You know, there's a real problem on the forums.

[p2p_Sir_Link]

Originally Posted by Googi

Huh? Is this a serious post? My post has nothing to do with democracy, nor do I even advocate anything resembling democracy. It's about logic. There's no logical reason to believe that a moderator's opinion is more valid simply because it is held by a moderator.

Define logic.

You seem to be under the impression that logic means what makes sense to you.

However, logic does not come in to play in the sense you believe in the slightest. There is perfect logic behind people holding power making decisions they believe correct. They hold all of the power, you have none of it. Therefore, the only logical conclusion is that their opinion is more worthwhile than yours.

The opinion of the Moderator's is what happens. Your opinions are inconsequential - whether you are furious or pleased with a business makes no difference to the business. You cannot change what the business does, so take it or leave it. The business has absolute power as long as you agree to its terms, which you clearly do by continuing to renew your subscription. No one has a gun against your head stating you must remain here, yet you act as though you are Abbe Sieyes leading a revolution against a dictatorship more oppresive than the French Monarchy.

They have the power. You have none of it. What you determine logical is irrelevant. What they determine logical is highly relevant. Their opinion is more valid simply because their opinion has power behind it.

[Googi]

Originally Posted by p2p_Sir_Link

Define logic.

Look it up.

Originally Posted by p2p_Sir_Link

Stuff that says valid=enforcable.

You are applying a different definition of "valid" here. Valid, as I described it, does not mean "enforcable", it means correct. I explicitly stated that their opinions are enforcable.

[p2p_Sir_Link]

Originally Posted by Googi

Look it up.

There is no need. You have found ambiguity in the term when there is none.

You are applying a different definition of "valid" here. Valid, as I described it, does not mean "enforcable", it means correct. I explicitly stated that their opinions are enforcable.

What is correct can only be determined in the eyes of the beholder. Do you believe everyone is hardwired with the same set of values as you are, and therefore any deviation from your values in incorrect?

This is the only conclusion I can be led to believe. Enforcing a rule that does not exist is not incorrect.

I can't go around defecating in swimming pools because there is no rule saying I cannot. There is nothing even close to saying I cannot do this. However, if I am intentionally doing so, what standing do you think my argument would have that it does not break the rules and therefore, since I paid 3 dollar admission into the pool, I have the absolute right to do it?

You reference ghost statistics, making wild claims as to what the majority is and the like. Provide some accurate numbers, not just ones you pull out of your ass based on arbitrary guidelines.

I am willing to guess that many subscribers read the forums without registering an account because their Graal account is not initially set to work on the forum, and thusly never bother to register.

The posters on the forum do not determine what content is allowable, simply because it does not offend those who are directly involved.

Graal has a reputation to protect, and it is not in the slightest bit unrealistic to believe that this community is driving potential subscribers away.

Since you wish to push everything to the limit, I suggest this be handled with a moderator elasticisty clause, that allows them to enforce whatever they please as they feel nescessary.

That way, they'd only be enforcing everything within the rules, which is what you want.

[Googi]

Originally Posted by p2p_Sir_Link

There is no need.

Then what need is there to ask me for a definition?

Originally Posted by p2p_Sir_Link

What is correct can only be determined in the eyes of the beholder.

No, that's only what a person believes is correct. Facts are something that exist external to the individual.

Originally Posted by p2p_Sir_Link

Do you believe everyone is hardwired with the same set of values as you are, and therefore any deviation from your values in incorrect?

This is the only conclusion I can be led to believe. Enforcing a rule that does not exist is not incorrect.

I did not say that it is "incorrect." My post contains zero moral judgments. What I do say is that it privileges opinions based on who has them rather than whether or not they are factually correct. Whether or not that's "morally incorrect" is a subjective thing.

Originally Posted by p2p_Sir_Link

I can't go around defecating in swimming pools because there is no rule saying I cannot. There is nothing even close to saying I cannot do this. However, if I am intentionally doing so, what standing do you think my argument would have that it does not break the rules and therefore, since I paid 3 dollar admission into the pool, I have the absolute right to do it?

What kind of pool is it that has no rule against this?

Originally Posted by p2p_Sir_Link

You reference ghost statistics, making wild claims as to what the majority is and the like. Provide some accurate numbers, not just ones you pull out of your ass based on arbitrary guidelines.

I speak of the majority in terms of the "majority" cited by moderators when they defend forum policies that are unpopular with the active users. They cite a majority of less-active members that do not care because they do not come in contact with forum moderation. It is this "majority" that I am talking about.

Originally Posted by p2p_Sir_Link

I am willing to guess that many subscribers read the forums without registering an account because their Graal account is not initially set to work on the forum, and thusly never bother to register.

They would be counted in the "apathetic majority" - the majority that do not care because they do not come into contact with forum moderation.

The posters on the forum do not determine what content is allowable, simply because it does not offend those who are directly involved.[/quote]

Where do I suggest that they do or even should?

Originally Posted by p2p_Sir_Link

Graal has a reputation to protect, and it is not in the slightest bit unrealistic to believe that this community is driving potential subscribers away.

