Top Mud Sites Forum - View Single Post

Sinuhe · 01-18-2006, 08:24 AM

It’s rather interesting to watch the_logos employing every known dirty trick in the debate technique to defend his right to present his game in a misleading way on this list.

So far we have seen the following techniques, all well know to politicians and lobbyists:
1. Avoiding the issue by ignoring certain uncomfortable facts and pretending they don’t exist
2. Applying pressure on the list owner by veiled threats of withdrawing financial support if the change should get implemented
3. Making statements on behalf of the list owner (who’s opinion has yet to be heard)
4. Drowning the issue by diverting the discussion in other directions and enlisting support from followers (generally known as SPAM)
5. Obscuring the issue, by turning it into a haggling over semantics
6. Distorting the issue by suggesting ridiculous and/or downgrading alternatives to the proposed definitions
7. Degrading the opposition by declaring them a minority, without presenting any valid proof of representing a majority himself.
8. Declaring the change unnecessary, by claiming that the system works well as it is, so there is no need for any changes

What will it be next? Discrediting specific posters by downgrading or patronising statements about themselves or their games? (He has been known to do that in the past).

I find point 8 on the list above particularly ludicrous. By the same logic every progress and improvement in this world could be prevented.

The following facts remain:

A substantial number of posters support the proposition made by Valg, DonFry and others. We think that this would be a substantial improvement to the search engine, and that it would be an easy task to find valid definitions for every game on the list. It’s pretty safe to also assume that the change, if implemented, would be appreciated by a majority of the people that currently use the list to search for a mud to play (including the ones in search of a play-for-perks game).

We also think that we have the same right as the_logos to prose changes and get those propositions listened to and discussed.

What we ask from the readers of the thread is that you try to see through the smokescreens, regard the proposition in an unbiased way, and draw your own conclusions. I would also suggest that you think a bit extra about what motives the_logos may have for opposing a proposition that logic should tell you is a good one.

This issue is not a new one. It keeps popping up from time to time on this and other discussion boards, which indicates at least that there is a substantial interest for the change. The discussion, in one form or another will go on until there is a decision from Synozeer in one direction or the other, preferably also with a logic explanation to why the decision was made.

01-18-2006, 08:24 AM	#141
Sinuhe Member Join Date: Nov 2003 Posts: 55	It’s rather interesting to watch the_logos employing every known dirty trick in the debate technique to defend his right to present his game in a misleading way on this list. So far we have seen the following techniques, all well know to politicians and lobbyists: 1. Avoiding the issue by ignoring certain uncomfortable facts and pretending they don’t exist 2. Applying pressure on the list owner by veiled threats of withdrawing financial support if the change should get implemented 3. Making statements on behalf of the list owner (who’s opinion has yet to be heard) 4. Drowning the issue by diverting the discussion in other directions and enlisting support from followers (generally known as SPAM) 5. Obscuring the issue, by turning it into a haggling over semantics 6. Distorting the issue by suggesting ridiculous and/or downgrading alternatives to the proposed definitions 7. Degrading the opposition by declaring them a minority, without presenting any valid proof of representing a majority himself. 8. Declaring the change unnecessary, by claiming that the system works well as it is, so there is no need for any changes What will it be next? Discrediting specific posters by downgrading or patronising statements about themselves or their games? (He has been known to do that in the past). I find point 8 on the list above particularly ludicrous. By the same logic every progress and improvement in this world could be prevented. The following facts remain: A substantial number of posters support the proposition made by Valg, DonFry and others. We think that this would be a substantial improvement to the search engine, and that it would be an easy task to find valid definitions for every game on the list. It’s pretty safe to also assume that the change, if implemented, would be appreciated by a majority of the people that currently use the list to search for a mud to play (including the ones in search of a play-for-perks game). We also think that we have the same right as the_logos to prose changes and get those propositions listened to and discussed. What we ask from the readers of the thread is that you try to see through the smokescreens, regard the proposition in an unbiased way, and draw your own conclusions. I would also suggest that you think a bit extra about what motives the_logos may have for opposing a proposition that logic should tell you is a good one. This issue is not a new one. It keeps popping up from time to time on this and other discussion boards, which indicates at least that there is a substantial interest for the change. The discussion, in one form or another will go on until there is a decision from Synozeer in one direction or the other, preferably also with a logic explanation to why the decision was made.