Total posts: 5,653
Posted in:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
It's funny that you think this is really Airmax.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mharman
This is a really bad troll. Let me know if you have anything to say other than "grr. media left. left bad. grr."
There is no central authority of what "white nationalism" is, so the only basis for defining the term is on how it is used, and it is used, almost exclusively, to refer to a specific brand of nationalism that discriminates based on race as well as country of origin.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
But murder isn't axiomatically set as immoral. It's merely the term we use to describe a killing that happens to be immoral.
Killing exist.
Some killings are immoral.
We call those "murder."
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Plisken
Because people are prone to the is-ought fallacy. Acceptable and unacceptable are descriptive terms. They describe how people respond to certain things. They are the genesis for defining right/wrong, moral/immoral behavior.
We accept this behavior because doing so is beneficial or not doing so is harmful. We reject that behavior because doing so is beneficial or not doing so is harmful. Then this becomes "right" and "wrong."
This isn't necessarily bad. It's much easier to teach someone that some behavior is "right" or "wrong" rather than lecture them on the history of why it is right or wrong (the reasons of which can sometimes be lost to time anyway). It is simply more efficient to have the positive or negative connotations encoded into the brain at an early age, especially when it's more important that the behavior be adhered to or avoided than having them understand the reasons why.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
They have similarities, sure, specifically that they are true in all cases. But they differ in the sense that axioms are the beginning of a logical system while tautologies are the result of one. Necessarily, axioms are not derived from deeper principles whereas tautologies depend on them. They are the end result of the process that is started with axioms.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
Morality is simply a classification of behaviors into acceptable and unacceptable.
Created:
Posted in:
The entire idea of "alpha" or "beta" humans is completely fallacious.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
I'm not sure I like the phrase "Axiomatically" here, I think "tautological" is better since Murder is essentially defined as an immoral act.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mharman
Then don't tag me in it.Don't read into it so much.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mharman
And? You're dancing on the virtual grave of a mentally I'll person. I dont see how "It's just a meme, bro" changes that equation.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mharman
The ban is warranted and overdue, but not a cause for celebration. He has RL issues that DDO/DART likely exacerbates.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
We'll, they're pretty heartily thanked for it on the CoC page. Not sure they have incentive to change that.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Who do you think created the rules?
Created:
Posted in:
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
I agree, his only real mistake is handing the reigns over to bsh1 and turning a blind eye. His brief foray into moderation was decisive and sensible, but unfortunately short lived.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Don't forget that bsh1 doesn't know how the site works. He's expressed confusion at the leader board before, when it clearly shows you when the last time a person logged in was. It is easy enough to use that to get a list of people who have last logged in since a certain period of time.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@DebateArt.com
Would it be possible to have the users who are also moderators have a toggle-able feature that enables/disables their moderator abilities?
In other sites where moderators are also users, and use the same account for both, the site usually implements a feature that allows that user to distinguish between their participation as a normal user and their participation as an act of moderation.
Mostly this is cosmetic, such as changing the color of their username, changing the background color of their mod posts, or otherwise adding a label or badge to their post.
It can also include non-cosmetic changes. For example a mod can only bypass the block feature when the mod-mode is turned on, but not when it is turned off.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mharman
Which means their stance doesn't really reflect their own, but is just an echoing of bsh1. So I can't really comment on them with respect to their moderation because we haven't really seen it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
So basically set up a bicameral legislature
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Nothing will ever get changed. When I did my mega poll, I barely got half of all the users active within 7 days.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mharman
They're all subordinate to bsh1.
Created:
Posted in:
Do you approve of Bsh1?Yes: 0No: 0
no
Created:
Posted in:
I communicated just fine. Others knew what the fuck i was talking about.
Created:
Posted in:
What in the actual fuck are you talking about? I didn't say anything about writing my name in the body of your text.
When you place someone in the "receivers", you @ then, or click "reply" That is a mention.
