Total posts: 2,589
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
Please report misconduct you encounter. Mods cannot take action about misconduct of which we are unaware.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Castin
The user would be banned at the end of their notice period, unless the moderator overseeing the issue was persuaded by the protest or chose to extend the deadline. However, case of extending the deadline would likely be rare, in order to avoid unequal treatment of users. The hour notice period does, however, give the user the opportunity to start a conversation and to make the community aware of their grievances. The user, upon their return to the site, can then pick up the discussion where it left off.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Castin
Consider me set straight. So to be clear, this means a member can publicly protest a charge so long as they don't quote directly from a moderator's PM?
That would be correct. They may summarize what was said. Moderation, of course, would be free to address any arguments made by the user, but also would not quote from the PM.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
It will be shared here closer to the time of the debate.
Created:
Posted in:
1. Warren
2. Vaar
3. Budda
4. Aporia
5. Supa
6. Grey
7. Pie
8. Lunatic
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Castin
Forbidding users to publicly protest their charges before banning seems like a policy aimed at containing spectacle or controversy, and ensuring the moderator's decision is carried out quickly and discreetly.
No user is ever prohibited from publicly protesting charges leveled against them. To repeat: no user is ever prohibited from publicly protesting charges leveled against them.
That any user has chosen not to make such a protest should not be misconstrued as them not having had the opportunity to make such a protest. There are only two restrictions on a user's speech rights in this regard: (1) they may not quote directly from a PM with a moderator without first giving the moderator ample notice and (2) they may not quote directly from a PM with a moderator if the information they wish to reveal is likely to impinge on the privacy or safety rights of another user, moderators excluded. Users must also understand that by posting content from the PM in protest to a certain moderator decision, they waive their privacy rights for any and all discussions which pertained/pertain directly to the decision they are protesting. This is done to allow the moderator the chance to reply to the criticism, and to prevent selective release of information. This is all to say that users do have the right to waive their privacy rights in PMs with moderators, with only two reasonable restrictions on that right to waive.
When I came back to DART I did notice that the religion forum is a bit worse in terms of hate and contempt posts, but I didn't think things were this bad.
If you see posts which may violate the COC, please report them. We can't do anything about misconduct as moderators if that misconduct has not first been brought to our attention.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@warren42
I apologize. I probably shouldn't have said what I did.I don't need to have children of my own for there to be other people for whom I make the world a better place.
Why do you want to go out west?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tejretics
I can agree to exclude Transgender and Intersex from the list, but Genderfluid should remain.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tejretics
Perhaps, but I think that's too fine a point. Were you genderfluid, you would likely choose to identify as that on a consistent basis, rather than constantly switching your ID for the moment.
I think including those options can't possibly hurt.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tejretics
I would argue that the terms are distinct.
Genderqueer implies that a person identifies with a combination of gender identities (such as male and female). Genderfluid implies that one oscillates between discrete gender identities. And transgender implies, of course, that one identifies with a gender which is the converse of one's biological sex. Intersex implies that one is hermaphroditic, that is, biologically neither male nor female, but both.
Intersex =/= genderqueer, because it implies a biologic component which shapes one's gender identity. Similarly, it is not male or female because it is hermaphroditic.
Genderfluid =/= male, female, intersex, etc. because it implies that one shifts, based on the situation, between two discrete identities. This is different from genderqueer, in that genderqueer implies a stable identity across all situations.
Transgender =/= male or female because, like intersex, it is tied relationally to one's biological sex; that is, it denotes that one's gender identity is the opposite of one's biological sex.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tejretics
I support that. I wouldn't mind having more than 3 options, even. For example, Agender, Genderqueer, Genderfluid, Intersex, Bigender, Transgender, Other, and Prefer not to Say.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
These kinds of posts belong in one of the other forums, not this forum.
Created:
Posted in:
1. Warren
2. Vaar
3. Budda
4. Aporia
5. Supa
6. Grey
7. Pie
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@warren42
I can't comment on that. Both because it would forecast too much and because I am only 75% done with the game design. I looked at what I had already done for it and wasn't satisfied, so I'm tweaking things.
Created:
Posted in:
1. Warren
2. Vaar
3. Budda
4. Aporia
5. Supa
6. Grey
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Buddamoose
How are you working PMs since you can't send PMs to more than one person?
Created:
Posted in:
Welcome to Star Trek DS9 Mafia!
