Reading Server Options via Gscript

[falco10291029]

Kai, you cannot always argue everything if not backed up with concrete evidence. We are humans, not robots, and rely more on a opinion then logic. I'll agree it is impossible to prove that this thread needs to be closed, but when a bunch of people all believe so, humans usually will tend to try and please the masses. The obvious reason this thread isn't being closed is because it's obvious that mods and admins are robots (metaphorically), and will only close the thread if intimidated or logically shown it should be closed.

[Kaimetsu]

Originally Posted by falco10291029

We are humans, not robots, and rely more on a opinion then logic

So, what, the thread should be closed because one or two people have requested it? Do not be so quick to divorce logic and opinion. If one objective of moderation is to please the users then yes, there are circumstances where this becomes a logical reason to close threads - even if it must be based on the mod's discretion. But when only a single person has made the request, and the thread has potential for further productive discussion, it would be foolish to comply.

[falco10291029]

Originally Posted by Kaimetsu

So, what, the thread should be closed because one or two people have requested it? Do not be so quick to divorce logic and opinion. If one objective of moderation is to please the users then yes, there are circumstances where this becomes a logical reason to close threads - even if it must be based on the mod's discretion. But when only a single person has made the request, and the thread has potential for further productive discussion, it would be foolish to comply.

Prove that is has more worth than people arguing over its worth :-/

[Kaimetsu]

Originally Posted by falco10291029

Prove that is has more worth

Nuh-uh, this one's on you. A thread's open-ness has worth if somebody could conceivably want to post in it. This must be taken as the default, especially since people were doing so even after 'zokemon' got his answer.

[falco10291029]

Originally Posted by Kaimetsu

Nuh-uh, this one's on you. A thread's open-ness has worth if somebody could conceivably want to post in it. This must be taken as the default, especially since people were doing so even after 'zokemon' got his answer.

If this were the case, no thread could be closed because anyone could "conceivably" want to post there. A thread should be closed once it has done what it was made for. The only thing close to proof I can give is that no more good can come out of this, unless someone tries starting an entirely new topic piggybacking this one, which is basically pointless.

[Kaimetsu]

Originally Posted by falco10291029

If this were the case, no thread could be closed

Not at all. I am not citing rules here, but rather factors. A moderator must consider all of them when making a decision, and any could be outweighed.

A thread should be closed once it has done what it was made for. The only thing close to proof I can give is that no more good can come out of this

Why is that your decision to make? If somebody feels that they have something to contribute, why should they not have that right?

unless someone tries starting an entirely new topic piggybacking this one, which is basically pointless.

Pointless? They do it for a reason, whatever it may be. In some way they derive enjoyment or satisfaction from it, and they should not be denied without some positive reason.

[falco10291029]

Originally Posted by Kaimetsu

Not at all. I am not citing rules here, but rather factors. A moderator must consider all of them when making a decision, and any could be outweighed.

I can use that same thing against you for your argument to keep this one open. This has no more factors to keep it open than any other topic that got closed (except for rulebreaking ones).

Why is that your decision to make? If somebody feels that they have something to contribute, why should they not have that right?

If the point was made, there really isn't anything positive to contribute. That is like:

[FAKETHREAD]

BOB: What's 2+2?

JOE: 4

BOB: Thanks, that's all i needed.

TOM: Did you remember to carry the 2?

BOB: WTF i already solved it, stop.

TOM: No I wish to use my right that kaimetsu claims I have to add to a thread.

BOB: Dang you Kai, dang YOU!

[/FAKETHREAD]

Pointless? They do it for a reason, whatever it may be. In some way they derive enjoyment or satisfaction from it, and they should not be denied without some positive reason.

Give me an example of an instace where it's BETTER (Not equal to, or almost) to post a new topic on an existing thread, rather than starting a new one.

[zokemon]

Originally Posted by Kaimetsu

What an astounding hypocrite. If you feel that such puerile and illogical assertions carry any weight then perhaps I should take advantage of them myself.

'zokemon' has to have the last word just like a little kid. If he ever responds to anything ever again, he proves me right. If he doesn't, the board is a better place. Either way, I'm happy

You only proved my point as I said. Please grow up. You will go no more posts from me on this topic (especially since I will be going home for 10 days and won't be around a computer).

[Kaimetsu]

Originally Posted by zokemon

blah blah blah

Yay, I was right

Originally Posted by falco10291029

This has no more factors to keep it open than any other topic that got closed (except for rulebreaking ones)

Who said that I advocate all thread closures? If you want to use this against me, you need to give a situation where I have closed a thread unjustly.

If the point was made, there really isn't anything positive to contribute

Define 'positive'.

Give me an example of an instace where it's BETTER (Not equal to, or almost) to post a new topic on an existing thread, rather than starting a new one.

