Book 2 – Page 99

[Salem]

Everyone hold onto your hats. In short, take the good, leave the bad.

How can you tell everyone to ignore the facts of life? D:

I'm a Buddhist, I try to see the good in everything. Either that, or I've finally gone completely loopy and the nice men in the white coats will be coming for me shortly. I'll put 50 quatloos on the latter.

But only if you take the good, take the bad, will you have, the facts of life.

[teratorn]

Stanley will not want to change the capital to Spacerock for he wouldn't be able to change it back without risking a journey there (he needs to be in the throne room of the capital), and that means moving for a few of turns with minimal air support, and then going back to GK. To get a caster moving safely he would be risking himself and the hammer twice. Not sure he thinks Parson is that valuable.

[Salem]

Stanley will not want to change the capital to Spacerock for he wouldn't be able to change it back without risking a journey there (he needs to be in the throne room of the capital), and that means moving for a few of turns with minimal air support, and then going back to GK. To get a caster moving safely he would be risking himself and the hammer twice. Not sure he thinks Parson is that valuable.

Actually someone went over that in one of the recent threads. It would be good strategy considering the dwagon relay. Minimal chance of being intercepted but without an heir it's an insane risk, with an heir it's tactically sound. And it wouldn't be for Parson it would be to decrypt all the dead. Which would answer questions about decrypted casters (Which is an important question tactically. Decrypted no cost casters you'd be over protective of and could risk the live ones if they can still cast. Granted he's not fond of decrypting. But Wanda being able to decrypt would shore their losses and put them back in a strong position.

[Kreistor]

Everyone hold onto your hats.

Sometimes, Kreistor has some good points. He is intelligent. He is logical, in that his arguments strictly follow the rules of logic. Sometimes he's worth listening to.

/bow

Thank you. And I, too, try to read everything you write. (Although recently, I have been off the forum for personal reasons.) You have pointed out flaws in my own ideas before, and I appreciate such efforts. I know it's hard for people to risk engaging me.

What he isn't worth is arguing with. He chooses not to abide by the implicit social contract.

Not quite. For certain reasons (specifically jealousy by someone that was told he should be my intellectual superior by his parents), I was excluded from the "social contract" for my formative years. It was not my choice, but that of those that should have been my friends that prevented me from learning what you think of as the social contract. I, consequently, care nothing for others' opinions, since for long years the only opinions provided to me of me were bold-faced lies designed to hurt, abuse, crush, and diminish me, to get into the goodwill of that Ansom-like moron. So, in short, your social contract never included me, has been actively used to abuse me, and so I have no reason to respect it. I have inherent defenses against the ignorant that try to "teach me a lesson", since I was created by others that sought to "teach me a lesson." That has, essentially, been my life since I was 5. Had I formed my opinion of myself from other people's falsely stated opinions of me, I'd have been found with a rope around my neck in high school. And no, this is not speculation: I have received apologies from some of the guilty that later regretted their part in the conspiracy of abuse.

And believe it or not, I have gotten better. I was a true troll for a time, long ago, without knowing what I was doing. Once I recognized my rationalizations, I found a different outlet for that side of my character. This forum, really, only gets a tiny side-swipe once in a while. If that outlet got triggered here again (as it has before), you would see 25 years worth of Internet debating skills brought to bear.

He uses rhetoric as a weapon rather than a tool to further open discussion.

Admittedly, here, it comes across that way, since the vast majority of discussion is speculation-based, rather than fact-based. What I promote is research and study. "Do your homework." Here, that includes reading back-story to ensure consistency with known facts, and Rob's style (which is noticeably standard authorship, so all the normal rules of mass fiction are being enforced, like major characters not being allowed to die). That does come across on this forum as attacking people via their ideas, but that is not my intent. I am interested only in the accuracy of the ideas, and care not if the author has tied up his ego into his brain-product. Personally, I long ago divorced my ego from my ideas (which I recommend for anyone that wants to be an engineer, because you are going to be wrong, and lives depend on your bad ideas getting crushed), so while I defend myself vigorously, you can't hit my ego by proving me wrong. People with ideas and solutions will have good ones and bad ones: it's not possible to have lots of ideas without the bad ones. There is lots of comic now which makes good speculation increasingly difficult and futile. There is simply too much for any one person to remember (and I do not have the greatest of memories, so myself included), so everyone should expect any speculation to be obviously wrong to someone else, who will remember a different set of facts that contradicts their conclusions.

I will be the first to admit that Kreistor is excellent at what he does. Unfortunately what he does is bad for cooperation and furthering discussion.

I've tried before. Others simply found the attempt as an opportunity to try to get their licks in, attacking me instead of helping me with what I was trying to figure out. But excuses aside, I just don't have anything to bring up right now. The comic is so slow paced, I can do it all alone. We could rehash all the old ideas again, if you like, but that flogged horse is raw and bleeding.

In short, take the good, leave the bad and don't feed the Twoll.

This Twoll has no ego to feed. That was never part of my posting, even when I was a troll. It's not about winning or losing or proving myself superior (my rationalizations were far more complex, though just as self-centered). I am trying to help in my own way, by promoting studious attention to the comic. People do prove their points to me, if they are fastidious. I am wrong by times (my most egregious error was the consequences of "disbanding" which I could not believe was annihilation, despite lots of good arguments for it), and I do apologize when I find my facts flawed.

[peteratjet]

Those of you referring to a bulge under Parson's cloak, well, I'm looking at page 97 and there is none, so he must have been through by then.

Those of you thinking he never left, well, didn't the warlords left behind think he was gone, in a text update? Unless throwing his image is cheaper than just generating one, I don't see it.

I reject your opinion! Or something..

That is to say, I think the bulge is there on page 97. Compare the hang of his cloak on Page 92, panel 2 with page 97. It's subtly different.

Thinking about it, if you're Jack Snipe and you want to sneak under Parson's cloak without him noticing, a good window of opportunity would be while he's LinkedIn(TM)

[Salem]

In short, take the good, leave the bad and don't feed the Twoll.

This Twoll has no ego to feed. That was never part of my posting, even when I was a troll. It's not about winning or losing or proving myself superior (my rationalizations were far more complex, though just as self-centered). I am trying to help in my own way, by promoting studious attention to the comic. People do prove their points to me, if they are fastidious. I am wrong by times (my most egregious error was the consequences of "disbanding" which I could not believe was annihilation, despite lots of good arguments for it), and I do apologize when I find my facts flawed.

Actually you hinder studious attention to the comic by scaring people off. You're acting like you're only rational but you in fact are rational AND mean. Big difference. It's not your opinions we complain about but they way you choose to share them. The derisive and dismisive nature of your posts.

Also, it's not a trolls ego you feed but normally some other desire. Much like an emotional masochist needs to be talked down to. Also, as much as I hate and also abuse the terminology feeding ego is a good thing, feeding Id is a bad thing.

Edit: Please note I'm not saying you have bad ideas you have good ones often. I think I've said that once before. I just wish you would be nicer to people and help build a community rather than keeping it small. Everyone isn't brilliant all the time. By treating people poorly for being wrong we don't prevent wrongness in the future we prevent trying. Possitive reinforcement! Punishment inhibits behavior. Reinforcement encourages.

[Kreistor]

Actually you hinder studious attention to the comic by scaring people off.

I don't. I might scare them from posting, in order to protect their bruised ego, but they don't actually leave, if they like the story. And, truthfully, I don't post anywhere near frequently anymore, so you can't level that accusation at my current behavior, either.

Edit: Please note I'm not saying you have bad ideas you have good ones often. I think I've said that once before. I just wish you would be nicer to people and help build a community rather than keeping it small. Everyone isn't brilliant all the time.

I have bad ideas, and I have posted several. And I don't expect brilliance. In all forums, ever since I started on alt.conspiracy, posting any theory always prompts counter-theories (save me from the Kennedy theorists and their 3000 definite killers!), so no one should ever expect that a theory will be accepted unscathed or expect the idea to not be analyzed to probe for inaccuracy from those with alternative solutions.

By treating people poorly for being wrong we don't prevent wrongness in the future we prevent trying. Possitive reinforcement! Punishment inhibits behavior. Reinforcement encourages.

"I'm very happy for you that you're stupid!" Heh, sorry, that is a very feeble attempt at a positive reinforcement joke and not intended to be taken seriously. My sense of humour has always been my greatest weakness, and try as I might, I find it's not something I seem able to learn, unlike most aspects of myself I am dissatisfied with. Humour seems instinctive and immutable. That's part of why you find me dry and uninteresting as a writer. Terrible sense of humour. Better to just stay bland. Yes, i do sometimes talk like Rorschach (Watchmen reference... and we haven't seen him in the comic yet... ).

But your comment confuses me. In most of my... discussions..., the opposing poster never admits to wrongness, so I never get the opportunity to denigrate them the way you imply. I do mock them, but only when they have made absurd and unsupportable claims about their own capabilities, which is typically a direct claim against my own initial attempts at criticism. (Classically, it's a claim to superior memory of the comic, and the mockery involves me linking or quoting 4-5 comics that directly counter their theories.)

This particular case is not my standard pattern, so I can understand your complaint here (though I don't agree with the full extent of the accusation), but usually I don't get the chance to "punish" wrongness. I generally play very kid glove with relatively innocent posters (broke pattern this time, admittedly), and open up only on those that respond negatively to honest criticism, or on those that are clearly looking for trouble in the first place.

[Housellama]

In the spirit that I began, I will do my best to continue in the spirit of cooperation and being positive. I am doing my best to avoid anything resembling an attack, Kreistor. I think that this is a communication gap that can be closed if both sides are willing to put effort into it.

The first two things are important, but the last one is the most important. I've spoilered the first two so that there won't be a wall of text preventing people from getting to the end.

Proposal for explicit social contract.

Spoiler: show

What he isn't worth is arguing with. He chooses not to abide by the implicit social contract.

So, in short, your social contract never included me, has been actively used to abuse me, and so I have no reason to respect it.

I accept this thesis. You come from a background such that the Implicit Social Contract (ISC) was unable to include you. That has informed your behavior such that it has come into conflict with the views of the other forumites. We perceive that you are breaking the one forum rule. The one forum rule assumes that the the ISC is in effect. Because you feel (correctly or not) that it doesn't apply to you, that rule is, where you are concerned, an invalid rule. It's not wrong, it's just apples and oranges. Therefore, I propose that we create an explicit social contract.

You are an intelligent and logical individual. You have shown yourself to be reasonable. Therefore, if an explicit social contract is created and agreed upon, it stands to reason that if we followed it, you would also follow it.

Ego reference by Kreistor in quote

Spoiler: show

He uses rhetoric as a weapon rather than a tool to further open discussion.

I long ago divorced my ego from my ideas (which I recommend for anyone that wants to be an engineer, because you are going to be wrong, and lives depend on your bad ideas getting crushed), so while I defend myself vigorously, you can't hit my ego by proving me wrong.

I find it interesting that when I say rhetoric you go to ego. Rhetoric is a tool that can be used in any number of ways. Most of them do not involve the ego. The fact that you referred to it indicates that you have an awareness that rhetoric can be used to affect it. Whether or not you have divorced yourself from your own ego, you know that you can use words to attack the ego of others. Since you are an intelligent man and good at what you do, you are presumably also aware that there are other ways of stating your arguments that do not attack the ego of others.

I realize that you do not believe in communicating the same way that the rest of us do. However, you are very intelligent. Perhaps you could see it as a mental puzzle to be overcome. Finding a way to communicate that takes into account the statements above. If you can choose your words to attack the ego, whether or not you do it intentionally, surely you can choose words that do not. I have a certain amount of respect for you, despite our opposition and I believe that you have the self awareness to be able to perform overcome that challenge.

I will be the first to admit that Kreistor is excellent at what he does. Unfortunately what he does is bad for cooperation and furthering discussion.

I've tried before. Others simply found the attempt as an opportunity to try to get their licks in, attacking me instead of helping me with what I was trying to figure out. But excuses aside, I just don't have anything to bring up right now. The comic is so slow paced, I can do it all alone. We could rehash all the old ideas again, if you like, but that flogged horse is raw and bleeding.

This particular set of quotes is, to me, archetypal Kreistor. Again, your mastery of rhetoric is impressive. I'd like to take this chance to break this one down to make a point. I'm sure this is something that people have noticed, but maybe haven't consciously realized. It's something that I've become a lot more conscious of recently. Plus, your use of language really is marvelous. So here it is.

From the beginning, you set up an environment that is implicitly hostile to you. You show yourself as reaching out only to be slapped down. You use the word opportunity in conjunction with two violent words, implying that there was an intent to attack you. You then contrast that with the word 'Help', which is a strong word. The idea of help is built into humans, so we respond to in a particular way. You know that this isn't the point being made, so you handwave it with "excuses aside" and shift gears, but the words have had an impact.

Your gear change once again starts with negative language. You make an implicit attack on the comic followed by elevating and isolating yourself further from the group. You start the final sentence with a collective pronoun, but only when offering to do something that has already been done, including the implication that it's futile. You end the phrase with an old saying (that is violent) about futility, but you add more pain oriented language. Bleeding is an especially potent word. That concept is an imminent threat to life, which is something humans are sensitive to. Ending the sentence there makes it the last thing people remember.

The "if you like" is a nice touch. It gives the impression of politeness while pawning a decision to do something that you consider stupid onto someone else, giving you something else to complain about if they say yes. It also has the effect of turning the sentence into an implicit threat in the guise of offering a course of action. You are offering them the chance to do something. If they turn it down, they are unreasonable. If they don't, it is implied that something will bleed. Well done.

All of this adds up to a very aggressive and violent statement. It is a masterpiece. It is also an unfortunately perfect case in point of what I was pointing out in the above quote. Not only does the content of your words drive people away, but so do the words themselves and the way you use them. We are hesitant to attempt to communicate with you because not just what you say but also how you say it is usually similar in tone to the sentence above. This is a fairly vivid example, but not by much. It's not just your arguments that cause people to react to you the way that they do. There's a whole lot more to it than that. Something for you to think about, perhaps.

If you want to pursue the explicit social contract, create a thread somewhere. We'll see if something can be worked out.

[Housellama]

But only if you take the good, take the bad, will you have, the facts of life.

We experience both the good and the bad. We have no choice in that. It is what we take with us afterwards that matters. When people read an internet post, they get everything. The lesson to learn is how to leave the stuff that not useful behind. Just because you experience it doesn't mean you have to take it with you. Sometimes the good only comes after going through the bad. You can carry the bad with you, or you can let it go and just carry the lessons that the bad taught you. Wisdom isn't given, it is earned.

Hence, take the good, leave the bad.

[teratorn]

Actually someone went over that in one of the recent threads. It would be good strategy considering the dwagon relay. Minimal chance of being intercepted but without an heir it's an insane risk, with an heir it's tactically sound.

But can he do a dwagon relay? Nearly all dwagons (and scouting archons) were involved in this attack. He would need to deploy the currently decrypted dwagons to the proper intermediate positions and that would take several turns. I agree that moving the ruler like that, with a good complement of dwagons (and scouting archons to check all hexes to be traveled by the ruler) at each relay site would be quite safe, but that's not what we have now.

From Stanley's point of view getting killed, heir or no heir, is still bad, though it would be cool to see if a decrypted Stanley would still attune to the hammer.

And it wouldn't be for Parson it would be to decrypt all the dead. Which would answer questions about decrypted casters (Which is an important question tactically.

That's a fair point, replenishing the ranks might tempt Stanley. The caster thing not so much, can't they simply carry its corpse on a dwagon? He won't disappear if moved and I'm not aware of a time limit for decryption.

Guys,can we please stop all this «Kreistor hurt my feelings» thing every time he disagrees a bit more vigorously with someone?

[multilis]

I think it is pretty obvious now that Jack is really Charlie, a master at both thinkomancy and foolomancy. That is why he was able to jump through portal, using the dish's free thinkograms to contact his other foolomancer ally to help cloak him.

That is how the Turn Ending spell worked... "Charlie" was really in same hex to do the linkup.

Charliecom has a figurehead overlord but Jack really calls the shots, just like Olive does in book 0.

(Jack lost his sanity for a while from the strain of split personality of playing minion of Stanley while controlling the most powerful side in the game, sort of like "Fight Club" movie. The dish is a small toy object in his pocket.)

PS: If you disagree with me, then you will hurt my feelings and I strongly advise you get a hero flower and put it in your hair before it is too late, and things get unpleasant.

[Kreistor]

Housellama: Wall of Text... fail. 8)

Okay, I'll break from my normal quoting method to just chat it out.

You want me to recognize a form of damage that you claim I am doing to others' egos. That damage is what I cannot see, detect, or prevent. Your social contract requires that I be able to predetermine the effects my particular words have on ego, and that is what I never learned. I know how to mock and provoke, but the subtler forms of damage are lost to my predetermination. I can come to recognize forms of it, if shown and the correlated cause and effect of a specific case, but what is natural to you is foreign to me. (For instance, a friend was wanting to run a particular D&D module, and I pointed out that he had two young children, a wife, a house, a new job, and so no time to actually prepare for a session every week. This caused a huge row that I did not foresee, since it was all the truth. It took a third party pointing out that he interpreted it such that I was saying he couldn't manage his time. (Which he couldn't, but heh, whatever.) I was really saying that he had no time to give to the game, since family comes first, so management was irrelevant. So now I don't use family as a reason why someone should reconsider a plan that I foresee as disastrously ill-considered.) One way to view it is that I come from a different culture with different rules. Since the words I use would have no effect on my ego (and, I'm told, on Russians, interestingly enough), I lack the sympathy that would identify the inobvious damage to others. That I know I can cause ego damage unwittingly does not imply that I can predetermine that damage will happen. Without that capacity I can make no promises.

Much as I want them to be, people are not puzzles. Logic cannot predict emotional responses, and ego damage is very emotional. While i can follow a set of rules, humans don't pigeonhole into a set of rules. What you are asking me to do is not a simple task. I have been working on it for over 20 years, and you still say I am making mistakes. Logic cannot replace the social rules that your society put into place: i can fake humanity in social situations, partially by simply never speaking. I choose, here, not to be silent.

But something you said above I have to contradict. You cannot choose not to take the consequences of bad experiences with you, any more than you can choose not to take with you the muscle damage caused by lifting something too heavy for you. Unawares, your mind will develop its own response to those experiences, in order to protect itself. And you won't even notice the changes in your future course of action.

Here's one difficulty I had to face. My girlfriend wanted me to go out with her friend and meet the new boyfriend. Problem: the friend had hated me for years, because of my trollish behavior. She had not noticed that I had changed, and was not as I had been, so still treated me the way she always had, convinced that her first impressions were always right. (Along with the implication that people can not change, as I was in the process of doing.) So, I went, but I did as I said above: I stayed silent for the evening. I greeted the boyfriend, and only said two other sentences all night, neither provocative. And the next day, my girlfriend was complaining that her friend was mad about the way I treated everyone. Neither my girlfriend nor her friend had noticed that I had said nothing, and instead acted as though I was my previous self. I suggested she ask the boyfriend what he thought of me, since I knew as an objective third party, he would answer, "Quiet guy. He didn't say anything all night." The relationship was short-lived after that, obviously.

And I face a certain amount of that on this forum. You discuss that rhetorical paragraph about trying to participate, but I was referring to a specific thread in the EEE section. I had merely asked if anyone could remember any comic that supported or denied a particular idea since I couldn't find it and just wanted another set of eyes and memory, which I did not reveal was critical to a second theory. It was remarkable how no one actually answered the question with a "Yes" or "No." Instead, certain participants simply ensured that it turned into an "attack Kreistor" thread. Look back in this very thread. You can see it even here. The baggage is carried, whether I want to forget it or not. It's something I deal with. Sometimes I fight back. Sometimes I report it. People have a significant problem remembered the forum rules when the topic turns to me. I am not fair game, guys. Watch yourself.

Did I create the hostile environment? You'd have to go back years to figure that out. Do I make myself a fat and juicy target for the self-centered morons that decide they need to take down an arrogant jerk? Yep. But I'm not creating that environment: they bring that with them, already prejudiced against anyone that appears superior. "Arrogance" is just a word they use to rationalize victimization. I'm not actually arrogant: I do not think myself superior to others, though people rarely understand that without long term, serious discussions with me. What I have is a non-standard vocabulary and diction, which gives the appearance of arrogance. I may know more about the comic (due to a strange and inconsistent memory that seems adapted to trivial knowledge, but not quite on Jeopardy levels), and I may have certain talents regarding the application and abuse of rules and their loopholes, but that doesn't make me superior, just different. And I have met real genius coupled with eidetic memory (and perfect pitch, incredible hand-eye coordination, and which combined to marvelous proficiency with musical instruments): I know I am a pale reflection of the truly blessed. It is those that think they are equal to others in anything they choose that are the truly arrogant.

I had no idea you would view the "flogged horse" metaphor that way. My intent was to demonstrate that we'd all hurt each other with our previous discussions, and not all of that was me vs. any of you. I've seen you all tear into each other, without any prompting from me. Sure, I'm the most likely suspect, but no one that's been around here any length of time is innocent. In short, I haven't seen much of this positive cooperation between the other participants, so you aren't going to get me to agree to something I don't see you all doing.

You have certainly learned how to engage me, though. Wonder if anyone else is paying attention.

[Salem]

Spoiler: show

Actually someone went over that in one of the recent threads. It would be good strategy considering the dwagon relay. Minimal chance of being intercepted but without an heir it's an insane risk, with an heir it's tactically sound.

But can he do a dwagon relay? Nearly all dwagons (and scouting archons) were involved in this attack. He would need to deploy the currently decrypted dwagons to the proper intermediate positions and that would take several turns. I agree that moving the ruler like that, with a good complement of dwagons (and scouting archons to check all hexes to be traveled by the ruler) at each relay site would be quite safe, but that's not what we have now.

From Stanley's point of view getting killed, heir or no heir, is still bad, though it would be cool to see if a decrypted Stanley would still attune to the hammer.

And it wouldn't be for Parson it would be to decrypt all the dead. Which would answer questions about decrypted casters (Which is an important question tactically.

That's a fair point, replenishing the ranks might tempt Stanley. The caster thing not so much, can't they simply carry its corpse on a dwagon? He won't disappear if moved and I'm not aware of a time limit for decryption.

Actually, you're right my assumption was that the risk existed because the archons were dead and couldn't spot hiding units/foolamancy. I am also basing it on the assumption that enough dwagons would be alive/decryptable. That assumption I now assume to be false. They had all the attacking dragons in the assault they were all harvested then decrypted any lost are permanant losses. So enough reds and enough dwagons in the capital would need to exist. So it is far less likely based on distance. I withdraw my point.

Spoiler: show

But only if you take the good, take the bad, will you have, the facts of life.

We experience both the good and the bad. We have no choice in that. It is what we take with us afterwards that matters. When people read an internet post, they get everything. The lesson to learn is how to leave the stuff that not useful behind. Just because you experience it doesn't mean you have to take it with you. Sometimes the good only comes after going through the bad. You can carry the bad with you, or you can let it go and just carry the lessons that the bad taught you. Wisdom isn't given, it is earned.

Hence, take the good, leave the bad.

I apologize for the misunderstanding, I was merely shoehorning in the facts of life intro. Viewable on YouTube for all of you who missed out on the 1980s. Much of the missing probably drug related. Or Wham! overload. Seriously though, if you missed out on anymore of the 1980's Google it and grab some Cindy Lauper. I am old.

Spoiler: show

Guys,can we please stop all this «Kreistor hurt my feelings» thing every time he disagrees a bit more vigorously with someone?

Juuuust a bit more.

Spoiler: show

What he isn't worth is arguing with. He chooses not to abide by the implicit social contract.

So, in short, your social contract never included me, has been actively used to abuse me, and so I have no reason to respect it.

I accept this thesis. You come from a background such that the Implicit Social Contract (ISC) was unable to include you. That has informed your behavior such that it has come into conflict with the views of the other forumites. We perceive that you are breaking the one forum rule. The one forum rule assumes that the the ISC is in effect. Because you feel (correctly or not) that it doesn't apply to you, that rule is, where you are concerned, an invalid rule. It's not wrong, it's just apples and oranges. Therefore, I propose that we create an explicit social contract.

You are an intelligent and logical individual. You have shown yourself to be reasonable. Therefore, if an explicit social contract is created and agreed upon, it stands to reason that if we followed it, you would also follow it.

Actually he is part of the implicit social contract. He uses the internet, provided by the society he claims not to be a part of. Someone clearly taught him to read and write and speak. Language can not be learned alone. He was fed before he could feed himself. Few people are Roosevelt who was born and wrestled a bear into submission to feed him that very hour. I know he's not Roosevelt else questioning him would have led to a severe big sticking in person.
Furthermore he is participating in THIS forum, a part of society and by interacting with others and eliciting their feedback further confirming his acceptance of being part of society. Whether he acts within the bounds of the implied social contract or not is up to him. Whether his going against it is enough for society to react is up to us.

Spoiler: show

Actually you hinder studious attention to the comic by scaring people off.

I don't. I might scare them from posting, in order to protect their bruised ego, but they don't actually leave, if they like the story. And, truthfully, I don't post anywhere near frequently anymore, so you can't level that accusation at my current behavior, either.

You're ignoring my point. Your argument is not valid. Sound but not valid. If you scare one person off my point applies. You probably have. That one person could be a valuable part of our little society. I won't continue this line of reasoning anymore, because I think you have the possibility of adding a lot to this community and I have no intention of offending you.

Spoiler: show

But your comment confuses me. In most of my... discussions..., the opposing poster never admits to wrongness, so I never get the opportunity to denigrate them the way you imply. I do mock them, but only when they have made absurd and unsupportable claims about their own capabilities, which is typically a direct claim against my own initial attempts at criticism. (Classically, it's a claim to superior memory of the comic, and the mockery involves me linking or quoting 4-5 comics that directly counter their theories.)

I apologize for the confusion. I wasn't speaking of punishment in the common sense. I meant as in operant conditioning. Positive and Negative Reinforcement and positive and negative punishment. Punishment inhibits a behavior reinforcement encourages it.

Spoiler: show

Did I create the hostile environment? You'd have to go back years to figure that out. Do I make myself a fat and juicy target for the self-centered morons that decide they need to take down an arrogant jerk? Yep. But I'm not creating that environment: they bring that with them, already prejudiced against anyone that appears superior. "Arrogance" is just a word they use to rationalize victimization. I'm not actually arrogant: I do not think myself superior to others, though people rarely understand that without long term, serious discussions with me. What I have is a non-standard vocabulary and diction, which gives the appearance of arrogance. I may know more about the comic (due to a strange and inconsistent memory that seems adapted to trivial knowledge, but not quite on Jeopardy levels), and I may have certain talents regarding the application and abuse of rules and their loopholes, but that doesn't make me superior, just different. And I have met real genius coupled with eidetic memory (and perfect pitch, incredible hand-eye coordination, and which combined to marvelous proficiency with musical instruments): I know I am a pale reflection of the truly blessed. It is those that think they are equal to others in anything they choose that are the truly arrogant.

Honestly you come off arrogant here. "Appears superior" kind of loaded concept. Not to mention to be less than someone you compare yourself to people who are TRULY amazing not only geniuses but eidetic memory. Here is where I'm straight up honest. I'm not half as talented as my office buildings maintenance guy. Dude can do everything. And yet notice how for my comparison I went to someone who works in maintenance. Man is that condescending to a profession. (Just figured out I'd point out lots of ways in which your accidental insults are actually no different than everyone else. Just the ones everyone else does are acceptable. Which is so hypocritical.)

Spoiler: show

In short, I haven't seen much of this positive cooperation between the other participants, so you aren't going to get me to agree to something I don't see you all doing.

Some is better than none. And frankly winamp (Llama whipping reference) AKA housellama is a prime example of practicing what he's preaching. He's actually trying to extend a hand and you are kinda slapping it. He doesn't want to alienate you he wants to embrace you. Every group needs a realist buuuut...

Spoiler: show

You want me to recognize a form of damage that you claim I am doing to others' egos. That damage is what I cannot see, detect, or prevent. Your social contract requires that I be able to predetermine the effects my particular words have on ego, and that is what I never learned. I know how to mock and provoke, but the subtler forms of damage are lost to my predetermination. I can come to recognize forms of it, if shown and the correlated cause and effect of a specific case, but what is natural to you is foreign to me. (For instance, a friend was wanting to run a particular D&D module, and I pointed out that he had two young children, a wife, a house, a new job, and so no time to actually prepare for a session every week. This caused a huge row that I did not foresee, since it was all the truth. It took a third party pointing out that he interpreted it such that I was saying he couldn't manage his time. (Which he couldn't, but heh, whatever.) I was really saying that he had no time to give to the game, since family comes first, so management was irrelevant. So now I don't use family as a reason why someone should reconsider a plan that I foresee as disastrously ill-considered.) One way to view it is that I come from a different culture with different rules. Since the words I use would have no effect on my ego (and, I'm told, on Russians, interestingly enough), I lack the sympathy that would identify the inobvious damage to others. That I know I can cause ego damage unwittingly does not imply that I can predetermine that damage will happen. Without that capacity I can make no promises.

You're not trying or at least you're not there yet. You act innocent here. But you admit that you don't ALWAYS mock, so you know the difference between mocking and not mocking. Therefor, mocking always attacks ego. Don't mock unless you WANT to attack ego. Maybe have someone check a post if you're afraid it will be hostile, I've done that before. You might not have that option though. Yes accidents happen with like your friend. On a forum saying honestly "I'm sorry." which is hard in text, goodness I know goes a long way.

P.S. I hate Freud as much as the next guy but come on.

[Kreistor]

Reply to Salem.

On the Social Contract:

Spoiler: show

Actually he is part of the implicit social contract. He uses the internet, provided by the society he claims not to be a part of. Someone clearly taught him to read and write and speak. Language can not be learned alone. He was fed before he could feed himself. Few people are Roosevelt who was born and wrestled a bear into submission to feed him that very hour. I know he's not Roosevelt else questioning him would have led to a severe big sticking in person.
Furthermore he is participating in THIS forum, a part of society and by interacting with others and eliciting their feedback further confirming his acceptance of being part of society. Whether he acts within the bounds of the implied social contract or not is up to him. Whether his going against it is enough for society to react is up to us.

Being born makes you automatically part of the contract? False on its face. To understand the contract, you must be a part of the community. That is what I was rejected from. The social contract is not taught by teachers. It is learned through your interactions with your friends. I did not have friends, except for those that were setting me up for a betrayal.

On arrogance:

Spoiler: show

Honestly you come off arrogant here.

Of course I do. I've come across as arrogant since I was 5. But I dare you: show me the quotes that indicate that I am truly arrogant... where I profess to being a better person. You can find places where I claim to have more knowledge on a subject (inevitably backed up with citation), or profess to having particular talents, but nowhere do i claim that this makes me a better person, which is the requirement for true arrogance. The conclusion of arrogance is based primarily on my vocabulary and diction, not on the content of my text, which makes it a false conclusion.

On condescension:

Spoiler: show

"Appears superior" kind of loaded concept. Not to mention to be less than someone you compare yourself to people who are TRULY amazing not only geniuses but eidetic memory. Here is where I'm straight up honest. I'm not half as talented as my office buildings maintenance guy. Dude can do everything. And yet notice how for my comparison I went to someone who works in maintenance.

Yep. Being intelligent and talented does not guarantee others recognize your capacities.

Man is that condescending to a profession.

There is a problem with being both excessively intelligent and advanced in a skill, as he is. You cannot know where other people's limits are, because it is easier for you than everyone else. I get accused of condescension all the time. I am in the IT industry. There you have a wide variety of training and knowledge, from know-nothings to self-trained gurus. When someone asks a question, I cannot know what their particular knowledge is. So, I inevitably start near the lowest level, or at a convenient level where I can gauge their knowledge. When I find they have much more training than their social situation suggests, that's when the "condescension" judgement comes down. I began too basic, "assuming" they were "stupid" and "insulting" their intelligence. No, I started where I needed to for an unknown training factor, because I help people of all sorts. To me, the question was basic indicating a lower level of skill, but the questioner being self-trained has gaps in their knowledge that happen to include basic things, but is otherwise talented. Catch-22. I either start too high and have to be brought down, or start too low and get called condescending. The former has fewer complications, but is much more time consuming because I'm repeating things twice.