This game is based on the 7-season TV series Star Trek: Deep Space Nine. The game does not include thematic materials from any sources other than the TV series. All material will be canon and easily researchable on the Star Trek wiki, Memory Alpha, or by watching parts of the series (it's good, trust me). Memory Beta is the non-canon Star Trek wiki. It should be a fun game. Qapla'!
I am looking for 12 to 14 players for this game. I'll go over the game's rules in the DP1 OP of the game--the rules will be similar, though not necessarily identical--to the rules I've employed in prior games. Please feel free to sign up!
Sign-Up List
1. Warren
2. Vaar
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
Created:
Posted in:
I quite like Melania, much to my own surprise. I think a lot of the hubbub out there about her is excessive, and that she's excelled in her role. Granted, she has excelled differently than Michelle Obama did (she also did a wonderful job), but different is not necessarily bad. It's nice to have a low-key first lady who, I think, has some moral values, esp. when contrasted with her bombastic, vile spouse. On her own merits, she gets an A- from me.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@warren42
Use the quote feature to C/P text into quote format. Look at the rich text bar.
As far as kids go, I just don’t want to put my own life on pause to raise children. I feel like there’s a good chance I end up having kids, because I’d still like to get married, and there’s a decent chance I’ll feel differently then. At the time being though, the financial burden and effect on my life isn’t worth it in my opinion.
I find that a very bleak view, personally. But, I get that having kids isn't for everyone, and everyone needs to make their own choice. But it seems to me that personal success and happiness are traits which, in and of themselves, are a poor legacy. To what end should we have success, if not to make the world better for those who follow us? And, thus, for success to have real value, there must be a new generation waiting in the wings to benefit from it. I just don't get the idea of success for one's own sake. Besides, I don't see it as putting life on pause. I think that's a poor way to conceptualize it. Rather, it's taking your life in a new direction, which is itself an enriching and worthwhile experience. Life doesn't stop when you have kids, it just changes.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SkepticalOne
I was not attempting to demonstrate that God is real. I neither believe nor disbelieve in God's existence.
I was attempting, and I think I succeeded, to show how one could plausibly and rationally believe in God while not believing in gnomes. God's qualities, as defined, allow him to potentially be demonstrable in a way which gnomes are not. It is up to the believer to then demonstrate that the qualities which necessitate God's existence are themselves extant.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SkepticalOne
As already mentioned, the definition has unwarranted assumptions built into it.
This entirely misses the point of what I said, namely: "It is saying that God is X, and now X must be logically demonstrated. If X is logically demonstrated, then God exists. There are ways to argue for an origin and that existence is a creation (per KCA), but debating those is beyond the scope of my interest in this thread."
Creation is not an assumption, but the thing which if demonstrated, indicates God's existence. The key phrase there is "if demonstrated." In my above quote, X stands in for creation. Even as you put it: "if origin, then god." The "if" clause indicates that there is no assumed creation, but that if creation were proven, so too would God's existence. This is why God is potentially demonstrable in a way that gnomes are not. There is nothing about gnomes which, if independently demonstrated, necessitates gnomes existence, whereas this is not the case for God.
Theorists did not decide wimps and gimps exist and then define the circumstances that confirm it into a definition.
Neither did I in defining God, as I explain above. We can define them without being sure of their existence, and then investigate to see whether the theoretical concepts which were defined actually exist. It's not so different from trying to prove a hypothesis through testing. We invent the hypothesis absent observation and then seek evidence to confirm it or refute it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SkepticalOne
I simply missed the reply of yours to which I later responded. Hence my assumption that you were not engaging.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SkepticalOne
I am objecting to "god" essentially being defined into existence. You suggested a definition which assumes existence is a creation and "god" is the origin. ("Now suppose we define god as the origin of all creation").There are a lot of unverifiable assumptions in that.
Okay, I see what you're saying, but disagree. I don't think that that definition is defining God into existence. It is saying that God is X, and now X must be logically demonstrated. If X is logically demonstrated, then God exists. There are ways to argue for an origin and that existence is a creation (per KCA), but debating those is beyond the scope of my interest in this thread.
As to Wimps and Gimps, I dont believe we are saying they definitely exist. Currently it is thought one of the two have explanatory power in relation to dark matter, but it might be neither are real and a third option is reality (dependent on future observation or maths). This is not analogous to the definition you've provided for god because, as I understand it, physicists are saying if dark matter then possibly X or Y ...tbd, and you are saying existence is created therefore X (origin) and Y (god).
