I would be annoyed if there were certain subjects that we were not allowed to discuss, but some guidelines and rules about how to discuss things are fine with me.Perhaps the membership would like to speak out on/propose ideas about guidelines? I only consider announcements I've labeled as rules to be actual rules, but I do consider any idea proposed in this thread and not contradicted to be site policy that guides my moderation decisions.
That said, there might be times when certain subjects should be avoided, if they only serve to start arguments. We are all adult enough to notice this if it should happen, I think, and not stoop to flamebaiting. Due to the nature of SMAC it's unavoidable to have some interesting political discussions, though. The political content of the game is a large part of what makes it interesting.
Sorry about rambling a bit. :)
That wasn't a ramble, Rym; it was intelligent focused and a helpful suggestion.
Here's a little something I wrote up about four years ago on what I think about arguing done right:QuoteThere's little in life I love more than a good argument. It takes the right kind of people, and I think we have a lot of them here. So let's see if we can start a good one- or several.Not really the guidelines Rym suggested, but maybe this will get discussion started in that direction.
A few ground rules/observations- that you may also take as a little essay about how to argue productively:
The object is not to win, but to come to an understanding or educate each other.
It helps beyond measure sometimes to discuss your respective values and base assumptions as they relate to the issue at hand.
Know your thesis and your opponent's. That is, be sure you and the other person aren't actually talking past each other about two somewhat different things. Know what you're arguing about.
However, it's no fun if the conversation can't go where it wants to. Be cool about the topic changing- just know what it is at all times. It's okay to try to steer it back, but good to not be bossy about it.
It's like the dozens; if you get mad (or compare someone you're arguing with to Hitler, for that matter) you lose. Really; well-intentioned persons can say things so utterly at variance with your view of something important to you that it is a good thing when an adult says he's had enough and bows out. Do it with good grace and you haven't lost.
If you set out to provoke anyone just to win via the previous guideline, you lose. That's immature troll-behavior and dirty pool.
It doesn't have to be polite, but the rules of this forum and the laws in your jurisdiction apply. Polite is better.
At least a sketchy knowledge of the rules of formal debate will help you enormously, even though those rules will not be enforced here. Please don't be a jerk about the rules of formal debate, either pro or con.
It is always in order to point out that something just said belongs in a separate argument than the one you're in.
I'm lazy about interrupting a conversation to research the topic. You are welcome to do so, however, but I will likely try to challenge your source on any grounds I find valid.
Again, if you only play to win, you're doing it wrong. Try to persuade me you're right. Convincing your opponent is victory- so is finding out you're wrong and learning something.
[Current-day addition: As I said to Nikolai above, Recreational debate is mental fencing - on that level, it can be a huge buzzkill to go straight to googling, rather like bringing a gun to a knife fight. To me, that tends to feel like the other guy cheated, since I like to rely on whatever happened to already be in my head when I walked in...]
1. Personal attacks in the context of debating are absolutely prohibited. If it is absolutely necessary to call into question someone's personal qualifications (such as because they invoked their personal expertise to support their point), or to provide constructive criticism regarding their posting style, it should be done as politely as you can manage. [We want to keep things civil, even when discussions get heated in off-topic as they no doubt will eventually. I don't think it will be too much of an imposition to restrict friendly teasing to non-debate contexts.]
2. When debating, any person's explicit statements about their own position should not be contradicted. If they seem to be holding the position that they explicitly deny, politely ask for a clarification. [It's a lot easier to follow rule #1 when not provoked, and there's very little that is more provocative than being told that your position is something you explicitly deny.)
3. While friendly teasing is permitted outside the context of debating, if the object of the teasing requests that the teasing stop, that request is to be followed.
4. No teasing may include believable claims of real-life actions (e.g. claiming to have engaged in desecration of something valued by the other person). [Once real-life gets involved, it's very easy for people to get seriously distressed. Normal teasing doesn't involve such claims anyway, making it pretty much exclusively the domain of the worst sort of troll.]
5. While some drift of topics is expected and allowed, any artificial transition of a thread to an unrelated controversial matter will be treated as trolling and be dealt with harshly. (If it cannot be precisely determined who performed the transition or there was no single point of transition, it can be presumed to be a natural transition.)
6. While some controversy is expected, anybody who exclusively or near-exclusively raises controversy about certain issues may, at the discretion of the admins and any moderators they appoint, be warned, and if they continue such behavior may be banned.
No, I don't think so. We're on our way down, IMAO, but the fall, though it will be mighty, is slow.
Ahhh, but ;morgan; wants to enslave ;domai;, a pretty irreconcilable difference
and ;domai; is losing the battle for hearts and minds to ;miriam; who is deeply in cahoots with ;morgan;, ;santi;, and lately ;yang;.
I don't think there's any way ;miriam; and ;yang; could get along.And yet my cite is 'look at the news for the last 13 years'.
