Please note that new user registrations disabled at this time.

A more serious SYM thread (no spam)

Anything goes... just keep it clean.
Post Reply
User avatar
TonyMontana1638
Posts: 4598
Joined: Sat Aug 20, 2005 11:10 pm
Location: Chasing nuns out in the yard

Post by TonyMontana1638 »

[QUOTE=CM]You do have cliques in SYM. But they are not oldies or newbies etc. I mean i don't discriminate against who i attack :p :D Its more on the nature of SYM.

Right now I can not say alot of stuff i want to say because some of this information was given in confidence or through private channels. *sigh* this is such a hard issue to discuss without blowing the head off of everything and just starting a general flame war.

Lets try this delicately. Anybody here know Kayless?[/QUOTE]

... The dude with the Hypnotoad Avatar? Yes...
"Be thankful you're healthy."
"Be bitter you're not going to stay that way."
"Be glad you're even alive."
"Be furious you're going to die."
"Things could be much worse."
"They could be one hell of a lot better."
User avatar
CM
Posts: 10552
Joined: Fri May 18, 2001 11:00 am
Location: Here
Contact:

Post by CM »

Right ok so if Tony knows everybody else must as well:

http://gamebanshee.com/forums/showthread.php?t=56965

Read that thread from page one to page seven. Read word for word. Once that is done. Re-read this thread. People should basically see a pattern of sorts and some of the "ideology" behind the roles/ideas etc behind SYM and why people feel the way they do.

Once people have done that I can provide my personal opinion on the matter if people want to hear more of my BS.

Sadly this is not all the stuff that has happened on the matter but the rest is not open for the viewing of the general membership.

We have a secret oldies forum :D :D (Its called MSN and PM :p )
For what is it to die but to stand naked in the wind and to melt into the sun? - Khalil Gibran

"We shall fight on the beaches. We shall fight on the landing grounds. We shall fight in the fields, and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills. We shall never surrender!" - Winston Churchill
User avatar
ch85us2001
Posts: 8748
Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2005 7:53 pm
Location: My mind dwells elsewhere . . .

Post by ch85us2001 »

[QUOTE=CM]

Lets try this delicately. Anybody here know Kayless?[/QUOTE]
Yes.


Ill cover alot here.

CM, YOU think Im wacky/hilarious???????? :speech: Whats wrong with you??? ;) *checks CM's temprature* ;)

i agree that there are Serious/spammer groups. I post in more discussions than I used to, but you all know where my heart lies. ;) Not that thats a problem, I respect all the serious people to. :)

The way I see it, people like me, rav, juni, phreddie and others fall into the spammer category, while Xan, Fable, CE, Dottie and others are serious. Hill, DW, and a few more fall in between. I dont think any of the groups have any antimostic feelings towards the others, thats just the way they choose to post. Heck, hills my one of my best mates. (even in RL, I dont get out much. :o )

Also, I wouldnt worry about bringing something up, I think we all know that it needs to be brought up. :)
[url=tamriel-rebuilt.org]Tamriel Rebuilt and,[/url] [url="http://z13.invisionfree.com/Chus_Mod_Forum/index.php?"]My Mod Fansite[/url]
I am the Lord of Programming, and your Mother Board, and your RAR Unpacker, and Your Runtime Engine, can tell you all about it
User avatar
CM
Posts: 10552
Joined: Fri May 18, 2001 11:00 am
Location: Here
Contact:

Post by CM »

LMAO! Yes i am fine. I do find you hilarious. I like your zany sense of humor. Secondly you got more courage than me for naming names :D Thanks for the push :p Sadly i can't name names due to my "title" :rolleyes:
For what is it to die but to stand naked in the wind and to melt into the sun? - Khalil Gibran

"We shall fight on the beaches. We shall fight on the landing grounds. We shall fight in the fields, and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills. We shall never surrender!" - Winston Churchill
User avatar
ch85us2001
Posts: 8748
Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2005 7:53 pm
Location: My mind dwells elsewhere . . .

Post by ch85us2001 »

[QUOTE=CM]Secondly you got more courage than me for naming names :D Thanks for the push :p Sadly i can't name names due to my "title" :rolleyes: [/QUOTE]
Im not offending anyone (I hope, at least Im not trying to. :) ), just saying what everyone knows already. :)

Everyone, lets just lay everything you want/and/or/need to on the table and deal with it.