I wrote: "We have observations about lions. We have no observations about God or gnomes. GIMPs and WIMPs--theorized particles which contribute to dark matter--have never been observed. We're not even sure they're real. But that doesn't prevent us from defining them, at least in a broad sense. You're fallacy here is comparing the unlike (the lion) to the like (God) when you should be comparing the like (potential phenomena) to like (God)."
So, I agree that we're not saying that WIMPs and GIMPs definitely exist--that was just the point of my argument. That we have no observations which can prove their existence or which we can use to characterize them (i.e. they are theoretical), does not prevent us from defining them. This is analogous to the definition of god I offered because, WIMPs, GIMPs, and God are meaningfully defined without concrete observations having been made of them.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SkepticalOne
I don't think that represents your own question very well. Why not respond to my replies to you? Why all the tangential remarks?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Goldtop
As I don't believe in God's existence, I have no interest in proving his existence hypothetically or otherwise. Rather, my contributions in this thread were designed to show that the possibility of God's existence cannot be as easily disposed of as the OP believes (because I do not believe in God's nonexistence either).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Goldtop
It's not the accuracy of the example that makes a hypothetical work, but rather the ability of the constructed reality to demonstrate ideas.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@warren42
I'd like to name my son Leonidas because I never truly came down from the high of testosterone from the first time I heard the story of the Spartans at Thermopylae/saw 300.
Hot.
He could go by Leo too, which helps normalize it. One of my friends is named Jameson, which is a name I like quite a bit as well.
Why Jameson instead of James?
I have an extensive list of dog names (from which I have taken Zion for my black lab) but most of them would be too weird for a human.
My dog has a first and a middle name, lol. They're both Norwegian names.
I'm also not sure I want kids to begin with though...
That surprises me. You seem like the type of guy to want a family. Why not?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Goldtop
You missed the entire point of the post. Rather, I suspect you intentionally failed to address it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SkepticalOne
Your post doesn't address my specific reply to you, which I think would better illuminate the subject. That is because you are lifting the lion example out of the specific context in which I used it, and which is, to some extent, intellectually troublesome. In my reply to you, I said:
That begs the question. In order to prove that God exists, we must first have an idea of what God is. In order to have an idea of what God is, you're saying, we must first prove that God exists (such that we have evidence about God). This kind of circular logic is irrational. Rather, it makes sense to first define God and then to attempt to find evidence that establishes that such an entity exists or does not exist.Words are signs which correspond to things. The word "math" is a sign which corresponds to a particular concept, but, the word "math" itself has no intrinsic meaning other than the one we give it. Similarly, the word "God" does not itself have any intrinsic meaning other than the one we give it, and so no evidence is needed in order for it to have meaning. All words and concepts are, to one degree or another, arbitrarily defined based on common usage rather than by any fixed, logical system.
In cases where something is not known to exist (likely from an absence of observations or observations which are indistinct or possibly unrelated) it begs the question to demand that the definitions of those things be based in observations, since no observations exist which are clearly of that thing. Indeed, in some case, no observations may exist at all. That creates the circular fallacy which I identified in the above post.
Thus, using the lion example out of context as you have makes no sense here, because it just isn't analogous. We have observations about lions. We have no observations about God or gnomes. GIMPs and WIMPs--theorized particles which contribute to dark matter--have never been observed. We're not even sure they're real. But that doesn't prevent us from defining them, at least in a broad sense. You're fallacy here is comparing the unlike (the lion) to the like (God) when you should be comparing the like (potential phenomena) to like (God).
That being said, it is possible perhaps to use observation to theorize about god. The KCA is based on the observation that all things have a cause, so why shouldn't existence? Similarly, there are many people who would claim to have had religious experiences through which they have come to know of God's existence. Whether you believe them frauds or not, and I'd personally tend to be skeptical of their claims, I don't think it is fair to say that our observational knowledge does not, perhaps, suggest a God when viewed from a particular lens.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Goldtop
That's only partially true. In some sense we may not be able to genuinely appreciate such an entity as it is, but that does not prevent us from sketching it out. I knew what a lion was before I saw it, just from definitions, but I only truly appreciated its majesty once I saw it.We can't have an idea of what God is without some form of reference. There are none available.