I myself have stated more than once (though I do not mention it in this particular post) that forum rules should be written with profit in mind. It is Unixmad who disagrees with this suggestion.

Originally Posted by p2p_Sir_Link

Since you wish to push everything to the limit, I suggest this be handled with a moderator elasticisty clause, that allows them to enforce whatever they please as they feel nescessary.

That way, they'd only be enforcing everything within the rules, which is what you want.

It appears you do not understand the "elasticity clause," it merely allows the moderators to make moderations that do not enforce the rules, it doesn't mean that those moderations somehow become moderations that enforce the rules.

[excaliber7388]

Originally Posted by Googi

Given that there are many ways to do this, you are not explaining why it was necessary for him to intentionally damage Zodiac.

Well, it was the only target that could generate so much attention.
Not to mention the fact that he worked on it the most of anyone. Essentially, it was his server, and when things went south, he didn't want an an administration as twisted as this one to be able to profit in any way off of his work. His methods are not one that I focus on, mainly because it was the reasons behind his actions that are important in this situation Had they not existed, Yen would have done nothing. Yen was the effect to the cause of this administration.

[Lord Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by excaliber7388

Well, it was the only target that could generate so much attention.
Not to mention the fact that he worked on it the most of anyone. Essentially, it was his server, and when things went south, he didn't want an an administration as twisted as this one to be able to profit in any way off of his work. His methods are not one that I focus on, mainly because it was the reasons behind his actions that are important in this situation Had they not existed, Yen would have done nothing. Yen was the effect to the cause of this administration.

If he actually had a goal to accomplish with someone than anything you just said is irrelivant. Nothing Yen did was about pure attention, you do realize that, right? This wasn't Yen "going out with a bang".

[Googi]

Originally Posted by excaliber7388

Well, it was the only target that could generate so much attention.
Not to mention the fact that he worked on it the most of anyone. Essentially, it was his server, and when things went south, he didn't want an an administration as twisted as this one to be able to profit in any way off of his work. His methods are not one that I focus on, mainly because it was the reasons behind his actions that are important in this situation Had they not existed, Yen would have done nothing. Yen was the effect to the cause of this administration.

What you're saying effectively amounts to the claim that a person is justified in any corrupt act (including the deletion of work that they didn't make) so long as they say bad things about the staff while they do it.

Originally Posted by coreys

Has this even been proven.

Admittedly, not really, no. For it to be false however would require a considerable conspiracy as damage was done to the Zodiac server, the only way that Yen could be innocent is if someone framed him in a fairly elaborate way. However, I admit that the nature of what he did is unclear, and my post isn't really about what Yen did, but rather it uses the reactions people had to what they believe he did as context.

Originally Posted by coreys

Yen didn't want it changed, and wouldn't allow it.

Clearly not true. Yen made a thread explicitly demanding that everything he made for Zodiac be removed.

[coreys]

Originally Posted by Googi

Admittedly, not really, no. For it to be false however would require a considerable conspiracy as damage was done to the Zodiac server, the only way that Yen could be innocent is if someone framed him in a fairly elaborate way. However, I admit that the nature of what he did is unclear, and my post isn't really about what Yen did, but rather it uses the reactions people had to what they believe he did as context.

I know it would take that, that's why my theory is admittedly more of a conspiracy theory, haha. So many different people has said so many different (and all admittedly vague) explanations of what he did. I just wish Stefan would clear things up for us.

Originally Posted by Googi

Clearly not true. Yen made a thread explicitly demanding that everything he made for Zodiac be removed.

Hmm, I didn't see that. But you still must admit that a LOT of people hate and hated Yen. Some of it is justifiable, but most of it not. I wouldn't be surprised if someone set him up.

[CidNight1142]

Bravo, Googi. Finally someone says what needs to be said in a mature way. If this thread were to be deleted it would be an outrage and proof that the administration had taken the 'elasticity clause' rule to heart and ran with it.

Originally Posted by p2p_Sir_Link

Pretty much everything you've said.

I really cannot comprehend your opinions on this matter. Are you seriously suggesting that the moderators be given more power? The power they have is a massively unpopular fact and clearly resented by the majority of posters who care enough to even comment on it either way. You say these things like you're an actual member of Unixmad's ghost majority. But there is no majority. It's you. That's one versus dozens or maybe even hundreds of users.

Are you a true believer that this should be a totalitarian system in which moderators, chosen for no reason other than they had somehow gained the graces of the owners of this business should be given absolute authority over everything that happens in these forums? That their opinions, which have no proven merit over any other forum user, should be held in a regard completely in a different ballpark from our own? You are asking us to become a subjecated mass willingly. You're being ridiculous.

The other point you consistently make is that the company needs no loyalty to us, the paying customers. It has been discussed many times that this is a business in trouble. They're a business in trouble for one reason, they don't listen to their customers. Without us, there are no servers. There's no vBulletin subscription. There's no office. There's no paycheck for Unix or Stefan or anyone else. They go off and find another job. That's the very root of power. That gives us power directly. This is a democracy in a sense, because we are participating in a free trade system which heavily relies on we, the users purchasing accounts from GO and CJ for their survival.

This business needs profits, and they've already lost alot through the improper administration and moderation of these forums.