You know how you can tell? Because the fucking notification you get says that they "mentioned" you. In the linked post in my previous post, the site owner himself calls them "mentions":
1) Now the profile blocks work not only for PMs but for forum post mentions as well
Get your head out of your ass.
Created:
Posted in:
Jesus fucking Christ. The head mod doesn't even know how the site works. It hardly be a block feature if it didn't block anyone!
Created:
Posted in:
Don't care, but it doesn't belong in the main site forum. On DDO, the main forum became a dumping ground. Let's not continue that around here.
-> Art
-> Misc
Created:
Posted in:
Tagging = @ing = mention. It all means the same thing. And blocking most certainly prevents people from doing that.
Created:
Posted in:
As I said above, I "will try to remember not to tag you going forward." That should be sufficient.
It might be, if you werent fucking mentioning me in the very same post.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bsh1
Complete and utter bullshit for three reasons.
1. The way the blocking mechanism works on this site is one-way. Blocking someone only prevents them from mentioning and PMing you, it doesn't stop you from mentioning or PMing them. So even if it was working as designed, it wouldn't stop me. The idea that a person mentioning another somehow invalidates their block is fucking nonsense.
2. Making mods unblockable has valid reasons (namely to ensure that moderation actions can proceed unimpeded). That necessarily carries with it the double-edged sword that they should be accessible to be contacted by anyone for moderation reasons. This latter is apparently not implemented (given that you blocked Wylted). The idea that I should not be able to contact a mod for a mod related reason (namely that a mod is abusing this feature to PM and mention users for non-mod reasons) is again, fucking nonsense.
3. Lastly, I @'d you after you @'d me inappropriately. I did so to call your attention to this, since it the second time you've circumvented my block on you to contact me for non-mod related reasons. It apparently didn't penetrate your thick fucking skull the first time, and it apparently didn't penetrate it the second time since you're still @'ing me.
Do not PM me. Do not @ me.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bsh1
Stop abusing the fact that people can't block mods to reply to them in comments and PM them.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mharman
I object to this vile slander.-Drafterman pops in to quickly give support to the mods.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Wylted
Oh, that's interesting. You see, the mods eliminated the ability of people to block them. I assumed that was a two-way street, but I guess not.You blocked me, I can't tag you, genius. No the recuse claims are not absurd, your justification for them is.
Created:
-->
@Wylted
The whole point of the strategy you are suggestion is that it exploits people's finite attention span. By calling attention to it and linking to it, you are actually contributing to it by basically forcing people to pay attention to it. You are amplifying the amount of time that is spent on paying attention to that stuff and therefore helping to distract away from your own message.
Created:
-->
@Wylted
If you believe this to be true, consider that all you're doing here is giving them a signal boost.
Created:
Posted in:
Should it be a simply majority?
Yes.
Should it have a participation threshold?
No.
Should its results be binding or advisory?
Trick question. There is no way to bind moderation to any result so they can only ever be advisory and voluntarily accepted.
Created:
Posted in:
Fake objectionable behavior (which isn't even objectionable if it were true) conjured up that distracts from the real objectionable behavior.
Created:
Posted in:
Cosmetic is usually the way to go, a badge or title on the profile, something that displays on the forum avatar as well (like the mod "crown").
If you're willing to go beyond the aesthetic, perhaps a "private" forum that people of any donation level can access. I know that's delving into "OMG the paid DDO Elite is real" territory, but if someone is willing to donate to the operation of the site, they now have a vested interest in the site and it might be nice to have a place for those people to talk about those kinds of things.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@DebateArt.com
I don't know where you stand on the chat feature, but it is still advertised on the landing page.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mharman
I'd like to hear from the mods on this.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
If "neural energy" can "pass-through" a machine (teleporter) and be "redirected" and or "sent to the wrong place" then it is detectable and identifiable scientifically.If "neural energy" is scientifically detectable and identifiable, then it is not some "dualistic" substance.It seems more plausible that it is a particularly delicate and complex energy configuration.
