YOU FOOLISH PSEUDO JEDI

RyuJin wrote: Disagreeing with the group isn't an issue...if done properly....presentation matters, manners matter...we have plenty here that don't agree with everything and they are more respectful in the way they present their disagreement...

By all means disagree-away....just be respectful in how it's done...

Remember we have minors on this site as well...if you wouldn't say/do it in front of your own kids don't do it where other's kids could see...and remember just because you're thick skinned and coarse doesn't mean everyone else is....

Even i have to watch myself on occasion...

Can I just use spoilers? Else, little I write, I consider appropriate for children and being here is pointless because I’d be hyper censoring myself.

It is my fault you did not receive a warning before you were suspended.

Using the Spoiler tag at least keeps it off Google etc and if you put an 18 or over notice above it (which of course will urge anyone to look) at least it gives a warning.

I'm going off-topic. We need officers. We do not have enough to manage this place. Ordinarily, this would be a Knight. Under the circumstances, we will consider Apprentice.

Br. John wrote: It is my fault you did not receive a warning before you were suspended.

Using the Spoiler tag at least keeps it off Google etc and if you put an 18 or over notice above it (which of course will urge anyone to look) at least it gives a warning.

I'm going off-topic. We need officers. We do not have enough to manage this place. Ordinarily, this would be a Knight. Under the circumstances, we will consider Apprentice.

I wrote a solution and made a request thread. Please do go look. I think it would work and keep all parties happy. I get my freedom, you get your child safe G rating.

RyuJin wrote: Remember we have minors on this site as well...if you wouldn't say/do it in front of your own kids don't do it where other's kids could see...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3jFqhjaGh30


What if I treated children like adults with somewhat less life experience? They are not sub-human, you know, not any kind of lesser people and I will not treat them as such, not my own, and not anyone else's. So this stipulation would then affect nothing in my conduct here, because I already treat the lot of you like children: The same way I treat everybody else.

So what's the point of that then? Anyone can say as I just did, so this pseudo-rule means nothing. It doesn't specify what is forbidden, it just suggests a deliberately vague standard by which anything anyone doesn't like can be claimed to be a violation. It's nonsense. Like the kind of test one would perform to see if the defendant is in fact a witch or not.

Either we judge by rules, or we judge by personal sensibility. Trying to make a kind of hybrid of both doesn't work. Either clarify what is forbidden and what is allowed, and then consistently apply that, or admit that it's all down to what ever mood the moderator is that day and make arbitrary caprice explicitly the law of the land. I for one see no dignified third option.

and remember just because you're thick skinned and coarse doesn't mean everyone else is....

No, but I do remember the Code saying something about emotion, passion, peace, those self-control related sorts of things... You know, some outdated gibberish that I guess just really doesn't need to be of much import for Jedi™ these days anymore...

https://indianapublicmedia.org/amomentofscience/thick-skin/

VixensVengeance wrote:

rugadd wrote: I honestly don't know. In the scenario you posted, sometimes nothing. It's a game. get over it. In other identical scenarios the headhunter gets blocked from participating. When does a lack of self control become someone else's problem? Even being malicious about it isn't enough in some cases.

I really don't know.

Thank you. I appreciate your answer because its honest.

Taking that idea and applying it to Phoenixes thread is what I want everyone to see here. She was talking about a specific context that seems to now have been ignored in such comments as Manus and just glossed over in the effort to use it as an excuse to ban. If you reread the thread she started it specifically states the intent of the question. It was to be used as a means to assume power in a sith context in a virtual environment where all participants agree to the terms of its use. Its akin to a fight to the death sort of scenario carried out in a virtual environment that is absent the digital graphics that video games enjoy. Thats all it was. People have read way to much into what she wrote, so as Rugard so eloquently says, Get over it!

Well, if I misunderstood, mea culpa.

The intent of the "game" was not exactly clear though:

No, playing a video game isn't going to suffice. There needs to be a real challenge, risk, betrayal, use of manipulation and intellect.

I understand your position. However, isn't not about digital life at all in this case. Just, actual murder is illegal... so I'm hunting for a way to simulate it. I think I've found it though. However, the details need to be worked out a lot more. Right now, I have a few bones and I need a complete skeleton.

So, I'm sorry if I misunderstood exactly what you were going for here. "Real" challenge, risk and betrayal requires "real" stakes to lose. Which I would clasify as dangerous.

Gisteron wrote:

RyuJin wrote: Remember we have minors on this site as well...if you wouldn't say/do it in front of your own kids don't do it where other's kids could see...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3jFqhjaGh30


What if I treated children like adults with somewhat less life experience? They are not sub-human, you know, not any kind of lesser people and I will not treat them as such, not my own, and not anyone else's. So this stipulation would then affect nothing in my conduct here, because I already treat the lot of you like children: The same way I treat everybody else.

