Printable View
Well, guys -- it's been fun. In general, this has been a decent place to pop in and get a few ideas or have a discussion on things, but the last few months there's been a decided drop in the civility. Mostly, we have one or two people who feel the need to go troll on others here.
I don't have time for that.
Keep gaming! :D
Hmm, well I'm sorry to see that you're not going to stay round because of a couple of well hmm ...... :(
Hopefully you'll pop by, and maybe I'll see you round on SFM :)
Ciao, bcq... take care. Can't blame you for going, there hasn't been much keeping me here either.
What? :eek: I wish you well, although I think it is very sad, that you leave, especially since few people are left and still post. :(
Anyway, what did I miss? Considering that there are days when nobody posts at all, I think I should have catched any post that was "uncivil" - which I do not. Meaning: How could I miss that there is such a problem right now ( in fact I felt the tone improved lately ). :confused:
That'd be the "Coda Star Trek 2nd Edition RPG (by us)" thread up in the CODA forum.Quote:
Originally Posted by Evan van Eyk
Man. I consider myself a Internet Combat Veteran, Extra Crispy Honors, but I wouldn't touch that one on orders.
I try to post when I can....sorry to see you go man :(
Dude, it was two guys, one of which has walked away.
To late......
Out of interest, did any of you guys think about just Alerting the Mods rather than walking off?
I know I am not a mod in there, but we have a discussion board where we talk about proportionate response and the like, and nowt has shown up in there? And its not like we are absentee mods or like you dont know who we are?
Hmm point taken Dan, however it started off civil and rapidly heated up. The issue here isn't so much about moderation, though yes, maybe if a mod had stepped in, it might have cooled down but the bulk of the damage was done in a relatively short space of time, but because two members were having a personal war, but they didn't really get into TOS violation land, exactly, just more they sucked the air out of the room, and the joy. :(
Bad atmosphere is something which can poison forum life, and a lot more intangible than obvious flaming, or trolling. But then, that's why I left the political forum, that went much the same way.
I have to say the thought crossed my mind more than once, but there was not really much to report - apart from the fact that a friendly thread had devolved into an argument between two people - who remained in the bounds of civility, though loosely. And since no one (including me) had even tried to sort this out by diplomacy, I felt reporting the post might be premature.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Gurden
I didn't realize it affected people so much. Or maybe is it a case of accumulation ?
It's all my fault. Im sorry to see you go BCQ.
Hope you come back once things have cooled down. It's a sad thing to see yet again another long time member leave this place :(
Please, reconsider...
See you out in the Black, BCQ.
Stay, help make this the place it once was. Ask not what your forum can do for you, ask what you can do for your forum! :cool:
After a Hiatus, I come back to one of the more conservative/libertarian members of the board deciding to walk away? Is the draw of Trek no longer enough, or are we to be dorment until the movie relights our collective flame?
What would a libertarian be conserving, anyway?
Rights. Rights of the individual to take whatever actions are deemed necessary to bring about happiness and profit for him/herself and (hopefully) those around them.Quote:
Originally posted by The Tatterdemalion King
What would a libertarian be conserving, anyway?
The libertarian point of view is, really, a pretty optimistic one - the die-hard belief that humans, given reign to run around free without leashes, will make the correct decisions and show the sensibility to act in their own best interests; and, as an outcome, lead to advancement and evolution of the individual and species as a whole. Those who don't...well, that's where the nasty spectre of natural selection comes in. Which still, in the libertarian's view, results in advancement and evolution of the species in the long run.
I find it rather interesting that both Communism (and we're talking Karl's vision here, not that half-century-plus long nightmare that men call the Soviet Union) and libertarianism - as diametrically opposed as they might be - both draw their thesis from a very positive, friendly view of humanity: Libertarianism proposing that what we are is good, Communism stating that what we can (and hopefully will) become is good. Both outlooks, in my humble opinion, have got their definite thumbs-up moments and crippling flaws and drawbacks...but it's fun to talk about anyway. :)
The flaw in the reasoning being that not all people are essentially good. There's always a small 3-5% who will **** it up for everyone else intentionally.
