An open letter to Atlanta smokers of marijuana

[Troll King]

It reflects poorly that you argued in public while leaving the thread closed. Only forum staffers have that luxury so it sets a poor example by using your powers. It also undermines Zeus' position on these forums. He closed a thread, and the thread starter continues to post in it. It opens up the whole "if he can do it, I should be able to as well, even if he is a staffer" argument that further inflates the public's distrust in staff which is far too common enough already.

Your comment saying "Thank god I'm in a position of power enough that you can't outright condescend to me as you do to most other forum goers" is just as bad. In all that Zeus does in moderating these forums, I wouldn't call anything he's done that is as close to being an example of "outright condescension to most other forum goers" as that statement. One thing Zeus has never done in his role as a moderator on these forums is to make people think he's better than them. I can't say the same about that you after that statement. That's the kind of staff arrogance that people complain about.

You weren't just airing your dirty laundry in public. You were rubbing it into our faces and saying "don't that shit smell good?"

[DoTheFandango]

As much as Zeus and I disagree with eachother on stuff, I feel that he is prbably the most trustworthy and respectable Mods we have had for a while.

[Ilya]

im not gonna even come close to reading this thread

[froedrick]

Ilya definately made a t-shirt with a picture of this thread on it.
and 'hos before bros' on the back

[qan]

It reflects poorly that you argued in public while leaving the thread closed. Only forum staffers have that luxury so it sets a poor example by using your powers. It also undermines Zeus' position on these forums. He closed a thread, and the thread starter continues to post in it. It opens up the whole "if he can do it, I should be able to as well, even if he is a staffer" argument that further inflates the public's distrust in staff which is far too common enough already.

You're probably right, in that maybe upper staff shouldn't be outright given any forum permissions unless it's shown they need them. (Though I've been able to use them for a lot of good, such as adding permissions based on requests when others are unavailable.) As for feeling as though I did something wrong in posting on the closed thread, I don't, and refuse to apologize; in fact, let me be absolutely clear that I had every intent of undermining the position of forum moderators when doing this, first from a feeling of being wronged without directed, exact reason, and later to make an appeal to subjective rather than a perceived objective morality. People should follow their moral feelings, by all means, but to believe those feelings have logical ground outside of human experience is extremely offensive to an absolute empiricist. Every man is a hypocrite because he believes himself to be correct. But we have the ability to distinguish this illogical feeling from actually being correct -- an impossible state.

Your comment saying "Thank god I'm in a position of power enough that you can't outright condescend to me as you do to most other forum goers" is just as bad. In all that Zeus does in moderating these forums, I wouldn't call anything he's done that is as close to being an example of "outright condescension to most other forum goers" as that statement. One thing Zeus has never done in his role as a moderator on these forums is to make people think he's better than them. I can't say the same about that you after that statement. That's the kind of staff arrogance that people complain about.

That part I do apologize for, as it was ignorant and unwarranted. Zeus is a good guy, and as I've said in private, he does his job well, contrary to any irregular and misinformed opinions an infrequent forum-goer might give in a flash of indignance.

My main point in all of this is that you can't appeal to any solid, universal moral truth that applies to all people and all things, because such a thing can't be defined, and that's what kept me going so ridiculously and haphazardly. People've tried for thousands of years without success to define that one thing from which to derive all other truths, and only recently is "giving up" and admitting fault considered truly acceptable (and indeed, the only rational thing a person can do). In a specific sense, though, after seeing no rule specifically prohibiting replying to a locked thread, if one could, and if one felt that there was no irrefutable reason for it being locked, I went ahead, and seeing the results, I suppose you could say I feel the ends justified the means.

Anyway, smoke weed every day, or something.

[Troll King]

In a specific sense, though, after seeing no rule specifically prohibiting replying to a locked thread, if one could, and if one felt that there was no irrefutable reason for it being locked, I went ahead, and seeing the results, I suppose you could say I feel the ends justified the means.

