Member Discussions

There is no difference between what happened with Nameless and what happened with Scandum

Besides argueing that Nameless_'s case was the drop to make the glass overflow, I'd say it's primarily because we all know that Scandum is either A) a complete sociopath or more likely B) a wannabe A.
The point is really moot without the two posts in question before us. We'll have to know their exact content before drawing conclusions as to why they were removed.

I still stand by my point before that this isn't a trial, and Icculus isn't a judge. Evidence doesn't come into play here because the singular, and only important thing when determining if a post should be removed should be (and I believe is), the post itself. That is the only piece of evidence. There is no trial, where both parties get to argue their case.

Well, the only way Andrew could actually tell that Nameless_ was lieing, was because the lie involved him. If the lie hadn't been about himself, he would have to see some kind of documentation that back up the report claiming that Nameless_ was lieing. No matter how outrageous the lie might have been. Of course, someone wanting to disrupt things for either Andrew or Matt will think up plausible lies and construct fake documentation to validate his lies.
I'm not certain what the exact definition of judge and evidence is (don't care either!), it's close enough for me.

By saying that the process is a trial, or that Icculus is the judge, you are insinuating that the post in question isn't the most important part of the decision-making process. Such that, for example, I can post profanity against the TOS, but because I've been good up to now, the profane post gets to stick around. (i.e. My being me outweighs the violation), which isn't the way things have worked up through now.

I'm don't see how I'm insinuating that the post isn't the most important thing in the decition-making process. I certainly hope it will be. I'm very adamant when I say it wont be the only factor, however.
The fact that there is such a thing as reprimands, or warnings, before you're banned, suggests that prior behavior is indeed taken into account. That said, I certainly agree that everyone should be equal to the law, but as the why-achaea-always-shows-up-thread shows, not everyone is (the mere fact that not everyone knew about this arrangement, is enough to warrant such a conclusion).

If it is your belief that he will give weight to certain individuals in the future, then we'll have to wait and see if that's the case... and if so, respond to it accordingly then.

Hm. Seems fair enough on the surface of it, but it'll only delay the discussion of the points we're making now. First of all, you're assuming we'll have access to the posts which were removed and the reports filed in order to remove them, in addition to the reports which weren't 'successful'. We wont have that crucial bit of statistic, obviously.
Even if we did, how much is enough to form a firm statistical basis? 100 reports? More? I'm not sure, but I'm fairly sure we'll find a way to disagree ;-)

We'll gain nothing from waiting and this discussion will change nothing now or in the future.
Doesn't make it less important, though (unfortunately not very funny either. Sorry Old Man).

If Icculus didn't look at the name of the person reporting the abuse, for example, he couldn't possibly be anything *but* impartial.

Icculus isn't stupid. He'll know if not who, then at least why the report was made. I think he'll be able to tell very easily if the reporting member is a financial support or not.
I doubt he'll ever agree to such an arrangement in the first place - it's important to his customers that Andrew knows when it's them talking to him, and that makes it important to him.
They got his phonenumber for crying out loud! How's that for influence?

Finally, it all comes down to the fact that Icculus has the right to keep his site in a condition he feels is most appropriate.

You're quite right, like Kavir.
Until further notice, however, I still have the right to disagree and argue why that is. If you don't see the point of this discussion, leave it.

That's not to repeat what everyone else has said already, but only to note that Icculus makes (at least part of) his livelihood from advertising on this site, which is made possible solely by the fact that the site is a good reference material for MUDs, and a good forum for civil MUD-related discussion. Were either of those two conditions to be compromised, advertising on his site would become less valuable.

Civil means a lot of things. If you find that it means no profanity or lies, more than it means equal rights and opportunity, then yes, I guess you're right.
I've said it before and I'm not afraid to say it again: I like The Mud Connector. I know that it wouldn't be what we know it to be without the commercial interest in the site - but that doesn't mean I have to like the influence that necessarily follows such interest, or even that I should value the quality gains over the loss of free expression and equality.

After all, there are plenty of other places you can find, all over, that aren't governed by any moderation.

I thought I stated it clearly enough previously, perhaps not. I'm not speaking for a completely unmoderated forum - only that what is relevant to muds, even to mudders, is allowed to stay without interference from those who are motivated by anything but passing their time.

Thanks
Mass.

Well, the only way Andrew could actually tell that Nameless_ was lieing, was because the lie involved him.
I don't think it matters whether or not he was lying. He made a statement that was pointlessly damaging that someone else took offense to. For example, if he had said the same thing about a non-advertiser and Serapis (as opposed to Serapis and Icculus, in this case), I think it would be likewise appropriate to remove the post (or the section which was damaging). As well, there is no evidence to suggest such a post wouldn't be treated the same way. --- It's only about whether the post is inappropriate (as I understand the situation, at the very least).

