Vote on /World's Future

[OGTUCKER117]

RESULTS UPDATE

March 15, 2015 @ 8 : 30 US CENTRAL


1. Yes, GM's should control moderation.
174 votes (49%)

2. Neither, there should be NO moderation.
69 votes (19%)

3. Nor, there should be only /say timers (one /world say per 15 seconds)
62 votes (17%)

4. No, Player's should control moderation.
51 votes (14%)

I would still like people to address the results of this poll, rather than engage in ad hominem discourse.

[Raktae]

Then go build your own world chat and use those people who agree with you to populate it.

Numbers do not make one right, friend.

I'll just say it again, because you didn't seem to understand.

We, with the consensus of the overwhelming majority, are going to attempt to change /world policies.

I do not care what you think I, we, or anyone else 'should' do, nor will I entertain your notions.

I am going to stop interacting with you, as we have reached an obvious conclusion to our discussion.

Right, the conclusion that you're an absolute lunatic who can't accept player run channels for what they are and assume that some magical "We" gives you any power. News flash, pal, it's a strawpoll you've made on a forum that a tiny percentile of the Nostalrius playerbase visits. You're practicing some delusional, dangerous, wishful thinking in hoping you're going to gain some all-moderated /world.

People like you are what kills communities, because you always need to involve the authorities present, always prepared to undermine any real options the playerbase has in running their chats.

[riq and snog]

RESULTS UPDATE

March 15, 2015 @ 8 : 30 US CENTRAL


1. Yes, GM's should control moderation.
174 votes (49%)

2. Neither, there should be NO moderation.
69 votes (19%)

3. Nor, there should be only /say timers (one /world say per 15 seconds)
62 votes (17%)

So out of 6,2 k players who accordin to you folks, must be buttmad about this world chat status
roughly 300 voted...
What is the point of this?
because 5900 peeps seem to be ok...


4. No, Player's should control moderation.
51 votes (14%)

I would still like people to address the results of this poll, rather than engage in ad hominem discourse.

[iheartbenben]

Then go build your own world chat and use those people who agree with you to populate it.

Numbers do not make one right, friend.

I'll just say it again, because you didn't seem to understand.

We, with the consensus of the overwhelming majority, are going to attempt to change /world policies.

I do not care what you think I, we, or anyone else 'should' do, nor will I entertain your notions.

I am going to stop interacting with you, as we have reached an obvious conclusion to our discussion.

Right, the conclusion that you're an absolute lunatic who can't accept player run channels for what they are and assume that some magical "We" gives you any power. News flash, pal, it's a strawpoll you've made on a forum that a tiny percentile of the Nostalrius playerbase visits. You're practicing some delusional, dangerous, wishful thinking in hoping you're going to gain some all-moderated /world.

People like you are what kills communities, because you always need to involve the authorities present, always prepared to undermine any real options the playerbase has in running their chats.

You made it 7 words before you went into insults.

I'm practically begging for a rational conversation and this is what I get?

That's super-duper that you don't believe in democratic principles and their inherit worth. I'm not even going to argue that you're wrong and just going to tell you that you are. "We" IS power.

It is self-evident and has over 2000 years of critical thought supporting it. To argue that 'it isn't anything, pal' is to ignore literally most of recorded history and the entire course of western history as well as the seeds of philosophical thought.

Democracy has the power to change that which is authoritarian, as it always has, and as it always will be. If enough people do demand change, that change is more likely to come then if none demand it. These principles of democracy can and have been extrapolated to smaller groups and or bodies including Labor Unions, Governments, HOA's, and yes, even private server communities.

[Raktae]

I'll just say it again, because you didn't seem to understand.

We, with the consensus of the overwhelming majority, are going to attempt to change /world policies.

I do not care what you think I, we, or anyone else 'should' do, nor will I entertain your notions.

I am going to stop interacting with you, as we have reached an obvious conclusion to our discussion.

Right, the conclusion that you're an absolute lunatic who can't accept player run channels for what they are and assume that some magical "We" gives you any power. News flash, pal, it's a strawpoll you've made on a forum that a tiny percentile of the Nostalrius playerbase visits. You're practicing some delusional, dangerous, wishful thinking in hoping you're going to gain some all-moderated /world.

People like you are what kills communities, because you always need to involve the authorities present, always prepared to undermine any real options the playerbase has in running their chats.

You made it 7 words before you went into insults.

I'm practically begging for a rational conversation and this is what I get?

That's super-duper that you don't believe in democratic principles and their inherit worth. I'm not even going to argue that you're wrong and just going to tell you that "We" IS power.

It is self-evident and has over 2000 years of critical thought supporting it. To argue that it isn't anything is to ignore literally most of recorded history and the entire course of western history as well as the seeds of philosophical thought.

Surprisingly I can still call you a fucknugget and slay your "argument" at the same time. If you want an update, an ad-hominem is attacking the person in order to discredit their argument. Your "Democratic" principles have no place involving themselves in something you don't own, /world is <GRIZZLY>'s even if all it takes was typing /join world before anyone else.