I think that might actually fall under rule 9:
If your topic has been moved, closed, or deleted: don't post it again.

Technically, instead of "posting it again", you posted "'in' it again". That rule never expected a forum moderator to circumvent the thread closure, so you could argue about the wording, but from the spirit of the rule, others have received warnings for doing the same thing, albeit by starting a new thread, not continuing the old one. You can argue all you want about universal truths, but that's just dancing around the issue. If someone without forum powers were to do something similar, using what abilities they could, they would have, and it's happened in the past, received a warning. In that light, I would say that the ends do not justify the means as others without forum powers can now look at you as an example and a precedent. I would like to know what ends you felt were achieved though; if it was about this thread being reopened then yes, that was a result, and it was opened to enable discussion about it's closure. If your "end" was to have it reopened to continue the initial topic then I don't think Zeus has changed his position on that. As for whether those ends justify the precedent you set though, I would say they do not.

[qan]

In that light, I would say that the ends do not justify the means as others without forum powers can now look at you as an example and a precedent. I would like to know what ends you felt were achieved though; if it was about this thread being reopened then yes, that was a result, and it was opened to enable discussion about it's closure. If your "end" was to have it reopened to continue the initial topic then I don't think Zeus has changed his position on that. As for whether those ends justify the precedent you set though, I would say they do not.

I'm talking about the ends garnered from a philosophical sense, which you seem to think of as a fancy kind of dancing. Do you believe it's worth nothing in the face of what you might call an honest argument? (As opposed to being underhanded, in a very literal sense of the phrase.) This forum isn't important in any grand scheme of things, nor is TW, my job, Zeus' job, our lives, etc. Ideas, and how people form them, have a sense of immortality, and in that fashion, honing them is far more worthwhile if the sacrifice is bringing some controversy to an internet forum.

You could argue rule 9, if you'd like, but a decent argument for the reverse could be put just as easily, and would probably yield a discussion that doesn't seem very fruitful on either side. Could go that way if you want, but it sounds pointless.

If people would like to look at this as a precedent, sure, go for it. What would the precedent be? Argue rules you disagree with? God bless.

One could generalize greatly and say there are three types of criminals. Ones that don't acknowledge their guilt of a crime, and have no remorse; ones that acknowledge their guilt and also feel remorse; and ones that acknowledge guilt but feel no remorse. The first kind believes personal morality overrides the law so much that it completely invalidates the law. The second kind of criminal occurs when they have broken both the established law and their personal morals (fairly rare). The third kind is probably the most common and maybe the most interesting, too -- they understand they've broken a law, consider themselves criminals, and yet having no remorse for the crime because they feel it was justified. I wonder which you might classify me as in this situation?

From your reply, I don't think you care about or have any respect for what matters most to me in this, seeing it as just a clever way to get out of something. As a result it may be a waste of time to discuss, and certainly I'll get as exasperated as you (probably far more). It appears we've both formed a very clear idea of what acceptable thought is, and as a result we both appear to think the other is unreasonable. Or at least, that's the view from here.

[DoTheFandango]

Shut Up.

[ZeUs!!]

let me be absolutely clear that I had every intent of undermining the position of forum moderators when doing this, first from a feeling of being wronged without directed, exact reason, and later to make an appeal to subjective rather than a perceived objective morality.

You're still arguing from the point of view that there's a strict code of rules that has been set down for this forum, rather than a few people who have been trusted with running the forum in how they feel it should be run, using a set of hard and fast rules and taking those rules further as guidelines (see previous 15 posts). It also shows you are unfamiliar with how this forum is run if you didn't know this, and so you should have checked to before you took the highly dubious step, to say the least, of drug dealing on the forums; and that you should definately not have re-opened the thread

My main point in all of this is that you can't appeal to any solid, universal moral truth that applies to all people and all things, because such a thing can't be defined, and that's what kept me going so ridiculously and haphazardly. People've tried for thousands of years without success to define that one thing from which to derive all other truths, and only recently is "giving up" and admitting fault considered truly acceptable (and indeed, the only rational thing a person can do). In a specific sense, though, after seeing no rule specifically prohibiting replying to a locked thread, if one could, and if one felt that there was no irrefutable reason for it being locked, I went ahead, and seeing the results, I suppose you could say I feel the ends justified the means.