Depends on how 'new' the topic is. For example, proposing alternatives to using server options is really quite relevant to the matter discussed here. If somebody started a completely unrelated discussion then it would only be grounds for a thread split, not a closure.

[xAndrewx]

you double posted.. i suppose you was going to click edit but you pressed post reply instead ( )

[Loriel]

No, he did not double post. Get a clue before you make such assumptions.

[xAndrewx]

beer goggles blind!

[Loriel]

I would provide a screenshot that proves you wrong, but the two posts are so far apart that they do not fit on one screen...

[xAndrewx]

post 2 than

[Kaimetsu]

Originally Posted by xAndrewx

you double posted.. i suppose you was going to click edit but you pressed post reply instead ( )

No, I combined the two posts properly, but I forgot to delete the old one.

[Loriel]

Originally Posted by xAndrewx

post 2 than

It might have been unelegant, but far from double posting.

[falco10291029]

Originally Posted by Kaimetsu

Who said that I advocate all thread closures? If you want to use this against me, you need to give a situation where I have closed a thread unjustly.

No one did, nor implied you did, I just said that your criteria for this would have to be applied to all threads, and that this one should then be closed since others have been closed because they served their purpose and asked to be closed.

Define 'positive'.

I'm geussing you mean in the context i used. I mean benefits that could be made from that topic from continued posting.

Depends on how 'new' the topic is. For example, proposing alternatives to using server options is really quite relevant to the matter discussed here. If somebody started a completely unrelated discussion then it would only be grounds for a thread split, not a closure.

That isn't piggybacking a thread, that's continuing one. ANd yes, if the point was made, and soemone started an unrelated topic, it would be grounds for thread split, and then closing the one that served it's purpose.

[Kaimetsu]

Originally Posted by falco10291029

No one did, nor implied you did

Incorrect.

I just said that your criteria for this would have to be applied to all threads

Of course.

and that this one should then be closed since others have been closed because they served their purpose and asked to be closed

What? What? Did you actually sit and think and come up with that logic? All I stated is that numerous factors need to be considered before a thread can be closed. Why should this one be handled according to the same protocols as were used in closing others? This is where you imply that I agree with those closures. If I don't, clearly I will not advocate reimplementing those standards.

Yes, the arguments I've used here should be applied to all threads. No, that doesn't mean we should collect every reason ever used in closing a thread and pretend their application would be valid in this case.

I mean benefits that could be made from that topic from continued posting

Benefits for whom?

That isn't piggybacking a thread

Given that the term exists only within your own mind, I think I could be excused for misusing it. Of course, since I didn't use it at all...

yes, if the point was made, and soemone started an unrelated topic, it would be grounds for thread split, and then closing the one that served it's purpose.

And now we've come full circle, without you providing anything in support of your cause. Why should it be closed? Give me one positive reason (ie, anything that doesn't fit the form 'why not?').

[Crono]

I thought scripters were mature ._.

[Kaimetsu]

Originally Posted by Gerami

I thought scripters were mature ._.

What is immature about debating?

[protagonist]

Originally Posted by Gerami

I thought scripters were mature ._.

Haha. Where did you get that idea?

[falco10291029]

Originally Posted by Kaimetsu

Incorrect.

Then show where it was implied.

What? What? Did you actually sit and think and come up with that logic?

Not really, rambled it off the top of my head, but if you take the time to understand it, it's valid.

All I stated is that numerous factors need to be considered before a thread can be closed. Why should this one be handled according to the same protocols as were used in closing others? This is where you imply that I agree with those closures. If I don't, clearly I will not advocate reimplementing those standards.

I agree, but the same factors should be used within like cases. THis should be used the same way because it is just about the same type of thing. The supreme court does things like this all the time (Finds 10 cases that are basically the same, then judges them all the same), so why shouldn't we (other than because you say so)

Yes, the arguments I've used here should be applied to all threads. No, that doesn't mean we should collect every reason ever used in closing a thread and pretend their application would be valid in this case.

Why shouldn't it? Similar cases should have similar results, or we basically have hypocrites for mods.

Benefits for whom?

Anyone. basically, other than the mod, since they'd benefit from not having to close a thread, which only takes about 2 seconds (obviously I don't think that's a good benefit)

Given that the term exists only within your own mind, I think I could be excused for misusing it. Of course, since I didn't use it at all...

You implied it, by attempting to give an example.

And now we've come full circle, without you providing anything in support of your cause. Why should it be closed? Give me one positive reason (ie, anything that doesn't fit the form 'why not?').

You always claim that no support is given if you aren't convinced, which never happens. Ok, one positive reason: Less clutter within the forums, since just about anythign after the topic proves its purpose is spam (yes i believe our argument won't really help anyone)

[Kaimetsu]

Originally Posted by falco10291029

Then show where it was implied

I did, later in the post.

I agree, but the same factors should be used within like cases. THis should be used the same way because it is just about the same type of thing. The supreme court does things like this all the time [...], so why shouldn't we

Because that's a ridiculously stupid approach. It assumes that the precedential cases were handled in a sensible fashion, which often isn't the case here.

Why shouldn't it? Similar cases should have similar results, or we basically have hypocrites for mods

No, we have fools for mods. People like Moon Goddess who close threads on a whim, without any logical justification. Meanwhile, there exist a few that moderate sensibly, and they shouldn't be shackled to the idiotic standards of the rest.

Anyone

Then it's clear that there are potential benefits in any thread, simply because somebody might enjoy posting there.

You implied it

I 'implied' a term that is specific to you? A term that I don't use, a term that I reject on the basis that it is ambiguous and useless? Don't be ridiculous. I made a statement about posting within threads, and I had no intention of tying it to your semantic inventions.

You always claim that no support is given if you aren't convinced

I claim that no support is given if no support is given. You always claim that people claim that no support is given if they aren't convinced if you haven't convinced them. Now, instead of telling each other about each other, could we continue discussing the matters that matter?

one positive reason: Less clutter within the forums

Clutter? Define the term and show how it is a bad thing.

just about anythign after the topic proves its purpose is spam

Is this the definition of spam that encompasses anything and everything that you don't like, or the one that actually has presence within the English language?

[falco10291029]

Originally Posted by Kaimetsu

I did, later in the post.

Kind of bad to contradict yourself don't you think?

Because that's a ridiculously stupid approach. It assumes that the precedential cases were handled in a sensible fashion, which often isn't the case here.

GO tell that to the Supreme court

No, we have fools for mods. People like Moon Goddess who close threads on a whim, without any logical justification. Meanwhile, there exist a few that moderate sensibly, and they shouldn't be shackled to the idiotic standards of the rest.

Well the few good mods would have closed this thread already

Then it's clear that there are potential benefits in any thread, simply because somebody might enjoy posting there.

I am talking benefits that atcually are good for something, not just the joy of putting up a post.

I 'implied' a term that is specific to you? A term that I don't use, a term that I reject on the basis that it is ambiguous and useless? Don't be ridiculous. I made a statement about posting within threads, and I had no intention of tying it to your semantic inventions.

Yes, you did, you gave an example, a bad one, showing how piggybacking topics would help, and you did it wrong.

I claim that no support is given if no support is given. You always claim that people claim that no support is given if they aren't convinced if you haven't convinced them. Now, instead of telling each other about each other, could we continue discussing the matters that matter?

For one who criticizes proper english usage on a regular basis, this really isn't a good statement.

Clutter? Define the term and show how it is a bad thing.

CLutter is extra junk that does nothing but take up space. Obviously if no good comes out of the space taken up, then it is a negative thing, and therefore ridding of it would be a positive thing.

Is this the definition of spam that encompasses anything and everything that you don't like, or the one that actually has presence within the English language?

Spam is more of a slang term than a normal word in the enbglish langauge, so don't give me that crap. No slang term has presence within the english langauge, just in the minds of those who use it.

[Kaimetsu]

Originally Posted by falco10291029

Kind of bad to contradict yourself don't you think?

It seems that you have lost track of the debate. I have made no such contradiction.

GO tell that to the Supreme court

Certainly. As soon as you show that the methods of forum moderating can and should be the same as those of the American justice system.

Well the few good mods would have closed this thread already

Do you have anything to offer besides repeated proclamations of your opinion? What you think is insignificant if you cannot back it up.

I am talking benefits that atcually are good for something, not just the joy of putting up a post

The happiness of the users is not a factor in your vision of perfect moderation?

Yes, you did, you gave an example, a bad one, showing how piggybacking topics would help

Please, stop and listen to yourself. I gave an example of how continued posting could be useful. At no point did I refer to this as 'piggybacking', nor did I imply that I associated it with the term.

For one who criticizes proper english usage on a regular basis, this really isn't a good statement

You should learn to identify a parody

CLutter is extra junk that does nothing but take up space

How much space? A few kilobytes? Is this likely to make a significant difference? Enough to outweigh the users' desire to post?

And should mods delete all posts that they deem unworthy? Would that be a good way to make the users happier?

Spam is more of a slang term than a normal word in the enbglish langauge

So therefore you're allowed to use it to mean whatever you want it to mean?

[falco10291029]

Originally Posted by Kaimetsu

It seems that you have lost track of the debate. I have made no such contradiction.

You said you didn't early in the post, than said you did later in it, I haven't lost track of the database.

Certainly. As soon as you show that the methods of forum moderating can and should be the same as those of the American justice system.

