citrons

i don't think that particular person is intentionally trying to cause problems.

sure. if they were, we would have banned them.

I'm not entirely sure that's true. sure, there is a particular person who is causing a lot of problems, but I've actually seen some of this behavior in others.

someone going around telling people that things they are interested in are "objectively harmful and masochistic" or "regressive propaganda" doesn't seem very nice to me.

that's true. it's not very nice. however, we're trying to avoid rehashing arguments in this thread.

I feel that perhaps we should ban the kinds of bad faith arguments that often occur. when you disagree with someone about something, make sure that:

• if your position was false, that there could be an argument that could convince you that it was false that someone else could actually reasonably give
• you are actually making an effort to consider the possibilities of what that person might mean, as opposed to immediately assuming that it means one specific thing
• your position is actually grounded in reality
• you can actually express your position in a way that is comprehensible to others, as opposed to assuming that they'll know what you mean
• your dissent is appropriate, kind, worthwhile, and warranted. do not derail conversations by throwing around inflamatory terms out of the blue. they must actually correspond to the severity and importance of what is discussed. when in doubt, hold your tongue.

the only official rule of apionet is "do not be a bad person; do not do bad things". we reserve the right to moderate in any way we want, but these are perhaps some guidelines that we could put into effect.

Nobody likes moving things between channels.

they don't like being banned/kicked either.

I have been so far been personally mostly unbothered by the admittedly quite pointless arguments that are occurring in apionet. though I don't think arguments are inherently hostile or unpleasant, others may feel otherwise. regardless of whether or not decorum is maintained, the circularity of the arguments can definitely be irritating, and I understand finding them frustrating or offputting.

I previously thought that the arguments in apionet did not displace other kinds of more productive conversations. but perhaps I am wrong. I thought of the pointless arguments as at least something to do, and I also genuinely wished to tease out the assumptions being made and to reach a mutual understanding and increase of knowledge. however, this is very difficult considering the way that some people engage in argument.

I want apionet to be enjoyable, pleasant, and perhaps productive for those who talk in it. so, what should we do to address this?

please try to avoid pointing fingers or rehashing old arguments in this thread and instead try to focus on ways we can improve apionet.

oh yeah. it starts with post #2. post #1 is lost media. so sad.

good. can we see?

it's funny how this thread is owned by me, but the first post in it is not mine. I can't remember how that came to be.

certain people certainly want this and are succeeding to a certain extent

I need to go see a man about a pre.

yeah!!!

I was exposed to the ravens who in their grace pecked and clawed all of my organs out.

hi, linda.

yeah

the Skydragon

horniness is godliness.

but before Jerry could even take one step away, the trap door blown asunder from the fireball of a ghast, with the opening immediately caving in, swallowing all above.

I ought to read these books.

vraiment

aggravated from being unnoticed, and as ghasts are wont, Big Brother regurgitated a flaming mass towards Elise and her tactical operatives.

they had been prepared for many things, but they could not have predicted the cacophony of screeching square specters suspended at the scene.

they were at once aghast at the scene before them.

I wish to begin an activity. the rules of the activity are as follows:

• in this thread, one may post a reply containing a single sentence.
• each sentence should contribute to an overall story.
• anything goes story-wise (except that which should be obvious), but each reply should be a good-faith contribution to the story, and keep in mind the cardinal rule of improv, "never say no*".
• one may not post two replies in a row.
• refresh the page right before posting to avoid conflicting replies.

I will post the first sentence.

* do not take this literally

well, that's a form of discussion.

bee, that sounds frustrating.

not using features does not mean they do not exist. they are used in codebases and libraries, burden implementations, and inform the usage and idioms of the language in general. you can't just ignore the complexity of a complex language.

also, C++ fails at being an extension to C. C++ is not a full superset of C.

I think that C++ is a horribly overcomplicated kitchen sink language that fails to improve many major flaws of C, being layered haphazardly upon it.