In my experience that gets things done/and/or/settled much quicker than skirting the issue. :)
[url=tamriel-rebuilt.org]Tamriel Rebuilt and,[/url] [url="http://z13.invisionfree.com/Chus_Mod_Forum/index.php?"]My Mod Fansite[/url]
I am the Lord of Programming, and your Mother Board, and your RAR Unpacker, and Your Runtime Engine, can tell you all about it
User avatar
TonyMontana1638
Posts: 4598
Joined: Sat Aug 20, 2005 11:10 pm
Location: Chasing nuns out in the yard

Post by TonyMontana1638 »

I've read every damn word of that thread as CM (Fas?) instructed and am astounded how little things have changed over the years. It begs the question why in the heck it's been brought up again other than to inspire some truly interesting posting (I like this thread). Anyways, what was your point in bringing it up CM? Other than to educate people like myself :D .
"Be thankful you're healthy."
"Be bitter you're not going to stay that way."
"Be glad you're even alive."
"Be furious you're going to die."
"Things could be much worse."
"They could be one hell of a lot better."
User avatar
dragon wench
Posts: 19609
Joined: Tue Apr 24, 2001 10:00 pm
Location: The maelstrom where chaos merges with lucidity
Contact:

Post by dragon wench »

[QUOTE=ch85us2001]Im not offending anyone (I hope, at least Im not trying to. :) ), just saying what everyone knows already. :)

Everyone, lets just lay everything you want/and/or/need to on the table and deal with it.

In my experience that gets things done/and/or/settled much quicker than skirting the issue. :) [/QUOTE]

Well, you certainly aren't offending me ;)

Yes, you are right, everyone does appear to be circling around some very thorny subjects... and yes, everyone knows exactly what they are...
I was considering writing a bluntly worded post in which I did name names. But, I have not, and I don't think I will. For one, I have already been embroiled in those old debates in previous threads. Right now, I have neither the time nor energy, and I'd just be repeating myself anyway.

As others have stated, this is not a new topic. When it has come up in the past, nothing has ever changed. I care about SYM, and I have met some wonderful people here. But, when it comes to the buried skeletons and the hornet's nests... I am very nearly beyond caring.

So, if some members (and you know whom you are) are wondering why I have remained mostly silent on that particular subject, where this thread is concerned, that is why. I just don't really see the point anymore...

For anyone who is interested, here is yet another thread dealing with the same old, same old...
http://www.gamebanshee.com/forums/showt ... =Community
As I said above, none of this is exactly novel.
Spoiler
testingtest12
Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup.
Spoiler
testingtest12
.......All those moments ... will be lost ... in time ... like tears in rain.
User avatar
Xandax
Posts: 14151
Joined: Thu Nov 16, 2000 12:00 pm
Location: Denmark
Contact:

Post by Xandax »

My time to be blunt I think, now this is as a personal poster, and not in any way a reflection of moderator status or not, however being a moderator I’ll try my best to keep this as civil as I can, so I’ll bite my tongue on some subjects, I don’t wish to cause “harm” or more “resentment” then already seems to be brewing around the corners. I do however have the need to “speak my mind”, and if this will cost me anything, then so be it.
(This is also going to be long, and properly jumping around a lot, but seeing as English, as it is for many, is only my second language, bear with me and try to ignore the grammar ……anyways, so much for the introduction)

I fail to see where this is going. We have a group of people who says they think that everything has changed (and for the worse) and we have a group of people who say they don’t think so. As with everything else, such opinions are subjectively based.

I remember when SYM was created to contain all the off-topic posts flowing over in the BG2 forum. It wasn’t created to spam to your hearts content, it was created for posts off-topic in relations to all the on-topic other sub-forums. That is also why there are the forum rules regarding spam. Thus there have always been serious topics and there have always been unserious topics. It is nothing new, and the old topics dug up in this thread just underlines that exact point. Serious topics in the old days where just as flammable, intolerant and “newbie scary” as they are today – it is just different people partaking in them. Easy going, more “pure spamable” topics, chit-chat, are always the more “friendly” way into a forum. It is the state of Internet forums as well as it is the state of every other social interaction in real life. Most people don’t go up to a group of strangers and expect to be able to partake in a serious discussion on the same level as them, without testing the waters first in real life, neither do you so in cyberspace which is just a reflection of real life. I don’t see this golden age, because I didn’t live it. I’m sure people that where “in” back then would like to return to said status and because they had fun back then it is understandable that they view this “era” with greater nostalgia then others.
I to am missing a couple of people from back then – noticeable Karembeau and Brink which I enjoyed “chatting” with, however these people don’t frequent here much anymore and so I’ve moved on.

