With regards to shanedk and MasterGhostKnight

[shanedk]

Reading through the comments I am not sure that anyone has touched on this bit of what you had to say, though I am still trying to play catch up on all the posts. So let me say that I for one accept your apology and add that, while I might not have come to the same conclusion as you (though I'' admit to being slightly shocked seeing the logo there), I can completely understand why you concluded that MGK was speaking on behalf of the LoR as a whole.

Thank you. I was beginning to wonder if someone would.

 

[Atomicnumber86]

"I DO understand--I understand the meaning of ad hominem."

Clearly you don't

"HE accused ME of disrupting the thread (which WAS an ad hominem, by the way)"

First of all, Monitor adresses that statement to both you and MGK, by stating it is a screaming match.
I.e. You calling people assholes.

"I pointed out that it was MGK who came in and did the very things he accused ME of doing. I then said what I said to indicate that he was being a sycophant. That's NOT an ad hominem; that's a DIRECT evaluation of his behavior."

First MGK apologized. Then he said that when you do not like the answer, you will call them a liar.
And that was all he said to this moment in time.
When exactly did he come with ad hominems?
The first entry is not ad hominems. You did try to poison this board.

How did you come to that conclusion, is what is boggling me.

"Now, will you get off the gay thing?"

Yes, when you admit it was an ad hominem. There was no reason for you to call them butt-buddies.

"Geez...do you react this way when someone's accused of being an ass-kisser or a brown-noser?"

If it is a lie, yes..

"I criticized YOUR post. The fact you made the same mistakes as someone else changes nothing."

I have not made any mistakes. I am just stating my opinion on the matter. With your own words against you

"YES IT IS!!! He made a DIRECT accusation of me! I dealt with THAT accusation! I pointed out HIS hypocrisy and double-standard! There is NO WAY that could POSSIBLY be an ad hominem!!!"

Close to Pratchett's law. 3 exclamation marks..
See that was an ad hominem. (Even thou it has basis)

It was adressed at both of you, but since you started it on this forum, it was mostly adressed at you.

Because you never ever ever ever acused him, right?

Ad hominem insults by you, on the first page:
..Official release by the LoR as opposed to some luser with Windows Movie Maker who's just spitballing?
..it's a League of People Saying Whatever the Fuck They Want..
The fact that you even have the audacity to CALL yourself a skeptic should offend every genuine skeptic here to his very bones!
You fucking assholes...your motto is, "No good deed goes unpunished,"
Pathetic, disgusting, lying WORMS!!!
You're a disgusting LIAR, nothing more.
I don't think you have it anywhere in you to abide by Da Rules, as reasonable as they are.

 

[surhotchaperchlorome]

"I DO understand--I understand the meaning of ad hominem."

Clearly you don't

"HE accused ME of disrupting the thread (which WAS an ad hominem, by the way)"

First of all, Monitor adresses that statement to both you and MGK, by stating it is a screaming match.
I.e. You calling people assholes.

So the fact that Shane first posted to apologize, where MGK comes in and whines about him being hypocritical had nothing to do with that. Besides, it's still not an ad hominem.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem#Common_misconceptions_about_ad_hominem

"I pointed out that it was MGK who came in and did the very things he accused ME of doing. I then said what I said to indicate that he was being a sycophant. That's NOT an ad hominem; that's a DIRECT evaluation of his behavior."

First MGK apologized. Then he said that when you do not like the answer, you will call them a liar.
And that was all he said to this moment in time.
When exactly did he come with ad hominems?
The first entry is not ad hominems. You did try to poison this board.

How did you come to that conclusion, is what is boggling me.

He was addressing the use of the board's logo in a video used to try and discredit him. That's not poisoning, so much as more of a redress of grievances.

"Now, will you get off the gay thing?"

Yes, when you admit it was an ad hominem. There was no reason for you to call them butt-buddies.

"Geez...do you react this way when someone's accused of being an ass-kisser or a brown-noser?"

If it is a lie, yes..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem#Common_misconceptions_about_ad_hominem

"I criticized YOUR post. The fact you made the same mistakes as someone else changes nothing."