The fact that there is such a thing as reprimands, or warnings, before you're banned, suggests that prior behavior is indeed taken into account.
But we're not talking about people being banned... we're talking about posts being removed. It is my understanding that in any circumstance the post is removed... whether or not a user is banned *is*, you're correct, dependent on past behavior... but who's claiming that Icculus shouldn't ban people that consistently violate rules? The point is that the post being removed isn't dependent in any way of the user who made the post or the person who reported it. Punishment to the user might, but that's a different issue, and has nothing to do with the post.

everyone should be equal to the law, but as the why-achaea-always-shows-up-thread shows, not everyone i
That's, again, a different issue, as it has nothing to do with censorship. For the sake of argument, Serapis pays to have IRE get increased publicity, and that's certainly what the embedded HTML allowed for. Serapis *isn't* paying for Icculus to censor anything, though... which is why it's a different issue.

...it'll only delay the discussion of the points we're making now....
Yes, *if* you're right. If I'm right then no.

you're assuming we'll have access to the posts which were removed
You have access to two posts that were removed in the past couple months. What makes you think that you won't have such access in the future? The MUD community is pretty good about bringing these things to light, and when someone feels they've been unjustly censored, they're certainly pretty likely to respond the same way Nameless and Scandum did, by posting another topic explaining what happened in hopes of support.

100 reports? More? I'm not sure, but I'm fairly sure we'll find a way to disagree ;-)
I'm only saying that more than one single occasion. 100 unreasonably censored posts is certainly more than enough... You're saying that because of one single occasion, that everyone's going to start jumping on reporting everything. I'm saying that if everyone does, then we'll have to deal with it then.

We'll gain nothing from waiting and this discussion will change nothing now or in the future.
It'll change the statement of "I think this will happen" to "this is happening"... or in other words... speculation into appropriate response. It's not like if you are right that we'd be crossing some line from which we'll never recover. Besides, given the influences I, and others, have mentioned, it's unlikely anything will change even with discussion anyway.

He'll know ... who,
And I'm not saying he shouldn't. I'm just saying that it is certainly possible to be impartial. For example if he hypothetically didn't know which parties were involved, he would act impartially. Since it is possible for him to be impartial, I'm saying that your point is that you don't believe he will be, and my point is that I do believe he will.

I still have the right to disagree and argue why that is
Of course... I never said you didn't. However, based on how this conversation has been going... if I stop responding, the conversation ends... *smile*

Anyway, off to class. Best of luck,
-Jess

In the interest of drifting off topic, can you please please spell Matt's nick as he spells it?

I don't think it matters whether or not he was lying.

Then you're missing one of the most crucial points I'm making.
Determining whether or not a given member is lying is crucial to the role Icculus has. We agree that he'll try to be just and fair, and I think we can agree also, that he needs to know what is lie and what is truth in order to be so.
If Nameless_ had been telling the truth, his post would not have been pointlessly damaging - it would have been a service to the community, and a valuable one at that.

The point is that the post being removed isn't dependent in any way of the user who made the post or the person who reported it.

Well, that's the matter we're debating - if andrew will be dealing with people exactly the same whether or not they're financial supporters - simply restating your stance will do your case no good.

Punishment to the user might, but that's a different issue, and has nothing to do with the post.

This is very intersting. I don't think it's another issue at all - I think it's THE issue.
Who do you think he might treat differently when it come to punishment, and why, please?

That's, again, a different issue, as it has nothing to do with censorship. For the sake of argument, Serapis pays to have IRE get increased publicity, and that's certainly what the embedded HTML allowed for. Serapis *isn't* paying for Icculus to censor anything, though... which is why it's a different issue.

While it doesn't deal with censorship, it goes to show that icculus is quite capable of treating people differently, even if that wasn't his intention.
I'm aware that Matt isn't paying Icculus to censor stuff, that doesn't mean that the influence Matt holds wont make it easier for Matt to get posts removed.

...it'll only delay the discussion of the points we're making now....
Yes, *if* you're right. If I'm right then no.

Nono. We will not have a sound statistical basis on which to change the facts of the discussion. Without that statistical base, there's no point in waiting.
Besides, I'm right and you're wrong ;-)

You have access to two posts that were removed in the past couple months.

I can't know that those posts were really the posts that were removed. I understand that Tyche had somehow cached Nameless_'s post this time around. Were we that lucky with Scandums? Can we count on Tyche or others to always validate suppossedly censored posts? Can we count on those parties to be trustworthy in all cases - what if they themselves were censored?
There are too many uncertainties in this 'access' to removed posts, and that's assuming that everyone who gets censored will also raise a ruckuss about it. Add to that all the discarded reports that we'll never hear of. Any statistics we might try to build from such complaints will be seriously flawed.

You're saying that because of one single occasion, that everyone's going to start jumping on reporting everything. I'm saying that if everyone does, then we'll have to deal with it then.

I think that's a likely result yes, but that point was a feeble 'aside-point' to icculus about how he might not end up saving time at all.