Also – I find it fun how people are claming there is more intolerance nowadays then in the old days, when I think back upon some of the religious and political topics we had “back then”. And I especially find it fun, when those people are doing the exact same thing, and being intolerant towards those with different opinions, preferences and so on.
There is no right or wrong when it comes to nostalgia.
Things change, the people posting here changes, the world changes. The only large shift I’ve seen in the “mood” if you can call it that on SYM was after 9/11 – which means that at least one era of SYM ended there, less then 1 year after the creation of SYM. Hardly time enough to build up any golden era.
The only thing which is more intolerant now, is to be blunt – me, well not really me except that I’m now the moderator of this forum and thus the one enforcing the rules. I try to enforce the rules and guidelines set up by Buck Satan, and have done so for a couple of years by now. So if this is something which offends people or damper their willingness to stay here – then you could take it up with either me or Buck. After all brewing resentment in the corner achieves nothing what so ever.

Other then that – everything is exactly as it has always been, except for the fact that there are new people here and they also partake in discussions. And perhaps “we” should welcome these people better, however, what do you expect – following them around like a puppy and posting happy joy-joy posts in all the treads they visits? No. This is real life, people wanting to join any group of strangers, has to be the one doing the effort. Call it arrogant if you will, but if I’m talking to some friends in real life and see a stranger sitting alone at a table, I don’t go over there to strike up a conversation just incase he is lonely. It is time to wake up and do an effort yourself, instead of reminiscing over time long since past.

It is all impossible to enter any larger (sub)forum for the first time, and feel that you are instantly accepted, however – I’d argue that it wasn’t so easy to get accepted “in the old days”. Back in the “old days” there were just as many cliques as there are now, and they were just as tightly knitted as they are now, they just consisted of different people. The people claiming it was easier to get acceptance in the “old days” I think is also clouded by that nostalgic factor, where everything where pretty-colored roses and butterflies in the air. When most of us “oldies” came here, we had Baldurs Gate 2 to talk about. Most of us came here solely for Baldurs Gate 2 and thus we had a common ground. We don’t have that ground anymore, thus we have discovered that are all vastly different people, and to expect others to conform to ones own opinions about what this (sub)forum should be is indeed what I’d call arrogant and closing ones eyes to what makes cyberspace unique.

Also to touch upon the hornet nest brought forth, one of the “controversial” things I’m sure Fas/CM and others talk about is the banning of Gruntboy (the pantless marine, if any newcomers have seen that reference), which indeed was a controversial banning because Gruntboy was well liked by most people, even people not in agreement with his political standpoint.
Funny thing though is that this banning was 100% Buck’s decisions after multiple warnings about personal attacks from Buck himself, thus the ill feelings there are in this “conflict” might just be directed towards the wrong people. Afterall, it was Buck’s ban and decision, but it was 100% Gruntboys choice to post. Nobody forced him to do so.
Other controversial bannings have existed and most have been issued by Buck. It wasn’t until recently that both fable and I received banning powers to deal with the increased load of administration. Also blaming people leaving on other people or circumstances are also unfair. It is these peoples choice alone to leave, thus hold resentment towards them instead of others. It is how it works in the real grown up world.

One other things I’ll touch upon now that I’m so well into ranting, is that many of the discussions I see on this forum derails because somebody reads either to much into texts, or don’t read what is actually stated, and thus feel their opinions are “insulted”, when often it is mealy the foundation of the opinion which are questioned. Many seem unwilling to accept that others might know more about given topics, or can provide “facts” as to a contrary opinion etc. Some people also see it as arrogance or standoffish, that others stay in one sorts of threads or don’t post in “their” topics.
I think everybody more or less is guilty off this from time to time, myself inclusive – I do try to stay rather objective and neutral at most times, but being only human, I do have buttons which occasionally can be pushed, however dwelling on such things, holding grudges, bearing ill feelings – well it feels to much like being in kindergarten. I mean come on – grow up and become mature. So what if somebody doesn’t have the same opinion as you is that any reason to become angry with them? So what if they can post references to undermine foundations of opinion? I thought that was one of the reasons we talked to others, to broaden our horizons and learning new things, whether it just is if SYM is a community or not, or whether or not somebody feeds their cat a special brand of catfood.

I’m done for now.
Insert signature here.
User avatar
Maharlika
Posts: 5991
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2001 10:00 pm
Location: Wanderlusting with my lampshade, like any decent k
Contact:

Post by Maharlika »

SYM will never "change" because it ALWAYS changes. Think of it as your local school: Things that were "IN" at that time may or may not be "IN" now or in the near future.

Personally, I just do my thing, provided I don't break the forum rules. And no, my said comment has nothing to do with me being a moderator. If you have problems with that, then go and complain to Buck. His house, his rules. The mods are only there to see to it that his rules are enforced. Got problems with the mods? Address them to Buck if you dont want to address it the Supermods.

