Guilty
Yeah, I thought I was perfect, but apparently I amn't. :bawl:Seconded.
S.a.m.
- Thread starter Michael
- Start date
- Status
Guilty
Yeah, I thought I was perfect, but apparently I amn't. :bawl:Seconded.
If you can't be bothered to read the thread, maybe you shouldn't be commenting here?
Probably not. That's not an indictment of how S.A.M was treated though.
What people here are missing (or perhaps are trying to say with too many words) is that the individual who S.A.M supposedly misrepresented decided her fate. Let that sink in for a moment. The supposed victim got to act as judge, jury and executioner. Hell, he even abused his authority in an attempt to coerce her into apologising.
So what is the probability that S.A.M received impartial and fair treatment? I'm guessing next to zero.
In my mind, *that* is the main issue here. How Baron Max, Buffalo, Tiassa, Mordea, Gustav, Lucy, etc. behave is irrelevant. What S.A.M has done in the past is irrelevant. What is relevant is that her treatment regarding the issue for which she was banned was likely not impartial.
If people can't make the effort to tailor their posts to the audience and be concise, why should I take the effort to read their work? This might amaze you, but reading posts on an online forum is not the centre of my life, and I don't want it to be.
If you can't get your main points of contention across in a few short paragraphs, then you don't have anything important to say.
Because you're interested in the debate, and they may have something to add?
I dunno, why don't you just TLDR it and call it a day if you don't care about the discussion?
Tiassa has a very... let's say "unique" style of writing.
Here's me commenting on it a few years ago:
http://sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2122040&postcount=13
And here are 2 people agreeing:
http://sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2122093&postcount=14
http://sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2122371&postcount=19
EDIT:
Another comment on tiassa's talents, from back back back in the day:
http://sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1482249&postcount=52
Last edited:
I agree that his presentation is probably not the best for an online forum. But writing off his points because he is verbose is just asinine---either debate the matter with him, or stay out of the discussion.
Problematic presentation
I would even agree, at least in the face of reality. To the other, I'm not sure there is a good presentation for an online forum. Over the years, I've encountered two primary methods of presentation:
Those determined to find some fault always will; that is, even the long form is predictably incomplete as it is impossible to cover every facet, and a dedicated mind will fashion a significant objection over some obscure foundation.
But the short form is problematically incomplete. For instance—
—if I open with something short like my summary for Mordea, how many posts and words will be spent filling in the gaps, for Mordea's or anyone else's benefit, of what I mean?
Over the years, I've found that one simply cannot go by the short form and get everything in; the discussion will invariably deviate from a given path before one gets all the way through the argument. Indeed, I think this is why people complain, and want something shorter: they need it diced up into bite-sized chunks so they can respond to each component independently—e.g., "fisking"—and pretend they're really smart even though they have no legitimate thematic clue what they're trying to address.
In any forum where three syllables are the "big words" threshold, there really isn't much to count as the "best" presentation.
BenTheMan said:
I would even agree, at least in the face of reality. To the other, I'm not sure there is a good presentation for an online forum. Over the years, I've encountered two primary methods of presentation:
• Long and predictably incomplete.
• Short and problematically incomplete.
• Short and problematically incomplete.
Those determined to find some fault always will; that is, even the long form is predictably incomplete as it is impossible to cover every facet, and a dedicated mind will fashion a significant objection over some obscure foundation.
But the short form is problematically incomplete. For instance—
Those who celebrate this application of the rules because it has resulted in the suspension of someone they don't like will most probably be mortified when similar standards are applied to them.
—if I open with something short like my summary for Mordea, how many posts and words will be spent filling in the gaps, for Mordea's or anyone else's benefit, of what I mean?
Over the years, I've found that one simply cannot go by the short form and get everything in; the discussion will invariably deviate from a given path before one gets all the way through the argument. Indeed, I think this is why people complain, and want something shorter: they need it diced up into bite-sized chunks so they can respond to each component independently—e.g., "fisking"—and pretend they're really smart even though they have no legitimate thematic clue what they're trying to address.
In any forum where three syllables are the "big words" threshold, there really isn't much to count as the "best" presentation.
The underlying problem with your posts, tiassa, is that you write in platitudes, generalities, and vague terms. If you stick to a specific example, and you name names, and call it like it is, instead of writing something gay like "since when is it a crime to speak the truth?", or define the meaning of the word "for", then you won't have to write 2000-word essays every time.
Whether your posts are complete or not, when you write long drivel, no one will read your post anyway, and then it won't just be incomplete, it will be unread.
Whether your posts are complete or not, when you write long drivel, no one will read your post anyway, and then it won't just be incomplete, it will be unread.
Oh I agree. I've written many posts and had to go back and fill in the blanks for people unwilling to connect the dots on their own. And, to be fair, connecting my dots is typically a bit difficult as I am a very non-linear thinker.
My point is that the people arguing against you are unwilling to actually take 10 minutes to digest what you've said, which is an indictment of their attention span, I guess.
I have the same problem with the first year college students I teach---they buy a $200 physics textbook and look at the pictures, skip the text and highlight all the equations. Then they wonder why they fail the test.
This and that
I hadn't realized heterosexuality was a barrier to understanding the definition of a three-letter word. Maybe that's the problem, then: not enough buggery for James.
And people think Sciforums is removed from reality. It's not. It's just a metaphor. Analog. Allegory. One of those.
Okay, okay. I don't mean to sound like I'm arguing the point with you. I get it. Mostly I'm just amused that someone troubled by three-syllable words should complain about presentation.
