the guidelines are already implied and being followed
caesar, there have been arguments with you wherein you have completely denied direct evidence provided against your claims.
we are yet to be introduced to various mechanisms which will alter our ability to so brazenly ascend forth, particularly that of skin.
who is mark?
— citrons
- joined
- a very long time ago
recent posts
[make sure that] 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.
this is why I wrote this!!
if you can't understand this, we might have to just ban you. again. indefinitely. oh, how unethical!
addendum: consider the fact that I mean words the way I mean them, not the way you mean them. when I say "kind and appropriate", I mean "kind and appropriate" by my standards, not by yours. I am expecting you to adhere to "kind and appropriate" by my standards.
I concede that it may be difficult, for one reason or another, to consider how what you say affects another person. but when they tell you how it affects them, you should actually listen to them.
When descriptions are levied upon things, politeness is irrelevant: things are not people, and have no feelings that can be hurt. It is irrational for a person to take offense on behalf of things.
instead of reverting to your dogmatic principles, I will ask you to instead consider why someone might dislike having their interest called "objectively harmful and masochistic". do not try to convince me of why you called it that, because we're trying not to rehash these arguments, and because, quite frankly, you're wrong. either you need to gain some perspective or gain some restraint.
the fact that you are willing to acknowledge no problem in your behavior is a problem.
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.
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.
I was exposed to the ravens who in their grace pecked and clawed all of my organs out.
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.
aggravated from being unnoticed, and as ghasts are wont, Big Brother regurgitated a flaming mass towards Elise and her tactical operatives.