My argument is that you're going off this assumption that this "We", otherwise your 'Us', you have in place:

1. Unanimously agree on the form of implementation.

2. Are willing to take steps to see this implemented beyond voting one time on a strawpoll.

3. That the "Them" aren't significant enough, and that this warrants ignoring them.


If you're going to try and pull some bullshit on democratic principles, then you should address the #1 concerns of Democracy such as Tyranny of the Majority and protection of the minority.

[iheartbenben]

Surprisingly I can still call you a fucknugget and slay your "argument" at the same time. If you want an update, an ad-hominem is attacking the person in order to discredit their argument. Your "Democratic" principles have no place involving themselves in something you don't own, /world is <GRIZZLY>'s even if all it takes was typing /join world before anyone else.

My argument is that you're going off this assumption that this "We", otherwise your 'Us', you have in place:

1. Unanimously agree on the form of implementation.

2. Are willing to take steps to see this implemented beyond voting one time on a strawpoll.

3. That the "Them" aren't significant enough, and that this warrants ignoring them.


If you're going to try and pull some bullshit on democratic principles, then you should address the #1 concerns of Democracy such as Tyranny of the Majority and protection of the minority.

We IS power.

Nobody owns /world. This is where we fundamentally disagree. Nobody 'owns' it. That's just a word you're conviently using to justify your rationale, and the definition of "own" does not fit appropriately in the context of /world's 'owner'.

There is no "Tyranny of the majoriy" or any "power issues" because we are doing the OPPOSITE of democracy. We are using it to justify more authoritarian measures upon /world. Call it, "free speech zone" laws. The worries you pur forth are not thought out nor do they apply in this context. We are talking about the power of majority ON THIS ISSUE. You're extrapolating way too broadly and applying it to a larger idea than what I had asked you to consider.

Also, I said "insult" not ad hominem. Also, I managed to get my point across without insults, cursing, or vitriol. Amazing, isn't it?

[Raktae]

Surprisingly I can still call you a fucknugget and slay your "argument" at the same time. If you want an update, an ad-hominem is attacking the person in order to discredit their argument. Your "Democratic" principles have no place involving themselves in something you don't own, /world is <GRIZZLY>'s even if all it takes was typing /join world before anyone else.

My argument is that you're going off this assumption that this "We", otherwise your 'Us', you have in place:

1. Unanimously agree on the form of implementation.

2. Are willing to take steps to see this implemented beyond voting one time on a strawpoll.

3. That the "Them" aren't significant enough, and that this warrants ignoring them.


If you're going to try and pull some bullshit on democratic principles, then you should address the #1 concerns of Democracy such as Tyranny of the Majority and protection of the minority.

We IS power.

Nobody owns /world. This is where we fundamentally disagree. Nobody 'owns' it. That's just a word you're conviently using to justify your rationale, and the definition of "own" does not fit appropriately in the context of /world's 'owner'.

There is an owner present, the first person to type /join world, and anyone he chose to bestow custodial power upon afterward. There's no arguing that there isn't an owner, you've just chosen to ignore that as a way to justify this misuse of "Democracy" in order to get your way.

And the owner can choose to moderate it as they see fit, and the users can choose to react through either not using the channel and forming their own, or petitioning the owner to change his policies. You're moving past the players and the owner himself to petition the proverbial divinities.

[iheartbenben]

Surprisingly I can still call you a fucknugget and slay your "argument" at the same time. If you want an update, an ad-hominem is attacking the person in order to discredit their argument. Your "Democratic" principles have no place involving themselves in something you don't own, /world is <GRIZZLY>'s even if all it takes was typing /join world before anyone else.

My argument is that you're going off this assumption that this "We", otherwise your 'Us', you have in place:

1. Unanimously agree on the form of implementation.

2. Are willing to take steps to see this implemented beyond voting one time on a strawpoll.

3. That the "Them" aren't significant enough, and that this warrants ignoring them.


If you're going to try and pull some bullshit on democratic principles, then you should address the #1 concerns of Democracy such as Tyranny of the Majority and protection of the minority.

We IS power.

Nobody owns /world. This is where we fundamentally disagree. Nobody 'owns' it. That's just a word you're conviently using to justify your rationale, and the definition of "own" does not fit appropriately in the context of /world's 'owner'.

There is an owner present, the first person to type /join world, and anyone he chose to bestow custodial power upon afterward. There's no arguing that there isn't an owner, you've just chosen to ignore that as a way to justify this misuse of "Democracy" in order to get your way.

And the owner can choose to moderate it as they see fit, and the users can choose to react through either not using the channel and forming their own, or petitioning the owner to change his policies. You're moving past the players and the owner himself to petition the proverbial divinities.

I've already addressed you parroting the SOP as some justification or reasoning. Please see my previous responses.

[OGTUCKER117]

Just got banned from world again by some loser named ricky for looking for a sm gy group.
cool

[iheartbenben]

Results as of March 15, 2015 @ 11 PM US CENTRAL

1. Yes, GM's should control moderation.
178 votes (48%)

2. Neither, there should be NO moderation.
77 votes (21%)

3. Nor, there should be only /say timers (one /world say per 15 seconds)
65 votes (17%)

4. No, Player's should control moderation.
53 votes (14%)