I always wonder if people like that are capable of reading novels. ("It was the best of times, it was the worst of times." Come on, Charlie, you can't have it both ways!)
Otheadp said:
I hadn't realized heterosexuality was a barrier to understanding the definition of a three-letter word. Maybe that's the problem, then: not enough buggery for James.
• • •
BenTheMan said:
And people think Sciforums is removed from reality. It's not. It's just a metaphor. Analog. Allegory. One of those.
Okay, okay. I don't mean to sound like I'm arguing the point with you. I get it. Mostly I'm just amused that someone troubled by three-syllable words should complain about presentation.
I always wonder if people like that are capable of reading novels. ("It was the best of times, it was the worst of times." Come on, Charlie, you can't have it both ways!)
You're the one troubled by that word. So much so, that you bothered to write a whole typically-lengthy post about it, and even linking to a dictionary definition (those are 2 4-syllable words in a row! gasp!) of that word. And considering the word is "for", that's just plain fucking weird! (though par-for-the-course for you).
I'm merely ROTFLMAOing at you for being so darn hilarious
"People like that"? "Charlie?" There you go being gay again...
Man, sometimes I really enjoy reading your attempts at being sophisticated, with all the special centering tags, and the unique font for the people you quote...
And by the way, people who actually are gay would be pretty quick to realize that when I say "gay" I'm not talking about them, or about their sexual preferences. If you were even one-tenth as sophisticated as you try your hardest to portray yourself to be, you'd realize that. For.
Heh...I was just doing a bit of trolling, successfully diverting the thread for a bit
Don't mind me...
And if you want evidence of that, check how few people discuss anything with him! Most people, as clearly seen in thread after thread, just don't want to be bothered by having to read all of Tiassa's never-ending word barrage ...which often means very freakin' little. It's just words to make him feel important and knowledgeable .....which he is not as evidenced by his posts. What he is, however, as evidenced by his posts, is self-righteous.
Baron Max
Ahhh but quality trumps quantity, no?
NB: This was intended as a response to Max about quality of discussions, but I now see the irony when talking about Tiassa's narratives
Ahhh but quality trumps quantity, no?
NB: This was intended as a response to Max about quality of discussions, but I now see the irony when talking about Tiassa's narratives
Somebody forgot to inform multiple-syllable-and-tag-and-font-boy over here
Notes Around
Actually, I don't have much trouble with it. That was James.
Thank you for confirming that.
It seems to be getting to that point, doesn't it?
And don't let me stop you. I keep waiting for something useful to come up. Which reminds me ....
The underlying problem is going to happen from time to time. And every once in a while, it causes a riot. Some moderators openly note their conflicts of interest to their fellows, and some attempt to pretend they don't exist. There are general solutions, but they can get complex, and it is clear to me that in some issues our judgment is expected to be as simplistic, cowed, and predetermined as possible.
And how other people behave is, in fact, relevant. Just like judicial precedent, how we handle various problems ought to be relatively consistent each time a variation on the theme arises. What troubles me about the action against S.A.M. is:
Over the long run, we've been able to police one another to a reasonable degree; infraction have been lifted, suspensions overturned, &c. On this occasion, though, there is virtually no avenue for recourse. This comes from the top and sets an extremely problematic precedent. The faction supporting this action, in my opinion, is making a villain of fairness. That is, we are expected in this to presuppose the worst in a person and judge from there. And by that presupposition we justify bizarre notions like determining what someone wrote by ignoring what they wrote. Our great bastion of the scientific method might as well be holding seances in the back room.
And, to answer your question specifically, the probability that S.A.M. received impartial treatment is zero out of whatever whole number you assign to the other side of the ratio.
Otheadp said:
Actually, I don't have much trouble with it. That was James.
Thank you for confirming that.
• • •
BenTheMan said:
Heh...I was just doing a bit of trolling, successfully diverting the thread for a bit
It seems to be getting to that point, doesn't it?
And don't let me stop you. I keep waiting for something useful to come up. Which reminds me ....
• • •
Mordea said:
The underlying problem is going to happen from time to time. And every once in a while, it causes a riot. Some moderators openly note their conflicts of interest to their fellows, and some attempt to pretend they don't exist. There are general solutions, but they can get complex, and it is clear to me that in some issues our judgment is expected to be as simplistic, cowed, and predetermined as possible.
And how other people behave is, in fact, relevant. Just like judicial precedent, how we handle various problems ought to be relatively consistent each time a variation on the theme arises. What troubles me about the action against S.A.M. is:
• It was predictable.
• It was retaliatory.
• It is exceptional.
• I sincerely, gravely doubt that the standard invoked will be equally applied.
• It was retaliatory.
• It is exceptional.
• I sincerely, gravely doubt that the standard invoked will be equally applied.
Over the long run, we've been able to police one another to a reasonable degree; infraction have been lifted, suspensions overturned, &c. On this occasion, though, there is virtually no avenue for recourse. This comes from the top and sets an extremely problematic precedent. The faction supporting this action, in my opinion, is making a villain of fairness. That is, we are expected in this to presuppose the worst in a person and judge from there. And by that presupposition we justify bizarre notions like determining what someone wrote by ignoring what they wrote. Our great bastion of the scientific method might as well be holding seances in the back room.
And, to answer your question specifically, the probability that S.A.M. received impartial treatment is zero out of whatever whole number you assign to the other side of the ratio.
How much do you want?
- Status