I have not made any mistakes. I am just stating my opinion on the matter. With your own words against you

Well for one, you don't know what an Ad hominem is.

"YES IT IS!!! He made a DIRECT accusation of me! I dealt with THAT accusation! I pointed out HIS hypocrisy and double-standard! There is NO WAY that could POSSIBLY be an ad hominem!!!"

Close to Pratchett's law. 3 exclamation marks..
See that was an ad hominem. (Even thou it has basis)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem#Common_misconceptions_about_ad_hominem

It was addressed at both of you, but since you started it on this forum, it was mostly addressed at you.

Because you never ever ever ever acused him, right?

Ad hominem insults by you, on the first page:
..Official release by the LoR as opposed to some luser with Windows Movie Maker who's just spitballing?
..it's a League of People Saying Whatever the Fuck They Want..
The fact that you even have the audacity to CALL yourself a skeptic should offend every genuine skeptic here to his very bones!
You fucking assholes...your motto is, "No good deed goes unpunished,"
Pathetic, disgusting, lying WORMS!!!
You're a disgusting LIAR, nothing more.
I don't think you have it anywhere in you to abide by Da Rules, as reasonable as they are.

It was of the first post Shane asked for, and again: "Gratuitous verbal abuse or "name-calling" itself is not an argumentum ad hominem or a logical fallacy. The fallacy only occurs if personal attacks are employed in the stead of an argument to devalue an argument by attacking the speaker, not personal insults in the middle of an otherwise sound argument or insults that stand alone." Wikipedia on the subject
Besides, considering the constant double standard of people allowing folks like you, MGK Improbable Joe and others to look the other way when they're assholes to him, but give him hell when he fights back, doesn't say good for the board.

 

[Gunboat Diplomat]

Quotations are NOT italics. With every post, you show yourself to be more and more desperate.

No, but italic can be quotes. You should be able to tell the difference betweens those two. Orange can't be a car, but a car can be orange.

No, seriously, that's not English. Please don't spread this piece of misinformation. Thank you...

 

[rabbitpirate]

Actually, the fact that this thread has gone on as long as it has is a kind of testament to shanedk's point. Since Thiswasatriumph stopped posting there has been a distinct lack of moderation on this site. Even so the site's integrity has held up pretty well, but perhaps it is time to appoint some new moderators or make sure the old ones hang around a bit more often.

I just looked at there appear to be only 11 moderators for over 3400 members. If people are breaking the rules and getting away with it then this probably has a lot to do with it. If anyone would like to offer their services as a moderator then the best thing to do is drop AndromedasWake a line, I am sure the help would be appreciated.

 

[borrofburi]

No, seriously, that's not English. Please don't spread this piece of misinformation. Thank you...

Eh, you should learn hacker usages of the english language, it all has an extra element of rationality about it (as opposed to deference to historical usage) (and coincidentally, very much the way I use things, especially quotation marks). More importantly, you're engaging in prescriptive linguistics, which has a variety of problems.

EDIT: and I found after I posted this response that while emphasis may not be accepted, using quotes to signal unusual usage is accepted (as well as to generally mark other things (so it seems that emphasizing someone else's usage of a word is ok, but it is not ok if you do it to emphasize your own usage of the word)). Also quotation marks can be used in place of italics to note that you're talking about the word itself rather than the object the word relates to (like talking about a pointer instead of the address the pointer points to).

 

[MikeFoz]

Actually, the fact that this thread has gone on as long as it has is a kind of testament to shanedk's point. Since Thiswasatriumph stopped posting there has been a distinct lack of moderation on this site. Even so the site's integrity has held up pretty well, but perhaps it is time to appoint some new moderators or make sure the old ones hang around a bit more often.

I just looked at there appear to be only 11 moderators for over 3400 members. If people are breaking the rules and getting away with it then this probably has a lot to do with it. If anyone would like to offer their services as a moderator then the best thing to do is drop AndromedasWake a line, I am sure the help would be appreciated.

I'd say it's about 3 or 4 active moderators at the moment, and I've been relying on reports issued against topics/posts as I can't spend as much time here as we'd all obviously love to.