And I'm not saying he shouldn't. I'm just saying that it is certainly possible to be impartial. For example if he hypothetically didn't know which parties were involved, he would act impartially. Since it is possible for him to be impartial, I'm saying that your point is that you don't believe he will be, and my point is that I do believe he will.

Yes, we've long since cleared up who thinks what. We've moved on to basing our opinions on fact or logical conclusions - and I'm not entirely sure what you're saying here.
Is it that because Icculus, in one scenario, is able to be impartial, he'll also be impartial in all other scenarios? That's pretty much how I understand it - Please elaborate.

Of course... I never said you didn't. However, based on how this conversation has been going... if I stop responding, the conversation ends... *smile*

We can only hope you'll keep your feet on the ground with such awe-inspiring power ;-)

Mass.

Just a thought.... why do you need "access" to posts that were removed? If the OWNER of the site felt they needed to be removed, it really isn't any of our business.

Crazy, 100+ posts on people griping because some toolshed got his post removed. You know, if you post things simply to flame/troll, such as Nameless' post was, why would you expect them to stay up?

Mass, no offense here your post was just the most recent I'd read. Know what? This isn't the US of A here, there is no right to free speech, there is a ton OF it, but it is a private playground.

I know everyone gets all hot and bothered that people actually make money from a text game... but who cares? Without the sponsors, it's very likely mudconnect wouldn't exist. So rather than whining how Johnny gets to be first in line at recess, let's thank him for the school still existing.

No one ever said we all start with $500 at GO.

My mistake, Sarapis... I guess I misread it wrong a long time ago and have
just been working off that mistake since... No disrespect intended.

If Nameless_ had been telling the truth, his post would not have been
pointlessly damaging - it would have been a service to the community
Yes, I understand that point... I still don't agree with your overall view,
however. Anyway, I don't believe that things in which evidence in the form of
"Someone told me"..."I didn't"..."He did"... don't tend to fall into the category
of inappropriate material. This particular case did because it concerns a wild
alegation about the site. In general, and as can be seen (as far as I'm aware)
in previous situations, evidence is unneccesary, as the post is the only thing
of any importance or weight. I know you'll be saying that "because of this
post a precedent has been set for the future"... and whatnot... however, I
don't believe that to be the case, and nothing but waiting until it does or
doesn't happen is going to change either of our minds about that issue.

....The middle section....
There is a difference between the removal of a post and the punishment of an
individual. This can be clearly seen in the way Nameless and Scandum were
dealt with. A post being removed isn't punishment, it's simply the removal of
content which isn't suitable. Neither Nameless, nor Scandum, were banned or
repremanded after posting inappropriate content the first time around. They
were punished for posting it again in direct conflict with the ruling of Icculus.
A punishment, of course, is going to be based on the previous behavior of
the individuals in question. Not being so would be rediculous... however the
removal of the post isn't dependent on that. The removal of the post has to
do with the content therein, and that's all. I don't know how else to rephrase
that.

Who do you think he might treat differently when it come to punishment,
and why, please?
Me... because I've been good up until now... as opposed to Nameless or
Scandum, who have not been. If I post something obscene, it will be removed
and I will be warned. If Scandum comes back and does, he will likely be
banned again. Nonetheless, the point is that the post will be removed in
either case. The post removal isn't dependent on the person.

t goes to show that icculus is quite capable of treating people
differently
Of course he is... We all are. If he didn't have that ability, he'd be a poorly
programmed robot. Just because he has the ability to treat one person
differently on a completely separate issue doesn't mean he's *going to* treat
someone differently on *this issue*. I would treat Hitler differently than I
would treat you, if I ever met either of you in person. Does that mean that I
am biased about animal rights? And that's not even getting into the fact
(which you already know) that advertising is essential to this site even
existing. Advertising requires preferencial treatment when it comes to
publicity (though no other area). But that's a different issue, once again.

We will not have a sound statistical basis on which to change the facts of
the discussion
I don't understand. You seem to be supporting the idea of waiting... since we
have no sound statistical basis now, but we would in the future? Nonetheless,
it doesn't matter... since quite obviously we will have more information in the
future, which isn't really debatable.

I have to go before getting to the last part of your post... which is likely the
most important.

Anyway, Best of Luck,
-jess

(Comment added by mann_jess on Wed Dec 6 16:09:21 2006)

Is it that because Icculus, in one scenario, is able to be impartial, he'll also be impartial in all other scenarios?
No. You said "Icculus cannot be impartial". My response to that, is that you don't really mean he "can't be", you mean you "don't believe he will be"... which is your opinion. My opinion is that "I believe he will be". Therefore this is only a difference of opinion. Since we have no past experience to base this on (except, perhaps, Icculus' notable performance in the past being fair, as you yourself have commented it has been), the only thing we can do to see which of us is right is to wait until actual events have transpired which support one of us. Anything else we do now is just speculation.

