Sorry Xouper, you actually had something worthwhile to say.

How can we expose more people to critical thinking?
User avatar
Abdul Alhazred
Posts: 80169
Joined: Mon Jun 07, 2004 1:33 pm
Title: Yes, that one.
Location: Chicago

Sorry Xouper, you actually had something worthwhile to say.

Post by Abdul Alhazred »

I was possesed by a demon of forumness.

Let all please go to Xouper's post.
Image "If I turn in a sicko, will I get a reward?"

"Yes! A BIG REWARD!" ====> Click here to turn in a sicko
The arc of the moral universe bends towards chaos.
People who believe God or History are on their side provide the chaos.

User avatar
exarch
Posts: 897
Joined: Wed Jun 02, 2004 10:51 pm
Location: Beyond redemption

Post by exarch »

Might I suggest removing the keyword "TUTORIAL" from your thread titles, so people looking for tutorials will find only genuine tutorials instead of your spoofs as well :)
[size=75]Lord high emperor Skinny-god's first heir to the throne[/size]

User avatar
Sundog
Posts: 2576
Joined: Mon Jun 07, 2004 4:27 pm

Post by Sundog »

Yeah.

Bad enough to start a ridiculous number of threads, but don't subvert what Xouper is trying to do.

User avatar
Generalisimo
Posts: 751
Joined: Wed Jun 09, 2004 12:01 pm
Location: over the numbers

Post by Generalisimo »

This one's for you, buddy!
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
[size=75][i]"It's rude to talk about religion, you never know who you're gonna offend."[/i][/size]

User avatar
Nigel
Posts: 7987
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2004 1:33 am
Location: Brinsby

Post by Nigel »

With respect to xouper, I agree. He's actually trying to do something productive with this, and I say more power to him. It's one thing to start a number of threads, but there are those who want to learn about tutorials. I respectfully request Abdul change his titles, taking "Tutorial" out of them to lessen confusion. Unless of course, he has a legit tutorial to add.
If you can't laugh, what good are you?

I thought I won't submit this...but who cares...let it roll. -Pillory

User avatar
livius drusus
Posts: 395
Joined: Sun Jun 27, 2004 8:22 am

Post by livius drusus »

Another request to remove the mock tutorial titles. I don't know what possessed you, Abdul, but I think it's really shitty.
[url=http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/index.php?]Freethought Forum[/url]

Soubrette
Posts: 431
Joined: Sat Jul 24, 2004 5:36 pm
Location: UK

Post by Soubrette »

livius drusus wrote:Another request to remove the mock tutorial titles. I don't know what possessed you, Abdul, but I think it's really shitty.
Ditto - I nearly clicked on one of yours by accident and then saw how many of them there were so guessed they were spoofs. Someone not sure of the tutorial idea might click on one of your first and write them all off.

If you do edit your posts - thank you

Sou

User avatar
Reginald
Posts: 156
Joined: Sat Jun 05, 2004 6:35 pm

Post by Reginald »

I enjoy frivolity, but it has a place. (and indeed a limit, taking a joke "that bit" too far rather destroys the impact).

A good idea is a good idea and I think the TUTORIAL idea is a good one.

AA, be a good AA and have a think about what has been posted in this thread?

Remember that all play and no "work" can be just as dull.


Thanks in advance.

User avatar
Skeeve
Posts: 11900
Joined: Wed Jun 09, 2004 7:35 am

Post by Skeeve »

Reginald wrote:I enjoy frivolity, but it has a place. (and indeed a limit, taking a joke "that bit" too far rather destroys the impact).

A good idea is a good idea and I think the TUTORIAL idea is a good one.

AA, be a good AA and have a think about what has been posted in this thread?

Remember that all play and no "work" can be just as dull.


Thanks in advance.
It's A NEW RULE! Thank you, Mr. Principle.

Mr. Xouperman, what do you think of that? The irony is priceless.

Now, seriously, and I'm going to use large type here: I really, truly like the idea of tutorial threads!

Do they require a rule?
Then Skank Of America could start in...

