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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
It seems like, given what you write below that you are responding to other people than just me.
Which is why we are discussing this with Carleas and also discussing this with people here who are against what Serendipity is suggesting. Calling it hot air is confused. This is a discussion forum and we are discussing things. We have presented arguments for something and if you look at Serendipity’s posts you will see that they include arguments that Carleas is choosing to engage in and noting himself as interesting points. He’s not a victim. He is choosing to engage in a discussion in a thread he started in a discussion forum. If you don’t like discussions of ideas, you are not in the right place.
Right, someone else said that. Perhaps you are responding to them.
Sure. But different forums weight things differently. Carleas is not a machine, he may change his mind. He has certainly engaged in the discussion. Presumably if he met arguments he found convincing he might change his mind. Further, the discussion may be valuable in and of itself.
I haven’t made the argument that one can do anything they want.
The points made in this thread are being made to the person who owns the thread. An adult who may or may not change his mind. It is also interesting to see what the justifications are. Perhaps I will change my mind. This is a philosophical discussion forum. I and others are discussing something. AGain, if you think that is wrong, then you are in the wrong place. If you think discussions are valid, then you could weigh in on SPECIFIC PROBLEMS with the specfic freedoms being suggested and also the specific ways, other than banning, that community norms might be enforced - which is more what I have written about here. What you seem to be saying is that it is wrong to bring up the view and argue for that view in a fucking discussion forum. I don’t get that.
Where have I suggested I have a right to violate his right over his property. Serendipity who has been discussing it with Carleas, is trying to make legal and moral arguments in favor of greater freedom of speech. And how the hell can you be in a philosophy discussion forum and use the term ‘stir debate’ AS IF THAT IS A PEJORATIVE TERM?
Obviously they can. Obviously if Carleas was swayed, he being one of the players here, or if he was willing to let democracy decide, we could make that change. Just like some kids on a soccer field could change a game, even in the middle, if the owner of the football realized that it might be fun, good, fair, to play with different rules.
And you still can’t even just admit your checkers example was not compelling at all.
Keep harping on that one argument made by someone else. He made a whole heap of arguments that you are not mentioning and he put work into them.
Even if I were it would be a violation to call me that. I notice you still present nothing to back up the assertion that I was an idiot by referring to anything I have written. IOW you are precisely the kind of poster, in this thread, that Carleas want to restrict the free speech of. You do not address points AND you insult people. My posts were in dialogue with Phyllo where I defended shaming. You have not referred to those, and it would be hard to do so, since you posts in relation to me would fall under the kinds of posts I was arguing can be useful. Of course they would be useful if they come AFTER arguments referring to points made by the person in question AND that person does not engage rationally with you.
I see you:
1)staying at a very general level and not making arguments against specific kinds of freedoms being suggested.
2)Not interacting with specific points made
3) not admitting you are wrong when you are
4) having a fundmental dislike of discussion
5) having drawn the false conclusion that this forum could not change its rules
6) reacting to me as if I am Serendipity
7) Thinking that raising issues for discussion with the owner and hoping to change his mind is a violation of his rights and immoral assuming that it is moral for the owner to limit speech, but not feeling any onus in arguing for this position
9) not seeming to notice that Carleas is not reacting to this discussion as if it is per se immoral to question him
10) being a hypocrite
You violate the rules of the forum while saying that even discussing the validity and morality of those rules is a violation of Carleas’s ownership rights. This is being a hypocrite. The slimy little way you try to make it and observation of fact just shows the lengths you are willing to go to not notice your own hypocrisy. Oh, where is the Mr. Reasonable weighing freedom of speech with the rights of others…LOL. Hypocrite.
Then you don’t accept the rules of the game and you are playing a different game - a game where you have decided on the rules. And you have decided without the approval of the other players.
I don’t want those changes. I didn’t agree to those changes. I signed up with specific rules in place.
So where does that leave me in this game?
The current situation is actually simple:
Mr R is breaking the current forum rules. He ought to get a warning from the moderators.
You ought to be supporting me on this until rule changes are discussed, selected and put into effect.
I’m the official hall monitor around here and you’re all in violation, you will all receive board warnings within a short period of time. Please check your inboxes, you’re welcome. :-"
The players on the field have agreed to the rules that were determined by other players on other fields then standardized for a revenue-generating show where the rules are: play by my rules and I’ll give you money regardless if you win, or a scholarship or notoriety or some compensation. If you play by these rules, you get this reward. And the player can accept or reject the job.
If you play music to make money, then the goal isn’t music, but money. Likewise if you play a game to make money, the goal isn’t the game, but the money and it’s no longer a game, but a job.
To play a game by someone else’s rules, you have to be compensated somehow. To play a game by rules you’ve made or rules you have no problem with (have taken to be your own) requires no compensation because the reward is the game.
The last superbowl, the problem arose of whether a touchdown was valid because in order to make a touchdown, the player must have control over the ball and it was judgement-call if the player actually had control. That judgement couldn’t have rested with either of the teams because each team is biased, so an unbiased referee had to decide the outcome. What constitutes “control” cannot be dictated in a rulebook and neither can it be decided by the players.
Likewise in online communities, what constitutes insult cannot be written down, but it can and must be judged by other members of the community since it is the community at large that determines what is offensive.
It used to be that blowing people off was a social transgression, but now we have so many people that it’s not possible to keep up with replying to every comment and it’s no longer as rude to blow people off. That change was determined by society and not a dictator. Whether or not opening doors for women is a virtue or denigration is yet to be determined by society, not a dictator who is currently scratching his head out of indecisiveness about whether women should feel offended or flattered.
Yeah, see? Banning and censorship is not necessary. People will figure out how to get along.
Maybe I’m a little too sensitive about being called stupid and maybe in the future I’ll lighten up about it and maybe Mr R will realize that calling people names isn’t perceived by others in the same way he thinks it is and he’ll lighten up as well. Maybe it’s a function of how determined the community is to hold itself together.
We need people to disagree with us because if everyone agreed with me, I’d have nothing to do here. Having someone to take the opposite side lets me determine what it is that I think. We need diversity, but we also have to get along somehow.
You don’t have the right to control what the public has access to. If this forum were not visible to the public, then I’d agree with you.
Some forums have private sections that are not public and within those, free speech doesn’t exist. (Though it’s usually opposite wherein you have more freedom in the private section than the public.)
I think I’d have a right to be free from starvation and illness before I’d have a right to be free from insult, and yet I do not have those rights. First bring me free food and healthcare so that I may exercise my RIGHT to be free from hunger and malady and then we’ll talk about my right to be free from insulting remarks and information.
Disruption isn’t speech; it’s action.
If the board owner has made his board public, then obviously he does not own it or it wouldn’t be public. You cannot have the public’s ear and also claim expectation of privacy. The law has gotten around that by claiming lack of scarcity in that someone can easily go somewhere else, but I disagree on that.
Plus, I am a property owner in the truest sense of the word “property” and I have no rights. Any idiot can come on my property then sue the hell out of me for something that has nothing to do with me. And my property is in no way public.
Why does he need to get a warning from mods instead of members? Because the members have no power? Yes they do… they can collectively ignore or ridicule or just point out that it’s not an argument.
You don’t want to be a daddy and I don’t want another one.
assuming that it is moral for the owner to limit speech, but not feeling any onus in arguing for this position
How can we discern intent? 