We can only hope you'll keep your feet on the ground with such awe-inspiring power ;-)
I was responding to the: "If you don't like the discussion, then leave it" comment you made. As things have been recently going, we're the only two involved in the discussion. That being said, if I leave it, there is no discussion. But since you brought it up... I'll try to keep my feet on the ground, and thanks for commenting on my glorious power. *smile*

Best of Luck,
-Jess

I agree completely with your take on censorship. You need to remember that the majority of those running muds are in fact nazis, and will characterize your (and my) position as anarchy and throw up the censoring of speech of no consequence as a straw man to justify removing speech of consequence. They simply do not believe in personal responsibilty nor do they trust the intelligence of their playerbase (users). Instead criticism needs to be met with punishment and assasination.

From Tyche:

They simply do not believe in personal responsibilty nor do they trust the intelligence of their playerbase (users). Instead criticism needs to be met with punishment and assasination.


For me its not that I don't trust a playerbase, but for my mud its more or less the setting of guidelines. For instance, since I'd prefer to keep sexual talk in private channels only and keep it out of the public channels due to minors being able to access the mud, there is a policy prohibitting such talk.

But, we're also not discussing a mud with this issue, we're discussing a forum, namely this one. While I understand your reasonings and wishes for unrestricted/unmoderated discussions, Icculus decided to have the forum set up in a specific way, which is semi-moderated (moderated only when someone clicks on a link and Icculus then decides if the post is inappropriate).

He doesn't need our ok, our permission, our input, etc. Right, wrong or indifferent, this is his little piece of the internet, and his rules apply. On a website/forum you create, your rules apply (even if they entail no rules at all).

Just as I would support your rules on your forum, I support Icculus' choices here. He doesn't HAVE to have TMC up and running. He does it out of the kindness of his heart. Eventually he may get fed up with the constant allegations of impropriety and take it down. Then the community at large loses. That would be a really sad thing to see.

Ha, thought I was done with this subject, didn't you?!
Sorry for the delay. It can't be helped for the time being.

The removal of the post has to do with the content therein, and that's all. I don't know how else to rephrase that.
...
The post removal isn't dependent on the person.

There should be no need to rephrase this. You've said it many times over, even after I explicitly told you I understand that this is your position. This is, after all, the point we're discussing.
Saying it again and again will not make it any more true (had there been any truth to it, that is ;) - although you might deepen your own conviction that it is true.
In any case, you should find me a much more amiable person if you'd refrain from this pointless repetition.

I've stated that I believe Icculus will be partial to those who support him financially. I consider this to be quite rational behaviour - though undesired in this context.
To keep this discussion going along paths as of yet untrodden, you might qualify your above beliefs with arguments beyond 'He's been fair before'.

And that's not even getting into the fact (which you already know) that advertising is essential to this site even existing. Advertising requires preferencial treatment when it comes to publicity (though no other area).

So, you're saying that without advitisers - like Matt, for whom there are no immediate replacement - TMC would be forced to close down. And then you proceed to say that such advitisers (read Matt), does not influence anything beyond publicity (whatever that means).
Don't you see how naive that is? It's so smack-forehead obvious that I'm having trouble believing that you really believe it.

You seem to be supporting the idea of waiting... since we have no sound statistical basis now, but we would in the future? Nonetheless, it doesn't matter... since quite obviously we will have more information in the future, which isn't really debatable.

Actually, it is debatable - we, the human race, forgot how to make cement, for example, and had to re-invent it several centuries later.
Granted, we're in slightly different circumstances, but I still claim that while we may have more information, we'll never have enough and/or reliable information to have a discussion which is wholly different from this one.

You said "Icculus cannot be impartial". My response to that, is that you don't really mean he "can't be", you mean you "don't believe he will be".

Hm. I've said, and I stand by it, that I believe Icculus will try to be impartial, but that he will be partial nonetheless - cannot help but be partial in cases where advitisers are involved.
He's aware that he depends on the person behind this or that report in order to keep this site going (at the very least), and that must necessarily influence his decision. To think otherwise is borderline ignorant.

Therefore this is only a difference of opinion. Since we have no past experience to base this on (except, perhaps, Icculus' notable performance in the past being fair, as you yourself have commented it has been), the only thing we can do to see which of us is right is to wait until actual events have transpired which support one of us. Anything else we do now is just speculation.

Yes, next time someone is banned or we get wind of a report that was dismissed, we could point to that situation and triumphantly exclaim: "I was right" - which would be a mindnumbingly stupid thing to do, based on such a meagre sample. We will never have enough accurate cases to base this discussion on statistics.
This is, and always will be, speculation. Nothing wrong with that.

Mass the unyielding.

I know everyone gets all hot and bothered that people actually make money from a text game... but who cares?

Aside a little healthy jealuosy, I don't.

