How to debate someone who accepts evolution on Gamespot

Satire warning.

The evidence is stacked against you and there is no reason anyone would want to take this position except for unsubstantiated religious reasons.  But fear not, with this handy dandy guide, you the obvious underdog, can soon win the debates.

1)      Be reluctant to answer direct questions.  When you are asked something and the answer poses a real threat to your credibility or position, misdirect or refuse to answer.  After all this isn't about getting to truth, this is about your ideas prevailing.

2)      Post a lot of really long articles that are written by fellow creationists.  It doesn't really matter if there are any facts in them or not.  If someone challenges them, just press on as if nothing ever happened and avoid speaking to their points.  What took them an hour to tear down only took you two minutes to pull off your favorite creationist website.  You can fatigue them into submission.

3)      Censor anything you possibly can from the opposing side.  It really doesn't matter what it says, if you can get it fit the completely wide open definitions of offensive and trolling laid out in the TOU, go for it.  One thing that may be to your benefit here is that many of the gamespot moderators are here primarily for gaming purposes.  If you get lucky enough to get one of these guys to read your complaint it is a sure fire in because not only do they know nothing contextually of the argument, everything that has anything to do with religion can be seen as offensive somehow.  Partly you do this to remove things that you don't like and don't want others to have the freedom to say, but you do this partly to piss off your opposition and then you don't have to deal with him/her pummeling you with logic and evidence.

4)      Complain about formatting whenever possible.  Gamespot forum is not very user friendly at times and when responding to multiple points in one long post it is easy for it to lock up.  If your opponent tries to deviate from the exact method of quoting that you think he should use, complain and refuse to address ideas in that format and it effectively destroys their entire argument and all the time they put into it.  

5)      Keep little safe havens where people can't rebut your positions.  You are going to be dodging a lot of information out on the public sphere, so you will need a place to regroup and spread propaganda where you know everyone will accept it.   Consider it your hospital and ammunition room all in one.

By following these five basic steps you are guaranteed to come out on top in this debate that anyone would have surely thought you had no chance of winning.  Throw your hands up, give your buddy and cyber hi five and enjoy and nice tall glass of milk.  You earned it pal.

Satire warning.

The evidence is stacked against you and there is no reason anyone would want to take this position except for unsubstantiated religious reasons. But fear not, with this handy dandy guide, you the obvious underdog, can soon win the debates.

1)Be reluctant to answer direct questions. When you are asked something and the answer poses a real threat to your credibility or position, misdirect or refuse to answer.After all this isn't about getting to truth, this is about your ideas prevailing.

2)Post a lot of really long articles that are written by fellow creationists.It doesn't really matter if there are any facts in them or not.If someone challenges them, just press on as if nothing ever happened and avoid speaking to their points.What took them an hour to tear down only took you two minutes to pull off your favorite creationist website.You can fatigue them into submission.

3)Censor anything you possibly can from the opposing side.It really doesn't matter what it says, if you can get it fit the completely wide open definitions of offensive and trolling laid out in the TOU, go for it.One thing that may be to your benefit here is that many of the gamespot moderators are here primarily for gaming purposes.If you get lucky enough to get one of these guys to read your complaint it is a sure fire in because not only do they know nothing contextually of the argument, everything that has anything to do with religion can be seen as offensive somehow.Partly you do this to remove things that you don't like and don't want others to have the freedom to say, but you do this partly to piss off your opposition and then you don't have to deal with him/her pummeling you with logic and evidence.

4)Complain about formatting whenever possible.Gamespot forum is not very user friendly at times and when responding to multiple points in one long post it is easy for it to lock up.If your opponent tries to deviate from the exact method of quoting that you think he should use, complain and refuse to address ideas in that format and it effectively destroys their entire argument and all the time they put into it.

5)Keep little safe havens where people can't rebut your positions.You are going to be dodging a lot of information out on the public sphere, so you will need a place to regroup and spread propaganda where you know everyone will accept it. Consider it your hospital and ammunition room all in one.

By following these five basic steps you are guaranteed to come out on top in this debate that anyone would have surely thought you had no chance of winning.Throw your hands up, give your buddy and cyber hi five and enjoy and nice tall glass of milk.You earned it pal.

Sitri_

6. Make outrageous claims.

When someone asks you if you believe in evolution, just say it is "absurd that we evolved from monkeys" and leave it at that. Who cares if that is not what evolution says that humans did not evolve from monkeys?-- As long as the ignorant will believe what you say, everything will be fine. Also say that many credible scientists also support your beliefs that carbon dating and other tests  are faulty (even if they aren't credible at all).

