" Types" of post-ers on TFF

[Alpha]

Hah. I just noticed that this has been moved to GC. May I ask why?

Intellect: involving thought and reason.

Discussion of these groups requires both thought (what are the groups) and reason (why are the groups, why does one fit into said group, etc.).

I think these groups that Gypsy Elder et al. have defined are fairly accurate, and one would be hard-pressed to claim that they don't exist, so why all this rabble-rousing?

More often than not, a thread becomes interesting through the responses, not the topic as defined in the OP. By virtue of contributing to this thread in an effort to extirpate it, it has become silly. Had people came here, looked at the groups, discussed how valid or desirable the labels are, and discussed this intellectually (using both thought and reason), then it would be choice. But no.

So I suggest changing the name 'rabble-rouser' to 'degenerate' (having lost good or desirable qualities).

[Jin]

It was moved because it didn't belong in that forum.

By your definition every thread belongs in the ID forum. Answering the question "what's your favourite kind of sandwich" requires as much thought and reason as this topic does. You people need to get off this semantic argument of "technically..." You know damn well what the ID forum is for and this isn't it.

[Meier Link]

I made the move from ID to GC because there was a lack of debatable content in this thread. As you stated Alpha "these groups that Gypsy Elder et al. have defined are fairly accurate, and one would be hard-pressed to claim that they don't exist". Also there is a severe lack of discussion to be had, from what has been posted so far goes to prove this fact.

As for now I will leave it at that seeing I am to sick to think clearly. If Ally wishes to over rule me and move this thread back to ID then I will accept it back but as for now it stays in GC.

Now lets get this thread back on track.

[Alpha]

Answering the question "what's your favourite kind of sandwich" requires as much thought and reason as this topic does.

That may be so, but posts in ID that don't contain thought or reason are more likely to be deleted by a moderator, eaten apart by people with some kind of standard they want maintained, or simply ignored. You can go and post "Cloudz my fav!!1" in threads in the FF sections of the forum, but try doing a similar thing in ID and it won't float, and warrant at least a pre-warning. Deciding that Cloud is indeed one's favourite character does take both thought and reason, but posting in ID (ideally) requires the expression of thought and reason. Unless we get degenerates who decide that they won't show thought or reason, and just decide to knock things down 'because it's fun' and because 'there's nothing else to do'.

You know damn well what the ID forum is for and this isn't it.

Oh, and what is? This is a ****ing video game forum. What exactly do you expect? If you want something that is profoundly intellectually stimulating, read a university-level book. But in this context, this discussion is fine. Possibly the best virtue is that it is accessible. Debating Marx would be interesting, but I wouldn't come here to find it.

Look, here's something that actually pertains to this discussion:

Psychologists Muzafer and Carolyn Sherif, in a classic experiment in the 1950s, divided a group of 12-year-old white, middle-class boys at a summer camp into the “Eagles” and the “Rattlers.” At first, when the boys did not know one another, they formed a common social category as summer campers. But as time passed and they began to consider themselves to be either Eagles or Rattlers, these 12-year-old boys formed two distinct social groups.

In the beginning, the Eagles and Rattlers were friendly, but soon their games evolved into intense competitions. The two groups began to call each other names, and they raided each other's cabins, hazed one another, and started fights. In other words, loyalty to the in-group led to antagonism and aggression toward the out-group, including fierce competitions for the same resources. Later in the same experiment, though, Sherif had the boys work together to solve mutual problems. When they cooperated with one another, the Eagles and Rattlers became less divided, hostile, and competitive.

Members use titles, external symbols, and dress to distinguish themselves from the out-group.

Members tend to clash or compete with members of the out-group. This competition with the other group can also strengthen the unity within each group.

Members apply positive stereotypes to their in-group and negative stereotypes to the out-group.

(Source: Sociology: Social Groups - CliffsNotes)

I actually find it quite interesting that much of this can be found right here at TFF, and even in this very thread. I suppose we should ask, are social groups inevitable? As much as one may try and avoid them, will classification always occur, explicitly or not?

[Jin]

That may be so, but posts in ID that don't contain thought or reason are more likely to be deleted by a moderator, eaten apart by people with some kind of standard they want maintained, or simply ignored. You can go and post "Cloudz my fav!!1" in threads in the FF sections of the forum, but try doing a similar thing in ID and it won't float, and warrant at least a pre-warning. Deciding that Cloud is indeed one's favourite character does take both thought and reason, but posting in ID (ideally) requires the expression of thought and reason. Unless we get degenerates who decide that they won't show thought or reason, and just decide to knock things down 'because it's fun' and because 'there's nothing else to do'.