One thing tho I would like others to contemplate on, is that some of the things that were "changed" (like those NO SPAM title-tags) were done after repeated incidents that were complained on, hence, some tweaks in the rules. This is an example of SYM adjusting to the times since there are already precedents that need to adapt and adjust for SYM to have a certain "order" that would be acceptable to Buck then to the rest of the members as a whole.

I dont mind Aegis' idea of letting threads flow and evolve into something different... however, if the threadstarter takes offense of his/her thread being diluted or hijacked, then I guess let's give the person some respect and have our conversation somewhere else. ;)

I go very much with what Bloodstalker has stated, hence I'm not going to post much on this. :cool:
"There is no weakness in honest sorrow... only in succumbing to depression over what cannot be changed." --- Alaundo, BG2
Brother Scribe, Keeper of the Holy Scripts of COMM


[url="http://www.gamebanshee.com/forums/speak-your-mind-16/"]Moderator, Speak Your Mind Forum[/url]
[url="http://www.gamebanshee.com/forums/speak-your-mind-16/sym-specific-rules-please-read-before-posting-14427.html"]SYM Specific Forum Rules[/url]
User avatar
ik911
Posts: 4248
Joined: Fri Dec 10, 2004 1:43 pm
Location: Having an alibi.

Post by ik911 »

CM wrote:This topic (and the previous threads on the matter) has literally destoryed any desire for me to post on SYM. Until this topic came up i did not give a damn where SYM was headed. SYM was a place to relax and that is all I wanted to do. I would join a serious discussion if i had something to add or felt something was wrong or just wanted to post my bloody opinion.

The desire to split SYM, get rid of spam, SYM being to serious, spam being of a pathetic quality and generally to limit the way other people want to interact has just pissed me off to such a degree that i don't care to post anymore.
I made this thread to deal with issues concerning SYM... One objective of this creation of mine is, as I said before, to clear mud; indeed, clear away or openly discuss and then clear away repressed anger and lack of respect as you mention further on. So if there is repressed ill feelings, I'm glad you brought them up.
However, I don't quite see how this topic could destroy any fond feelings for the forum.

CM]I however will retract one statement and amend it. Not everybody is to blame of this situation. Anybody who showed up after Luis and Brynn is basically caught in something they don't understand or are responsible for. Its the people who were here before Brynn and Luis that are responsible for this mess. Yes me included.[/quote] Exactly what I tried to bring across in my flood analogy. [quote=CM]You want SYM to be open loving and accepting? Ask the oldies including me to deal with their repressed issues of aggression towards each other.[/quote] Any oldies who read this: it's Christmas time wrote:I am certainly sorry that this thread has been brought up again.
So am I.
CM]I know i haven't touched them because honestly i don't want to deal with the fall out.[/quote]In fact wrote:
[size=-1]An optimist is a badly informed pessimist.[/size]
User avatar
Magrus
Posts: 16963
Joined: Mon Oct 04, 2004 7:10 am
Location: NY
Contact:

Post by Magrus »

I just read through most of this thread, as I am short on time and it seems the last few posts are just reorganizing of thoughts and clarifying misunderstands of the first page or two of posts.

I have to say, I joined SYM after I broke up with a girl and was devestated, not to find something to do, but to give advice for someone who was interested in a girl (Dark-Elvyn-Nyte {sp?} :o ). I stayed on when I got bored with the video games I was using to keep busy with, and kept up with the topic, and eventually popped into posting regularly around here. I have to say it is a community here. People get to know one another when regularly posting here.

I admit, most of what I post here is nonsense. It's not to garner new posts, it's just something to do. It's like running of to a local club and mingling to meet new people. You can put up a conversation in one of the spam threads here, which anyone in the world can read, join in, and participate in. Not only that, someone might stumble back to the thing a few days later with something new to add. I have over 10,000 posts, which doesn't matter to me. What does matter is that I can show up here, discuss politics, or religion, or my exploits for last week, and have it be an intriguing and intelligent discussion or a goofy and fun one. I can learn about other people, and other cultures while doing either as well.

The thing with the decline, or change, is that everyone has a different view of how this place "should be", to fit their ideal version of SYM. This leads to groups of poster's who agree on a number of things. Sometimes those groups butt heads so to speak when they cross into each others areas. As Aegis pointed out, it is fun to lighten up a sometimes too serious thread. There were times when I recall throwing a post into a serious discussion with some found amusing, and I was lectured on it. It is a two way thing I have to say. Sometimes, I wanted a serious thread, with only talk of what I wanted information on. Others, I couldn't care less what was in my thread, so I don't truly know my opinion on that.