6. Make outrageous claims.

When someone asks you if you believe in evolution, just say it is "absurd that we evolved from monkeys" and leave it at that. Who cares if that is not what evolution says that humans did not evolve from monkeys?-- As long as the ignorant will believe what you say, everything will be fine. Also say that many credible scientists also support your beliefs that carbon dating and other tests are faulty (even if they aren't credible at all).

helium_flash

Sitri_, brilliant and correct, not silly at all and very well done.btaylor2404

What?  "Silly"?  Are you trolling? MODERATORS!!!  ;)

I have a question here: isn't the method used to find the age of fossils the same method used to find the date in which the Bible manuscripts were written?Teenaged

That is a damn good point that I hadn't thought of.

[QUOTE="btaylor2404"]Sitri_, brilliant and correct, not silly at all and very well done.Sitri_

What? "Silly"? Are you trolling? MODERATORS!!! ;)

I have a question here: isn't the method used to find the age of fossils the same method used to find the date in which the Bible manuscripts were written?Teenaged

That is a damn good point that I hadn't thought of.

I have a question here: isn't the method used to find the age of fossils the same method used to find the date in which the Bible manuscripts were written?Teenaged

Technically speaking no, not quite. The age of super old things (like fossils from millions of years ago) is determined by the dating of rocks containing any number of radioactive/nonradioactive isotope pairs (e.g., potassium/argon, thorium/led, etc.), whereas the age of fairly young things (i.e., less than ten thousand years old or so) is done through direct carbon dating. Some reject radiometric dating outright, whereas others reject all but carbon dating as invalid dating methods.

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]I have a question here: isn't the method used to find the age of fossils the same method used to find the date in which the Bible manuscripts were written?GabuEx

Technically speaking no, not quite. The age of super old things (like fossils from millions of years ago) is determined by the dating of rocks containing any number of radioactive/nonradioactive isotope pairs (e.g., potassium/argon, thorium/led, etc.), whereas the age of fairly young things (i.e., less than ten thousand years old or so) is done through direct carbon dating. Some reject radiometric dating outright, whereas others reject all but carbon dating as invalid dating methods.

Satire warning.

The evidence is stacked against you and there is no reason anyone would want to take this position except for unsubstantiated religious reasons. But fear not, with this handy dandy guide, you the obvious underdog, can soon win the debates.

1)Be reluctant to answer direct questions. When you are asked something and the answer poses a real threat to your credibility or position, misdirect or refuse to answer.After all this isn't about getting to truth, this is about your ideas prevailing.

2)Post a lot of really long articles that are written by fellow creationists.It doesn't really matter if there are any facts in them or not.If someone challenges them, just press on as if nothing ever happened and avoid speaking to their points.What took them an hour to tear down only took you two minutes to pull off your favorite creationist website.You can fatigue them into submission.

3)Censor anything you possibly can from the opposing side.It really doesn't matter what it says, if you can get it fit the completely wide open definitions of offensive and trolling laid out in the TOU, go for it.One thing that may be to your benefit here is that many of the gamespot moderators are here primarily for gaming purposes.If you get lucky enough to get one of these guys to read your complaint it is a sure fire in because not only do they know nothing contextually of the argument, everything that has anything to do with religion can be seen as offensive somehow.Partly you do this to remove things that you don't like and don't want others to have the freedom to say, but you do this partly to piss off your opposition and then you don't have to deal with him/her pummeling you with logic and evidence.

4)Complain about formatting whenever possible.Gamespot forum is not very user friendly at times and when responding to multiple points in one long post it is easy for it to lock up.If your opponent tries to deviate from the exact method of quoting that you think he should use, complain and refuse to address ideas in that format and it effectively destroys their entire argument and all the time they put into it.

5)Keep little safe havens where people can't rebut your positions.You are going to be dodging a lot of information out on the public sphere, so you will need a place to regroup and spread propaganda where you know everyone will accept it. Consider it your hospital and ammunition room all in one.

By following these five basic steps you are guaranteed to come out on top in this debate that anyone would have surely thought you had no chance of winning.Throw your hands up, give your buddy and cyber hi five and enjoy and nice tall glass of milk.You earned it pal.

Sitri_

That was funny. If only we could have some cartoon with it. :lol:lancelot200

Best I could do.

