While We Wait: Writer's Block & Other Lame Excuses

[Nylan]

1. For years people have acted like a little bit of attitude is an incredibly divisive force in this community that, at any moment, could tear it asunder like a piece of paper.
2. This attitude in so far as it exists has been and continues to be mild by the standards of both the internet and of humanity at large.
3. This attitude is practiced by the very same people who constantly warn of its foul influence with the same passion and verve as seen in the people they rail against.
4. The moralizing's getting really old.

What do I hope to gain? "If you live in a greenhouse, don't throw stones at glass houses," or perhaps "Pot to kettle: you're black." It is not a big deal, if you act like it is one you're probably a hypocrite, and as this conversation has shown, it doesn't really go anywhere. Leading by example on the last issue seemed to be the best way to drive the point home.

Well I see why you're doing that. I've certainly done so in the past. While I still don't see what you gain from it, that's a fairly robust answer. Thanks for being candid.

 

[Symphony D.]

You're right, I didn't elaborate on that point. I guess the best way of putting it would be: as both historically and currently one of the most polarizing figures on this forum and the recipient of copious amounts of derision and scorn for my behavior over time, I am personally tired of listening to people acting high and mighty on behavior while simultaneously being every bit as guilty of indulging in combative language as I have been, and I take satisfaction in pointing it out.

We do not have a civility problem. We have interpersonal problems. This conversation has demonstrated that amply.

 

[North King]

So if I can read your remark as being snarky, that's okay, because you didn't mean it. If Luckymoose makes snark about predicting the next recession which contributes nothing to the discussion, that's okay, because it's harmless. Oh, but that Masada, making a snarky but rather inconsequential remark (not to set aside Terrance's feelings), that's just incorrigible!

Nah, you know what is incorrigible? Acting like a pompous ass, dropping into a conversation and saying "you all fail econ so hard." You speak of hypocrisy, and apparently you have absolutely no words at all for a guy who essentially went in and accused a conversation of being completely devoid of content without offering any content. If he wanted to call the conversation meaningless, there were so many better ways to do so that it's not even funny. Your self-proclaimed "campaign against hypocrisy" extends absolutely no further than the people you dislike.

So why can't you post on Masada's wall asking him to tone it down? Why can't you send him a PM? Why can't you talk to him on chat?

Because Masada and I don't have a friendly relationship like I do with Lucky?

I mean, you didn't feel bad about piling it on after, as you so noted, Iggy and lj had already made the point with an honest question, or following up to me consistently.

I don't see people defending Lucky as a goo-natured, kind-hearted soul. Masada, on the other hand, appears to have made a brilliant, incisive comment on how devoid of substance the thread was, devoid of any kind of trolling or negativity. That's what gets my panties in a twist, dude -- the idea that somehow it's just acceptable to just put people down because they disagree with you, or maybe even because they happen to not hold a postgraduate degree in a subject which they DARE to talk about on the Internet (a place for serious business unless, it's regarding someone being a jackass in which case we're being way too uptight).

That's not acceptable, in public or private discourse. It's just not a matter of being rude on the Internet. I have a thin skin in that regard, I freely admit, and I personally think that for some reason erez has become the target of unbridled hatred which is utterly undeserved for a fairly nice, if spammy guy. It's this incredible idea that every time someone is "wrong" -- not even objectively so, but more in the sense of disagreeing with the poster -- then it is okay to completely belittle them without even bothering to post content in the other direction. It's like a YouTube comments thread. Is that exact feeling expressed in that post? Not in so many words, no, but I'm pretty sure it's obvious that Masada's post is in that vein.

Do you not see your own ridiculous double standards even as you demand civility from the rest of us? Again, it's great that you want polite and civil discourse, but you seem to only care for it when it benefits you and those who agree with you. It makes it rather hard to take you seriously on the matter.

Yeah, and "hypocrisy" (such as it is) is only bad when it's directed at you. Pot, meet kettle, please note that thy nametag reads "you."

 

[Symphony D.]

Nah, you know what is incorrigible? Acting like a pompous ass, dropping into a conversation and saying "you all fail econ so hard."

Considering the discussion wasn't even really about economics so much as Ron Paul, this seems to be reading a lot of intent into a statement that, as we already discussed, is quite open to interpretation.

You speak of hypocrisy, and apparently you have absolutely no words at all for a guy who essentially went in and accused a conversation of being completely devoid of content without offering any content.

As you yourself said: already covered. Also, I didn't particularly care.

If he wanted to call the conversation meaningless, there were so many better ways to do so that it's not even funny.

Sort of like your question to Crezth?

Your self-proclaimed "campaign against hypocrisy" extends absolutely no further than the people you dislike.