Mass, no offense here your post was just the most recent I'd read. Know what? This isn't the US of A here, there is no right to free speech, there is a ton OF it, but it is a private playground.
...
Without the sponsors, it's very likely mudconnect wouldn't exist. So rather than whining how Johnny gets to be first in line at recess, let's thank him for the school still existing.

It's a matter of fairness. If I play, I want everyone to play by the same rules. If I go to school, I want to have the same opportunity to learn as everybody else.

I don't give a hoot who owns this site or what rights that gives him. I just want the site and its' administrator to treat everyone the same, or don't treat them at all (as in dump the censorship).

Massaria... The point is that if you believe this event to be in any way unfair, I still don't. There are just about an equal number on either side, I believe. Thus, basing anything on this event is basing it solely upon an opinion which isn't supported by a majority. Doing so will get nothing changed.
If you don't believe that this situation was unfairly handled, then you're basing your conclusions on no actual event, whatsoever. Speculation based on some factual information is one thing... pure speculation with no basis is quite another. Even if there was *one* single event which was to some extent agreed upon to be unfairly handled, your case would be stronger. We won't have that one single case, however, at least until future events transpire, and future post removals occur.

You believe Icculus will be unfair. I believe he won't. I have evidence to support my belief. You can believe all you want that your opinion makes logical sense, despite the fact that it's purely speculation... I will continue to believe that it is falsely concluded. Once again, this is only a difference of opinion, which quite obviously, won't be rectified until some evidence develops to further the conversation. Having concluded that it's only a difference of opinion, and that, as a result, things aren't going to suddenly be changed, there's no point in having this conversation now. Until something changes, you aren't going to sway my opinion, and I'm not going to sway yours.

Best of Luck,
-Jess

And by the way... Evidence is what makes a case, not speculation, thus the statement of "past experience shows", is a valid point. In this situation, it's the only solid point either of us has.

Massaria... The point is that if you believe this event to be in any way unfair, I still don't. There are just about an equal number on either side, I believe. Thus, basing anything on this event is basing it solely upon an opinion which isn't supported by a majority. Doing so will get nothing changed.

I'm not basing my arguments on this one event - it merely spurred my interest in the subject. Whether this particular situation is unfair or not is besides the point (I've said it before - as far as I can tell Icculus has been fair in this case, but it was a cheap 'victory' since he himself was involved).
Again, I'm not looking to change anything - not even your mind. My most important objective is passing my time with something I consider fun. If I happen, along the way, to make a person or two aware of the pitfalls along the path Icculus has chosen, I'll tug that away for the next 'MUD to Avoid' thread and keep my faith in humanity thereby.

If you don't believe that this situation was unfairly handled, then you're basing your conclusions on no actual event, whatsoever. Speculation based on some factual information is one thing... pure speculation with no basis is quite another. Even if there was *one* single event which was to some extent agreed upon to be unfairly handled, your case would be stronger. We won't have that one single case, however, at least until future events transpire, and future post removals occur.

Just because something is speculation, something that is yet to be proven, doesn't make it wrong - or more importantly, not worth discussing. All science is based on speculation to begin with, and some of the most important science still is. Einstein's theories on relativity is still, in effect, speculation.
I've tried to tell you many times over that we will never have this discussion based on the actual bahaviour of Icculus - because we will never have a complete record of that behaviour. We'll have to limit ourselves to reason and deduction. Poor us.

You believe Icculus will be unfair. I believe he won't. I have evidence to support my belief. You can believe all you want that your opinion makes logical sense, despite the fact that it's purely speculation... I will continue to believe that it is falsely concluded.

I believe it's a sound conclution. It's quite common and reasonable behaviour to accomodate those you depend upon financially, before you accomodate those you aren't depending on.
You wont even acknowledge the existence of this argument. I can only assume it's because you see the validity of it.

As I've said above, and earlier in this discussion, I don't acknowledge your evidence. I'm assuming you're talking about scandum's reprimand and Nameless_'s banning.
We're talking about a case of a notorious jerk-off and societal misfit, prone to say anything to draw some attention, and a case where the administrator himself was at the center of the allegations.
You have but two cases, and of a dubious credibility too, to base your argument on. It's not near enough, especially since we lack statistics to show how many reports have been dismissed in the meantime, and by whom they were made.

Evidence is what makes a case, not speculation, thus the statement of "past experience shows", is a valid point. In this situation, it's the only solid point either of us has.

Proving something, like the fairness of Icculus' judgment, goes beyond 'past experience'.
Past experience tells you that if you let go of an apple, it'll drop. That doesn't prove that it'll do it if you did it yet another time. It makes it very, very likely, granted - but it doesn't prove a thing.
That Icculus - apparently, mind you - has been fair in the past, doesn't mean that he'll be so in the future. Or that he really was fair, for that matter.

I'm having my doubts by now, but if such a thing could be proven, it would require a massive statistical base, which we'll never have (I'll keep saying it for as long as you keep ignoring this fact).

Mass.

You have but two cases, and of a dubious credibility too, to base your argument on.
Yes, and you have none. Your opinion is that they are of "dubious credibility", which I don't agree with. Even so, in either case they are still experiences, which is the point.

All science is based on speculation to begin with,
Yes, to begin with. A conclusion isn't drawn *by* speculation, it is drawn by experimentation, and thus experience with said speculation working as expected. The Theory of Relativity isn't just some "mathamatical speculation". It has been shown to be accurate based on actual experiences. A scientist doesn't come up with some hypothesis and then go running around the scientific world yelling about how it "could be shown to be true in the future". He tests it first, which takes time, and then if that time proves in his favor, he makes his opinion known.

because we will never have a complete record of that behaviour.
Nor will scientists ever have a complete record of every energy transfer that occurs in the universe. They will have a small number, however, which were obtained and recorded by their best method at the time. You may just as well claim that since we don't have a record of every energy transfer, and since the "past experiences" we have with our theories about energy being accurate could, in fact, be "dubiously concluded", that all our technology based in any way on the transfer of energy should be abandoned because sometime in the future it could stop working the way it has been up to now.

It's quite common and reasonable behaviour to accomodate those you depend upon financially, before you accomodate those you aren't depending on.
You wont even acknowledge the existence of this argument. I can only assume it's because you see the validity of it.
I have acknowledged it, and yes, I do see the validity in it... but in a vastly different sense than you do, which I have tried to explain. What you are describing is a *possibility*... and furthermore, it's a possibility we don't have the slightest bit of evidence of, suggesting to have ever taken place in the past. Likewise, it is possible that I will become a murderer, despite the fact that past experience shows me not to be. In that sense, it's a possibility that everyone you know could become a murderer in the future. Does that mean you should shut yourself in your house, lock your doors, and never come out again? A possibility is different than a reality. It is nothing but a *possibile reality*, which must be dealt with *if* it arises. If I attempt to murder someone, I will be placed in jail. I will not be placed in jail for the possibility of becomming a murderer at some point in the future.


It makes it very, very likely, granted - but it doesn't prove a thing.
You know why? Because it is impossible to "prove" future events. Since you're getting into science, quantum theory shows us mathamatically that the future events are uncertain. The sun could fail to rise tomorrow morning... but that doesn't mean that past experience seeing the sun rise every morning should be discarded because it's *possible* it won't. You are preparing for one of a million possibilities, based on nothing at all but speculation.

it would require a massive statistical base, which we'll never have
No it wouldn't, because even a massive statistical basis wouldn't prove anything. However, I'm not talking about any statistical basis at all. I'm talking about one single event to respond to... Even if Icculus is fair a million times, if he slips up and is unfair once, you have every right to jump over the report system. Doing so preemptively, however, with past experience showing only those million times he *did* do the right thing, is illogical, at the very least. Going back to science (if only for terminology)... Preparing for a stimulus is one thing. You, however, aren't preparing. You're *responding* to a stimulus that hasn't even happened. The appropriate action to take here, would be to maintain doubts about how the system will work, and watch for indications those doubts are correct... then, to respond accordingly when it is shown that things have not gone as planned.

Best of Luck,
-Jess

Love the post Jess..

Isn't this all going a bit overboard?

Its one event. STFU and deal with it.. or, go elsewhere, where previous events indicate it almost absolutely WILL occur,. and then you have something to whine about =-)

Couldn't help but post.. that was absolutely killer, Jess.

-D.

Quoth Tyche:
'I agree completely with your take on censorship. You need to remember that the majority of those running muds are in fact nazis, and will characterize your (and my) position as anarchy and throw up the censoring of speech of no consequence as a straw man to justify removing speech of consequence. They simply do not believe in personal responsibilty nor do they trust the intelligence of their playerbase (users). Instead criticism needs to be met with punishment and assasination.'

:(

Having a playerbase is incompatible with absolute freedom of communication Tyche. It only takes a few spamming, cursing, threatening, (libelous haha), jerks to destroy a mud.

While I consider this scientific angle a somewhat scewered angle, I did introduce it myself and will continue the discussion in this light.
I'll stress, however, that I consider it indisputable logic that Icculus will tend to favor those who support him financially, which is mainly what I've been trying to point out.

Yes, and you have none. Your opinion is that they are of "dubious credibility", which I don't agree with. Even so, in either case they are still experiences, which is the point.

We've tested our hypothesis twice, with tests that were designed to come out with a certain result, and have come out with the expected results. From what I understand of these two cases, any other result would prove Icculus a complete fool. For us to conclude either way at this point, based on these facts, would prove us the fools.
It doesn't in any way sway the outcome of the final conclution, that two cases have proven Icculus capable of deciding what is a lie, when he knows the truth, and what is obscene language, when he's a mature adult.