I think you're on the right track.
Incidentally, a fundamental failure of the Democratic party in my lifetime, IMAO, is to not go all ;domai; all over everything, not ;hippy and everything else they've tried. My father's father was a sharecropper during the Great Depression - he was racist and he was conservative; he didn't get that All in the Family was a joke, often commenting that Archie Bunker was right.
But he was a farmer, and he knew that Roosevelt was his buddy, and he was a voting partisan Democrat all his adult life (a fact he concealed from my great-grandmother, being from a family so Republican that Daddy once found out he'd been voting a second time in their home county against his principles - the FBI was not amused).
;domai;, labor issues, is the winning strategy for the left.
And yet my cite is 'look at the news for the last 13 years'.
Insert my Bakrama is Neville Chamberlain when we needed Winston Churchill speech here.
I haven't seen much ;yang; there; if anything, it's the fringe of the Democrats that tend toward ;yang;. (Republicans favor small government except when it conflicts with ;morgan;, ;santi;, or ;miriam;; the former two don't care much about the social issues where ;yang; focuses, and what ;miriam; wants to follow, ;yang; sees as primitive superstition.)I'm not surprised to get something of a right political perspective from you, having observed that your world-view is deeply informed by conservative religious values, but I'm a bit surprised that you're actually trying to claim the Republican party is what it was before Reagan, I suspect long before you were born; how can you ignore the torture, the camps, the open surveillance of citizens and claim the left is the greater enemy of freedom? I think I know the argument - the special interests lose all regard for freedom the second it comes to their special interest ox being gored; but torture, camps and open surveillance of citizens, honestly.
Obama, of course.
You're taking my ;yang; metaphor too far - in this case, I'm only talking about the police state aspects, not the communistic leaning or Eastern elements.
I'm not surprised to get something of a right political perspective from you, having observed that your world-view is deeply informed by conservative religious values, but I'm a bit surprised that you're actually trying to claim the Republican party is what it was before Reagan, I suspect long before you were born; how can you ignore the torture, the camps, the open surveillance of citizens and claim the left is the greater enemy of freedom?
Small government always seems to end up conflicting with ;morgan;, ;santi;, or ;miriam;
and the small government conservatives (who are NOT wrong, on the whole) don't belong in the same party with ;miriam; at all. I have no ideas of what they can do about it without marginalizing what political power they have left, but Sarah Palin is very much the enemy of what they hold dearest at least as much or more so than Andrea Dworkin.
This is fun; two pedantic nerds agreeing right off that politics and public policy issues are complicated.
More thoughts coming, but bedtime nears...
Should I move all this into the argument thread?
LOL. I wonder what a censor woukd make of the use if all those smilies.
;deidre; Deirdre of the Gaians, a Green lefty-type.
;yang; Yang of the hive, I meant Police State, but it got complicated.
;zak; Zakarov of the University, Science.
;morgan; Morgan (think Donald [Sleezebag]) of the Morganites, Big Business.
;santi; Santiago of the Spartans, War (although she thinks she's a Libertarian).
;miriam; Miriam of the Believers, Religion (as involved in US politics in this case - she's somewhat a symbol of the Tea Party types, too, though the correspondence is inexact).
;lal; Lal of the Peacekeepers, Democracy and Freedom, perhaps Internationalism and World Peace, too.
;caretake; H'minee of the Caretakers, Radical Environmentalism, alien.
;cha; Cha Dawn of the Cult of Planet, also Radical Environmentalism, obnoxious.
;aki; Aki Zeta 5 of the Cybernetic Conciousness, Science with a transhuman angle.
;marr; Marr of the Manifold Usurpers, just plain mean.
That was fun. I sort of followed it, but putting in a key for the ;yang; watchers & decoders kinda spoils the entertainment value. ;)The thing is, though, not everyone here is familiar with the game. I played for about 10 minutes before having to give up because my computer couldn't handle it. My familiarity with SMAC comes from reading the novel trilogy.
...I played for about 10 minutes before having to give up because my computer couldn't handle it...
I had XP at the time. It was a slower computer with less RAM. My current computer could probably handle it.
I know it's doable on W8, but that's all I know - Petek will help you if you decide to try.
I love you all for being smart and cool, not for being gamers... ;)Cheers to a great administrator!
Thank you for noticing my greatness! :D ;lol
I'm not planning on any new computer purchases this year, since I haven't even had my current one for a year yet. I bought this one because my older computers were unable to handle some of the larger, more video-intensive Hidden Object Games on Big Fish, nor were they able to handle Netflix.I know it's doable on W8, but that's all I know - Petek will help you if you decide to try.
If she is just talking SMAX, yeah. Even these Walmart Windows 8 'netbooks with hard drives" for 250 they have been coming out with lately will run it.