So what's the point of that then? Anyone can say as I just did, so this pseudo-rule means nothing. It doesn't specify what is forbidden, it just suggests a deliberately vague standard by which anything anyone doesn't like can be claimed to be a violation. It's nonsense. Like the kind of test one would perform to see if the defendant is in fact a witch or not.

Either we judge by rules, or we judge by personal sensibility. Trying to make a kind of hybrid of both doesn't work. Either clarify what is forbidden and what is allowed, and then consistently apply that, or admit that it's all down to what ever mood the moderator is that day and make arbitrary caprice explicitly the law of the land. I for one see no dignified third option.

and remember just because you're thick skinned and coarse doesn't mean everyone else is....

No, but I do remember the Code saying something about emotion, passion, peace, those self-control related sorts of things... You know, some outdated gibberish that I guess just really doesn't need to be of much import for Jedi™ these days anymore...

how about using common courtesy, and common sense as a general rule?...i grew up in a home full of profanity, and questionable morals, so there isn't anything that can be said or done to insult or offend me, but i also know that not everyone comes from that sort of upbringing, and not everyone wants their children exposed to that....so i have enough common courtesy to be respectful of their wishes....whether i agree or not isn't an issue...my girlfriend's mother gets offended by the use of the "f" word...which is a frequent part of my vocabulary...she was respectful in informing me that it offends her, and i reciprocated by refraining my usage of the word around her....to me words are just words, with no power as long as i choose to not give them power over me...

i know full well that children are more intelligent, and more clever than adults give them credit for, and generally i treat them the same as i treat adults, unless their parents ask me not to...it is not my place to tell parents how to raise their kids etc, however i will be considerate enough to abide by the parents wishes in regards to their children...

yes people need to toughen up and not be so easily offended, and children need to be prepared for the harsh nature of the world, but it is the parents that get to decide how and when their children are exposed...

Manu wrote:

VixensVengeance wrote:

rugadd wrote: I honestly don't know. In the scenario you posted, sometimes nothing. It's a game. get over it. In other identical scenarios the headhunter gets blocked from participating. When does a lack of self control become someone else's problem? Even being malicious about it isn't enough in some cases.

I really don't know.

Thank you. I appreciate your answer because its honest.

Taking that idea and applying it to Phoenixes thread is what I want everyone to see here. She was talking about a specific context that seems to now have been ignored in such comments as Manus and just glossed over in the effort to use it as an excuse to ban. If you reread the thread she started it specifically states the intent of the question. It was to be used as a means to assume power in a sith context in a virtual environment where all participants agree to the terms of its use. Its akin to a fight to the death sort of scenario carried out in a virtual environment that is absent the digital graphics that video games enjoy. Thats all it was. People have read way to much into what she wrote, so as Rugard so eloquently says, Get over it!

Well, if I misunderstood, mea culpa.

The intent of the "game" was not exactly clear though:

No, playing a video game isn't going to suffice. There needs to be a real challenge, risk, betrayal, use of manipulation and intellect.

I understand your position. However, isn't not about digital life at all in this case. Just, actual murder is illegal... so I'm hunting for a way to simulate it. I think I've found it though. However, the details need to be worked out a lot more. Right now, I have a few bones and I need a complete skeleton.

So, I'm sorry if I misunderstood exactly what you were going for here. "Real" challenge, risk and betrayal requires "real" stakes to lose. Which I would clasify as dangerous.

Yes, you misunderstood.

To a great extent I can respect that, Ryu, yet you suggested to refrain from writing here what we wouldn't write to our own children. It was never about what another child's parent wanted, but because you didn't actually mean any specific restriction by it you now get to shift that goal post around in ever which way.

Now, once we invite children as young as parental supervision of such tightness warrants, maybe then we'll have something there to talk about, and I'm sure some healthy compromise can be converged upon that day. Maybe their parents will chime in, too, and tell us how they wish us to speak to their children, but so far (as far as I've been made aware, anyway) none have. For now, this is a non-issue.

While we're at it, it is one thing to respect a parent's wish with regard to their child or even fellow children around them. By no means is it incontroversial, but at least there is some subject of discussion there. But when someone comes along and says something like "oh, by the way, remember there are children of completely different people here who have made no expression as to how we ought treat them, so let me tell you in their stead that all y'all had better vaguely watch yourselves", I for one feel very little compulsion to entertain that.

As I said, it's the sort of clause you add to a charta to allow for completely arbitrary witch hunting, because there is no bound to its scope. When ever someone doesn't like someone they can claim the righteous standart of child protection and march on against the "evildoer" because there is no grounds on which to stop it. Rules need be specific, and what ever isn't covered by them must not be punishable by official means.

