Thraxle, please read again my comment about sarcasm as it looks like you did not understand it.

Monte, Das and others, from the point of view of a non-coconut/medals bearer, you all are pretty infatuated with yourselves which is pretty funny when you think about what you have accomplished so far. As example, you ignore the non coconut bearers when they talk to you, you threaten them as if your threat are worth more than others, and so on and so forth...

I wished you all came down from your mini pedestals...

funny, this is first time you have addressed me in this thread. what is it you would like to talk about?

So veta just compared himself to the pope.

"i just dont make unsound arguments. its a distinction i'd like to draw"...

lol,

I also found... "it's my civic duty"... amusing as well.

sure buddy, your arguments are sound if you don't mind tossing around a bit of straw man. Vague premises leaning heavily upon a mess of poorly supported if at all "A priori", although handy for you Im sure is hardly sound. The innuendo, sure, it's kinda misty, but oozing out all over nonetheless. The entire product of which, seems to be amounting to little more than some fat ass helpings of weak sauce. Not to mention stiffening or selling your argument by taking huge license in convoluting your contexts or levels of abstractions so they conveniently fit the facts doesn't help your case much either. Most of which I'll say is besides the point.

Sad part is that a few of the other members, perhaps foolishly, appear to be representing themselves or at least their perspective in earnest. Offering more of a "genuine article" if you like, even in their sarcasm and/or ad hom. I generally mean what I say in these discussions, with an aim. Fuck who's right, if I'm wrong identify false to facts underlying premise so we can move on. That said, if there's been any success on your part, it's managing to keep some of them from realizing it's little more than an exercise in "mental masturbation" for you, essentially conning them into thinking they're actually engaging a potentially useful debate or discussion. You're more interested in "Rebuttal Volleyball", perhaps fun once in awhile but a legitimate debate it does not make. On this you'd be hard pressed to convince me otherwise. It's all right there black and white on the page when you look at your shit. Now that I've brought that up others might identify it better and avoid that trap.

Not much of a payoff in it either, even for you, aside from the cortical farts you experience and are getting off on. Those sincere in finding some real reconciliation leading to something usable, are more inclined to stay tethered to the basic elementary facts as they apply to the situation and a sharp eye for false to fact premise. When it comes to "making distinctions" as you say, you might wanna brush up on the differences found in connotative commentary versus denotative not mention objective versus subjective perspective or analysis cause you seriously suck at it.

What is funny about this debate is that none of you seems to have any care in achieving something. It appears that the only rationale of this endless discution is to make fun of Veta... Not very interesting even though I concede he is an interesting character...

Now, I have raised in one of my previous comment the following points that none of you have tried to answer. I believe that it is worth it (it's normal I wrote it)... Anyone up for it?


PS:
Thraxle,
Just to add one more thing. Sam's comment is definitely offensive from a 1rst degree analysis. Now if you imply that he was sarcastic, that everyone had to read this with a second degree twist in it, id like to make the following comments:
1) you can say that it is the same for each sentence that is posted on the chat. Who can decide who is serious and who he is not? As example, This guy wrote Nig... But he is french and he doesnt know the true connotation it has in the US, and so on and so forth...
2) this is the internet and we do not know who we are talking to. Lets assume that Sam knows that jona is not a person with down syndrom. But what about his sister? What about any other playrer at the table that would have a close relative with this disease. Would they find this comment offensive? I would say yes and i will give you the following example to explain why: i did call someone "retard" one day and this person got really offended as her sister was a person with down syndrom. He asked to never call him by this name ever again.

so my point is that words are words and they mean something. I do not get offended, you do not get offended but other people might if they are offensive. For all th reasons given above, i believe sam's comment fall in this category. And this is where mods have to draw the line if there is a line to be drawn.

I hope you see my point here.

for the record, if sam werent a mod, i still dont think he should be banned for saying this. maybe chided, sure. just like how you shouldnt be banned for calling someone a retard. the only difference was that jona was in no way offended (he claims his neighbor has downs... way after the fact, what a coincidence) (and he also calls people retarded at kdice tables all the time) (its obv he's just pissed at sam). and in your scenario, the person was definitely offended. so you learned your lesson, because you were convinced of the genuineness of the person you offended. in no way shape or form am i convinced of jona being offended here.

anyways words are words, its the spirit behind them that matters. in both cases both you and sam were fired up at someone, probably for good reason. so you reacted in anger. its just sam has less anger management skills than most. most internet users tend to be the same.

for an example of monte's last paragraph, see Yodel, TheBetter.