I don't see why a dualistic substance can't be detected in a fictional universe. But it is clearly a different kind of energy that exists in reality.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
I'm an avid reader of O'Brien at work. Very hilarious.
My main issue is that without "neural energy" how does Riker-clone have an operational mind and or memories?
I'll address the "operational mind" part lower down, but for the memories, Lonely Among Us establishes that the physical pattern restricts this. When Picard is reformed, his memory of the encounter is determined by the time stamp of his physical body.
RIKER: Sounds like our Captain.TROI: But confused. This Picard pattern was formed before he went out there.
I always took the term "neural energy" to mean simply "the delicate energy pattern that is the identifiable manifestation of your thoughts".
Ah, but what does "identifiable manifestation of your thoughts" mean? In reality, your thoughts are little more than the physical arrangement of the neurons of your brain. They cannot exist separate from that. In Star Trek, it seems that your thoughts can exist independent of your brain.
I mean, Data and Lor appear to have "neural energy" and they would certainly seem to be able to pass a Turing test.
Perhaps they do, it might be that any sufficiently advanced "mind" will give birth to this neural energy. But it's clear that the neural energy is not dependent on the mind. Data's brain can certainly house humanoid neural energy (Schizoid Man, Power Play) but we don't know if the opposite is true.
From your description it sounds like you believe that without "neural energy", the "physical pattern" would simply be a crash test dummy?
Maybe, or it may simply be an automaton. The Spock-body minus Spocks-katra (arguably Spock's "neural energy") in "The Search for Spock" had some base level of operation, but was born from scratch. A Riker-body created with all of Riker's memories might have enough complexity to give a sufficient simulation of life.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Okay. Before I go all hypernerd, let me just say that the simplest explanation is that Star Trek's portrayal of transporters (as well as many other concepts) is simply inconsistent. Different writers over different series that wrote for specific episodes with little concern for overall continuity except in the broadest sense.
So, no, not everything I say is explicitly stated or confirmed in any given episode.
However, if - like me - you like to try and tackle these issues from an in-universe perspective, minimizing contradictions and inconsistencies wherever they appear, then I think you can draw some reasonable logical conclusions.
On with the show:
In the real world, energy (in the physical scientific sense) cannot exist separate from matter. It is defined by how it influences and changes the behavior of matter.
In Star Trek, energy is repeatedly treated as something separate and distinct from matter. There are innumerable instances of pure energy beings existing separate from physical forms, but nevertheless capable of interacting with and inhabiting those forms. Most relevant to this conversation is Lonely Among Us (Next Generation, Season 1, Episode 7):
RIKER: Beam him back as what? He's nothing but energy now.
An alien energy being had inhabited and taken control of Picard's body. It used the transporter to beam them both into outer space but abandoned Picard after doing so. Note that no physical body materialized at the destination location. Beaming him back was considered impossible because there was nothing to beam.
However, they could reconstruct his physical form using transporter logs:
DATA: I knew we had to have the Captain's physical pattern here, sir. He was the last one to beam out.
But, contrary to your plan to simply use any source of energy to reconstruct the body, the combination of physical form and non-physical energy is required for success here:
RIKER: Is what you're thinking possible?DATA: Unknown at this time, sir. I hope the Captain remembers his physical pattern is here. If he has, his energy has moved into the transporter relays by now.RIKER: I wish we had some sign that he's in here. I guess we have no choice but to risk it.
Rather than just a one-off comment, it is later confirmed that living beings consist of physical forms and mental energy which transporter technology treats separately:
EDDINGTON: The holosuite is specifically designed to store highly complex energy patterns. The computer's processing their physical patterns as if they were holosuite characters. Trouble is, I'm not reading any neural energy.