I suggest plopping down a few hundred more. Netbooks seem to be only useful for VERY old games, browser games, basic web surfing, and word processing. A step up to mid range or upper low range allows you to dabble in more things.
However, serious gaming may not be her thing. I have known girls who gamed merely for the chat/ social aspect. Nothing wrong with that. I do not blame them. With the exception of the LoL/DotA crowd, the chat and forums for games beat other chat rooms hands down. Most pure chat rooms, you do not get much actual chat nowadays that is not laced with penile pics and obscenities.
I think Everquest Next is going to be the next big "chat room in a video game" game.
I know the feeling that occurs when you try to run a video on your computer that requires too much graphic memory.I'm not planning on any new computer purchases this year, since I haven't even had my current one for a year yet. I bought this one because my older computers were unable to handle some of the larger, more video-intensive Hidden Object Games on Big Fish, nor were they able to handle Netflix.I know it's doable on W8, but that's all I know - Petek will help you if you decide to try.
If she is just talking SMAX, yeah. Even these Walmart Windows 8 'netbooks with hard drives" for 250 they have been coming out with lately will run it.
I suggest plopping down a few hundred more. Netbooks seem to be only useful for VERY old games, browser games, basic web surfing, and word processing. A step up to mid range or upper low range allows you to dabble in more things.
However, serious gaming may not be her thing. I have known girls who gamed merely for the chat/ social aspect. Nothing wrong with that. I do not blame them. With the exception of the LoL/DotA crowd, the chat and forums for games beat other chat rooms hands down. Most pure chat rooms, you do not get much actual chat nowadays that is not laced with penile pics and obscenities.
I think Everquest Next is going to be the next big "chat room in a video game" game.
My laptop would probably be considered "lower mid-range" price-wise, in Canadian terms. I bought it at London Drugs, from their computer department, and the salespeople and techs there are top-notch. Mind you, it was on sale, so that does make a difference as to where in the mid-range you might say it really belongs.
I'm not much into chat rooms; I can't type fast enough to keep up with everything, or even follow that kind of communication. I also prefer more normal, more intelligent conversations, which is partly why I'm here.
I'm not sure how you mean "girls", Green1 - my birthday is next month, and I will have been around the Sun 51 times. But since I've admitted to having a Zwinky account that is aimed mostly at teens and 'tween girls, I forgive you for any possible confusion you may have had. ;)
I'm not upset, just reminded of some of the guys on CFC who took years to believe that I'm female, because supposedly "girls don't game."
Hey, slow day on the boards today -and so I got some work done- but not so slow at 1:30 in the morning in my time zone...
7:30 there. You're up early on a Sunday.
So... if anyone here likes my posts enough to say so, I don't need 'flirty' window-dressing. I'm just pleased and honored to know that I've said something someone else liked.
Still, that's alot of "or's" I'm seeing in that post, Green1.
Still, that's alot of "or's" I'm seeing in that post, Green1.
Although.. if said chick was rich.... and I could sit in my underwear and not work and play video games and troll forums all day.... I might be tempted to put up with cat crap everywhere and lift it up and stick it in. Even if it was in the middle of nowhere in Idaho.
Still, that's alot of "or's" I'm seeing in that post, Green1.
Although.. if said chick was rich.... and I could sit in my underwear and not work and play video games and troll forums all day.... I might be tempted to put up with cat crap everywhere and lift it up and stick it in. Even if it was in the middle of nowhere in Idaho.
Oh, and now the "if's" are flyin' galore? ;cute
If you have stories, share them!
There's a thing that gets my goat - it's like the entire political right had a secret meeting when he was elected, and decided as one to just throw mud at the man until something stuck. Do you follow the Daily Show? After the Republican Convention, they played a clip of Clint Eastwood talking to the empty chair, and Jon Stewart exclaimed "There's an INVISIBLE Obama that only republicans can see!" The man has failed as a leader, and failed to see that compromise with unvarnished evil; I was sick of all the Opposite Day lies years ago, they could have been hitting him with things he actually did, or failed to do.Obama, of course.
Yeah, he's very Chamberlain-like; that's one thing I think both sides can agree to criticize him about, though in different areas.
Where does he say that there is no God? I tend to agree that he's an atheist, but here the metaphor fails; I was talking about Police State, Police State and nothing but Police State in my use of Yang. ;miriam; could have racist problems with his Chineseness, too, which also has nothing to do with what I was saying.QuoteYou're taking my ;yang; metaphor too far - in this case, I'm only talking about the police state aspects, not the communistic leaning or Eastern elements.
Police state seems to be equally embraced by both sides...and ;yang; is specifically an atheist police state, which fits with some of the fringe on the left, but isn't going to be welcome on the right at all.
