Top Mud Sites Forum - View Single Post

scandum · 08-31-2007, 04:36 PM

I hope I'm not the only one who's confused what freedom has to do with throwing a party, aside from the freedom to throw a party.

Well, if I interpret this correctly you're stating the obvious now, which is quite convenient given you didn't make much sense to me earlier on. So am I correct to assume you state something awkward first, next summarize it as something obvious, then assume me to believe your previous argument was obvious because you summarized it as such?

If that's the case I find it very clever move, but not overly productive for a discussion, unless you wish to derail it.

Banning people for what Crat did is actually quite common.

Punishing someone for bad behavior is generally not a big deal, not to mention that some people get a nice kick out of punishing others. The problem is with people disagreeing that the punishment was just which will give the punisher a sour aftertaste upon delivering the sweet punishing, hence you might as well add to the rules that openly disagreeing with the people in charge can get you banned. This way people will be aware that thought crimes are not allowed and hence will not share their thoughts in a forbidden fashion, subsequently avoiding uncomfortable situations like these where people wonder who will be next because they're not quite certain which of the lemmings is closest to the edge now.

I'm however willing to volunteer for the task of "the lemming that is closest to the edge" since it will give people piece of mind, until I am banned of course, upon which the uncertainty will return until a new uber lemming has courageously stepped forward from the dull masses to bear the burden of the ever impending threat of the forum ban.

08-31-2007, 04:36 PM	#106
scandum Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2004 Posts: 315	Re: Moderation I hope I'm not the only one who's confused what freedom has to do with throwing a party, aside from the freedom to throw a party. Well, if I interpret this correctly you're stating the obvious now, which is quite convenient given you didn't make much sense to me earlier on. So am I correct to assume you state something awkward first, next summarize it as something obvious, then assume me to believe your previous argument was obvious because you summarized it as such? If that's the case I find it very clever move, but not overly productive for a discussion, unless you wish to derail it. Banning people for what Crat did is actually quite common. Punishing someone for bad behavior is generally not a big deal, not to mention that some people get a nice kick out of punishing others. The problem is with people disagreeing that the punishment was just which will give the punisher a sour aftertaste upon delivering the sweet punishing, hence you might as well add to the rules that openly disagreeing with the people in charge can get you banned. This way people will be aware that thought crimes are not allowed and hence will not share their thoughts in a forbidden fashion, subsequently avoiding uncomfortable situations like these where people wonder who will be next because they're not quite certain which of the lemmings is closest to the edge now. I'm however willing to volunteer for the task of "the lemming that is closest to the edge" since it will give people piece of mind, until I am banned of course, upon which the uncertainty will return until a new uber lemming has courageously stepped forward from the dull masses to bear the burden of the ever impending threat of the forum ban.