1. Evangelism threads

2. blackregiment and Lansdowne

3. Personal grievances

4. blackregiment

5. TCWU

Feeling a bit frustrated Sitri_?

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]I have a question here: isn't the method used to find the age of fossils the same method used to find the date in which the Bible manuscripts were written?GabuEx

Technically speaking no, not quite. The age of super old things (like fossils from millions of years ago) is determined by the dating of rocks containing any number of radioactive/nonradioactive isotope pairs (e.g., potassium/argon, thorium/led, etc.), whereas the age of fairly young things (i.e., less than ten thousand years old or so) is done through direct carbon dating. Some reject radiometric dating outright, whereas others reject all but carbon dating as invalid dating methods.

I've heard the old- "radiometric dating is valid for things about 5000 years old or so but not for things that are millions of years old"

Which translates to- "radiometric dating is correct when its results confirm some part of religion but false when it denies some part of religion".

I was just notified of another censor hit.  I wonder if anything I have posted today hasn't been reported for censor.  The power of christ compels me turn from my wicked ways and lay down to the loving, caring, rightous, fascists seeking to control my words and thoughts.

Seriously, I have only used one forum besides this one.  The rules there were you would get edited for advertising and you would be banned for kiddie porn.  I look at what people are getting censored for here and I think it is just outrageous.  Is this what most forums are like?  Is it common to have overseers editing every word any time anyone wants to ****

I was just notified of another censor hit.  I wonder if anything I have posted today hasn't been reported for censor.  The power of christ compels me turn from my wicked ways and lay down to the loving, caring, rightous, fascists seeking to control my words and thoughts.

Seriously, I have only used one forum besides this one.  The rules there were you would get edited for advertising and you would be banned for kiddie porn.  I look at what people are getting censored for here and I think it is just outrageous.  Is this what most forums are like?  Is it common to have overseers editing every word any time anyone wants to ****

Sitri_

Yes Sitri_ , the editing/moderation is completely up to the mods and user who reports it.  As badly as I wish that the AU could be different from say the OT, the only other place I post regularly here, it's not.  How anyone sees the TOU is up to the user, and the mods do tend to err on the side of caution.  This doesn't seem to be changing, if anything I think that the forums are getting stricter.  As badly as I have wished that any problems be kept "in house" here in the AU we all know where we stand and some people are not going to report anything to me or anyone else, they will go straight to the mods.  And we've had Theists and Atheists with this mindset, which is each persons right.  When we signed up for Gamespot we signed up to live by their rules here and I think we have to adapt with GS, not the other way around.  

I think some of the fault here lies with me.  I have tried to keep from editing or deleting posts as much as I could, and have opened a topic for us to discuss this problem to see if we could fix it ourselves.  I do not want to see any member from here moderated, suspended, or worse.  Since there seems to be no agreement on a fix here, I think some of us may have to watch what we say to some extent from here on.  Sadly I see no other alternative.

[QUOTE="lancelot200"]That was funny. If only we could have some cartoon with it. :lol:Sitri_

Best I could do.

[/QUOTE
I did wonder what Mr Sitri looked like....

I did wonder what Mr Sitri looked like....

THUMPTABLE

One night while drunk I posted a halloween pic from a bar.  Even as grotesque as the costume was, I like to think I was still just a bit prettier.  ;)

[QUOTE="THUMPTABLE"]

I did wonder what Mr Sitri looked like....

Sitri_

One night while drunk I posted a halloween pic from a bar.  Even as grotesque as the costume was, I like to think I was still just a bit prettier.  ;)

Actually I think there's one or two photos floating about on the internet of me dressed as the Joker. If I find them I'll post them here for a laugh.

This isn't going to end well...MetalGear_Ninty

What do you mean?

Claim that evolutionists often fall prone to appeal to authority, a logical fallacy, and then convince them with a wink that no one has authority except the Lord Jesus Christ who details this authority in Godly breathed scripture basking in the blood of our Savior's name.

Amen. 

Claim that evolutionists often fall prone to appeal to authority, a logical fallacy, and then convince them with a wink that no one has authority except the Lord Jesus Christ who details this authority in Godly breathed scripture basking in the blood of our Savior's name.

Amen.

Genetic_Code

God Bless. :)

:P

[QUOTE="MetalGear_Ninty"]This isn't going to end well...Sitri_

What do you mean?