So you're disgruntled with the fact I closed that thread as there was no rule governing it, and in your defence you say that no rule would ever work and we should just give up and not have any, therefore giving me further juristiction

You could argue rule 9, if you'd like, but a decent argument for the reverse could be put just as easily, and would probably yield a discussion that doesn't seem very fruitful on either side. Could go that way if you want, but it sounds pointless.

Rule 9 states that: "If your topic has been moved, closed, or deleted: don't post it again.", I doesn't say whether this topic of discussion should be in a new thread or in the current thread, so you'd be wise not to argue the specifics of the rule

[ConcreteSchlyrd]

Qan, you seem like an intelligent and well-spoken individual. Why then, can I ask, are we arguing semantics?

We can all agree that there's a set structure of administration set up in these forums. The forum itself is set up as one means of communication for the playerbase of TW. TW itself has proclaimed itself family friendly (or at least it's supposed to be). If all of the above is true, why are you arguing about a thread getting shut down asking for a hookup? Shit, are you saying we're Craigslist? Because if so, I've got some bangin' close-ups of my scrote ready for posting if it's 'TW Gone Wild '05' up in here.

Seriously: if a thread's closed, it's probably closed for a reason. As a mod, you know that and more or less agreed on it as a rule when you were given mod powers. You know that there are official channels to follow if you want to argue something like that. You know that people react pretty quickly in those channels.

[Troll King]

He's also forgetting that, as a member of forum staff himself, he should be held to higher regard. The kind of arguments he's presenting are out of place when he himself is supposed to be enforcing those rules. Threads have been reopened after private discussions with forum staff. Staff has in several instances decided against prior decisions and reopened threads. All of that was done following proper channels.

You denied it in your last post, qan, but again you are distancing yourself from the situation by flooding your argument with abstracts instead of looking at the concrete (no pun intended, Conc). Hell, you're a burning stake away from making yourself a martyr.

You want precedent? Staff has set a firm policy towards having all discussions about bans and thread closures personal. It has fought hard to maintain that. Using your priviledges, you've managed to ruin all that effort. How can staff now tell people to use the proper channels when one of their own abused his powers to get around it. You not only subverted a fellow staffer, you subverted the policy you are supposed to be following. If you don't feel that you should be following that policy, then I don't see how you can continue to moderate a couple of forums.

[Epinephrine]

Wow I just found this thread and I'm amazed that qan is mad that he can't make a thread to find drugs. Dude you're a friend and all, but take a look at yourself. You're arguing for the right to ask for drugs on this thread (and don't try and deny it, you know what you were asking for). Considering this thread is run in the United States, I think that it would potentially open up the owners of this forum (aka Dock) to potential liabilities or even criminal problems.

As for posting after the thread was locked. Your arguments aside, if you are someone who has forum powers, that means that you have at the very least tacitly agreed to abide by the rules of the forum, and tacitly agreed to the 'morality' of the rules of the forum. The rules are quite clear, and in case they weren't as with all things in TW, it's the people in charge who hold ultimate power and in this case it's Zeus. Ignorance of the rules is no excuse, especially after the main forum moderator explained to you. Therefore if you believe that you are still 'morally' right in posting here, I would suggest remove yourself from having forum powers or else you're just a huge hypocrite.

Qan you're a friend, but look at the bigger picture man...

[qan]

Man, that's a lot to reply to! Dude, you are totally harshing my mellow.

Systematic replies.