Interestingly, your comment does nothing to refute the circularity of your argument.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Goldtop
With any unknown potentiality, even Jabberwocks, we must first define it and then go out in search of it. It's not precisely different from, for example, Columbus's assumption that the world was circular and then going out to prove his supposition true. Jabberwocks, just like unicorns, cannot definitively be shown not to exist unless that can be shown analytically (that is, by appeal to definitions).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SkepticalOne
That begs the question. In order to prove that God exists, we must first have an idea of what God is. In order to have an idea of what God is, you're saying, we must first prove that God exists (such that we have evidence about God). This kind of circular logic is irrational. Rather, it makes sense to first define God and then to attempt to find evidence that establishes that such an entity exists or does not exist.I'm not too impressed by arguments from definition especially when the definition seems to be arbitrary rather than based on evidence.
Words are signs which correspond to things. The word "math" is a sign which corresponds to a particular concept, but, the word "math" itself has no intrinsic meaning other than the one we give it. Similarly, the word "God" does not itself have any intrinsic meaning other than the one we give it, and so no evidence is needed in order for it to have meaning. All words and concepts are, to one degree or another, arbitrarily defined based on common usage rather than by any fixed, logical system.
This element of your reply seems more like an attempt to redirect from a plausible solution to your problem to a "definitional debates are unfun" discussion. I'd prefer you address the substance of my post instead.
gnomes could be defined in the same way and we are still no closer to establishing they exist.
Then they would be gods and we would be closer to establishing their existence for the same reason that that definition offers the opportunity to demonstrate God's existence. As I said earlier: "If you define God as possessing the property of origination, then it would be semantically impossible for any being to predate God. Similarly, if gnomes possessed the property of origination, then they would be gods and could be shown to exist via that property."
I think it should be noted that existence having an origin doesn't demand agency
I am not necessarily sure that the idea of God requires agency. Consider, for a moment, Spinoza's interpretation of God. That said, I think the origin of everything implies some degree of agency, for something must have caused everything to exist. Without a will urging things along, nothing could have come to exist, since there would be no materials in non-existence capable of reacting to create existence in the first place.
Created:
Posted in:
The site's vote reporting function is operational. While you can of course still PM a moderator with your report, you may now also simply click the report button (the flag icon) on a suspect vote in order to bring it to moderation's attention.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Goldtop
I think the question of whether it is even worth talking about God's existence deserves its own thread, as I indicated above. Its a worthwhile question in its own right, but it's not really a genuinely responsive reply to my argument or to the OP.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Outplayz
I can't make special exceptions, and I won't know who is genuinely a friend of the banned user. Unfortunately, then, it's not possible for me to divulge private details of a conversation to friends.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Goldtop
That post is laughable. That math is invisible and undetectable does not mean it does not exist beyond its definition, that it cannot be accurately defined, and that it is irrelevant. What we are talking about here are the concepts of God and gnomes. It matters not whether they exist or not in reality; that they are known concepts is sufficient to question whether they do exist and thus sufficient to ground the relevance of discussing them.You see, it's all about how we define those things, whether we define God as possessing certain traits or gnomes, it matters not, they're just labels we've created to define things that have never been shown to exist. So, it's obviously a wash, you can no more consider one over the other as having an more or less relevance beyond ones empty definitions, since they each possess exactly the same properties as the others; invisible, undetectable and indistinguishable from the non-existent.
But what you're doing here is shifting the goalposts. You are moving the question beyond "why might God's existence be justifiable while not a gnome's" to "why should we even talk about God." Those are very different questions, which require their own threads to really be explored fully. Whether discussing God is merely an academic exercise of definitions or a meaningful investigation of our world, the argument I made endures unrefuted, since neither of those means of discourse actually affect my argument in any way.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Outplayz
Users are given an hour's notice from the moment the log on to see the ban notification. They can use that hour to protest to the mods, reach out to friends, make their impending ban public, or take some other action. Users therefore do have the ability to reach out to friends on the site prior to their ban coming into force.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Buddamoose
Remind me this weekend to post sign-ups if I don't do it before then.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vaarka
I used iTunes a lot when I was younger. Then YouTube. I switched to Spotify this summer and am not going back.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Goldtop
I was the former elected site President of DDO. I served two terms. In that capacity, Airmax would occasionally consult with me on moderation issues and certain specific cases. That said, I have quite a bit of experience working with a site like this in my capacity as President, and I learned a lot about what I should and should not be doing in this role.
Created: