[Naetor]

That said, I get your point. Mike is making a P -> Q statement and I'm offering up ~P -> Q, which doesn't refute the original argument, but the argument is a weak logical statement to begin with. But now we're really academic, so I'm stopping.

I'm comfortable agreeing with all six claims in this short post.

Curious I mention the CoC and Heaney suddenly appears declaring winners of arguments.

All my abstract ideas as to why the CoC is fatal are one thing, but the nerd power tripping is just sad.

I know you're saying this because you think it advances your short-term political agenda, and because, like your idol Alinsky, you rarely consider the consequences of your actions further than five days into the future.

However, I invite anyone who even suspects that Corbett might have an actual point here to reread the past few days of posts and realize how wildly the premises of his post diverge from reality. Recognize how many dozens and dozens of times the CoC has been mentioned without my offering comment. Ask why I would suddenly jump in now, if my purpose were to defend the CoC (or whatever) rather than to correct a technically invalid argument. Above all, notice the destructive intent behind Corbett's implication. Corbett knew better than anyone what an absurd claim this was, but he made it anyway.

Why does he do it? I don't know. I really don't think Corbett bears me any personal malice. He certainly didn't say things like this back when I was saying nice things about The Process. I think he just wants to win the audience, and I think he believes casting aspersions at people like this is how you practice "feminine aggression," which, he imagines, is how this community does business. But John's motives have been much harder for me to figure out than his tactics, which are textbook.

Corbett's tactic right now is to turn the 2E Director Search into a Shea-Corbett fight. (Notice how he rags loudly on Shea but doesn't present himself as an advocate for any other candidate.) He doesn't need to actually win that fight, because he's not a candidate. All he needs to do is damage Shea enough (or goad Shea into damaging himself enough) that Nerdo or Triumph or Tjark don't want to vote for Shea. Simply by having the fight, Corbett wins. That's Alinsky Rule #13 right there. It's a good tactic, battle-tested in the real world. I hope the selection committee is smart enough to see through it here.

To illustrate what Alinsky Rule #13 looks like:

Ordinarily, John's next move would be to declare The Prefect "the candidate of the moderators," labeling me "the moderators" and presenting my comments about Armus's malformed argument as somehow supportive of not just The Prefect, but The Prefect's entire candidacy. Corbett would make this argument even though I have no real interest in the 2E Director race, I like all the candidates just fine*, I'm not a moderator, and the other ex-moderator here (Armus) seems to be (at the very least) Shea-skeptical. (And, note well: ARMUS is the ex-mod who has an actual vote, not me.) Corbett would do it anyway, because his tactics aren't about logic and can't be refuted logically. Their purpose is to evoke emotions, which (as Scott Adams informs him) often slip straight past any logical filters.

Of course, now that I've called out that approach, he'll have to come up with a different one (while insisting that my prediction was wrong).

In any event, I've said everything I mean to say, and KillerB doesn't mean anything he says, so -- unless Armus has anything further to add about the Queen, God save her -- I'll be leaving this hellscape for the sunlit uplands of other subforums now.

*Yes, even Hosp. In fact, especially Hosp. I doubt my affection is returned, but I'm quite fond of Hosp's outside-the-box perspectives, his overwrought analogies, and his solid jokes.

I find it bizarre how often people try to psycho-analyze others around here. You could just say you disagree with his point, rather than guess motives.

[Armus]

That said, I get your point. Mike is making a P -> Q statement and I'm offering up ~P -> Q, which doesn't refute the original argument, but the argument is a weak logical statement to begin with. But now we're really academic, so I'm stopping.

I'm comfortable agreeing with all six claims in this short post.

Curious I mention the CoC and Heaney suddenly appears declaring winners of arguments.

All my abstract ideas as to why the CoC is fatal are one thing, but the nerd power tripping is just sad.

I know you're saying this because you think it advances your short-term political agenda, and because, like your idol Alinsky, you rarely consider the consequences of your actions further than five days into the future.

However, I invite anyone who even suspects that Corbett might have an actual point here to reread the past few days of posts and realize how wildly the premises of his post diverge from reality. Recognize how many dozens and dozens of times the CoC has been mentioned without my offering comment. Ask why I would suddenly jump in now, if my purpose were to defend the CoC (or whatever) rather than to correct a technically invalid argument. Above all, notice the destructive intent behind Corbett's implication. Corbett knew better than anyone what an absurd claim this was, but he made it anyway.

Why does he do it? I don't know. I really don't think Corbett bears me any personal malice. He certainly didn't say things like this back when I was saying nice things about The Process. I think he just wants to win the audience, and I think he believes casting aspersions at people like this is how you practice "feminine aggression," which, he imagines, is how this community does business. But John's motives have been much harder for me to figure out than his tactics, which are textbook.