Heh. Agreed absolutely, FoT; brings to mind Frank Herbert's thesis in Chapterhouse: Dune - power does not corrupt. Rather, it tends to attract the corruptible (i.e., the insane), and therefore those who end up in such positions (intelligence notwithstanding) will by nature abuse it and make the lives of countless others miserable for no real reason whatsoever.
I've advanced this theory a number of times in class; when proof is asked for, I point out individuals ranging from the antique (Caligula and Nero) to the modern (Adolph Hitler and Joe Stalin) and the post-modern (Ken Lay, Jeffrey Skilling, Bernie Ebbers and Scott Sullivan are the first non-political ones to come to mind here).
My conviction on the matter is that both Communism and libertarianism suffer from a very similar crippling flaw - which you've already mentioned, FoT - regarding an assessment of human nature. To wit: Communism believes that humans can stop being greedy. It's a nice thought - a wonderful thought, actually - but as Karl himself said was probably the case, this is an evolutionary end-point that is still far, far down the road. Greed lives and reigns with us; give us another ten thousand years of evolution and we'll try it again.
Libertarianism's outlook has a nice perpendicular line of reasoning: When given free reign, and informed that they're working without a net, humans will do what is in their own best interest. Again, wonderful thought - but as Alan Moore clearly states in V (the graphic work), we keep making the same lethal, stupid errors over and over again, both as individuals and a species. A true libertarian would propose that there be no corporate controls in place to hamsting a company, because that hampers its ability to take full advantage of the marketplace and maximize profiteering. This, of course, heightens competition between individuals/companies, means that the consumer recieves the best products and services at the lowest prices, and forces us to perform at our best: this leads to the elimination of the unfit and the advancement of the species. And what if its owners/CEOs start making Skilling/Lay/Fastow-type decisions that result in their personal benefit and the destruction of the company and all associated with it? Well, those Skilling/Lay/Fastow types are cautionary tales for later generations - and as for the tens of thousands of employees who lost their life savings and millions of investors who lost their capital? Caveat emptor; and hopefully you'll learn from this experience and, next time, conduct an investigation and think about the results before you let these people take such liberties with your money. Otherwise, you get bred out of the gene pool and let those with sharper sensibilities manage the marketplace.
Be nice if that was the case - that we could get burned once and learn from it - but it hasn't come true yet. Thus my reasoning with regard to Karl Marx's outlook and the libertarian viewpoint (I'm not going to say this is Adam Smith's thesis, because, as a true child of the Enlightenment, he would have been even more aghast at the heartless greed and inhumanity shown by the excesses of the modern corporate world than Marx would have been. Smith's capitalism in Wealth of Nations was no more a work celebrating predatory traits than Marx's Das Kaptial was).
Sorry to go on in such (probably unnecessary) detail, but I often get my dander up when mention is made of the libertarian/capitalist/socialist/Communist identity. Anyway, back to the actual thread's contents...:)
So we're not talking neocons, then : dQuote:
Originally Posted by D.S.McBride
And the other 97-95% who will fuck it up for everyone else out of blindness, greed, arrogance, and fear.Quote:
Originally Posted by First of Two
Actually, that was his thesis in the original Dune trilogy. His thesis in Chapterhouse: Dune was "nobody buys any of my other books, so I'll just jump the shark and write more Dune books."Quote:
Originally Posted by D.S.McBride
Communism was born at a time when authoritarian or demi-authoritarian governance was seen as a legitimate rationalizing force for society. Maybe too much of my Marx came through Fromm, but I'd phrase it as "Capitalist greed is product of lack of control of production of the self's environment," and that a socio-economic environment could remove the problems which taught individuals to be greedy.Quote:
IMy conviction on the matter is that both Communism and libertarianism suffer from a very similar crippling flaw - which you've already mentioned, FoT - regarding an assessment of human nature. To wit: Communism believes that humans can stop being greedy. It's a nice thought - a wonderful thought, actually - but as Karl himself said was probably the case, this is an evolutionary end-point that is still far, far down the road. Greed lives and reigns with us; give us another ten thousand years of evolution and we'll try it again.
And then someone decided violent revolution was the answer and it all went to shit.
C'est la vie.
Please have political discussions were it is appropriate - meaning in "The Lounge". Thank you. :)