Gangstrrr,
sorry for losing my patience, but if you do not discriminate, you insult a lot which in the end gets tiring.
As well, the point you are making is wrong. Truth does not always prevail. It would be too easy. The truth will prevail if others participating in the discussion are aware of the truth. This is not the case here.

We are in democracy. At the end of the day, the person who will win the argument is the one that rally the most people behind him, regardless of the truth.

So to go back to our example about Veta, you can do character assasination, regardless of you knowing him or not. And you might be as convincing as he is. What matters in the end, is that you convince people that you are right, not that you are actually right.

Sage wisdom herv.

ehervey... ** sorry for losing my patience, but if you do not discriminate, you insult a lot which in the end gets tiring. **

You know, it's old habits. Comes from too many years in rough and tumble political sites. Comes back a little too easy im afraid. I will do my best to respect your intentions and focus on the topic at hand.


Anyway, you kind of got a piece of what I'm saying but haven't quite integrated the rest of it. Essentially, you're right when you said... The truth WILL prevail if others participating in the discussion are aware of the truth. This is not the case here. **

And that's my point. While strictly in the company of those capable of applying or understanding the method, you're right, it's less of a problem. The "truth" is labelled such not because I say so but because analysis demonstrates a consistency in outcome when what are deemed to be the facts are applied. I agree, the forum is far from ideal in that respect and will contain those unwilling to ACCEPT or question what REALITY has to say about itself. Essentially what you are saying is that I'm capable of swaying the "moron majority" onto my side. Well, maybe. So what. It's no great feat and doesn't interest me much. I've noticed a few rather intelligent people here. It's their opinion that interests me more. In daily life more often than NOT you're going to be faced with a mixed bag of characters, some who will foolishly refuse to acknowledge that which has been shown capable of being invalidated. There really isn't anything that you and I can do about that. In the final analysis however, all the thundering dismissals irrespective of the sheer volume or numbers will not sway the minds of those who WILL understand the above. That's about all you can ever hope to get. All of us are more or less forced to settle for that.

You added.... ** We are in democracy. At the end of the day, the person who will win the argument is the one that rally the most people behind him, regardless of the truth. **

The arrangement here at Kdice is not democratic, it's closer to being unilateral. I've already gone into that several times. The principals don't apply as effectively here, if at all. I'm not going to say anymore about that at this time.

When referring to the public domain, sure, you bring to light one of democracies shortcomings, perhaps a fatal one. But democracies seem to operate even LESS by way of scientific method, largely because the generalized social structure is an even bigger mixed bag AND remains even more prone to being convinced solely on sloganeering, rhetorical nonsense thereby gaining it's support by targeting and eliciting very specific key emotional triggers. The general population having yet to fully acknowledge that current administrations have the added benefit of having turned this method into a hard science have no chance and never will until the social structure evolves or more accurately, matures. The "consequences" here at kdice however, are a little different as opposed to how democracy affects our daily lives. We have a small tight group. As I've already stated, what interests me here is the opinion of those who are obviously quite a bit beyond being fooled by any rhetorical slander I could hope to (erroneously) inflict on Veta's personal character ALONE ! Far as any influence I might have on a few clowns lurking about I kinda feel is irrelevant. If Veta's shit is sound, it will stand the test...WHERE IT COUNTS. Anyways enuf of that. You raise a complex issue and I've gone off about it too much already.


You also added... ** So to go back to our example about Veta, you can do character assasination, regardless of you knowing him or not. And you might be as convincing as he is. What matters in the end, is that you convince people that you are right, not that you are actually right. **

Again, sorta but not really. YES, I'll admit I certainly can make ATTEMPTS at it. However, since I've OPENLY ADMITTED and established that anything I say about his personal character is probably going to be more or less BULLSHIT because I don't know enough about him... do you mean to say that after having said that and they STILL believe me... that it's still my fault ??... Nobody is THAT good at convincing anybody of anything. The type of person who might buy into it anyways would have to be a retard in the strictest sense and of no consequence to this discussion. Listen, overall I think Veta believes in what he's trying to do here. But I think his approach is off, and let's say even if he was 100% correct in every way, the facts show, by shear demonstration that his approach in itself, is NOT "working". After 300 posts that ought to be obvious. I don't care how grand it might seem in his mind, if it's not going anywhere and will not be embraced.... it's useless.

SAGE wisdom ??