(Our Man Bashir, Deep Space Nine, Season 4, Episode 10)
It's further stated that while physical patterns are rather trivial to store, it is the neural energy that is the most complex element, requiring the entire space station to store the information. This raises the question of why it doesn't take an entire space station's worth of computer storage every time they transport? This isn't stated, but it seems that the neural energy isn't "stored" during normal operation (in contrast with physical patterns, which are stored and logged) but merely transferred from source to destination.
So, what to make of the events of Second Chances (Next Generation, Season 6, Episode 24)? Even in-universe we really don't know as the answer given is educated speculation:
LAFORGE: Apparently there was a massive energy surge in the distortion field around the planet just at the moment you tried to beam out. The Transporter Chief tried to compensate by initiating a second containment beam.DATA: An interesting approach. He must have been planning to reintegrate the two patterns in the transport buffer.LAFORGE: Actually, it wasn't really necessary. Commander Riker's pattern maintained its integrity with just the one containment beam. He made it back to the ship just fine.CRUSHER: What happened to the second beam?LAFORGE: The Transporter Chief shut it down, but somehow it was reflected back to the surface.PICARD: And another William Riker materialised there.RIKER: How was the second pattern able to maintained its integrity?LAFORGE: The containment beam must have had the exact same phase differential as the distortion field.
The pattern here being the physical pattern and the containment beam being what ensures it maintains its integrity and arrives at its destination rather than scattering all across the universe. The physical energy that made up Riker's second physical body that materialized came either from energy inherent in the containment beam and/or the energy surge in the distortion field.
The only question that remains: Where did the neural energy come from?!
We know that the transporter doesn't normally store or process this energy. Since the transporter doesn't deal with this information, it couldn't be easily copied like a physical pattern could have. Our only choices seem to be:
a) it was copied through some other means
b) it wasn't copied and Thomas Riker doesn't possess neural energy.
Either of these would be singular events within the Star Trek universe, so looking to specific examples doesn't help us. So it would seem that the answer simply lies with whatever you think is most sensible. Both are consistent with dualism and my tossing out of (b) is more of a lark than anything, the amusing depiction of a Riker clone as a soulless automaton.
But the end result is that, in the Star Trek universe, living organisms (or at least humans) have a kind of energy that is separate and distinct from their physical bodies and not at all like the typical physical energy we mean when we traditionally use the term.
Created:
Posted in:
Wait... Is it a bannable offense to lie about what's been said in a PM?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Ramshutu
trying to push your own chances by starting poll threads
It was bsh1's suggestion that I do that.
, starting up anti-moderator votes
WTF are you talking about?
, being outwardly hostile, and immediately jumping on any minor transgression as proof of malefeasance. It doesn’t help anyone at all, and is the cause of rather than solution too many of the problems you’re discussing - which you don’t seem to want to acknowledge.
Because you haven't demonstrated any of that. You're just repeating the same tripe over and over again. There are precisely 3ways in which my actions have resulted in tangible results:
1. Cleaning up of the CoC of superfluous language
2. Revaluating of the voting standards.
3. Eating up the moderator's time with high volume of reports, which is more due to the silly manner they decided they needed to respond to them than anything else.
If you want to convince yourself that I think the moderators or rules are perfect, as being solely opposed me completely disagreeing with your toxic actions, which seem to be motivated more by your own personal animosity and actions than by any specific moderator actions -
My animosity stems from specific moderator actions.
go ahead, but that’s not what I’ve been saying.
Certainly. But it is how you're acting.
This is about your inability to act like an adult in the face of disagreement. And in that, I find a thousand times more fault and malefeasance in your behaviour thus far than in all the moderator activity I have observed thus far.
Yes, I know. I already commented on this. You have 3 inch thick lead blinders on. You don't need to repeat stuff back to me that i know.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Ramshutu
We're just talking around in circles now and I really don't see the point in continuing on. it's clear that you're not really interested in seeing things from a point of view that's different from the one you see through your Rose colored glasses. If I'm wrong about this feel free to p.m. me.
Created: