Forum Philosophy Update

After seeing a roman chariot race on documentary it dawned on me that the reason we need referees is for an objective view of the situation because each driver can’t see the whole race. But in some games the players may be able to have an objective view; like monopoly, the 3rd person could be objective and has access to no more or less information than anyone else playing if an issue between 2 players arose that needed moderating. Or like ILP where each player has access to a full view of the playing field and 3rd parties are objective because none of us are really allied (except in kissing the butt of the boss… I see that a lot on forums. Whatever the boss says is supported by virtue of people looking to support whatever leader there is. Loyalty is a virtue, et al.). No boss = no loyalty and that guarantees objectivity on the field.

I suppose an objection could be that morality is up for vote and determined by democracy as opposed to dictation by the boss. Honestly, I can’t say which is better from a philosophical perspective, but people tend to vote for democracy as if it were a virtue.

For instance if we put the issue of potential insult up for vote by the members of the board because it cannot otherwise be resolved between the two members, then whoever decides to chime in with a vote helps determine what is decreed to be right and wrong. This is opposed to the appointment of an agent who can dictate the rules and avoid the argumentum ad populum issue, assuming it is even a valid objection because:

Morality only exists relative to other people since one cannot be immoral to himself. Therefore, the bigger the sample size of people offended, the better the picture of generalized morality one can paint. For instance, would it bother you if I punched you in the nose? If the question is put to a vote and the answer a resounding yes, then we consider it immoral to punch someone in the nose. That seems to work.

Now, morality dictated by an agent presupposes the agent is capable of knowing what offends everyone and to what degree in order to consider what is moral and not, which is a very slippery slope to tread and it supposes that one knows more than many. It seems unlikely that any such person could exist and then the moral obligation to the people that the person would hold seems insurmountable. That is, can you find someone that smart and that conscientious and how are you qualified to recognize such a person?

One of those guys Stefan had on said if you think you can rule the people in a moral and benevolent way, then that is evidence that you wouldn’t. It’s always the ones with good intentions who causes the most havoc. The road to hell is paved with good intentions. “Kindly let me help you or you’ll drown,” said the monkey putting the fish safely up a tree. How do you know what is good for others? How do you know what is good for you?

Argumentum ad populum has its downsides, but I vote that it’s preferable to dictatorial rule.

The reason you think that you have addressed my question and I don’t, is that we have different perspectives on the situation.

I specifically mentioned an agreement or set of rules posted by the pub owner. I see an obligation on the patrons, to abide by the rules. You see no such obligation.

I see a social obligation on the patrons when they are in the pub - an unwritten obligation - to behave in a proper way (I’m not going to define proper because it would take too long.). You don’t see it.

I see a similar obligation when I go to a Jew’s lamb roast. As a guest, I have an obligation to be polite, respectful and grateful. I’m certainly not going to spit on him and call him names.

As for my last post, you have no evidence that I consider your action “immoral” or that I’m being “malicious”. Those are ridiculous claims.

I don’t think that it’s unreasonable. I have a choice of agree or not agreeing. I can choose not to participate under those conditions. I can go to other forums with other policies. I can choose to use other mediums of expression.

The availability of other options is an important aspect here. If I was both required to sign and required to participate under some sort of threat … I would have a problem with that.

I think that creates a conflict with creators of content - patent and copyright protection of work. You seem to be saying that if a singer performs in a public venue, then the performance becomes public property and anyone can distribute it. That doesn’t seem right to me.

Similarly when an invention is sold to the public, then anyone can copy it. Again, I don’t think that is right.

I think that you are mixing up inventing the rules of a game, enforcing the established rules and changing rules during a game.

Someone can invent a game with specific rules. Nobody compels you to play the game if you don’t like the rules.

When you agree to play, then you are agreeing to the rules. An “authority” can then enforce the rules. And this is much more efficient than relying on some sort of general vote.

A really problematic issue arises when there is no authority enforcing the rules and there is a dispute on what the rules are, how they should be interpreted, which rules to add and which to drop. The game become unplayable because there are essentially no fixed rules.
Disputes like that can be settled by a vote between games. Then potential players can decide whether they want to play under those rules in the next game.

That’s not excuse for you to assert that I have not addressed your question.

Yes but the agreement may not be legal (or moral) which depends on who is invited in and who is audience of the webcam.

Behavior is different from speech.

Spitting is action and behavior which is assault. Calling of names falls under speech which is protected if the roast was public. Of course, calling of names could be slander if the names called imply falsity, which is illegal. If I call you a filthy jew and you’re neither dirty nor jewish, then that could be slander. But if you are dirty and jewish, then it’s a statement of fact.

To avoid your question would be immoral and your assertion then was accusing me of being immoral. That’s substantiated and not ridiculous. I can’t prove malicious intent, which is why I said it “smells of” malicious intent, but if you’re accusing me of being immoral when I have not, then it very well could be malicious unless it was an honest mistake.

So we’re back to lack of scarcity undermining the need for the fairness doctrine. Because other forums exist, then no one forum need be fair.

It’s purely theoretical because in reality, there are only so many financial shows. CNBC, Fox business, and RT. The commie Russians don’t mind Peter sharing his videos while the capitalist CNBC does. Interesting

And there are only so many philosophy forums and while it’s true I could start another, I couldn’t start one that said “provoking thought since 2001”. The field is not level. What domain names are left? Philosophy1014U? The field is not level and scarcity does exist.

That’s why we have concert filmings on youtube.

Why isn’t it right to copy it? What is not right is selling the copy for profit. But I can copy anything I see for my own use.

I can’t copy music and sell it, but I can copy and listen and even let other people listen.

Rules should be determined by the players of the game, not those who do not play. Why take the power from your own hands in determining what is right for you and place it into someone else’s hands? You said you do not want to be a daddy on here, but why do you need a daddy to tell you what is right and wrong? Simply because it’s more efficient???

So because it’s more efficient and faster to shoot someone in the head rather than argue with them, we should implement that policy?

Maybe somebody else wants to have a discussion at this level but I don’t.

lol @ “rules should be determined by the players of the game”. That’s not how games are played, or have been played anywhere or any time.

Oh really? Can you name a game that has not had its rules determined by the players?

The rules of chess were designed by the players of the game. Each card game was designed by those who were playing the card game. A group of guys playing with a ball decided they should have some rules to define a game… and then appointed someone to be a referee who could take an objective view and be impartial judge to enforce the rules they made.

I shoot billiards with random fellas and we make the rules up as we go along. “Ball in hand or let it slide?” “Is the break a called-shot or does the ball pocketed determine who is solids?” How we want to play the game is our business to decide.

The Great Carlini plays by the rule of taking the king to win the game. youtube.com/watch?v=ZPDsIw167mU

Rules of games are whatever the players decide them to be and aren’t dictated by those who don’t play. You can play by dictation if you choose to, but ultimately it is by your choice to let someone else tell you what to do.

Checkers.

I made up games all the time as kid with my friends. I have always, child and adult, adjusted games to fit the players, setting. People who lack creativity may not set the rules of their games or adjust them but there’s not reason to limit them when we do not need to. The only reason in general to limit them is to save time. IOW if you want to make up a new way to play soccer or a soccer-like game, you have to have discussions, test things, rather than just accepting, in the main the rules. But here in a forum of course that can be done. We can easily slowly transform in any direction and many online activities do this and as the members evolve what is going on.

Unless we are saying that the forum is FOR Carleas, which would be odd, then it is FOR the players, Carleas being one. He may have the power to determine things, but fuck, if I am at my house and people at my party want to play a new interesting version of charades, let’s go for it. If it means my walls catch on fire, well, OK, I will set my foot down. But as long as my belongings are not harmed, and that’s what most of us want, let’s do it.