 

[shanedk]

Clearly you don't

Ooh, that showed me...

First of all, Monitor adresses that statement to both you and MGK,

No, he absolutely did not! The address at the top of the post said, "Shanedk:" not "Shanedk and MasterGhostKnight:"

It was addressed to ME AND ME ALONE.

First MGK apologized.

Irrelevant, as he turned right around and accused me of hypocrisy when ALL I did was apologize and clarify my position.

Then he said that when you do not like the answer, you will call them a liar.

No, I call people a liar when they LIE. EVERY SINGLE TIME I back it up.

When exactly did he come with ad hominems?

"I would like to add that it is with great hypocrisy that ShaneDk comes back into this board trying to poison to people into vilifying my character and the League of Reason itself."

"After the League of Reason assisted you on fighting your cases of censorship, and even after we (me included) helped you the first thing that you did was to criticize it."

"if I may remind you the reason why you left this forum was because of my criticism embarrassed you so hard that you have never set foot ever again until now."

"And in your pride in not admitting that a single person alone could have done it, you have blamed the LoR for it, and that is the official story that you tell to your viewers."

Those are ALL ad hominem attacks. Not to mention OUTRIGHT LIES.

The first entry is not ad hominems. You did try to poison this board.

HOW???

How did you come to that conclusion, is what is boggling me.

I explained myself perfectly well. If you don't want to see it, it's because of your own bias.

Yes, when you admit it was an ad hominem. There was no reason for you to call them butt-buddies.

Butt-buddy means sycophant. It was NOT an ad hominem, since I pointed out his double-standard justifying the characterization. It was NOT IN ANY WAY an ad hominem.

If it is a lie, yes..

First of all, I supported it, so it wasn't a lie. Second, you didn't answer my question: are those slurs against gays?

I have not made any mistakes.

You have REPEATEDLY called things ad hominem which are clearly not, even after being corrected on the definition.

It was adressed at both of you,

Again, no, it wasn't. The address at the top was to me and me alone.

Ad hominem insults by you, on the first page:
..Official release by the LoR as opposed to some luser with Windows Movie Maker who's just spitballing?
..it's a League of People Saying Whatever the Fuck They Want..
The fact that you even have the audacity to CALL yourself a skeptic should offend every genuine skeptic here to his very bones!
You fucking assholes...your motto is, "No good deed goes unpunished,"
Pathetic, disgusting, lying WORMS!!!
You're a disgusting LIAR, nothing more.
I don't think you have it anywhere in you to abide by Da Rules, as reasonable as they are.

Once again, all you're showing is that you're completely ignorant--and apparently willfully so--about the definition of ad hominem. You're slinging it around because you have nothing else.

 

[Atomicnumber86]

surhotchaperchlorome:
So alright maybe it just downright namecalling, but that makes it so much better right? RIGHT? R I G H T?

 

[shanedk]

surhotchaperchlorome:
So alright maybe it just downright namecalling, but that makes it so much better right? RIGHT? R I G H T?

It means that the substance of my argument remains ignored.

 

[Atomicnumber86]

Gunboat Diplomat:

Actually everything can be used as a form of quotation. I doesn't matter. How hard can it be to grasp?
Nobody cares. You can use whatever the fuck you want, as long as it is clear it is a quotation. For instance some places you can't use " ".

Where I live, " " are not accepted as a valid form of quotation. But since what we use here; is not available on the keyboard, we have to use " ". And you know what? Nobody gives a shit. Nobody. It is not of concern. It just doesn't matter.
As long as you mark clearly that it is quoted, it just doesn't matter, if you put it in italic, bolds, another font, caps it, whatever.. It just doesn't matter.

I don't want to explain it further, because it just doesn't matter. It is like discussing whether or not the boat was blue or purple, when you are really on what kind of fish you are eating.

 

[Atomicnumber86]

Ooh, that showed me... condescending are we?

No, he absolutely did not! The address at the top of the post said, "Shanedk:" not "Shanedk and MasterGhostKnight:"
It was addressed to ME AND ME ALONE.