Does not compute. I'll see your Stalin with a Hitler.I'm not surprised to get something of a right political perspective from you, having observed that your world-view is deeply informed by conservative religious values, but I'm a bit surprised that you're actually trying to claim the Republican party is what it was before Reagan, I suspect long before you were born; how can you ignore the torture, the camps, the open surveillance of citizens and claim the left is the greater enemy of freedom?
The torture and internment camps are pure ;santi;, and the open surveillance of citizens is something that Obama doesn't seem any more willing to get rid of than Bush was. That said, I'm not claiming the left is a greater enemy of freedom; ;miriam; and even ;santi; are no friends of freedom, and ;lal;, to what extent he's found at all, is to be found on the left. I'm saying that ;yang; in particular is more welcome on the left than the right, simply because ;miriam; hates him as much as ;lal;, and is far more prominent on the right than ;lal; is on the left.
No not actually always, just often. I should have left ;morgan; out completely, as he loves a free hand. ;santi; is a government function, so a special case probably not apt here. ;miriam; these days, though, LOVES legislating morality...QuoteSmall government always seems to end up conflicting with ;morgan;, ;santi;, or ;miriam;
Not always. The use of government to persecute religion (as was found in the French revolution), for example, is not something that any of those three would favor, and so its absence is a form of small government that doesn't conflict with them. Which would normally be too much of a niche case to be relevant, except that it's the sort of thing that ;yang; really likes.
Interesting, and a nuanced position.Quoteand the small government conservatives (who are NOT wrong, on the whole) don't belong in the same party with ;miriam; at all. I have no ideas of what they can do about it without marginalizing what political power they have left, but Sarah Palin is very much the enemy of what they hold dearest at least as much or more so than Andrea Dworkin.
True. Actual small government conservatives (i.e. conservative libertarians) will tend to be a mix of ;morgan; and ;lal;, possibly with ;ulrik; thrown in there too, probably agreeing with ;miriam; in the private sphere, but not the public one.
(My own position gets quite a bit more complicated; while I favor ;miriam; (with a different religion, of course) in principle, it's the wrong choice for this country, where ;lal; is the right answer. I also strongly favor ;domai;, and think ;zak; and ;morgan;, and even ;aki; to a small extent, have important ideas to contribute but should not be followed blindly. I think ;roze; has some good ideas, but would rather use ;lal;'s or ;morgan;'s approach to getting them implemented; I also respect ;deidre; except when she starts to look like ;caretake; or ;cha;. I think ;santi; is nuts, ;yang; is evil, and ;marr; doesn't really apply here. ;ulrik; doesn't really care that much what other people think of him, and I return the favor.)
Gitmo is still open and NASA has its budget year - for the first time as an adult, I've sat out a presidential election, because he failed the audition rather badly.
Where does he say that there is no God?
I tend to agree that he's an atheist, but here the metaphor fails; I was talking about Police State, Police State and nothing but Police State in my use of Yang.
I do not concede that police state seems to be equally embraced by both sides. My contempt for legislators on the left (including Obama) during the Cheney Administration is profound, but they were collaborators, not the instigators.
Does not compute. I'll see your Stalin with a Hitler.
No not actually always, just often. I should have left ;morgan; out completely, as he loves a free hand.
;santi; is a government function, so a special case probably not apt here. ;miriam; these days, though, LOVES legislating morality...
I may be mistaken, but I was under the impression that the NSA has substantially increased its spying on Americans in the last 5 years.
I may be mistaken, but I was under the impression that the NSA has substantially increased its spying on Americans in the last 5 years.
I reckon not only on Americans. :P
I may be mistaken, but I was under the impression that the NSA has substantially increased its spying on Americans in the last 5 years.
I reckon not only on Americans. :P
Yeah, but spying on citizens of other countries isn't really a mark of a police state.
For as long as i remember, I have always been pro-US. But now...There's a thing that gets my goat - it's like the entire political right had a secret meeting when he was elected, and decided as one to just throw mud at the man until something stuck. Do you follow the Daily Show? After the Republican Convention, they played a clip of Clint Eastwood talking to the empty chair, and Jon Stewart exclaimed "There's an INVISIBLE Obama that only republicans can see!" The man has failed as a leader, and failed to see that compromise with unvarnished evil; I was sick of all the Opposite Day lies years ago, they could have been hitting him with things he actually did, or failed to do.Obama, of course.
Yeah, he's very Chamberlain-like; that's one thing I think both sides can agree to criticize him about, though in different areas.
Gitmo is still open and NASA has its budget year - for the first time as an adult, I've sat out a presidential election, because he failed the audition rather badly.
Their is presently no expectation of privacy outside certain locations. Even those locations have limits when it comes to the police and the government.I may be mistaken, but I was under the impression that the NSA has substantially increased its spying on Americans in the last 5 years.
I reckon not only on Americans. :P
Yeah, but spying on citizens of other countries isn't really a mark of a police state.
Depends on circumstances. Tourists/visitors to said police state for instance.