Monte: For the record I don't think half the shit that's banned should be bannned (speech wise). But if you're banning some things for certain reasons it follows you should ban this too, not sure why it takes 200 posts to understand that though.

Gangster: I don't know who the fuck you are. But I recognize that you are part of the confederacy of dunces that's here to just assassinate my character, bravo. In any meaningful dialogue I've had there's always a person like you or KDP that barges in and essentially weighs social capital in order to decide who they agree with. What I mean to say is, I bet if Monte, Thraxle, Sam, and Das agreed that this should be banned and it was just a random player that said this you too would agree it should be banned - especially if I disagreed.

Of course that is not the case, the folly of it all (if you could call it that) is that we have precedents set by moderators where in this would be banned - this is something that cannot be argued. For better or worse the moderators are judged on their collective efforts, I understand that may seem unfair to the individual moderator but when one makes a stupid ban or sets a poor precedent, all of the moderators do - by the very virtue of not contesting it. According to some moderators this falls well within the lines of what they would ban, I'm not speaking as though I asked other moderators (they wouldn't give me the time of day), no I'm simply referring to the precedents and past bannings they've made.

Lastly, who the fuck are you gangster and why the fuck should I care what you say? But please, you're welcome to take a seat at the kangaroo court.

KDP: I didn't compare myself to the pope. I compared everyone who always sides with the moderators to those who believe the pope is infallible. When Monte suggested I am full of myself and think I am infallible I replied I don't think I'm infallible I just think given the information at my disposal I make the best (most sound) argument I can make.

But don't worry, there's always an extra seat at the kangaroo court. Seriously KDP I figured you would be reasonable enough to see how collectively there is hypocrisy among the moderators on what gets banned and what doesn't. If it wasn't Sam who said this and it wasn't Jona who was offended (say it was you) and you brought this to Bone-Roller you could expect a ban. Don't act like that's not true.


All the above being said, it's still the case that Sam has banned and has threatened to ban for the equivalent in terms of slurs against other discriminated groups (thrillho brought up 'faggots' but I'm sure he's made a ban for 'nigger' before as well). Therein lies the rub, gents, banning for what you yourself are guilty of. I've been banned for writing an expletive after being ping bombed by Zoid at Trendz' request. I said "trendz you truly are a nigger," trendz screenshotted this and I was banned by rowdy. So I'm not speaking from just second-hand knowledge. I've been victim of these sorts of bans as well - it's ridiculous and while some of you think I'm here just to piss of the moderators my real motives lie somewhere between that and actually addressing the issue - which is should we as a community really be punishing short bursts of indiscretionary speech?

I don't expect to be taken seriously though, I expect that there were be a carrousel of character assassination and ad hominems in my wake. The opposition has proven, unfortunately, that it is nothing more than a confederacy of dunces.

would be a fun video game, veta vs the confederacy of dunces.

i think verms nailed it with the grey area thing (altho his logic was in the avatar thread). these are grey areas. no matter what decision is made, insults will be thrown at the mod by either the group that says he/she should've banned or the group that says he/she shouldn't have banned.

this particular case seems almost split down the middle from what ive seen in this thread. whats annoying is that whenever people like greek come on and say sam is wrong, the opposition appreciates his view and treats him with respect, even though they disagree with him. however, when someone comes in and says that he supports sam, veta, you give him zero respect/appreciation and conclude that he is a member of the confederacy of loonies or whatever you called it.

if you ever want to have a decent argument, you need to learn how listen, how to understand, and how to judge. and how to respond in a graceful non-condescending manner. otherwise chances are everyone is wasting their time. i mean this not just in kdice land, but in real life. your personal relationships, whether at home or on a professional level, will blossom.

but i sorta agree with whoever it was that said you arent even really arguing veta. made me lol, remembering the old monty python sketch:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RDjCqjzbvJY&t=1m17s