Besides that MGK's name also was mentioned. But if you had the moral highground on your board, you should seriously learn how to tackle that with real arguments, instead of just calling people bumchums and what not.
That is not really putting your own forum in a better perspective, is it?
Because if you don't use that kind of profanity and childish insults over on bogosity, then you are in fact trolling.

Once again, all you're showing is that you're completely ignorant--and apparently willfully so--about the definition of ad hominem. You're slinging it around because you have nothing else.
Well bugger me, but at least I don't have to stoop to your level. I don't need to call people assholes. Sometimes I do, I admit. But I have never ever ever ever ever claimed 'my' place to be a moral highground for reasonable debate all the time.

 

[Atomicnumber86]

It means that the substance of my argument remains ignored.

No just you from now on

 

[surhotchaperchlorome]

It means that the substance of my argument remains ignored.

No just you from now on

Yet you continue to reply to his posts.

 

[surhotchaperchlorome]

Ooh, that showed me... condescending are we?

From the person who spent many posts going on about Shane's "ad hominems", when he didn't use them, while telling him he doesn't understand what the fallacy is, and then spending a post saying that "quotes can be used as emphasis", then after you're corrected you go on about how it doesn't matter?
Or the person who tries to make me look foolish after I corrected you on what an ad hominem is?
Projection much?

No, he absolutely did not! The address at the top of the post said, "Shanedk:" not "Shanedk and MasterGhostKnight:"
It was addressed to ME AND ME ALONE.

Besides that MGK's name also was mentioned. But if you had the moral highground on your board, you should seriously learn how to tackle that with real arguments, instead of just calling people bumchums and what not.

You didn't read his first post, did you?
Also, in the following posts he has presented arguments (laced with insults, but still valid arguments and rebuttals) to the personal attacks and accusations from people here.

That is not really putting your own forum in a better perspective, is it?
Because if you don't use that kind of profanity and childish insults over on bogosity, then you are in fact trolling.

Probably because he's having to defend himself from accusers with double standards.
Nothing when MGK and ImprobableJoe go off, lying and strawmanning Shane's points on the health care forum, or when MGK tries to use ad hominems against him (Shane), but when Shane counters with rebuttals with a few insults, it is unacceptable and he is ganged up on by the board members.

Once again, all you're showing is that you're completely ignorant--and apparently willfully so--about the definition of ad hominem. You're slinging it around because you have nothing else.
Well bugger me, but at least I don't have to stoop to your level. I don't need to call people assholes. Sometimes I do, I admit. But I have never ever ever ever ever claimed 'my' place to be a moral highground for reasonable debate all the time.

Then you must also agree that calling people assholes when defamed by them is so much less civil and puts a person on a lower moral ground than lying, strawmanning and using actual ad hominems.

 

[Atomicnumber86]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem#Common_misconceptions_about_ad_hominem

Did he or did not use "butt-buddies" as a form of discrediting Monitor?
Yes or no

 

[Atomicnumber86]

Probably because he's having to defend himself from accusers with double standards.
Nothing when MGK and ImprobableJoe go off, lying and strawmanning Shane's points on the health care forum, or when MGK tries to use ad hominems against him (Shane), but when Shane counters with rebuttals with a few insults, it is unacceptable and he is ganged up on by the board members.

This has to do with topic how?

 

[Atomicnumber86]

Yet you continue to reply to his posts.

Have I now? Have I?

Let me answer that for you. No I haven't.

 

[CosmicSpork]

Actually, the fact that this thread has gone on as long as it has is a kind of testament to shanedk's point. Since Thiswasatriumph stopped posting there has been a distinct lack of moderation on this site. Even so the site's integrity has held up pretty well, but perhaps it is time to appoint some new moderators or make sure the old ones hang around a bit more often.

There has been a distinct lack of moderator activity lately and I have already broached the subject. A shake up is going to be necessary, especially if this thread is anything to go by. Breach of rules and decent conduct has been broken repeatedly. Please please be aware that the number of users on this forum is only the number of people who have registered, not the number of active visitors, the number of active members is much less than 3400, the number of moderators we have is adequate for the number of active members, but only if those moderators are on here as often as possible.