Oh my god. Football is football and the players on the field don’t get to make up the rules. This shit isn’t difficult. If you want to make up your own game then you’re allowed to do that. Just not while on a football field during a football game.

boardgamegeek.com/thread/675966 … s-variants
quadibloc.com/other/bo010202.htm
byrdseed.com/beyond-checkers/
learnplaywin.net/checkers-rules-variations/
checkerslounge.com/varieties.html

Well, gosh, that’s not a response to what I wrote. What are we stuck in the middle of a game with hired refs and no time. We could easily decide over time via discussions to change the rules of this ‘GAME’. It’s not like we have three hours to play on a saturday and busy lives. And even then, we could message and email our way to new forms of kicking the ball around, JUST LIKE ALL THOSE PEOPLE WHO MAKE UP DOZENS OF VERSIONS OF CHESS AND CHECKERS, your example. People make shit up all the time. The fact that most people just follow someone elses rules is 1) because some forms got ritualized and 2) because they are lazy or too busy. These factors need not apply here.

Soccer/footbal variations - personally I’ve played, half field, I’ve played with small goals and no goalie, I’ve played on asphalt with soccer rules but with a hockey puck, no ball, I’ve seen it played with cars, a hackey sack - which must remain off the turn or you lose possession, I’ve played indoor soccer, I’ve played on courts that were make with slaloms and other obstacles
redbull.com/us-en/variation … -the-world
pastemagazine.com/articles/ … kills.html
the18.com/news/soccer-hybrids-so … -1-we-want

IOW me and my friends made up versions. I’ve joined versions that were made by city planners - the odd field course. And humans around the world have developed variations. Some that become leagues.

These fucking games are for us. We make em. They are not like God’s commandments.

More…
entertainment.howstuffworks.com … ckyard.htm
blog.haven.com/different-variat … -football/
neatorama.com/2008/02/01/10- … of-soccer/

There are all the table top versions like foosball.

Some of these apply also
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_types_of_football

LOL.

And this is just stuff I can find on the internet. People have gotten together and made up many, many, many more variations - as one time events, as something they repeated.

This is where the games COME FROM. They come from humans making up stuff.

Some of it becomes habitual and some people can’t create shit. But the people here who are not capable of coming up with anything could still choose to try something new.

Holy shit. You’re actually an idiot.

Nice argument.
And it’s good to see you implicitly agree with Serendipity’s position on free speech here.
You really can’t see how long this ‘football game’ is and why we CAN IN FACT MAKE UP THE RULES WHILE WE ARE HERE, can you? I addressed that issue.
I suppose I would have hoped that before calling someone an idiot you’d actually read their posts carefully. But I like Serendipity see nothing wrong with you breaking forum rules and playing the game differently than Carleas would like.

In any case, you seem like a commenter. You like to make short statements, generally about other people. Can you make an argument?

I made a post on one of the first pages of the thread that summed up what I believe is the case here, and elsewhere. You’re going to great lengths to describe how you think it ought be. There’s a difference between seeing how things are, and thinking of how you want them to be. All the hot air in the world doesn’t change much when it comes to the reality that pretty much everywhere in the real world, at a certain level it’s authority that dictates the way that things are, at least when it comes to things over which people can have control.

Moderating a message board is not murder. Telling someone that certain things can’t be said in a place over which you have a right to control what’s said does not limit their ability to express themselves in other venues, and therefore has almost no affect on their free speech.

You may consider, so that you can clear up your understanding of reality, the idea that freedom to do something, and freedom from certain things have to be balanced against one another. So unrestricted speech or expression isn’t good in and of itself, because it can expose others who have a right to be free from certain things to those things which they should have a right to be free from being exposed to.

Pretty simple stuff. You can’t just do whatever the hell you want on someone’s board when it’s deemed to be disruptive, undesirable, outside of the norms agreed upon by the community, etc. You also can’t debate it endlessly to the effect of being disruptive, undesirable, outside the norms agreed upon by the community. And you can’t be the one who gets to decide what’s deemed disruptive, etc.

Since you’re into rights, I find it a bit odd that you’re not taking into consideration the property right of the person who owns the forum. Does he not by that right have the authority to dictate to some extent at least the content that he allows on his board?

To stir debate about your own right to violate his right over his property, and to aim toward having it be your will that dictates what is and is not acceptable and allowed is to attempt to infringe on his property right and to deprive him of control over his board.

People can make rules for games as they go? Censorship is murder? Think about the “arguments” that are being put fourth here and it may be easier to understand why you’re not being engaged in any serious fashion, and why according to the evidence that you yourself have posted here that it may be a completely rational inference for someone to think that you’re an idiot.