Corbett's tactic right now is to turn the 2E Director Search into a Shea-Corbett fight. (Notice how he rags loudly on Shea but doesn't present himself as an advocate for any other candidate.) He doesn't need to actually win that fight, because he's not a candidate. All he needs to do is damage Shea enough (or goad Shea into damaging himself enough) that Nerdo or Triumph or Tjark don't want to vote for Shea. Simply by having the fight, Corbett wins. That's Alinsky Rule #13 right there. It's a good tactic, battle-tested in the real world. I hope the selection committee is smart enough to see through it here.

To illustrate what Alinsky Rule #13 looks like:

Ordinarily, John's next move would be to declare The Prefect "the candidate of the moderators," labeling me "the moderators" and presenting my comments about Armus's malformed argument as somehow supportive of not just The Prefect, but The Prefect's entire candidacy. Corbett would make this argument even though I have no real interest in the 2E Director race, I like all the candidates just fine*, I'm not a moderator, and the other ex-moderator here (Armus) seems to be (at the very least) Shea-skeptical. (And, note well: ARMUS is the ex-mod who has an actual vote, not me.) Corbett would do it anyway, because his tactics aren't about logic and can't be refuted logically. Their purpose is to evoke emotions, which (as Scott Adams informs him) often slip straight past any logical filters.

Of course, now that I've called out that approach, he'll have to come up with a different one (while insisting that my prediction was wrong).

In any event, I've said everything I mean to say, and KillerB doesn't mean anything he says, so -- unless Armus has anything further to add about the Queen, God save her -- I'll be leaving this hellscape for the sunlit uplands of other subforums now.

*Yes, even Hosp. In fact, especially Hosp. I doubt my affection is returned, but I'm quite fond of Hosp's outside-the-box perspectives, his overwrought analogies, and his solid jokes.

I find it bizarre how often people try to psycho-analyze others around here. You could just say you disagree with his point, rather than guess motives.

You must have missed the bolded part. This is no different from you playing a game of 2e and analyzing what your opponent is likely to play next based on what's been played already. Tactical analysis, not psychoanalysis.

[monty42]

No it's tactical psychoanalysis

[SudenKapala]

I find it bizarre how often people try to psycho-analyze others around here. You could just say you disagree with his point, rather than guess motives.

Finding out and understanding motives (as opposed to concentrating on behaviour), helps people to get to the core of an issue and find common ground, instead of dancing around it (and stay opposed).

It's the same as comparing battling symptoms (good idea) to battling the actual problem/ailment (much better idea).

A bit of Anthropology -- or amateur psychology, yes -- goes a long way to diffuse situations.

Lastly, trying to understand another person's motives is, arguably, a quite basic form of respect.

Simply asking them about their motives would be the easiest way, but when debates have gone past a certain heating point, people often become wary of showing all their cards. Unfortunate, but human. I guess I'm not saying anything new here, but it seemed to be good to say it anyway.

But if people want to stay in arguments, and not solve anything, yeah, then a bit of deeper understanding can really ruin your day...

[Naetor]

I guess I should have said assign motives. Either way, talking about people is the real toxicity on these forums.

[Latok]

To refute The Prefect, you'd have to provide a counterexample: someone who is an active member of the Dojo and has a record of CoC violations.

That then would have to be me...

+1

To refute The Prefect, you'd have to provide a counterexample: someone who is an active member of the Dojo and has a record of CoC violations.

That then would have to be me...

And me, technically. Heaney is a long standing member of the Hate Hive.

I don't know if you guys missed the active part in active member but I'd definitely not classify Monty or Corbett as such, one has made zero posts and the other left after his attempts at trolling failed, apparently deleted. I don't know if Naetor is claiming to be an active member that has run afoul of the CoC or just supporting Monty's claim to be but he would be a much better counterexample, as would I, than two people that don't participate in The Dojo.

[monty42]

...one has made zero posts...

Idk how much research you've done on that but this is a false statement.

[Nerdopolis Prime]

My Dojo experience lasted two days before TK was deleting comments I made (things that wouldn't even violate the CoC). If the Dojo is your utopia that's great, I won't take paradise from you. But I'm not interested in trading a sad king for a petty tyrant.

TK was making the right choice then. Do you feel you yourself are a problem on many platforms?

Just wondering because now we know you get to feel the consequences on the Dojo ... and here on the forum ... oh, and on Facebook ... and so on ...

[Nerdopolis Prime]

I know you're saying this because you think it advances your short-term political agenda, and because, like your idol Alinsky, you rarely consider the consequences of your actions further than five days into the future.

However, I invite anyone who even suspects that Corbett might have an actual point here to reread the past few days of posts and realize how wildly the premises of his post diverge from reality. Recognize how many dozens and dozens of times the CoC has been mentioned without my offering comment. Ask why I would suddenly jump in now, if my purpose were to defend the CoC (or whatever) rather than to correct a technically invalid argument. Above all, notice the destructive intent behind Corbett's implication. Corbett knew better than anyone what an absurd claim this was, but he made it anyway.

Why does he do it? I don't know. I really don't think Corbett bears me any personal malice. He certainly didn't say things like this back when I was saying nice things about The Process. I think he just wants to win the audience, and I think he believes casting aspersions at people like this is how you practice "feminine aggression," which, he imagines, is how this community does business. But John's motives have been much harder for me to figure out than his tactics, which are textbook.

Corbett's tactic right now is to turn the 2E Director Search into a Shea-Corbett fight. (Notice how he rags loudly on Shea but doesn't present himself as an advocate for any other candidate.) He doesn't need to actually win that fight, because he's not a candidate. All he needs to do is damage Shea enough (or goad Shea into damaging himself enough) that Nerdo or Triumph or Tjark don't want to vote for Shea. Simply by having the fight, Corbett wins. That's Alinsky Rule #13 right there. It's a good tactic, battle-tested in the real world. I hope the selection committee is smart enough to see through it here.

To illustrate what Alinsky Rule #13 looks like:

Ordinarily, John's next move would be to declare The Prefect "the candidate of the moderators," labeling me "the moderators" and presenting my comments about Armus's malformed argument as somehow supportive of not just The Prefect, but The Prefect's entire candidacy. Corbett would make this argument even though I have no real interest in the 2E Director race, I like all the candidates just fine*, I'm not a moderator, and the other ex-moderator here (Armus) seems to be (at the very least) Shea-skeptical. (And, note well: ARMUS is the ex-mod who has an actual vote, not me.) Corbett would do it anyway, because his tactics aren't about logic and can't be refuted logically. Their purpose is to evoke emotions, which (as Scott Adams informs him) often slip straight past any logical filters.

Of course, now that I've called out that approach, he'll have to come up with a different one (while insisting that my prediction was wrong).

In any event, I've said everything I mean to say, and KillerB doesn't mean anything he says, so -- unless Armus has anything further to add about the Queen, God save her -- I'll be leaving this hellscape for the sunlit uplands of other subforums now.

*Yes, even Hosp. In fact, especially Hosp. I doubt my affection is returned, but I'm quite fond of Hosp's outside-the-box perspectives, his overwrought analogies, and his solid jokes.

Of course James. Don´t worry, I couldn´t care less about whatever crap Corbett is babbling about. Yes, I don´t give a shit about that guy. It may seem "a bit harsh", but he worked so hard for that result all these years, he absolutely earned to be despised by me. But that is just my humble opinion, everybody else is free to despise him for their own reasons.

[Latok]

...one has made zero posts...

Idk how much research you've done on that but this is a false statement.

Not a lot, used the search function for posts by Monty42, none showed, it's possible it doesn't search in channels I have muted or haven't fully 'read' though. I'm confident you haven't posted in the general or 2E channels.

[KillerB]

I find it bizarre how often people try to psycho-analyze others around here. You could just say you disagree with his point, rather than guess motives.

You were posting earlier about how you like to have your 'jerk' fun and weren't serious, Release This Pain (psycho-analyze) is one of mine. To be fair, I do it in person too.

I didn't read Heaney's report on the inner working of my mind, but I'm sure it's a superb piece that Jung would be proud of.

He's proving my point again, that when even what you criticize a policy/thing someone always takes it's personal and it becomes a mess.

[KillerB]

Of course James. Don´t worry, I couldn´t care less about whatever crap Corbett is babbling about. Yes, I don´t give a shit about that guy. It may seem "a bit harsh", but he worked so hard for that result all these years, he absolutely earned to be despised by me. But that is just my humble opinion, everybody else is free to despise him for their own reasons.

viewtopic.php?f=56&t=40312

Unconscious of themselves... I don't give a shit... in the same breath as 'despise'....

No wonder the Panel is deadlocked. Charlie picked petty men for the job.

[Nerdopolis Prime]

Sobbing wont help John. So you better stop it.

You had your chances and wasted them again.

[KillerB]

Sobbing wont help John. So you better stop it.

You had your chances and wasted them again.

Quite the rascal you are.

[Nerdopolis Prime]

Dont be so whiney.

If you can criticize others without end, you have to accept criticism on yourself.