A conclusion isn't drawn *by* speculation, it is drawn by experimentation, and thus experience with said speculation working as expected. The Theory of Relativity isn't just some "mathamatical speculation". It has been shown to be accurate based on actual experiences. A scientist doesn't come up with some hypothesis and then go running around the scientific world yelling about how it "could be shown to be true in the future". He tests it first, which takes time, and then if that time proves in his favor, he makes his opinion known.

Really now? The Theory of Relativity - at least the part about time being relative - wasn't proven until decades later, when man was capable of rocket flight and could move really, really fast.
That actually means that Eistein did "go running around the scientific world yelling about how it "could be shown to be true in the future"", much like other scientist have done before him, and are still doing to this day.
Whole branches of science have been based on mere theory (as in 'speculation'): Chaos Theory and Theoretic Physics to name the two I can think of just now.

Nor will scientists ever have a complete record of every energy transfer that occurs in the universe. They will have a small number, however, which were obtained and recorded by their best method at the time. You may just as well claim that since we don't have a record of every energy transfer, and since the "past experiences" we have with our theories about energy being accurate could, in fact, be "dubiously concluded", that all our technology based in any way on the transfer of energy should be abandoned because sometime in the future it could stop working the way it has been up to now.

You lost me here. I don't see the coupling you're making between knowing details about reports that are dismissed, and every energy transfer in the world.
I think our current knowledge of energy is based on a somewhat firmer basis than our two cases, don't you?

I have acknowledged it, and yes, I do see the validity in it... but in a vastly different sense than you do, which I have tried to explain. What you are describing is a *possibility*... and furthermore, it's a possibility we don't have the slightest bit of evidence of, suggesting to have ever taken place in the past.

I don't consider it a possibility. I consider it, as stated, an indisputable fact, that Icculus isn't capable of treating everyone completely fairly. He'll favor his friends and relatives, his business partners and his boss while he'll require a stronger case from people he dislike compared to those he have no prior experience with.
It's human nature. He can't help it. Neither can I or you.

Likewise, it is possible that I will become a murderer, despite the fact that past experience shows me not to be. In that sense, it's a possibility that everyone you know could become a murderer in the future. Does that mean you should shut yourself in your house, lock your doors, and never come out again? A possibility is different than a reality. It is nothing but a *possibile reality*, which must be dealt with *if* it arises. If I attempt to murder someone, I will be placed in jail. I will not be placed in jail for the possibility of becomming a murderer at some point in the future.

This might be the dumbest thing I've seen from your hand. I really don't know where to begin or end, and since time is an issue, I'll leave it at that.

In fact, I'd say that I should have covered the arguments in your two last paragraphs.

Mass in the nick of time.

"Having a playerbase is incompatible with absolute freedom of communication Tyche. It only takes a few spamming, cursing, threatening, (libelous haha), jerks to destroy a mud."

/agree

We've tested our hypothesis twice, with tests that were designed to come out with a certain result, and have come out with the expected results. From what I understand of these two cases, any other result would prove Icculus a complete fool.
It doesn't matter Massaria... he still acted appropriately in the two, and only two, cases which we have here as evidence.

Really now? The Theory of Relativity - at least the part about time being relative - wasn't proven until decades later,
Not entirely. He showed it to be mathematically accurate before he went running around shouting about it. If you show me that, mathematically (or logically), Icculus is *completely incapable* of *ever* being impartial, then you have a case. Otherwise, you're going to have to show me from example. In the case of the former, that's impossible, because he is *capable* of being impartial. In the case of the latter, that'll take time. Right now we have two examples of me being right.

The two other areas of science you mention also follow this pattern. They have mathematical proofs, or examples of accurate behavior, to back them up. A scientist doesn't come up with a theory by saying... "hey, I don't think the sun exists at night" before having *some* indication such a statement might be valid. You're right about one thing... that's how science *used* to be. You know what amazing theories we got out of that period of time? Aristotle's theory of gravity that stated that objects fell to the earth because of an innate and conscious desire to be united with their creator. ... Yes, apples can now think.

You lost me here. I don't see the coupling you're making...
Having knowledge of every post removal that occurs can be compared to having knowledge of every energy transfer that occurs... or every *anything* that occurs, for that matter. You don't have to be omniscient to be able to make an informed decision. Having *something* is generally a good idea though.

I consider it, as stated, an indisputable fact, that Icculus isn't capable... He can't help it. Neither can I or you.
I believe I can help it, and I don't believe I'm being arrogant in that assumption. Once again, were Icculus to be aware *only* of the post in question, but not the people involved, he would innately *have to be* impartial. Therefore it is not true that he is *incapable* of being impartial. Therefore it is *possible* he *will be* impartial. Therefore you have no solid foundation for your case. Prove me wrong, and we'll be able to go from there. Otherwise we're just repeating ourselves.