Fand: Hi

Zeus: Yes, that's what I said -- let's eliminate all the rules and give forum staff more leeway, or at the very least make it absolutely, perfectly clear that a subjective moral stance is being taken on moderation and that the rules are secondary. First and foremost should be the statement about personal family values, and should probably be listed in the rules threda. Please understand that I am not being sarcastic or cute when I say that, or anything but utterly sincere. If you think that by saying that I would be fighting against myself, it's quite the opposite. In regards to 9, do you really want to argue that one? This could get so tedious and stupid. Okay, my topic was closed. I didn't post it again. I posted on it again. Haha, isn't that awful? Nonetheless, fight it if you want. Let's get really, REALLY silly, sir. Let's dance all night, baby.

TK: I'm not really forum staff, I don't think. Again, we should probably be quesitoning why SMods get forum powers automatically, if this case is anything to speak of, no? Or why they still retain them after abusing them openly!

Epi: If anyone might have understood, it might have been you, I thought. Don't you see, don't you see, it's not the thread's content? Don't you see that I had no intention of it remaining open? DoCk> is not going to have criminal problems. The police have better things to do than monitor internet message boards for spaceships for tiny weed deals. Anyone in "the game" realizes that if you don't "move" a great deal, the police can be fully aware of your activities and do nothing about it so long as it stays in check -- that is, it's simply not cost effective on their end. You could argue that it's a potential, sure, feel free. As for ignorance of the rules, please read back.

Epi, you're telling me to look at the bigger picture when you're talking about moderating an internet message board for a specific server of a video game, and I'm talking about questioning perfect moral truth. This is very amusing. I also think that I am a hypocrite, but again. You're a hypocrite. Don't think for a moment that you aren't, because you're a human being, truthsayer.


I feel like Dmitri wishing to reach the depths and unstoppably go further. It's so very ridiculous. Do you think I'll stop? Of course not! Fire me first! I demand it!

EDIT --
Oops! I almost forgot!

Conc: I despise this game! I don't play it properly and I can spend countless hours on it, and this is a childish attempt to begin to separate from it, like the employee that shows up significantly more late every day, or the spouse that beats the other for personal amusement to see how long one might allow it to continue. This little game is worse than a majority of drugs, and perhaps that's the best part of all. Perhaps, yes, I should say that it is my way to make it all the more bearable, rather than to like an adult ween my addiction slowly, instead thrash about.

If you had the choice, would you prefer to be forgotten, or hatefully remembered?

Only a fool chooses to be forgotten! It's even better, far better, to be hatefully remembered than lovingly so! For those that would love a villain are the kindest and best of all individuals. Hmm, so to say, I will continue to show up late because it is in my very, very best interests as a human being, not as a human being to this game, which matters so very little compared to nearly anything, is only good insofar as how much one can learn from it, and even when trying to learn something from it, trying to openly and honestly explain such a thing, it's considered the worst and most despicable act. [Haha, now it's Lebedev surely.]

Well: How wonderful a thing is in being alive. How wonderful a thing it is to be outside a spaceship. There are men in spaceships, too, but they are cold men, they are lonely men, and they are deprived of real oxygen.

[Troll King]

I guess that's your burning stake right there. I know you tied those knots yourself but would you like someone to help you tighten them a bit? I'm sure it'll look more glorious if your hands were pale with loss of circulation. The contrast will make for a better image to print on the T-shirts.

[Krusnik]

Spent a nice half hour on this thread. Since the forum is hosted in the US, and pot is illegal there, I don't think that trading an illegal substance on an online forum is a good idea. Another thing is a great majority of families believe that pot is bad, and therefore zues had the right to close the thread. Pot really is an illicit substance imo it shouldn't be used by anyone that doesn't have a valid reason for using it. Especially you since your trying to gain some through an online gaming forum. You can say something really smart with your really educated brain, but in the end pot is both bad, and illegal in the eyes of the majority so don't post about it.

Edit: Zues really is leniant compared to other forum moderators I have seen in the past............ WADI THIS MEANS YOU J/K.....