Gisteron wrote: To a great extent I can respect that, Ryu, yet you suggested to refrain from writing here what we wouldn't write to our own children. It was never about what another child's parent wanted, but because you didn't actually mean any specific restriction by it you now get to shift that goal post around in ever which way.

Now, once we invite children as young as parental supervision of such tightness warrants, maybe then we'll have something there to talk about, and I'm sure some healthy compromise can be converged upon that day. Maybe their parents will chime in, too, and tell us how they wish us to speak to their children, but so far (as far as I've been made aware, anyway) none have. For now, this is a non-issue.

While we're at it, it is one thing to respect a parent's wish with regard to their child or even fellow children around them. By no means is it incontroversial, but at least there is some subject of discussion there. But when someone comes along and says something like "oh, by the way, remember there are children of completely different people here who have made no expression as to how we ought treat them, so let me tell you in their stead that all y'all had better vaguely watch yourselves", I for one feel very little compulsion to entertain that.

As I said, it's the sort of clause you add to a charta to allow for completely arbitrary witch hunting, because there is no bound to its scope. When ever someone doesn't like someone they can claim the righteous standart of child protection and march on against the "evildoer" because there is no grounds on which to stop it. Rules need be specific, and what ever isn't covered by them must not be punishable by official means.

I don't have children either and if I did, I'd likely not even be posting on forums, I'd be raising my children. However, I don't have them and won't so the point is moot on me also.

If I wanted to talk about something suitable for my childrens' ears, I would be talking to them directly.

Sorry to put it so bluntly to you guys but being a parent isn't just a state, it's a belief: that no one in the world is as good as your own kids.

So what side are you in agreement with? The side of, to my understanding, censoring ourselves with children in mind, or that we should be able to speak our mind without that boundary?

I have used the internet from a young age. Kids don't belong on it.

Also we should be able to discuss things without that boundary. Adults don't mingle or have meetings where kids are.

Things were better before the anti free speech generation.

ren wrote: I have used the internet from a young age. Kids don't belong on it.

Also we should be able to discuss things without that boundary. Adults don't mingle or have meetings where kids are.

Things were better before the anti free speech generation.

ABSOLUTELY! This mentality is pervasive! It's everywhere! I've found it at so-cake hard core LHP forums and Discord servers. I've found it in places that actually advertise being centers for free speech. Here... and at FA as well.

There was never any magical barrier that would pop up and wrap our mouths up so we couldn't speak. We just have a lot of communication between people who before would never have known each other existed. So many conflicting views... truly we can not be without pissing SOMEBODY off...and now we have to hear about it.

Presumably we all refer to "free speech" as discussing any idea or concepts, relevant in context, as we see fit as mature and dispassionate philosophers....(perhaps occasionally emphatic for effect)


not necessarily to rehearse the script of Deadwood in our best Pepe accents and then call upon the right to free speech once we are censured for being uncivil and needlessly inflammatory....

That sounds a lot like a kind of free speech, then, that only applies if the content is deemed "morally acceptable" in some archaic context and consequence free sense. Who gets to make that call, though? Why does anyone get to make it? What is the pragmatic benefit of such a condition?

Great questions and examples! I myself will discuss anything...ideas are never taboo with me, only certain practices. It takes a certain amount of development as a person to get there, though, and people who haven't gotten there still get a say...

That sounds a lot like a kind of free speech, then, that only applies if the content is deemed "morally acceptable" in some archaic context and consequence free sense. Who gets to make that call, though? Why does anyone get to make it? What is the pragmatic benefit of such a condition?

if you are responding to me - I do not in any way make comment on the moral acceptableness of any topic - merely the manner in which it is discussed.

I'm more than happy to discuss the benefits of making soup from babies, or why, on occasion, genocide might be the best option - as long as it is done civilly and sensibly.

JamesSand wrote: Presumably we all refer to "free speech" as discussing any idea or concepts, relevant in context, as we see fit as mature and dispassionate philosophers....(perhaps occasionally emphatic for effect)


not necessarily to rehearse the script of Deadwood in our best Pepe accents and then call upon the right to free speech once we are censured for being uncivil and needlessly inflammatory....

Needlessly by the judgment of who? I’m certain the person who exercised their right to speak freely didn’t find their words needless.

See, this is my issue with this whole mess. A person should be free to insult as they wish, just not threaten with criminal action. Honestly! It makes my blood boil to see EVERY forum and Discord, even “LHP” ones, require this asinine standard of behaviour.

I finally bit the bullet and designed my own forum because of this crap. I’ve had enough! I want people to have real freedom, free of easily offended fragile humans having ANY power to shut their free speech down.