Nightbird
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
 Posted:
Aug 20, 2016 - 22:00 |
 
|
Desultory <---- Angry, anti-social people. A large part of the problems in the world today...  |
_________________
"If most of us remain ignorant of ourselves, it's because self-knowledge is painful
& we prefer the pleasures of illusion." ~Aldous Huxley |
|
Gozer_the_Gozerian
Joined: May 30, 2015
|
| Posted:
Aug 20, 2016 - 22:03 |
|
For somebody that didn't want to chat, he sure sparked a big conversation. You might call it a short story at this point, since its 5 pages long already. |
_________________
Choose the form of your destroyer. |
|
DarthPhysicist
Joined: Jun 14, 2015
|
| Posted:
Aug 20, 2016 - 22:20 |
|
I just love the irony of the thread at this point.
"I hate chatting with people. I will therefore start a thread about hating to chat with people, and monitor said thread for weeks at a time until people accept that I hate chatting with people. I am perfectly capable of ignoring other people's opinions, except that I wish to know what they are so I can argue with them. But I will ignore them. Except when I don't. Ignore me!"
Did I miss something?
Seriously though, is it that painful to type "hello" in the frame to start and "good game" in the frame when you leave? Is it so burdensome or against some bizarre principle that you communicate during a match (cause obviously you don't mind communicating after a match)? You have to know that this is the behavior of a generally unpleasant person and this kind of stuff is just a microcosm of a larger unpleasant whole. |
_________________
Using derivative humor since 2005.
 |
|
thoralf
Joined: Mar 06, 2008
|
| Posted:
Aug 20, 2016 - 22:45 |
|
| Desultory wrote: | | I realise you are trying to be clever here, but I'm pretty sure you haven't been. |
Your ad hominem fails to respond to the points I made:
(1) Social norms go beyond game rules and being unresponsive goes against just about any social norms known to man.
I could also add that it may sometimes be a form of violence.
(2) The belief that you don't need to chat to some stranger you probably won't like is consistent with the fact that people's cognitions are biased, but appealing to cognitive bias undermines your belief that people are probably unlikable.
The only way out of that contradiction would be to claim that you're immune to bias yourself.
Arguing by assertion won't falsify these points.
***
To answer your original question: whether you like people or not, removing chat would go against the site's rulz. While I can understand your request (I come from Chess and we don't chat much in a game, there's just no time), you really should rethink that part of your About page.
As for the reaction your request got, had you clicked on the link I provided, you may have had noticed this quote:
| Kingsey Amis wrote: | | If you can’t annoy someone, there’s little point in writing. |
Welcome to the Internet. |
|
|
lemf
Joined: Jul 17, 2005
|
| Posted:
Aug 20, 2016 - 23:02 |
|
When I first saw this thread I was planning my response,
whilst waiting for a game to come up on gamefinder, I then end up playing the OP in a very
enjoyable match where we did chat all be it brief but it was more than just the opening GL HF bits.
What does this prove............ We can be flexible with what we do
 |
|
|
Desultory
Joined: Jun 24, 2008
|
| Posted:
Aug 20, 2016 - 23:19 |
|
| thoralf wrote: |
(1) Social norms go beyond game rules and being unresponsive goes against just about any social norms known to man.
(2) The belief that you don't need to chat to some stranger you probably won't like is consistent with the fact that people's cognitions are biased, but appealing to cognitive bias undermines your belief that people are probably unlikable.
The only way out of that contradiction would be to claim that you're immune to bias yourself.
Arguing by assertion won't falsify these points.
*** |
[1] Are you arguing that I have to accept social norms to any degree (and rethink my about page)? If so this is a belief, that is being enforced on me. Do you understand why that is regressive?
[2] I'm still not convinced this makes sense. I'm pretty sure it doesn't contradict unless assumption(s) are made. One assumption being that Cognitive bias is a 1 or a 0. Which it is not.
(a) I believe it's likely I won't like the stranger.
(b) I have cognitive bias
(c) I generally don't like strangers because of their cognitive bias.
You argue that because I have (b), I can't have or it invalidates (a) or (c)? I'm pretty sure this is false logic.
P.s. You made this statement:
"I don't see the relevance of this argument. The notion of a social rule is moot, but if someone tells you something and you don't talk back, something's amiss".
If social rule is moot, it can't be amiss to not talk back. This is directly contradictory without assumption.
I also play chess. Significantly better than I play Blood Bowl. |
Last edited by Desultory on %b %20, %2016 - %23:%Aug; edited 2 times in total |
|
Gozer_the_Gozerian
Joined: May 30, 2015
|
| Posted:
Aug 20, 2016 - 23:28 |
|
If irony was strawberries we'd all be drinking a lot of smoothies right now. |
_________________
Choose the form of your destroyer. |
|
Desultory
Joined: Jun 24, 2008
|
| Posted:
Aug 20, 2016 - 23:31 |
|
I'm pretty sure you don't actually understand what Irony is. |
_________________
 |
|
Gozer_the_Gozerian
Joined: May 30, 2015
|
| Posted:
Aug 20, 2016 - 23:37 |
|
Irony: a state of affairs or an event that seems deliberately contrary to what one expects and is often amusing as a result. Seems pretty ironic to me  |
_________________
Choose the form of your destroyer. |
|
Electric_Wizard
Joined: Oct 09, 2010
|
| Posted:
Aug 20, 2016 - 23:39 |
|
Can we put Gozer on the stake for his signature? |
|
|
Gozer_the_Gozerian
Joined: May 30, 2015
|
| Posted:
Aug 20, 2016 - 23:42 |
|
Oops, just noticed that one myself |
|
|
Nightbird
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Aug 20, 2016 - 23:43 |
|
| Electric_Wizard wrote: | | Can we put Gozer on the stake for his signature? |
YES!
Shorten that crap dude!
It's annoying & completely unnecessary!
Also I've just become ZzZzZzZzZ to this whole thread & the OP...  |
_________________
"If most of us remain ignorant of ourselves, it's because self-knowledge is painful
& we prefer the pleasures of illusion." ~Aldous Huxley |
|
Gozer_the_Gozerian
Joined: May 30, 2015
|
| Posted:
Aug 20, 2016 - 23:46 |
|
Bwahaha. |
_________________
Choose the form of your destroyer. |
|
Throweck
Joined: Feb 23, 2013
|
| Posted:
Aug 21, 2016 - 00:09 |
|
@ Desultory
I have a question.
What is wrong with just being polite?
My folks always taught me to be polite and well mannered as best as I can be. As you are playing with another human being on this site surely a greeting and goodbye is ok isn't it?
I don't play chess but I can't imagine players completely ignoring each other before or after the game.
Please don't get me wrong, I'm not having a go, I'm just interested. If at a Table Top tournament, would you ask people not to talk to you whilst you play? I'm just trying to understand because I don't.
Thanks
I am afraid I am one of those people that have a 'simple mind' you refer to in your about page for not understanding your logic. |
_________________
FUMBBL Podcast Donate to the FUMBBL Podcast! |
|
thoralf
Joined: Mar 06, 2008
|
| Posted:
Aug 21, 2016 - 02:01 |
|
| Desultory wrote: | | [1] Are you arguing that I have to accept social norms to any degree (and rethink my about page)? If so this is a belief, that is being enforced on me. Do you understand why that is regressive? |
Thank you for JAQing off, Desultory, and for using "regressive," both indicating that this may not be your first online discussion.
I am arguing that your argument "there are no rules that state Blood Bowl must be social" is irrelevant. It is irrelevant because the social norms we're discussing apply to a website, which is not subject to the same kind of regulations a game is. (In the case of a game, we're not "free" to break the rules, for when we do, we ipso facto stop playing the game.)
The argument behind your first rhetorical question, i.e. "I don't need to accept social norms," is also irrelevant, but for a different reason. It is irrelevant because we're all free to abide by social norms or not, which is why we're talking about norms and not rules.
That argument shows progress, however, since it assumes we're discussing social norms, not game rules. So in return, you must acknowledge that you are on private property right now. Since you can't appeal to any Amendment or any other Right, it might be wise to follow the ground rules or "the laws and customs" of this site. Since even the hyperrational Descartes settled for a provisional moral code, you might profit from following suit.
Here's the ground rule I know:
| koadah wrote: | | Do NOT be timing your opponent out when they are away from the keyboard. This is against Fumbbl rules. |
This comes from the 145 club page and is, as far as I tell, what's accepted around here. I will inquire to make sure I'm correct.
Making the chat box disappear will make you miss whatever your opponent is telling you. Therefore, every time your opponent needs to be AFK, you'll miss it, and if you time your opponent out because he's AFK, you'll do something against Fumbbl rules.
This means that the question that motivates this thread has a clear answer: no, it's not possible to remove the chat bot because the website's operationality relies on players communicating with one another.
Please acknowledge this response.
***
Rest assured that you are free to do whatever you please, including to risk infringing upon the site's rules with your passive communication, that what comes goes around goes around, and that you can't feign ignorance anymore. |
Last edited by thoralf on %b %21, %2016 - %15:%Aug; edited 2 times in total |
|
|
|
| |
Secret League Americ...
Search