You're echoing an argument already made earlier in this thread. The ID forum is not supposed to be treated as "the good forum" where you go when you want a good discussion while the rest of the forum is "the bad forum". The entire forum is supposed to consist of good discussions, just on different topics. Obviously, the reason you're making this argument is because that isn't the case in practice. However, the solution should be to clean up the rest of the forum, not to hold every worthwhile discussion in a single forum. If you'll look at every other TFF forum, you'll notice that they're divided topically, not based on quality of posts required.

Oh, and what is? This is a ****ing video game forum. What exactly do you expect?

I expect threads to be in their correct forums. Well, I used to. Not so much these days.

As for your attempt to make this thread something that belongs in ID, perhaps if it had been started that way, there would have been no issues. However, it did not. The OP did absolutely nothing to bring in philosophy, sociology or anything of the sort into the mix. Only after complaints were raised did even a modest amount of such things get added. Philosophy and sociology are therefore not necessary parts of this thread. They can supplement it, but the topic of this thread, as stated by the OP, is a general listing of member categories.

It's interesting that you chose only to argue with me and not the mod that actually moved the thread. Perhaps we should explore that in an ID thread.

[Alpha]

Come on, Jin. There's a thread entitled "ALIENS!!!! Real or Not????" in ID, and yet you won't allow this one in there? Tell me, oh arbiter of the geographical distribution of threads, what is an objective framework for a thread to be located in ID and not somewhere else?

Note also that my attempt to add a legitimate sociological interpretation of this 'group' phenomenon was completely ignored by you. Is that because this thread isn't located in ID, so you don't have to care, or is it because my label of 'degenerate' is actually valid?

And who says I'm not challenging Meier on this? It's addressed to anyone who reads it, not just you.

[GypsyElder]

You're echoing an argument already made earlier in this thread. The ID forum is not supposed to be treated as "the good forum" where you go when you want a good discussion while the rest of the forum is "the bad forum". The entire forum is supposed to consist of good discussions, just on different topics. Obviously, the reason you're making this argument is because that isn't the case in practice. However, the solution should be to clean up the rest of the forum, not to hold every worthwhile discussion in a single forum. If you'll look at every other TFF forum, you'll notice that they're divided topically, not based on quality of posts required.

I wasn't an "arguing" with you about "good and "bad" areas of the Forum. I just explained my reasoning for posting it in ID in the first place. Which was to see what members who have been here longer, would think about the different "types" of post-ers and what they think makes a cretin person qualify for that type, and go from there. I would have liked to hear more about the Noobs Vs Vets thing. I don't consider ID "the good forum", and the rest of the forum isn't "bad". I already said this -_-

There are no bad discussions, just bad posts. And no, that doesn't mean I'm saying everywhere but ID gets bad posts.

Obviously now it's really not fit for ID because all we're doing is bitching about where it should go.

As I was reading the topic I too was confused as to why it was in ID, but someone brought up the fact that this particular user may have just been searching for deeper conversation than what usually goes on in GD. I can understand that. However, I don't think it was an intellectual discussion until the "intellects" made it one with their own disagreements. How ironic.

[Jin]

There's a thread entitled "ALIENS!!!! Real or Not????" Tell me, oh arbiter of the geographical distribution of threads, what is an objective framework for a thread to be located in ID and not somewhere else?

Cute. I can't comment on the alien thread as I haven't read it. But as for a framework, it's really not that challenging. The framework is merely that of discursive knowledge (or the challenging of said knowledge). No one's asking that it be university level material, but it should still be actively and consciously engaging with some kind of discourse. This isn't objective though. You're misunderstanding my position on this and, admittedly, it's my fault for not making the following clear. I'm not trying to say that the framework I am proposing is de facto the official framework used by TFF. I am trying to explain that throughout my 5 years as a member of this forum, that has been the convention and as such will always be the legitimate framework in my eyes. The ultimate decision is up to the mods, whether you or I agree or not.

Note also that my attempt to add a legitimate sociological interpretation of this 'group' phenomenon was completely ignored by you.

No it wasn't. I addressed your "attempt to make this thread something that belongs in ID". Read my last post again. Sorry if it wasn't clear enough.

I wasn't an "arguing" with you about "good and "bad" areas of the Forum. I just explained my reasoning for posting it in ID in the first place.

Fine, call it whatever you'd like. It's not relevant anymore.

Edit: You do make a good point though, Gypsy Elder, this post is way too far off topic now. As such, I'll refrain from commenting about this anymore. The last move is yours, Alpha.

[Alpha]

So you want knowledge 'proceeding by argument or reasoning, not intuition' (my dictionary's definition of discursive). In other terms, you just said an intellectual discussion should be an intellectual discussion. I'm sorry, but I'm going to need you to try again.

Any thread can be 'intellectual', no one really disagrees with that. But an intellectual thread is defined more by the responses it attracts. If it weren't for the 'degenerates' who actually aim to prevent threads from becoming 'intellectual' then maybe we would have intellectual discussions.

