tell people that it's not worth getting so worked up over. I happen to think she was right. You may not. That's your prerogative. However, it is in no way your right to insult/slam/bash her for having that mentality. It is a defensible and (I believe) logical mentality to have when it comes to any piece of entertainment.
Ender_Sai posted: I should point out for the benefit of you and Borelias that as VIP, she is entitled to respect. Being a VERY IMPORTANT person affords her that right, and this has been a facet of Western society since you were born, and beyond.
Havac posted:All I'll say is, from the posts that have been made defending the Saxtonite POV, they seem to believe that civility is irrelevant, and if soemone disagrees with them, that person lacks inteeligence and deserves their direct disrespect.
Sinrebirth posted: What if Ms. Traviss did return and apologise for insulting anyone?
GrandAdmiralJello posted:I'm an empiricist. Whatever the facts display is whatever I support (sorry for the passive voice). So in this instance, yes, I'd put me on the side of maximalism.[/quoter] "Empiricist". Sounds good, but a little presumptious, because probably everyone thinks that of themselves. Still, maybe I'd steal it Jello posted:Who says they're arbitrary? They're quite established rules of conduct that have been developed for use in polite society for millennia--I'd argue there is more impressive to me than someone who is unable--or unwilling--to do so. Any child prodigy may throw a tantrum, but that child would not be put into a position of importance by anyone. I didn't say they were not established. I said they were arbitrary. There is a difference. All one needs to do to start seeing the arbitariness of politeness is to ... for instance, look at what is considered polite in another country! In some countries, there are entire subsets of languages (Japanese keigo for one) that are used for talking to different people in your life, and incorrectly using them would be considered rude (nevermind their intricacy challenges even the natives to master them). To an American for example, this would seem rather arbitrary. Yet they would call them "established rules of conduct" that they would find hard to live without, even though there are obviously many out there that live without them just fine! If I and you both agree not to use "Please" with each other, what would change? Arguably nothing once we've agreed on it. Suppose we decide to call each other "Idiot" and "Numbskull", what changes? Nothing once we've agreed to it. We can continue to have pleasant, and more importantly constructive conversations. If the world decides tomorrow that it is OK to show up at weddings in T-shirts, what truly negative effect would it have? Hard to see any. In fact, a wedding might get slightly more pleasant because we aren't in uptight tuxedos! When one thinks like this, one wonders how arbitary the established rules of conduct can often be. There are probably some useful rules - like the rule for non-violence, but which I'd actually count as "ethics". But outside those few... their true usefulness without the rest of the cards is questionable. If the world decides it is OK for people go to to specialist work untrained, there will be a negative effect. Jello posted:You can advocate Teutonic barbarism if you'd like, but I'd recommend that so long as you're in polite society (e.g. TFN, rather than SDN), then you'd best follow their standards. I personally prefer different stories like the Inquisition or the suppression of science by the church, the persecution of people holding different viewpoints even if their's is more logical. It'd be a sad world indeed if science is ruled by rhetoric rather than logic (Kansas). Besides, I really don't think language can be compared to brawn. Jello posted:An engineer is a person who follows orders. He's directed to design/research/develop something, and he does it. There's nothing beyond sheer brainpower involved. An engineer is not an impressive person because they've got a limited scope. Here's a better example. They might be specialists, but that does not make them any lesser, if you ask me. Besides, a good engineer also takes into account ethics and economics to some extent in his design. If he does all that, and is willing to go head to head with his boss, a boss who knows about economics but not engineering, I'd gladly forgive him for being rude. Jello posted:Do you want a Chief Executive Office who's sole virtue is economic knowledge? No, but I don't want one who has no economic and management knowledge even more. Jello posted:A rude genius and a polite idiot are both deficient and they're both inferior. If we want to get into hierarchical standards, since they seem more understandable, I look down my nose at the both of them. Neither of them are worth my time. I wouldn't agree. If it is between the rude genius and the polite idiot, I'd take my lessons from the rude genius. I'd actually learn something that way. Jello posted:A mod, for instance, could easily call someone that posts a silly thread a "dumbhead". The reason they do not is because they hold themselves to higher standards. Remember certain PMs we had Ref:Genghis12? [quote=Jello]To be superior is to be better in all or most things, that is what characterizes a superior individual.
Jello posted:Who says they're arbitrary? They're quite established rules of conduct that have been developed for use in polite society for millennia--I'd argue there is more impressive to me than someone who is unable--or unwilling--to do so. Any child prodigy may throw a tantrum, but that child would not be put into a position of importance by anyone.
Jello posted:You can advocate Teutonic barbarism if you'd like, but I'd recommend that so long as you're in polite society (e.g. TFN, rather than SDN), then you'd best follow their standards.
Jello posted:An engineer is a person who follows orders. He's directed to design/research/develop something, and he does it. There's nothing beyond sheer brainpower involved. An engineer is not an impressive person because they've got a limited scope. Here's a better example.
Jello posted:Do you want a Chief Executive Office who's sole virtue is economic knowledge?
Jello posted:A rude genius and a polite idiot are both deficient and they're both inferior. If we want to get into hierarchical standards, since they seem more understandable, I look down my nose at the both of them. Neither of them are worth my time.
Jello posted:A mod, for instance, could easily call someone that posts a silly thread a "dumbhead". The reason they do not is because they hold themselves to higher standards.
Jello posted:You seem to think that giving respect to a person who doesn't prove themselves more intelligent is dishonesty. I call it courtesy.
Jello posted:I respect X as a user. I give additional respect to X on the basis he's courteous. I give even more respect to X on the basis that he sometimes, though not often, says something right.
FTeik posted:the majority of people over there on average are very rational.
FTeik posted:Many at SD.Net have also waited a long time for some mistakes or miconceptions that contaminated the EU to be corrected.
FTeik posted:Certainly enough time to become (very) frustrated.
FTeik posted:b) I think it to be very pathetic, that it is OK if a VIP vents his frustration by talking about "ripping trachea out" or "inventing new curses" in an artificial language of a fictional universe, but if some fans do the same at a place, where they can do that it is supposed to be the end of the world. I don't know about you, but for me that smells of hypocrisy and dishonesty.
Quiet_Mandalorian posted:FTeik posted:the majority of people over there on average are very rational.That doesn't neccesarily mean they're civil as well. Even amongst themselves, they're pretty rude 'n crude.
Quiet_Mandalorian posted: FTeik posted:Many at SD.Net have also waited a long time for some mistakes or miconceptions that contaminated the EU to be corrected.Interesting choice of words there.
Quiet_Mandalorian posted: FTeik posted:Certainly enough time to become (very) frustrated.Thereby justifying the rage?
Quiet_Mandalorian posted: [quote=FTeik]b) I think it to be very pathetic, that it is OK if a VIP vents his frustration by talking about "ripping trachea out" or "inventing new curses" in an artificial language of a fictional universe, but if some fans do the same at a place, where they can do that it is supposed to be the end of the world. I don't know about you, but for me that smells of hypocrisy and dishonesty.