User avatar
livius drusus
Posts: 395
Joined: Sun Jun 27, 2004 8:22 am

Post by livius drusus »

:? I don't understand, Skeeve. What rule do you see here?
[url=http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/index.php?]Freethought Forum[/url]

User avatar
Skeeve
Posts: 11900
Joined: Wed Jun 09, 2004 7:35 am

Post by Skeeve »

livius drusus wrote::? I don't understand, Skeeve. What rule do you see here?
Well, as in most tribes, there are unwritten rules. It would seem to me that I see the unwritten rule here of Do not piddle in Xouper's Tutorial Threads.

Please, don't get me wrong, I like the idea of tutorial threads, and I don't understand Abdul's reaction, but I have to point out that we've just established an unwritten tribal rule here, much like the one that says that nobody should call either TamiO or Xouper mean.

I'll live with it, because I support the idea, mostly, but also because that's how unwritten tribal rules work.

Somehow, though, the idea of it arising from Xouper's doing I didn't say intent, mind you just strikes me as quite amusing.
Then Skank Of America could start in...

User avatar
Pyrrho
Posts: 28620
Joined: Sat Jun 05, 2004 2:17 am
Title: Man in Black
Location: Division 6

Post by Pyrrho »

Skeeve wrote:
Reginald wrote:I enjoy frivolity, but it has a place. (and indeed a limit, taking a joke "that bit" too far rather destroys the impact).

A good idea is a good idea and I think the TUTORIAL idea is a good one.

AA, be a good AA and have a think about what has been posted in this thread?

Remember that all play and no "work" can be just as dull.


Thanks in advance.
It's A NEW RULE! Thank you, Mr. Principle.

Mr. Xouperman, what do you think of that? The irony is priceless.

Now, seriously, and I'm going to use large type here: I really, truly like the idea of tutorial threads!

Do they require a rule?
It isn't a rule, it's an opinion. I don't see anyone asking for new rules.

User avatar
tamiO
Posts: 1171
Joined: Sat Jun 05, 2004 3:28 am

Re: Sorry Xouper, you actually had something worthwhile to s

Post by tamiO »

Abdul Alhazred wrote:I was possesed by a demon of forumness.

Let all please go to Xouper's post.
More like your ADD. :D

User avatar
Quester_X
Posts: 12926
Joined: Fri Jun 04, 2004 9:26 pm

Post by Quester_X »

More like your ADD.
Hey, I resent that! I have ADD, and do you see me posting frivolis, inane, random...

Um...

On second thought, let's not answer that question.
:D
You'll all be mine, in the end.

User avatar
Abdul Alhazred
Posts: 80169
Joined: Mon Jun 07, 2004 1:33 pm
Title: Yes, that one.
Location: Chicago

Post by Abdul Alhazred »

livius drusus wrote:Another request to remove the mock tutorial titles. I don't know what possessed you, Abdul, but I think it's really shitty.
I really do apologize. I will edit the titles and make the issue go away.
Last edited by Abdul Alhazred on Fri Aug 20, 2004 10:04 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Image "If I turn in a sicko, will I get a reward?"

"Yes! A BIG REWARD!" ====> Click here to turn in a sicko
The arc of the moral universe bends towards chaos.
People who believe God or History are on their side provide the chaos.

User avatar
livius drusus
Posts: 395
Joined: Sun Jun 27, 2004 8:22 am

Post by livius drusus »

Good form, Abdul. Thank you kindly.
[url=http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/index.php?]Freethought Forum[/url]

User avatar
gentlehorse
Posts: 281
Joined: Wed Jun 09, 2004 3:00 pm

Post by gentlehorse »

Skeeve wrote:
Reginald wrote:I enjoy frivolity, but it has a place. (and indeed a limit, taking a joke "that bit" too far rather destroys the impact).

A good idea is a good idea and I think the TUTORIAL idea is a good one.

AA, be a good AA and have a think about what has been posted in this thread?

Remember that all play and no "work" can be just as dull.


Thanks in advance.
It's A NEW RULE! Thank you, Mr. Principle.

Mr. Xouperman, what do you think of that? The irony is priceless.

Now, seriously, and I'm going to use large type here: I really, truly like the idea of tutorial threads!

Do they require a rule?
IMO, you're witnessing a board that is rationally, reasonably self-moderating. I fail to see the irony of which you speak.