I do think though, that no one will ever be truly content on SYM. No one will ever get it to be exactly as they wish it to be and have it stay that way. It is a group community, and in every situation where two or more people interact, there will be disagreements, and there will be compromise. This isn't bad in-and-of itself. With those things, you learn about others, and yourself.

As far as "SYM" elitism, I remember the tiff in the HC, although I sort of blew it off as IK starting an argument and went back to my nonsense if I remember correctly. :confused: I should hope I don't come off as elitist. I personally, don't care about things to be offended enough by someone else to exclude them because "they aren't good enough". I tend to have a sarcastic, abrasive, and lewd sense of humor. Sometimes this offends people instead of amusing them. :o

I do happen to notice that a number of people who are established here over a long period of time post only in certain types of topics. As Fable mentioned, people avoid certain types of topics, mostly based on preference, or time limitations. I'm limited to time online now, so I tend to avoid anything serious because of that. :(
"You can do whatever you want to me."
"Oh, so I can crate you and hide you in the warehouse at the end of Raiders?"
"So funny, kiss me funny boy!" / *Sprays mace* " I know, I know, bad for the ozone"
User avatar
ch85us2001
Posts: 8748
Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2005 7:53 pm
Location: My mind dwells elsewhere . . .

Post by ch85us2001 »

[QUOTE=Magrus]As far as "SYM" elitism, I remember the tiff in the HC, although I sort of blew it off as IK starting an argument and went back to my nonsense if I remember correctly. :confused: I should hope I don't come off as elitist. I personally, don't care about things to be offended enough by someone else to exclude them because "they aren't good enough". I tend to have a sarcastic, abrasive, and lewd sense of humor. Sometimes this offends people instead of amusing them. :o
[/QUOTE]
EARS :o ;)


I honestly dont really see the elitism myself, other than in small ways like older members reminescing about past events, but thats just what people do among friends, not elitism IMO.
[url=tamriel-rebuilt.org]Tamriel Rebuilt and,[/url] [url="http://z13.invisionfree.com/Chus_Mod_Forum/index.php?"]My Mod Fansite[/url]
I am the Lord of Programming, and your Mother Board, and your RAR Unpacker, and Your Runtime Engine, can tell you all about it
User avatar
Aegis
Posts: 13412
Joined: Sat Dec 30, 2000 12:00 pm
Location: Soviet Canuckistan
Contact:

Post by Aegis »

There exists very much a sense of elitism. While not overt, and possibly unintentional in some cases, but it is there. It mostly comes out in the posts, and how they come across to people. In some cases, posts are made with a 'holier-than-thou' attitude behind them, which sends the impression that they are right, you are wrong, so stop trying. Other times, in comes across in such a lax nature that it is almost as though a poster may be 'above' another that there is just flagarent disregarde for the original post.

Fas and I have spent many times discussing this very topic, and I have done so with DW a couple times via MSN. I did so when I was a mod, and I continued to do so when I became a regular member. There is an established hieracrhy in SYM which lends itself to the creation of the elitist ideas and notions, and it very much is a clear divide.

In one spectrum, we have the Intellectuals, Fable and CE are prime examples of these people. In another one, you have the 'Whatever' type of posters, who stick primarily to the Citadel and Spam Factory. These are posters like Ik , Chu and Tony. Then you have a third group in the middle, which seem to settle no where imparticular. These are people like myself, and DW. Each one of these groups is subject to the elitism that is around SYM, but it seems to be a downward projection, with the 'whatever' types of posters exhibiting less of that particular trait.
User avatar
Luis Antonio
Posts: 9103
Joined: Sun Oct 05, 2003 11:00 am
Location: In the home of the demoted.
Contact:

Post by Luis Antonio »

I've read the post twice, I'm not sure, so I've edited.
Flesh to stone ain't permanent, it seems.
User avatar
Vicsun
Posts: 4547
Joined: Mon Dec 25, 2000 12:00 pm
Location: liberally sprinkled in the film's opening scene
Contact:

Post by Vicsun »

I haven't read any of the thread and don't really plan to, but due to the absence of Weasel I'm prepared to take the blame.
Vicsun, I certainly agree with your assertion that you are an unpleasant person. ~Chanak

:(
User avatar
Xandax
Posts: 14151
Joined: Thu Nov 16, 2000 12:00 pm
Location: Denmark
Contact:

Post by Xandax »

[QUOTE=Aegis]There exists very much a sense of elitism. While not overt, and possibly unintentional in some cases, but it is there. It mostly comes out in the posts, and how they come across to people. In some cases, posts are made with a 'holier-than-thou' attitude behind them, which sends the impression that they are right, you are wrong, so stop trying. Other times, in comes across in such a lax nature that it is almost as though a poster may be 'above' another that there is just flagarent disregarde for the original post.