I guess one of the better examples is in Patent law. You cannot patent something that is obvious. Some of the programmers I have spoken with, trying to find patentable software, tell me everything they do is obvious. Their measuring stick for that is, basically, "If I can figure it out quickly, then it is obvious." The problem with that is we are not good judges of whether something was easy to figure out. We figured it out, which makes it easy for us to understand, but it is easy because we figured it out, not because it was obvious. Basically, what is obvious to the intelligent inventor is not obvious to anyone else, so the standard those programmers used was only ensuring they never got anything patented. (Yes, it's hard to patent software in the first place.)

On pre-editing:

Spoiler: show

Maybe have someone check a post if you're afraid it will be hostile,

Done that before. It doesn't work. A lot of the "hostility" is in the mind of the reader, and if the reader wants to detect me as hostile, it doesn't matter what I write. Same as with that girlfriend's friend: she detected me as hostile, even when I didn't even speak, because she had decided that I was always hostile, and could never be anything else.

Besides, it is not reasonable to ask me to have others edit my text. That is tantamount to driving me off the forum.

[themysticalone]

My two cents as a total lurker:

If you are part of a community (and you are if you are here and posting and/or reading), you are subject to (included by) the implicit social contract of the community (which may vary a bit from community to community). This does not require you to agree to said contract or to accept it.

If you follow the ISC (to some extent), the community will accept you (to some extent). If you do not, the community will reject you (to some extent).

There is a bit of hysteresis in this. If you start abiding by the ISC and you hadn't previously been doing so, people will generally continue to act like you aren't. It takes some time for people to catch up and notice that you are abiding by it. This time will generally vary with the length of time you had not been abiding by it. If you had been abiding, but stop doing so, people will generally treat you like you still are abiding by it until they catch up and realize you aren't.

[Ryjak]

Just because you haven't violated any rules doesn't mean you haven't be pleasant or even borderline trolly. You've out of hand dismissed people's ideas if not outright insulted them. Let’s call a spade a spade. You think well and you put good thoughts together, sometimes you commit fallacy's we all do. Just come on man try to play nice and not treat everyone like they're morons because you don't agree or because they missed some crucial flaw in their thought process.

Again, I reject your opinion. If you feel I have violated a rule, then the correct procedure is to report me, not chastise me: that's what the Report function is here for. Anything less is my discretionary choice.

I have tried filing the following report, but the board program isn't allowing it, so I'll just post it here. In the meantime, please move this discussion to a different Forum area, and return to discussing the primary topic.

This post is the start of a long discussion on what is and is not acceptable behavior on the forum, and has nothing to do with the Forum Topic: Page 99 of Book 2.

I'm reporting this particular post because this member specifically asked to be reported if anyone felt he was doing something wrong, for the second time. This tells me he will not respond to anything except official moderator action.

[drachefly]

Sorry, Kriestor, but you're acting like you're superior - you're even saying it - but I can think of several posters who are on par in every positive respect and lack the major negative of thinking that they're superior.

To abuse a metaphor, you may be a special snowflake, but you're not a fifty foot snowflake mounted on a skyscraper.

[bladestorm]

How wide are the portals themselves? Are they paper thin, or is there enough of the doorway that Jack could have been standing in the portal's thresh hold the entire time? Would a step onto the line of the portal that one foot half on one side of the portal and half on the other, or could you place your right foot into the portal and then need to step to your left foot to make it out?

[Finwe]

Could the individuals involved in discussing community, social contracts, etc please take it to another thread? You're way off topic.




One important rule about corpses is that they disappear at the start of your turn *if they are not moved.* A viable strategy for Parson may be to simply pile up all the corpses in a warehouse and hope they last long enough for Wanda to arrive by dwagon. This is assuming that the City isn't destroyed by the fire. It may very well be destroyed, leaving Parson and crew alone in the wilderness, far from home, with no high-level city defenses to protect them.

[Salem]

Could the individuals involved in discussing community, social contracts, etc please take it to another thread? You're way off topic.




One important rule about corpses is that they disappear at the start of your turn *if they are not moved.* A viable strategy for Parson may be to simply pile up all the corpses in a warehouse and hope they last long enough for Wanda to arrive by dwagon. This is assuming that the City isn't destroyed by the fire. It may very well be destroyed, leaving Parson and crew alone in the wilderness, far from home, with no high-level city defenses to protect them.

Just a heads up first bit isn't really necessary, the people who were actively doing that haven't said anything after the last user posted a longer bit of exactly what you said.

As for the second bit, that is a good plan, but it's also a gamble. Decryption might take a fresh corpse, it's a good bet that in that respect it works like uncroaking. But with that many corpses on the line, it is a major gamble, not necessarily for odds of success but for the wager required. Be smart to test it though so you'd be sure later, and if you have no other options definetly the plan to use.