Hows that, because he supports your whiny bitch about you being unable to voice your opinion over and above all the character assassination NOISE ?

again, how is that relevant ?

Turn the fucking tables around. Maybe that'll make more sense to you. Go ahead. Take your best shot. Character assassinate me. In fact bring a bunch of your homies and really gang up on me. It's a little difficult I agree because likewise you know little or nothing about me. See what I'm getting at ?? I could care less if hundreds attacked me solely on ad hom and personal character alone. It's not a legitimate counter, simple fact. Bring me ONE person while hundreds slander me, who can argue my premise on the content alone and I'm happy. I mean ehervey even tried it some on me. And yea, I'll admit I toyed with it some, it can be fun but eventually the novelty wears off and no longer interests me....

So there's the test... DO the experiment. Bring it !!!! Slander the fuck out of me, and lets see if your theory stands up. Lets find out if in fact it "effectively" invalidates in any way, any of my arguments...


Im waiting..................

Two things:

When people already have a funhouse mirror image of me as some sort of archetypal villain it's not hard to distract the audience at large with attacks on my character and/or credibility - which is why I have to be extremely vigilant when anything can be interpreted as such. I've been slandered to such a great degree by influential people in the community (Jurgen, for example) that it's not easy to come back as a strong debater - i've been made vulnerable by spiteful remarks from influential members of the community (not to mention Jurgen trying to silence me for 2 months straight). That being said, i like to think your optimism is right insofar as that the truth will prevail "where it counts", among the intelligent of the community. To be frank with you though gangster, my arguments are intended to appeal to a broad audience though - not just the intellectuals here.


Two, I think I accomplished my aims when this thread broke 100 posts. I simply wanted to spark a controversy and subsequent discussion over perceived hypocrisy in how the collective moderators operate. I think I accomplished that.


P.S. just saw your next post, I'm not going to resort to ad hominin or strawmanning you or character assassination. But I hope you would agree its probably easier to attack my character or credibility instead of my argument, especially given all the recent slander and liabel certain members of the community have been spewing. I'm not playing the victim card, I'm just stating observations.

huh... I'll be honest, what you just did was fairly uncommon and quite frankly I didn't see it comin and kinda surprised the fuck out of me.

It's to be some of the most intelligent shit I've heard you say here. It's getting late. Gonna give what you had to say some thought. I'll respond if anything useful comes up.

Actually, this conversation is slowly starting to make sense.

Gang... I follow your point, but I am still not sure I agree with you. I think you should read the "Big Inquisitor" in "The Brother Karamasov" from Doestoiesvky. You might change your mind in terms of who you are trying to talk to, as your scene might be very small.

http://www.online-literature.com/dostoevsky/brothers_karamazov/

To finish and to go back to the point, I still believe that Sam, who has not answered any of my comment, is wrong about Mod consistency across the website. I believe that his rationale is twisted and would not hold any ground in any court of law.

Three things...

1) Veta is only mad at the mods because they moderated him. Had he never been banned for any of his transgressions he'd be more than happy to allow the status quo to continue.

2) We've discussed this a little Alex, but you bring the character assassinations upon yourself due to your pitbull-like stubbornness when arguing your points. The character assassinations spew both ways (on you and from you) which makes most of your arguments lose luster. I know you TRY to keep it civil and to the point, but you inevitably stray off course be it from others goading you on, or you being unable to convince them through your opinions/facts.

3) Nothing....let me repeat that....NOTHING is going to change in the moderation of this site until Ryan decides to clear up the rules or implement moderation guidelines. I know you think the rules are clear-cut, but they aren't. They are open to everyones personal interpretation which is what leads to the "inconsistencies" you continue to harp on. Five rules for a website is vague at best, can we agree on that?

Thraxle,

I actually agree with your 3rd point. Now, there were only one way to sort that out; at the time, "Mods-to-be" should have told Ryan that either he gives them clear guidelines on how to Mod the site, either he allows Mods to create the guidelines or you will be not be able to perform the job, therefore you will not take it.
It would be like policemen trying to do their job with no laws to guide them. It would lead to civil war...

Here we are in Kdice war! Erkan is furious, Veta is furious, Sam is furious... Everyone is 100% sure to be correct and no one is as there is no rules to say who is right and who is wrong! Thats the beauty if it...

So as it is not that difficult to fix the problem, maybe we should try. You, Veta, Sam & co... should all send an email to Ryan to ask him to PUBLISH GUIDELINES!