Fas and I have spent many times discussing this very topic, and I have done so with DW a couple times via MSN. I did so when I was a mod, and I continued to do so when I became a regular member. There is an established hieracrhy in SYM which lends itself to the creation of the elitist ideas and notions, and it very much is a clear divide.

In one spectrum, we have the Intellectuals, Fable and CE are prime examples of these people. In another one, you have the 'Whatever' type of posters, who stick primarily to the Citadel and Spam Factory. These are posters like Ik , Chu and Tony. Then you have a third group in the middle, which seem to settle no where imparticular. These are people like myself, and DW. Each one of these groups is subject to the elitism that is around SYM, but it seems to be a downward projection, with the 'whatever' types of posters exhibiting less of that particular trait.[/QUOTE]


What you read as elitism, I read simply as posting less emotional, and with their mind instead of their heart.
Simple beacause the people you mention don't become all emotional, but instead post references to things they have based their opinions, explanations and thus request the same from people they are debating with who are "defending" their opinion. This doesn't mean they are "higher" in the "hierachy", or post with a "holier then thou" attitude. It simply means they are debating. And perhaps this less emotional posting, is infact what winds people up and comes off as "arrogant" or "standoffish" - but again - that is the fault of the reader.

This goes back to what I wrote in my long post about reading more into text then is present, because some people (you?) add to much subjective interpretation of the texts into the reading, and thus read it as if they are "holier then thouh", attacking your opinion or what ever, where they are infact just stateing their opinion.
I've seen this in many of the "serious" threads where people take offences to amongst other Fable and CE, because they argue very well for their points,with much knowlegde and do so with concrete references. And why people take offence I've still not found out, but my bet is that they aren't all that willing to have the foundation for their opinions questioned.

Infact - I'd say that it appears right now as if it is you who have a "holier then thouh" attitude in this example, because you expect others to conform to your set of norms, by labeling some people in such a negative manner, and declare there is elitisme at SYM.
I think you (and a couple of others) read way to much subjectively into things/posts and possible clouded by nostalgia of the "Golden Era" you wish for.
Insert signature here.
User avatar
Aegis
Posts: 13412
Joined: Sat Dec 30, 2000 12:00 pm
Location: Soviet Canuckistan
Contact:

Post by Aegis »

@Xandax: I have long since stopped caring about what SYM was. You will notice in one of my earlier posts in this thread I have acknowledge the unlikely chance of it returning to such a state. Also, there is no aspect of my post in which I am stating my opinion as the one that is right, and shucking the rest. In fact, I have been as unattached to the progression of this thread as you can get.

You should also remember that this is not the first time I have brought these thoughts to light, considering a number of chats we have had over private messages. This is hardly new, and it is hardly limited to how SYM has been segregated amongst itself.

As for saying people read too much into what is posted. I cannot speak for others, but I know it is my job, both as a historian, and as someone who works in politics, to read into things, and quite often more deeply then need be. But, I am obviously not the only one who has gathered such interpretations from the existing groups and 'cliques' of SYM. If I were, I would have been the only person to have made mention of elitism, or even the grouping of SYMian's.

Also, I have been accused of, many times, posting 'emotionally', and yet there have been very few times in which I have done so. Everything I post, for the great majority, has been thought out and very intentional. This is simply because I do not cower behind my emotions, or use them as an excuse. Now, obviously that fails to fit into the accepted notion of what passes for 'emotional' posting, otherwise the accusations would not have occured in the first place. But, to make a blanket statement, as you have done, regarding the posting habits of one group being, essentially, more rational and detached of emotion is ridiculous, as I, on my own, present the notion as a fallacy.

Additionally, as you have mentioned the topic, I find it extremely easy to see how someone may take offense or become annoyed at such 'emotionless' posting, as it shows an almost inconsiderate response/feeling towards the original poster. Textbook, if you will. I know many people who become annoyed because they are, for lack of a more appropriate word, assualted by terms, references and ideas, without being properly explained. The language is very much key in this issue, as it can make a simple, innocent statement offensive, or can make the most lashing of comments sound innocent. Textbook language tends to be too mechanical, and impersonally, which can easily lead someone to feel they are receiving a brush-off, so to speak.

As for the 'holier-than-though' reply. You seem to have choicable latched onto this comment alone, and failed to notice how I included the opposite end of the spectrum, as well as partitioning SYM off into three general groupings of people, which encompasses myself as well. In much the same manner Fas has done, the comments made have been taken as though we have attacked only one group of posters, and not everyone. In both cases, Fas and myself, we have included ourselves in the judgement we have cast, and in no means an attack on one group. It would be hypocritical to have done so. We both have come to similar conclusions on the matter, though, in which we blame everyone in SYM, not just certain people. It is somewhat interesting to note how nobody seems to pick up on that part, yet it remains clearly written.