In answer to your question, there will probably come a time when there will be those who think that a rule is required. With luck, they will be shown the error of their ways in a rational, reasonable manner (or at least shouted down and covered in something icky by the tribal jester).
[size=75]"How can the third-person requirements of the scientific method be reconciled with the first-person nature of consciousness?" Win

"Oh Holy gravity,
the mother of all powers,
what you do to us,
the children of the stars" pillory[/size]

User avatar
Reginald
Posts: 156
Joined: Sat Jun 05, 2004 6:35 pm

Post by Reginald »

Skeeve wrote:
Reginald wrote:I enjoy frivolity, but it has a place. (and indeed a limit, taking a joke "that bit" too far rather destroys the impact).

A good idea is a good idea and I think the TUTORIAL idea is a good one.

AA, be a good AA and have a think about what has been posted in this thread?

Remember that all play and no "work" can be just as dull.


Thanks in advance.
It's A NEW RULE! Thank you, Mr. Principle.

Mr. Xouperman, what do you think of that? The irony is priceless.

Now, seriously, and I'm going to use large type here: I really, truly like the idea of tutorial threads!

Do they require a rule?
It's not a rule. It's not even a suggestion of a rule. It's a polite observation. Since there would be no actual penalty, or indeed, threat of penalty for ignoring it, then it in no way constitutes anything else.

But feel free to believe what you want.
:)

User avatar
viscousmemories
Posts: 677
Joined: Mon Jun 28, 2004 3:22 am

Post by viscousmemories »

Skeeve wrote:
livius drusus wrote::? I don't understand, Skeeve. What rule do you see here?
Well, as in most tribes, there are unwritten rules. It would seem to me that I see the unwritten rule here of Do not piddle in Xouper's Tutorial Threads.
Sure, but it seems to me that the key point is that the rule is unwritten. Whether you respect it is your choice. Nobody with the power to edit your posts or control your access to this forum is going to use that power to enforce the rule. You are free to decide.

In comparison: My hometown is a somewhat liberal college town in the midwest. Every year the area KKK members would have a rally in our town, and every year hundreds of people would show up to shout them down and throw rocks, etc. (In fact I once overheard a cop speculating that the hostile response was exactly the reason they chose our town in which to have their demonstrations. Any publicity - such as a near riot - is good publicity).

Of course the police would be on the scene in force, but to protect the KKK members and try to prevent a riot. Clearly our town had an unwritten rule that bigotry is not cool, but fortunately the law prevents the police from using their power to enforce unwritten rules. Otherwise you'd have individual cops deciding what you can and can't say in public based on their own interpretation of the unwritten rules. *shudder*

As for whether the community "self-moderating" is equivelant to mob rule... I would say that in my analogy that's what the cops were for. To try somewhat to provide a level playing field for the speakers and the mob. Nevertheless it is a fine line, IMHO. But in a forum like this it's not necessary to have cops because we're all on equal footing to begin with. None of us has any more or less power over each other's ability to speak.

User avatar
Nyarlathotep
Posts: 49027
Joined: Fri Jun 04, 2004 2:50 pm
Title: God Emperor

Post by Nyarlathotep »

Skeeve wrote:
livius drusus wrote::? I don't understand, Skeeve. What rule do you see here?
Well, as in most tribes, there are unwritten rules. It would seem to me that I see the unwritten rule here of Do not piddle in Xouper's Tutorial Threads.

Please, don't get me wrong, I like the idea of tutorial threads, and I don't understand Abdul's reaction, but I have to point out that we've just established an unwritten tribal rule here, much like the one that says that nobody should call either TamiO or Xouper mean.

I'll live with it, because I support the idea, mostly, but also because that's how unwritten tribal rules work.

Somehow, though, the idea of it arising from Xouper's doing I didn't say intent, mind you just strikes me as quite amusing.
Unwritten rule is an oxymoron. I see the difference between a rule and what was being done here (pressure being put on a poster to change his behavior) rather like the difference between the consequence of comitting a crime and the consequence of doing something tasteless. Rules are like laws, there is an official sanction for their breaking (in the case of this board, that consequence is banning), what wasw done here was simply people expressing disproval of a behavior, not much different than the dirty looks that would be cast upon the person who walks into the NAACP meeting with a "White Power" T-Shirt. No one proposed any sanction against Abdul, they just shot him the forum equivalent of a dirty look. I see nothing wrong with that.