Moderators are basically the justice of the forums. It's more of a metaphor, and since the American Justice system works so well anyway (supposedly) we should try and base ourselves on it.

Do you have anything to offer besides repeated proclamations of your opinion? What you think is insignificant if you cannot back it up.

Do you have anything to offer besides "prove that it needs to be closed"? You idea of what needs proof is insignifigant if you cannot back it up.

The happiness of the users is not a factor in your vision of perfect moderation?

The individual is not as important as the whole. I am saying 1 theoretical user that wants to spam up a forum shouldn't matter if most people say it should be closed.

Please, stop and listen to yourself. I gave an example of how continued posting could be useful. At no point did I refer to this as 'piggybacking', nor did I imply that I associated it with the term.

Well it sure seemed like you did based on how you phrased it, and how you didn't say what you were giving an example of, making it look like it'd be an example of what you're responding to.

You should learn to identify a parody

How much space? A few kilobytes? Is this likely to make a significant difference? Enough to outweigh the users' desire to post?

I am not talkign harddrive space, I am talking letter space, that could mess up searcg results or other things, and have nothing to offer. And yes, that's enough to outweigh the spammer's want to post

And should mods delete all posts that they deem unworthy? Would that be a good way to make the users happier?

Not that they deem, what the overall majority of the users deem. That would be a good way to make users happier.

So therefore you're allowed to use it to mean whatever you want it to mean?

Slang terms mean whatever most people think it means. Since they aren't really words int he english langauge, if i made up a slang term called bobikning, if everyone used it meaning to eat, it would mean to eat. That's how slang works.

[Kaimetsu]

Originally Posted by falco10291029

You said you didn't early in the post

Yes, you clearly have lost track. My statement "I did, later in the post" was in reference to your challenge to demonstrate an implication. Since this challenge did not even exist prior to that post, I have difficulty seeing how I could have contradicted an earlier statement.

Moderators are basically the justice of the forums [...]
since the American Justice system works so well anyway (supposedly) we should try and base ourselves on it

Do all justice systems operate in that fashion? If not, how are we to decide which to emulate? Many GPs have banned people from servers out of stupidity or corruption. Should all others follow their example?

Do you have anything to offer besides "prove that it needs to be closed"?

You are the one making a positive claim, arguing that something should be done. You should be the one to justify it. If you cannot, it is logical to fall back on the default: inaction.

The individual is not as important as the whole. I am saying 1 theoretical user that wants to spam up a forum shouldn't matter if most people say it should be closed

I am saying that a few selfish, misguided individuals that want to limit other people's posting rights shouldn't matter if a majority may still want to post.

Stop strawmanning. I am not defending the right to spam, and there has never been a single instance where "most" forum users asked for a thread closure.

Well it sure seemed like you did

To you, perhaps. But we have previously covered your linguil inadequacies and I'd rather not drag them up all over again.

you didn't say what you were giving an example of

Incorrect.

"Give me an example of an instace where it's BETTER (Not equal to, or almost) to post a new topic on an existing thread"
"For example, proposing alternatives to using server options"

I am not talkign harddrive space, I am talking letter space, that could mess up searcg results or other things

Wha? "Letter space"? What is this intended to mean, and how could it feasibly "mess up" search results?

Not that they deem, what the overall majority of the users deem

So, what, make a poll every time somebody posts? How do you propose that the majority is identified? And if there were an exceedingly unpopular person, would the mods be justified in banning him/her despite that they haven't broken any rules?

Slang terms mean whatever most people think it means

Roughly speaking, yes. However, that does not mean you can independently assign to them any meaning that suits you. Otherwise I would be quite within my limits to define 'spam' as 'any post made by that falco guy'.

In addition to the bounds placed on words by common usage, the forum rules actually sport an objective definition of the term. Within this context, when deciding on matters of moderation, it should be taken as the standard.

[falco10291029]

I give up. I can't think of anyway to "prove" that this should be closed that would suit Kai, and I don't wish to argue more and have him firther insult my english comprehension. I would gladly continue the argument if Kai argued in a more mature, less stubborn manner, but I see that is not plausible. I do not inted for this post to be responded to, for i will not respond to anymore of your "nuh uh"s.

[Kaimetsu]

Originally Posted by falco10291029

I would gladly continue the argument if Kai argued in a more mature, less stubborn manner

That's especially amusing when it comes from a person who relies on endless ungrounded assertions, refusing to back them up and intentionally misrepresenting his opponent's arguments.

[ZeroTrack]

this thread should be closed and deleted.... its not helpful its a perfect display of immaturity when this forum is supposed to be a helpful guide to new scripters

[Kaimetsu]

Originally Posted by ZeroTrack

this thread should be closed and deleted

Oh look, another one.