The reason they are more likely to occur in ID (and occasionally GC) is that ID requires quality threads. Fanboys come here, post one-liners in the FF sections, and practically destroy the potential for intellectual discussions about FFs. How many of these weekend newbies come here to discuss Obama's healthcare policy, or the psychological phenomenon of social groups?

If Gypsy Elder had began this thread not in relation to TFF, but to wider society, would it 'become' intellectual? It would fulfill your recurring theme of requiring some kind of sociological underpinning. But, again, if I really wanted that, why would I come here? If my assumption about it not being classified as 'intellectual' because it is TFF-related holds, may I ask why? It is simply the same concept, just applied to the context of the forum which we are necessarily using.

And by you 'ignoring my attempt' at adding a psychological/sociological interpretation, I meant that you didn't actually discuss the link I added, or the questions I raised. Isn't that what you want to see?

Typical degenerate.

[Pete]

If the thread was purely about the different groups on TFF, and what people thought about it, then it would be fine for GC.

Now, if we were to talk about the psychology of such things, and how these groups are formed, then yes, it would be ID worthy. I mean, with the way this thread was designed, it belongs in Gen Chat. It was originally about TFF groups and opinions. It derailed into something ID worthy, but is now just a pissing contest.

I think that major distinction between ID and Gen chat is not that ID is for the "good" questions, but rather for your target audiences. If you want a a legitimate debate about ideas and the like, with sound reasoning and (more often than not) factual evidence, you post in ID. ID can get heated and it's not for a lot of people; understandable. Example: Obama's Healthcare Plan.

If you want a more relaxed debate or just to get people's opinions on ideas, then you post in Gen Chat. Example: Are aliens real?

The alien thread is NOT ID material. Mods be slippin.

[Alpha]

I think Pete is pretty spot on.

Gypsy Elder has a thread in GC about cereal. And now she also has one in the same forum about the tendency for people to form 'groups'. Her clearly stated aims were to attract decent responses - a supposed requirement of ID.

A thread is simply best defined by the responses. And boy has this whole thread degenerated. Shame. It has great potential.

[Govinda]

Wow. Every time I come back here, I find my definition of the word 'pedantic' being updated and strengthened.

See, this is the thing with TFF. Jin and I made glib comments (mostly Jin. Maybe James did too. Or Walter or whatever). So yeah, some glib. Thread was not resurrected. It was made the home of glib.

I could understand this if said glib had been offensive or.........you know what? I'm out.


I just don't know where you get the TIME.

Now chill the **** out.

[TibiaFever]

I do make a distinction between troublemakers and rabble rousers even though I don't think its an accurate word. There are people who's sole purpose is to cause trouble with a future that is short and easily read (banned). Then there is a group that are well meaning and possibly manner members that simply want to push the limits and know when to stop and when they can go. Their intentions are to cause trouble, but not really so much to be banned or really to be hated. They just simply want to play on the edge of the rules.


dungeon fighter gold
dungeon fighter gold

[RamesesII]

Once again another thread that has gone completely off the topic, it has gone to a thread about types of posters to which forum should this thread be in.

I know lets make a thread about this thread to decide if it is okay to talk about the placement of a thread in a thread that has nothing to do with the thread in the forum about the thread that talks about the original thread. Hmmmm interesting.

Anywho... I am the official representative of Australia to voice the opinions of our nation in this debacle, as for you Alpha i don't think NZ has any viable evidence to be in this conversation haha j/k.

I better stick to the topic or Meier might spank me or Mistress Sheena hang I might enjoy that.

I love Govinda's first post it sums it up pretty nicely, after all it isn't what we classify ourselves as it is what the other members classify us as, isn't it often said that its your friends, family or enemies that know you better than yourself.

Anyway saying that if I did see myself from one of those categories it wouldn't be a asshole I am too nice i would be a d*ck or dickhead as govinda put it because when people finish reading this post they will exclaim:
"What a dickhead"

See you did say it didn't ya therefore that's me summed up.

I do have one to add though:

One Post wonders- Members who jump in on a heated or intellectual debate or topic (just like this one) and post one post whether it be of relevance or not (just like this one) and then piss off never to bee seen in that thread again (just like me). Sometimes people just jump in and have their say and then that's it they leave every one hanging which is okay to a point but often they post and then never come back to back up their original post or reply etc etc.

Dang I have added more nonsensical dribble in this post than salvageable discussion material.
I'm in trouble now.

[dongs.]

I find it encouraging that TFFers don't consider me an "intellect."

Baby, you can be whoever you want to be. Just show me somma that leg.

I come back to hit on Alisyn.. or when Pete links me to some new heated argument. >_>