Lastly, I would ask that you do not accuse me of imposing my opinion on the rest of SYM as though mine is the only one that matters. You of all people should know this is not the case, again considering the amount of communication we have had through private messages. I merely presented my interpretations, and where I felt the problem was, in much the same manner everyone else in this thread has posted their own interpretations and ideas. The tone and delivery differs only in the fact it is a different poster, and I am quite comfortable in saying that your comment might not have been made had I not posted that last post of mine.
User avatar
CM
Posts: 10552
Joined: Fri May 18, 2001 11:00 am
Location: Here
Contact:

Post by CM »

[QUOTE=Xandax]What you read as elitism, I read simply as posting less emotional, and with their mind instead of their heart.
Simple beacause the people you mention don't become all emotional, but instead post references to things they have based their opinions, explanations and thus request the same from people they are debating with who are "defending" their opinion. This doesn't mean they are "higher" in the "hierachy", or post with a "holier then thou" attitude. It simply means they are debating. And perhaps this less emotional posting, is infact what winds people up and comes off as "arrogant" or "standoffish" - but again - that is the fault of the reader.

This goes back to what I wrote in my long post about reading more into text then is present, because some people (you?) add to much subjective interpretation of the texts into the reading, and thus read it as if they are "holier then thouh", attacking your opinion or what ever, where they are infact just stateing their opinion.
I've seen this in many of the "serious" threads where people take offences to amongst other Fable and CE, because they argue very well for their points,with much knowlegde and do so with concrete references. And why people take offence I've still not found out, but my bet is that they aren't all that willing to have the foundation for their opinions questioned.

Infact - I'd say that it appears right now as if it is you who have a "holier then thouh" attitude in this example, because you expect others to conform to your set of norms, by labeling some people in such a negative manner, and declare there is elitisme at SYM.
I think you (and a couple of others) read way to much subjectively into things/posts and possible clouded by nostalgia of the "Golden Era" you wish for.[/QUOTE]

I know I shouldn't be posting for the simple fact that I will not be here to finish the discussion. I fly out on friday so no chance of me finishing this. There is so much to comment on in the above post, I honestly don't know where to start. Firstly as CE is not here and I think Fable is limiting his time on the net I am not going to comment on these two (even though they are the only two mentioned) as they aren't around to comment and "defend" themselves.

Firstly i don't like the implied or rather overt comments that people who respond to CE and Fable do not post with their minds or back up their facts. You stated that rather plainly. That is just an incorrect statement. Every poster here who takes the topics seriously backs up their statement with facts and links.

Secondly nobody here holds a monopoly on fact. When it comes to all our debates even the scientific ones there are too many variables for people to consider for it all to be fact. Everybody posts an opinion and backs up their opinion. That is reality. To state that people who are in a discussion with CE or Fable only post their opinions without any proof is well basically insulting not to mention incorrect.

However I would like to state that both CE and Fable have lost their tempers they have gotten emotional. That however is no way related to their ability to command a discussion and discuss a topic. I certainly don't think the fact that someone is emotional should be in anyway correlated to their points in a discussion. After all the most powerful people in the world are the most emotional, not the most logical. Mandela, Gandhi etc were all men of emotion not logic. Not fact. But that is besides the point.

Plus Xandax anything you infer from this post is solely your fault and not mine. So please take that into consideration of that when you respond. We wouldn't want to get emotional :)

I certainly hope that above paragraph illustrates the absurdity of the statement that if someone reads an implicit meaning in a post that it is the fault of the reader.
For what is it to die but to stand naked in the wind and to melt into the sun? - Khalil Gibran

"We shall fight on the beaches. We shall fight on the landing grounds. We shall fight in the fields, and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills. We shall never surrender!" - Winston Churchill
User avatar
Xandax
Posts: 14151
Joined: Thu Nov 16, 2000 12:00 pm
Location: Denmark
Contact:

Post by Xandax »

[QUOTE=Aegis]<snip>
As for the 'holier-than-though' reply. You seem to have choicable latched onto this comment alone, and failed to notice how I included the opposite end of the spectrum, as well as partitioning SYM off into three general groupings of people, which encompasses myself as well. In much the same manner Fas has done, the comments made have been taken as though we have attacked only one group of posters, and not everyone. In both cases, Fas and myself, we have included ourselves in the judgement we have cast, and in no means an attack on one group. It would be hypocritical to have done so. We both have come to similar conclusions on the matter, though, in which we blame everyone in SYM, not just certain people. It is somewhat interesting to note how nobody seems to pick up on that part, yet it remains clearly written.
<snip>
[/QUOTE]

I latched on to it, because it is the negative stigmata you used in your post, and you stated it was the "intellectuals" as you called them which showed it most, or rather "downwards projection with the "whatevers" showing it least".
You mentioned two people by name as the prime examples of "holier then thou" and "elitiesm", and thus I saw the need to explain a different point of view on these peoples post. Granted - I don't always agree with neither fable nor CE, but from there and to read that they are in the most "holier then thou" group, that is a large train of deduction.

