Candlelight Vigil for Zombie

While I could care less about this whole rep thing, it has caused so much negative output, I must wonder if it was really worth it or necessary.

Obviously not my board and ownership can do as they please, but if the objective of this board remains a place for free expression and to hang out, I really wonder if this accomplished it's goal, whatever it was.

So...are you saying...Lanz "had it coming"?

Not at all.

Just commenting on this whole episode and whether it was worth it.

No-ones ability to have free expression has been affected. If anything these changes mean there will be less mod interference since it makes moot rules that meant we had to keep an eye on some people's behavior across forums.

All that's happened is that the way rep works has been adjusted, as it has been many times before, and scores have been reset, as was well overdue and has also happened before. The drama is coming from a few who are upset that it hurts their personal schemes.

Well, you just said in the other thread people are responsible for their own actions.

"Worth it", implies inevitability.

Inevitability eliminates responsibility.

Zombie isn't a robot, a weather front, a rolling boulder, or..well, a Zombie.

Are you dense or just being obtuse?

Asking if a particular decision and action was worth it, ie achieved the desired outcome is just a simple question that is usually asked after major changes.

Agreed to an extent.

Rep has not undergone such a major change since its implementation.

You are correct, it is a few vocal ones, but I don't see any huge embracing of it either. Hence the question I posed.

"Achieved the desired outcome", with what?

The board hardware?
The software?
Or, the people?

It's meaningless to ask the first two, and the third, unless you're saying the negative reactions are something "Lanz has coming", which you say you aren't, would seem to imply this situation is as much mindless cause and effect as the hardware/software of the board itself.

And, if you're not saying that, then, by process of elimination, you aren't saying much at all.

And that can't be, your ego wouldn't allow that.

So, which one are you saying?

^ Lanz obviously had reasons and goals for these decisions. I'm asking if they were worth it given the various reactions.

This is elementary school level. You shouldn't have this hard a time with comprehending it.

That makes him responsible for their reactions.
By your own espoused philosophical criteria, he isn't.
So, it's a meaningless question.

Unless you're lying about what you mean.
Which, I wouldn't put past you, you're a snake.

As implemented, I'm not the biggest fan of the changes, it's one of those middle ground compromises that pleases no one (I'd rather it be that negreps still existed but that you couldn't take someone negative, or, make it so that people who have negative rep can still give rep). That being said, it has served a very useful purpose, it's shown me what individuals put too much stock in what amounts to little more than points on the internet. It's like Karma on Reddit, sure I like having a lot of Karma, but it's not a big deal to me if I lose it, some people absolutely lose their shit though.

You must have a negative IQ. If you can't grasp this, you need to stop posting and go start again from kindergarten.

This explains why you make no sense. In one post you point out they I say people are responsible for their own actions, now you're claiming I hold Lanz responsible.

You make Baba look like the head of MENSA.

Yes.

No.

You're an idiot, but try to follow along anyway.

One can't follow the insane, which explains why no one can follow you.

Now go fellate yourself or something.

While that probably is not your intent, that's kinda how it comes across when you put the two statements near each other. It's like asking someone who decides to go for a 3am jog in the wrong end of town if it was worth it when they get shaken down for money. Regardless of whether it was a good idea or not, when phrased that way it shifts responsibility for what occurred.

That would be true if I had anywhere stated that I thought Lanz did anything wrong. I never did. It was a simple question that got blown out of context by a mental midget.

Whhhaaaaattt?!?!?!

That needs serious explaining, because I don't see it at all. (And that thus invalidates any argument of which it is a contribuing point.)

I just had a nice supper. It was definitely worth it. In what way does that make it "inevitable"?

Maybe not "inevitable," but it does imply that it was the cause that lead to peoples' actions, and not the choice of individual people to act like juvenile asshats.

To be honest, Zombie really surprised me with that shit. Guess a lot of his ego was tied up in rep or something. But he dragged Blue Room stuff out into the other fora and I generally frown on that.

That said, Zombie's like most anyone else who earns a ban: two weeks of cool-down, he sends me an email, he gets unbanned. Easy-peasy.

Lanz made a decision that would inevitably cause a reaction. What that reaction was is entirely the choice and responsibility of the person having the reaction. Lanz is not in any way responsible for that.

In life people evaluate their decisions based on the aftermath. That does not mean they're responsible for the aftermath, just that they use it analyze their decision.

Cut the bullshit. That "inevitable" reaction was peoples' voluntary choice to act the way they did. It could just as easily not have happened, if people had chosen to act differently. In other words, not the least fucking bit "inevitable."

I find it fascinating that so many of the people who insist that "private enterprise can do whatever it fucking well pleases and consumers are free to go elsewhere" and "people are responsible for their own actions and no one else's" are the very ones blaming Lanz for Zombie's behavior.

All right then.

So, in what way should Lanz re-assess his decision?

Starting next week, I'm going to randomly change peoples' custom user titles.

If you had bothered to read or comprehend the rest of my post (and not cut it out of your quote) you'd see that was exactly my point. Thanks for agreeing with it.

No, fucktard. You tried to paint it as both "inevitable" and individual choice. The two are mutually exclusive.

I'm pretty sure that he was saying that "a" reaction was inevitable (as opposed to NO reaction at all), but the specifics of the reaction were each person's choice.

Look at it this way. If I punch you in the face, some reaction is inevitable. But which one? You punch me back? You run away? You shrug it off and say "show me what you REALLY have, pussy!"?

In which case he would still be wrong. "Inevitable" is not synonymous with "likely."

Physical reactions are not comparable. I would have to respond somehow symbly by being displaced bodily.

Recent history indicates he was very much right.

Then I suggest you both acquaint yourselves with a fucking dictionary.