What has most angered me is the shear number of insults being thrown around, personal attacks will and should not be tolerated in any rational discussion.

This thread has gone way of out hand and how it got to 5 pages long is beyond me.

shanedk: You have repeatedly decided to tar every single member of this forum with the same brush when in reality only a very small number of members have even participated in this farce of a 'discussion' or have had any dealings with you at all. You have been overly aggressive and insulting to everyone involved and even those who haven't had anything to do with this, which includes me and I will take it personally and I feel that I have every right to given the amount of time and effort I have put into helping this community. Now, I can understand your frustrations as you feel victimised and that people are ganging up on you but you are not helping yourself by lashing out in such an irrational and sometimes childish manner.

Although I never responded to your thread when you were attacked by votebots I did go through and vote up your videos, I was happy to do it and have been a subscriber for some while. Now, at this time, votebot attacks were particularly common and nobody should be expected to jump on every single channel that gets attacked and vote like hell to help it recover. People did try to help you, I am certain of this, but short of launching our own votebot to help put your ratings back up (which would be extremely hypocritical of us) you can only count on what effort people are willing to put in. Also, not EVERYONE got the 'full rally' for the same reason you didn't. Maybe LoR should have put the word out more, maybe I didn't do enough to make sure it was known that you were having such a hard time. If that is the case I apologise deeply and can only say that if I have in some way worsened things by inaction that it was most likely down other commitments in my 'real life'.

As a senior member of LoR I accept your original apology, although I suspect you would sooner withdraw it. You have good points in your criticism of elements of how someone can give the impression they are speaking on behalf of LoR and I will attempt to address that when I am able by releasing new creatives for those who do not speak for LoR on an 'official' basis (if there is such a thing in this regard) that clearly shows that their opinions are their own and do not reflect the collective opinion of LoR.

Master_Ghost_Knight: I also accept your apology and understand that you didn't intend for this kind of backlash against LoR. From my perspective I didn't see the LoR logo in your video as anything more than what I intended it to be, an advertisement, but I can see how to others it might not appear that way. I am not going to tell you how to go about your other internet business but if you do have a quarrel with shanedk, I would appreciate it that you both discuss it in a civilised manner on these boards, either in a thread or by using the debate functionality I developed some time ago (that nobody has used yet) where the only participants allowed to post are those assigned to the thread and moderators to ensure it keeps on track or if either of you are unable to discuss your differences in a civilised manner that you keep it off these boards and not drag LoR into it.

Everyone: Personal insults will not be tolerated, they are unnecessary and do nothing to perpetuate the discussion in an organised and rational manner. By using insults in your "argument" you are deliberately trying to provoke an emotional response which does not contribute to the topic at hand, it only causes a cascade of more insults and emotional responses as I'm sure you can see. If this kind of shit continues in this thread or others you will be warned and the topic may be locked if there appears to be no other alternative. Also... IF YOU HAVE NOTHING CONSTRUCTIVE TO SAY, DON'T BOTHER SAYING ANYTHING AT ALL.


In regards to the original purpose of this website... LoR has grown organically, as with any site that relies on predominantly user driven content, it fits the purpose of those who frequent it. So yes, it has changed, not drastically in my opinion but to encompass more than its original reason(s) for being. Votebot attacks don't appear to be getting reported nearly as often as they did, I am unsure if they are as frequent or not but if people don't report them, then nobody can be expected to help.

Finally, I have missed out large chunks of this thread as I have seen enough flame wars in my time on the internet to know what one looks like, but I apologise if I have misrepresented or ignored anyone because of this.


P.S. I am very tired, really quite cranky, and have had enough of this bullshit.

 

[borrofburi]

Finally, I have missed out large chunks of this thread as I have seen enough flame wars in my time on the internet to know what one looks like, but I apologise if I have misrepresented or ignored anyone because of this.

Hmm, did you miss this image? It's pretty much my favorite image on the internet: http://www.rocketjones.com/images/rick_loud_noises.jpg (yes I know I could embed it, but I feel that would be taking up unnecessary page-space, in light of the fact that I already posted it once)