[busyrobot]

I was going to let the thread die but oh well.

Originally Posted by Kaimetsu

How would you suggest that we measure an individual's contribution to a trend? I mean, hell, I'll even let you assume that we can read minds. We still can't tell what factors combined to produce a given attitude - most people don't keep a conscious record of the things that influenced them.

Trick is to first identify problems and track them back to the causes. So far you are only talking about possible problems that may be, in theory caused by what you see are potential problems.
I am curious if you are so quick to give up on assessing the effects of people when it comes to irl politics, or if you are just doing that here because it serves you.

Originally Posted by Kaimetsu

Greenhouse effect: Good or bad? See, it's pretty difficult to prove that our pollution has a significant effect on the atmosphere because we can't easily make comparisons. We don't have a handy alternate universe where we didn't pollute our planet. The best we can do, pretty much, is to ask ourselves "Hey, what do we think's gonna happen if we send all those chemicals up there?"

Same applies here. We can deduce the effect of certain factors by employing a rudimentary understanding of human psychology. More on this below.

Keyword 'Effect' meaning, something observed traced back to probable causes. When it comes to green house theory, the science is based on a long standing observations of chemists under controlled experimental conditions. I doubt you honestly think you can equate some of your 'ponderings' on the possible effects of certian character types on roleplaying to centuries of empirical data collected by professional chemists conducting experiments.

Originally Posted by Kaimetsu

I don't think I made such a strong assertion. Nor have I given you reason to believe that I've only seen one example. I gave you a recent one because it was convenient, but it wasn't really necessary.

So you think you can provide only a single instance, then act like I am out of line for not assuming you have tons of more instances to back up your case?

Small thing about debates: If you need to strengthen your case, strengthen it, don't just ellude that you 'never said' that was all you had to support your case and assume that somehow does the trick.

And about your assertion - yes, you said the danger was that anyone could make up any old race....how is that a danger if people don't start making up races? If there is no rash of races - what is your problem with it then? What are you worried will happen?

Originally Posted by Kaimetsu

Y'see, you're not getting the burden of proof thing here. I say that certain actions have certain effects on the mass consciousness. You say that they don't. There's no way for either of us to actually prove our case because we don't have access to the relevant information. But that doesn't mean we should dismiss each other without consideration. Failure to provide proof isn't a comment on the strength of our stances, but rather on their fundamental nature. I can't directly prove that humankind has damaged the ozone layer, but I can talk about chemistry and geology and show, through abstract reasoning, that it probably has.

I will admit I was playing with you a bit, because you have tried to shift the burden of proof on to me so many times I thought it would be interesting to see how you respond to the same. Now that we can get past the "can't even prove this isn't aaaaaallll a dream" stuff can you demonstrate reasonably the risks you are concerned of? I will reiterate my key point (1) that even though people can make characters that are 'out there' that it rarely happens, and when it does its generally short lived as it is not conducive to roleplaying within any of the groups that do RP, and that is why people make characters in the first place. The fact that negative problems associated with 'out there' characters are few and far between over the years of roleplaying on this server suggests I am correct in this assesment.

Originally Posted by Kaimetsu

Nobody ever said that it was verbally encouraged. You can encourage somebody in more ways than just saying "HEY GOOD JOB".

Yet he did have verbal discouragement. What do you think is stronger, verbal en/discouragement or the 'more ways' (ones I hope you demonstrate are not purely theoretical but have actual examples) as you put it?

Originally Posted by Kaimetsu

What are the options here? On what bases can we actually make rulings? We can make predictions about the effect that they'll have or we can roll a die and hope for the best. Personally, I prefer the former.

Rules have their place but there is also room for self regulation where it has worked to date. This is not a 'doomsday' issue like the green house effect is (the reason you choose it I am sure) because if there is a problem, we can actually solve it then with minimal effort, or at least no more than would be needed to try to prevent the 'potential' problem that has not manifested in all the years of this server.