I'm sorry, NK, but I don't care about you. I don't hate you. I don't dislike you. I find you sort of amusing, but I don't interact with you enough or think about you enough to allocate emotion to the subject of my perceptions of you. It's Luckymoose that I dislike. My "campaign against hypocrisy" extends to you and you alone because you're here continuing to argue with me about it. I am not in the business of trying to moralize to this forum, I am in the business of responding to you because you are responding to me.

Because Masada and I don't have a friendly relationship like I do with Lucky?

So you're admitting to a very blatant double standard? It's okay to publicly try and shame people you don't associate with for behavioral standards and make no effort to do so in private because... effort? But close personal friends, you know, you gotta watch each others' backs. Some coincidence Luckymoose showed up so close on your heels in this thread...

I don't see people defending Lucky as a good-natured, kind-hearted soul.

He certainly has earned that reputation with his conduct in this very thread.

Masada, on the other hand, appears to have made a brilliant, incisive comment on how devoid of substance the thread was, devoid of any kind of trolling or negativity.

As I've repeatedly said, Masada's comment was essentially inconsequential and on a par with previous trolling on the subject.

That's what gets my panties in a twist, dude -- the idea that somehow it's just acceptable to just put people down because they disagree with you, or maybe even because they happen to not hold a postgraduate degree in a subject which they DARE to talk about on the Internet (a place for serious business unless, it's regarding someone being a jackass in which case we're being way too uptight).

This sounds like a 24/7 job. You must be incredibly busy in OT and... oh, wait, this is the only time you've done this recently, against all the trillions and trillions of condescending messages on the Internet. So, really, what makes this one special considering none of the others have really compelled you to act?

That's not acceptable, in public or private discourse. It's just not a matter of being rude on the Internet. I have a thin skin in that regard, I freely admit, and I personally think that for some reason erez has become the target of unbridled hatred which is utterly undeserved for a fairly nice, if spammy guy.

I don't see how erez factors into this discussion and if he was a factor you certainly didn't identify him as one at the outset.

It's this incredible idea that every time someone is "wrong" -- not even objectively so, but more in the sense of disagreeing with the poster -- then it is okay to completely belittle them without even bothering to post content in the other direction. It's like a YouTube comments thread. Is that exact feeling expressed in that post? Not in so many words, no, but I'm pretty sure it's obvious that Masada's post is in that vein.

Again, I don't see any subject identified in Masada's comments. Perhaps you could point them out to me.

Yeah, and "hypocrisy" (such as it is) is only bad when it's directed at you. Pot, meet kettle, please note that thy nametag reads "you."

As I said, I'm not particularly in the enterprise of baby-sitting other people's behavior. I'm talking to you because you're talking to me. You haven't actually disputed anything I've said, merely impugned my motives for doing so. My name is neither Kraznaya nor Dachs, and I keep making these points because you keep responding and you keep failing to deny them.

 

[Luckymoose]

I am good-natured and kind-hearted. You just don't see that because you're a horrible stinky rotten egg face.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Seriously, Symphony, just shut up. You're one of the most disgusting people in this community.

That said, I do have a problem maintaining civility. Especially with certain individuals on this forum -- such as yourself, because you have such a long history of being tetchy over such completely stupid things that I've got no reason to believe it would be anything but wasted effort. We can't all be Iggy, smiling in the face of spittle.

The reason I feel fine pointing it out is that I'm working on it. I see no evidence that you (and Masada, and others) do anything but revel in jackassery.

No one has to say a thing about my contributions. You're just a squishy blubberbutt!

Moderator Action: Hey guys, these ^^^ and more that followed are over the line and just breed more of the same. Please stop. Let's not open old wounds.

And furthermore, I had to interrupt the finale of "Spooks" season 3 to read through this and respond. Lives are in danger and it looks like they are going to kill more main characters and the PM of England.

 

[erez87]

Wow. I caused that?

Chaos!

Anyway. I don't feel particularly hated around here (thanks for defending me thou). I think this community is just especially attractive for people with a case of superiority complex (I mean comeon, you get to rule a country and nuke the world sometimes! Even be gods!) (but to be fair, also an inferiority complex is probably attracted to here) who tend to be more dismissive of others than productive in educating others on their errors.

Masada's comment also passed by me like it wasn't even there. I loled and moved on.


I do find it funny that Masada's comment caused a bigger discussion then the economic talk. But it's also a bit sad and telling of the community thou...I mean I admit I don't exactly bring a deep economic discussion, but it is still better then discussing how terrible or not terrible we are.


What is going on lately with the community? It's the second time Birdj has to stop everything and keep you guys in check lately. What is going on???

 

[Lord_Iggy]

We have a few personality conflicts between some major figures in the forum, heightened by the recent split between the #nes and #neverending IRC chatrooms, and very few of these people express an active interest in actually resolving said conflicts.