As for the language, well - that is in the eye of the beholder so to speak, which is why I time after time, stress that people should read the text, and not attribute it with all sorts of reader-subjective bias/interpretations etc. It is simple communication gone south there. These people write posts on an open Internet forum, with no requierments, and then people complain when reading something extra into these peoples post. It is the wrong way around.

As a historian, I'm sure you've also come across the fact that it is often much easier to present factualities in an "emotionless" manner, to avoid clouding the text to much with writer-subjectivities. If having to present factualities, I to would turn on "emotionless mode", the reason why I might not do it so often here at GameBanshee, is that I seldom find a thread which I can present such factualities, and thus I often use more personalized writing, however I do so every other place.
These other people you mention, Fable and CE, often can present factualities and in vast numbers and thusly I think it is quite good they debate with less emotion when in the "serious topics", and I'd hope more would do the same, because it gives them the tools to handle differences of opinion and take things less personal.
Insert signature here.
User avatar
Xandax
Posts: 14151
Joined: Thu Nov 16, 2000 12:00 pm
Location: Denmark
Contact:

Post by Xandax »

[QUOTE=CM]<snip>

Firstly i don't like the implied or rather overt comments that people who respond to CE and Fable do not post with their minds or back up their facts. You stated that rather plainly. That is just an incorrect statement. Every poster here who takes the topics seriously backs up their statement with facts and links.

Secondly nobody here holds a monopoly on fact. When it comes to all our debates even the scientific ones there are too many variables for people to consider for it all to be fact. Everybody posts an opinion and backs up their opinion. That is reality. To state that people who are in a discussion with CE or Fable only post their opinions without any proof is well basically insulting not to mention incorrect.<snip>
[/quote]

I did not say "all people", I said "because some people" who debate with Fable and/or CE, and thusly my post was about said people.
Had I said "all people who debate with them..." then yes. It would be both insulting and incorrect, however, I did not broadly generalize all people, and if it did come off as such, then that wasn't the intent.

[QUOTE=CM]<snip>
However I would like to state that both CE and Fable have lost their tempers they have gotten emotional. That however is no way related to their ability to command a discussion and discuss a topic.
<snip>
[/quote]

Yes, I'm sure you can always find examples where somebody lost their temper, heck even I do so at time, while trying very hard to avoid doing so, "people" posting here are only human.
Some just loose it more often then others, while some again try to avoid loosing it alltogether to minimize the effect of it.

[QUOTE=CM]<snip>
I certainly don't think the fact that someone is emotional should be in anyway correlated to their points in a discussion. After all the most powerful people in the world are the most emotional, not the most logical. Mandela, Gandhi etc were all men of emotion not logic. Not fact. But that is besides the point.
<snip>
[/quote]

Well - actually it isn't really besides the point. It is very much a part of the point. For the examples of Manedela, Gandhi etc being emotional men, then I'm sure you just as well can list just as many "logic" examples, which only futher illustrates the point that we are all different, and thus attributing elitisme or "holier then thou" attributes to people who react and communicate differnet then you is just plainly wrong.

[QUOTE=CM]<snip>
Plus Xandax anything you infer from this post is solely your fault and not mine. So please take that into consideration of that when you respond. We wouldn't want to get emotional :)
<snip>[/quote]

Don't worry, I don't take offense from something as this. It takes much more personal "attacks" to get me emotional and "angry", because this is just an Internetforum, and something I could easily ignore people on. Yet again which is a part of my point.

[QUOTE=CM]<snip>
I certainly hope that above paragraph illustrates the absurdity of the statement that if someone reads an implicit meaning in a post that it is the fault of the reader.[/QUOTE]

But the point you try to make is rather void in my view, because there is nothing in your post which was a personal attack, you stated an opinion, however had there been personal attacks, then it was indeed the posters fault - but had I gotten annoyed and angry at what you posted now, it would indeed have been my (the readers) fault. There is a huge difference from being offended by what is actually written in the text by the poster, compared to what the reader percives as being written. Huge difference indeed, and this is often where communications goes wrong.
Insert signature here.
Post Reply