This might be the dumbest thing I've seen from your hand.
You're the one that said it... just in different words, in a different situation. It is *possible* Icculus could be impartial, therefore we need to assume he *will be*, and respond to it *now*! It is *possible* your friends will murder you, therefore you need to assume they *will*, and respond to it *now*! It is *possible* I will rob a bank, therefore the police need to assume I *will*, and put me in jail *now*! I could reason through any action with that theory. They're all theoretical possibilities, the issue here is that they're one of a million different possibilities, and there is no evidence to suggest them ever becoming a reality.

Best of Luck,
-Jess

(Comment added by mann_jess on Wed Dec 13 17:25:38 2006)

And for the record, I happen to agree with Osiris... but then, that's just my personal preference.

Best of Luck,
-Jess

(Comment added by mann_jess on Wed Dec 13 20:15:05 2006)

And by the way, thanks for the support Wolfpaw... *smile*

Having a playerbase is incompatible with absolute freedom of communication Tyche. It only takes a few spamming, cursing, threatening, (libelous haha), jerks to destroy a mud.

False. We've been over this before. What you really mean by "a mud" is "my poorly designed, coded and broken mostly stock DikuMud". Try running something that's design isn't horribly broken from a player's perspective. Like the successful AIM mud for example.

The same is true for muds like TMC, which happens to be less defective than other similarly designed muds, albeit more broken than AIM. Another example of good mud design is the highly successful USENET mud.

What we have here...
is a failure to imaginate.

Quoth Tyche:
'What you really mean by "a mud" is "my poorly designed, coded and broken mostly stock DikuMud".'

Your generalization about mud admins being nazis did not specify 'broken mostly stock' diku mud admins. Would you like to clarify or rephrase that statement?

'Try running something that's design isn't horribly broken from a player's perspective.'

Diku muds and derivitives are popular because the players think they are horribly broken? Is that really a player's perspective? Actually I am sure it is a player's perspective... a player named Tyche! HAHA! :p

I don't like censorship either but since you have not yet sent me 'Tyche's ubercool no admin needed mud game code' to run it seems some basic controls are required.

Also, the whole AIM\TMC\USENET 'mud' thing. Imaginate indeed... imagine comparing something as specific in context and purpose as a mud game with a theme and everything ;) --- with something as general and unstructured as USENET. I got sort of excited after reading your post and went right to USENET but I couldn't figure out how/where to upgrade my EQ. That 'mud' SUCKS I am afraid.

Even TMC while it has some content context has no mechanics or game associated with it. There is no 'ranking' of TMC members, no way for us to gain power or pkill eachother or really even compete in any measurable way.

Speaking of that ubercool no admin needed code how is that going? Is it something you intend to run/host/release and if so when? I wanna play.

Osiris wrote:

I don't like censorship either but since you have not yet sent me 'Tyche's ubercool no admin needed mud game code' to run it seems some basic controls are required.


You are, of course, quite right. Every single MUD in the world with more than a handful of players exercises some basic control over player expression. Every single one. (And no, Usenet and forums are not MUDs.)

Tyche is welcome to his opinion, but it's not based in reality.
--matt

You know, if you dont like the way a site is run then you can always go elsewhere. Its not as if you pay to use mudconnector, so theres not a lot you can do to change the way things are run.

While I dont agree with some of the things that happen here, the "featured muds" and some of the censorship, I really dont have any say because i do not pay to use mudconnector.

This thread has been running for far to long, lets drop it shall we :)

Oh wait..... i forgot, this is mudconnector, that wont happen! :)

> Oh wait..... i forgot, this is mudconnector, that wont happen! :)

The Mud forum community is much like the fashion industry, it runs in cycles. Eventually somebody will see who is embedding HTML comments in their searches and that will start that topic all over again. And eventually somebody else will have their posts deleted and then banned and we'll be back on censorship...

Even TMC while it has some content context has no mechanics or game associated with it. There is no 'ranking' of TMC members, no way for us to gain power or pkill eachother or really even compete in any measurable way.

I wouldn't be too sure about that. There are mechanics in the rat race amongst the various mu* to try and occupy the highest possible spots on the voting lists. Plus, from what I hear and see there is a ranking sytem in place. There's an Aristocracy (sponsors), and the serfs (us?) they lord over. Plus, there's plenty of power being gained (sponsors) and pkilling going on (posts deleted, members banned).

It meets all the requirements of being a game, except for the fun part. Close, but no cigar.

Having a playerbase is incompatible with absolute freedom of communication Tyche. It only takes a few spamming, cursing, threatening, (libelous haha), jerks to destroy a mud.

Eh. I'm not sure I really agree with that entirely. Sure, absolue freedom of communication won't really work. But I've seen communities work when given far less stringent guidelines than most places go by. Using the current project I'm helping with as an example, the rules essentially consist of 'No Racism, No Cheating, and Have Fun' and things go pretty well. Granted, we may not have the numbers of some places. But being able to play and work in a laid-back atmosphere as opposed to uptight tends to be more enjoyable. To each their own, I suppose.