And in the interests of actually saying things rather than obliquely implying them, I will... okay, actually no. I need to organize my thoughts before I post this. But I have a lot of things to say to North King, SymphonyD., Luckymoose, Dachs, Kraznaya, Crezth, qoou, and flyingchicken.

 

[erez87]

If I can play lucky's puppet in EQ's nes. EVERYONE can get along. What is wrong with people...

I wonder if it's because we started getting to know each other personally.

 

[Lord_Iggy]

Well erez, different people have different tolerance levels for what they find to be objectionable behaviour in others. I think both you and I, and several others, are pretty tolerant and forgiving of things. However, a lot of the people in this conflict have a lot less willingness to put up with things they dislike about each other, and unwillingness to resolve these issues only allows the situation to fester and worsen.

 

[das]

I'm not sure how this is some drastic change for the worse. It seems like same old, same old to me. Unless there was some period of unbridled civility that I missed.

Also, honestly, I think Masada's comment was fair. Although I wasn't trying to talk in any great detail about the economy in the first place - I freely admit I am out of my depth there.

 

[erez87]

I'm not sure how this is some drastic change for the worse. It seems like same old, same old to me. Unless there was some period of unbridled civility that I missed.

Also, honestly, I think Masada's comment was fair. Although I wasn't trying to talk in any great detail about the economy in the first place - I freely admit I am out of my depth there.

I don't recall personal battles in the early days of NESing, or at all until sheep came around (but he was a special case).

I think Masada's comment was funny. (Same I thought of dach's when he said he'd rather get diabetes).

 

[das]

Oh, back then. Yes, but all those unwashed immigrants to our fair community over the last several years have ruined it a long time ago. It's not something that just happened in the last few months.

 

[Lord_Iggy]

Hey, 19 000 posts das.

 

[erez87]

Oh, back then. Yes, but all those unwashed immigrants to our fair community over the last several years have ruined it a long time ago. It's not something that just happened in the last few months.

It has been building up - but it exploded in the last few months...

These immigrants... Sheesh.

Maybe we need immigrant sensitivity training? For the immigrants that is. Everyone since second generation NESers?

 

[Lord_Iggy]

Everyone who arrived in this subforum after [insert date immediately after your arrival] is the source of [insert whatever problem you have]!

 

[das]

...oh hey.

Also, I could've sworn there was a time when I was far ahead of Iggy. This is wake up call if I've ever seen one.

erez, it's just that I'm getting a strong sense of deja vu here. I remember this exact sort of situation from four years ago.

 

[erez87]

...oh hey.

Also, I could've sworn there was a time when I was far ahead of Iggy. This is wake up call if I've ever seen one.

erez, it's just that I'm getting a strong sense of deja vu here. I remember this exact sort of situation from four years ago.

Really? I don't... But I have been far less active the past few years.

 

[Starlife]

I'd like to apply for the DREAM Act. I think being open to new players and not hostile to them is important for any community. There have been some members of this forum who do not treat it as an open community, and who are not very receptive or helpful in teaching others how to NES. It is the mark of outstanding discourse when one individual can politely inform another on a topic important or relevant to NESing (economics, for example); if one does not offer forth such knowledge, we cannot blame them, but should perhaps filter their irrelevant comments from the discussion altogether (ignore). When you enter a communal space, even dedicated to forum games, it is a brilliant thing to learn something new in that space. Also keep in mind, even if I don't (for example) have a post-graduate degree in economics, I do believe I have a fairly strong imagination, so after learning some of the more nuanced affairs of that topic, I might be able to put it through my personal filter and utilize what I learn in an innovative capacity (even from the perspective of the person who shared that information). So to me, if someone is unwilling to inform the community, it is their loss more than the community's, and all we can really do is ignore snide comments or think they're funny, or perhaps stroke some egos.

I have an extremely unrelated question, that will hopefully move discussion elsewhere: has there ever been a realistic real-world NES? I'm only asking out of curiosity from lurking in various historical / real-world NES. I feel like I would participate in a real-world NES in which the opening posts are not nations signing vague "trade agreements" and suddenly creating defensive pacts. I'm not trying to be judgmental or anything, and I know there's a place for those simplistic kinds of NES, but it turns me off personally from participating in them.

I do mean realistic, historical NES, but moreso, I mean a NES that begins in 2012 (or whatever year it was started in) and largely obeys the laws of physics. I'm not asking this because of my own NESing interests, but more out of curiosity.

 

[Lord_Iggy]

Depends on what you would call realistic. We've had some good-quality alternate history NESes, but the more you know about history, the less realistic each NES will appear to be, as they are fundamentally compromises, and simplified simulations of real history.

Also, wise words, Starlife.

And das, I recall when you had, I believe, an 8000 post lead on me back in '05.