Announcement Regarding Rule 1.2

[n00bl3t]

If there is any other options to intentionally trolling people within the rules and consequences being a worry, then this statement is false. Oh wait, let me think, the supposed dirty word bias comes up. That may be discredited, but it is still an option. It was brought up before. It has happened before. Thus, the logic does not hold.

If such a basic logical fallacy was committed, was it done so intentionally, and was it done so to troll anyone that voices concern into silence, over the rule changes?

You can of course pick up on a final comment intended to be taken with a degree of lightness and amusement and turn it into a serious point for discussion... But we've been there before, Richard. Do we really need emotes these days? I would have thought "hmm..." was enough.

However, I'll just roll on with your line, because it's vaguely more amusing than the comment I made.

If we bring the word bias into things, then we start to get into the realms of asking questions such as; "is any authority legitimate?", "what right does X have to run this place?".

Given we are in an internet community which is privately run and owned (yes, maintaining the servers does give the administrators ownership), the right to rule, if you wish to call it that, is rather clearly in the hands of the owners. Bias in an elected and representative system, would be absolutely devastating to it's integrity. Bias in an oligarchal system where people choose to come, then choose to stay to be ruled by those oligarchs, is a bit of a non issue... It is also far less prevailent than your phrasing would present it, but we could debate exactly how widespread the bias, how strong it is and against/towards whom people are actually biased back and forth forever, without making any progress whatsoever. We see different things, and nobody has the keys to the absolute truth.

The long and short of it is this... You chose to play here, therefore you chose to be subject to the whims of the owners.

That said, a great deal (but not all) of the bias which is talked about around here is largely based in the complainer's own rather paranoid confirmation bias. They believe they are being persecuted, and therefore will see that everywhere, and will reject anything qhich could bring that already existing perception into question.
Following on from that, a great many people respond violently to a perceived but nonexistant bias against them, and in the process of reacting, create it...

Given I responded politely, I feel I should probably make some mention of the fact I find the smartass tone you took with your reply to be mildly annoying. That is nothing terribly new though. This almost feels like the old days.

Edited for typos and clarity.

It is a shame you read it that way. I tried to avoid anything condescending in that because 1.2, and to be sanctioned for posting words which constitute a 1.2 violation in a thread about 1.2 violations would be rather ironic, if that is the right word. I deliberately went through it step-by-step so I would not make an error.

If it was not intended as a serious point, and not intended as a troll to silence people voicing genuine concerns, then I'll take your word for it and not bother with the comment you made.

In response to your paragraphs about oligarchies:
1) I do not see the point of the paragraphs upon paragraphs of rules, if 1.2 simply covers everything.
2) I do not see the point of the paragraphs upon paragraphs of rules, if this an oligarchy which can do whatever it wants.
3) If there are rules, then there must be self-imposed limits on the oligarchy.
4) If there is a rule which allows all rules to be ignored, then there are no rules.

Take the 4 points as you will Joe. Like you said, perhaps we see things differently. I was just voicing my concern for abuse in the system. I doubt there's a conspiracy against me, perhaps localised bias by some people, but that's human. (One day I'm sure I'll be painted as paranoid because enough people chant it loud enough. )

---

Anything I say is not intended as offensive, and to try and deliberately misinterpret it as such would be an attempt at trolling via misrepresentation.

It's not a conspiracy, it's localised bias. They're not intelligent enough to form a conspiracy.