You're a good user -- just to try and avoid incurring the wrath of the mods. :P

[QUOTE="Genetic_Code"]

Claim that evolutionists often fall prone to appeal to authority, a logical fallacy, and then convince them with a wink that no one has authority except the Lord Jesus Christ who details this authority in Godly breathed scripture basking in the blood of our Savior's name.

Amen.

Teenaged

God Bless. :)

:P

God Be Less

[QUOTE="Sitri_"]

[QUOTE="MetalGear_Ninty"]This isn't going to end well...MetalGear_Ninty

What do you mean?

You're a good user -- just to try and avoid incurring the wrath of the mods. :P

I appreciate the compliment, but as a matter of fact I will take a ban over trying to bend over backwards to make my words so they cannot possibly be seen as offensive to anyone in any context.  That is simply an impossible and undesirable task.  With the exception of a string of insults that I thought the user deserved yesterday and I was happy to take the hits for, I never have any idea which posts I am being modded for when I get a notice.  It is all too subjective and too ununiformly enforced.  Take a look at the ask the mods section and read a few of the threads, you will know there is no chance of an even application of the rules.  You will find some mods there that will consider what you have to say and articulate a response and then others will post the TOU and/or maybe a single line talking about the TOU that has nothing to do with what you had to say and lock the thread.  You don't have a chance of getting treated justly when you get one of these people looking at you.   And do you know how many times I have heard the explanation that someone was wrong because this is a gaming site.  That is just dumb.  Personally I would rather not go, as I think there are some good people here that I like talking to, but at the end of the day if I can't talk to them, I can't talk to them anyway.

[QUOTE="Sitri_"]

[QUOTE="MetalGear_Ninty"]This isn't going to end well...MetalGear_Ninty

What do you mean?

You're a good user -- just to try and avoid incurring the wrath of the mods. :P

I'll second this sentiment.

I know you don't like to walk on eggshells Sitri_ but I think its perfectly possible to have a meaningful discussion over a controversial issue without getting modded. You might have to alter your language and tone a little but its nothing that really cripples the content of ones message (or at least that's what I've found).

I'll second this sentiment.

I know you don't like to walk on eggshells Sitri_ but I think its perfectly possible to have a meaningful discussion over a controversial issue without getting modded. You might have to alter your language and tone a little but its nothing that really cripples the content of ones message (or at least that's what I've found).

domatron23

Most of the time I never have any idea what even needs to be altered.  Every time I get a mod notice (with the exception of the time stated yesterday) I have absolutely no idea what it could be for.  I can't very well alter something that I don't think or believe is wrong.  For christ sake, I got modded yesterday for calling btaylor a silly atheist in a sarcastic response to him when I was agreeing with him.  And do you know how many trolling hits I have now?  Trolling by definition is trying to incite someone into a flame war.  I can swear on my life 100% that has never been my desire here, but people will insist that they know this must have been my intention.  In one PM from a mod (after they locked my thread in ask the mods) he outright told me I was a liar and he knew what my real intentions were.  When you are dealing with people like that, it really doesn't give you much motivation to acquiesce to them.  So far I have found Elraptor, MailerDemon, Gabu, and Skyline have a record for actually reading and considering what people have to say, but in my experience there are plenty of them that don't hit that desirable (and in my opinion necessary) mark of a moderator.  Couple this with the arrogance of other posters who know they are right and good so they think people who disagree should be punished whenever possible, and I think it is inevitable what will happen.

A few comments, Sitri, since I figure it might be valuable to hear about it from the other side of the curtain:

1. While the Terms of Use do stipulate that trolling is related to intent, actually strictly enforcing that is basically impossible, as we obviously don't have any mind-readers available. As such, we're forced to basically go by what can be considered "reasonable effect" - in other words, what effect something would likely have on a reasonable person. This obviously makes it rather subjective, but it's unfortunately the best I can do.

2. If there was one single piece of advice I would give to people desiring not to be moderated for trolling, it would be, "Don't get aggressive". Keep a cool, objective head, and ignore any attempt to goad you into anger. Don't make things personal, and never make any comment, even if it seems appropriate, that could be construed as insulting someone else's intelligence, reason, or similar qualities. There are always three categories a post can be in - the "white area" ("This would never be moderated"), the "gray area" ("This could have a case built for why it might be moderated"), and the "black area" ("This will definitely be moderated"). Posters can (and do) argue a lot for why a post in the gray area shouldn't have been moderated, but I always tell them the same thing: the only way you can be certain is to stay in the white area.

Of course, this doesn't account for things like people mistakenly being moderated for things like joking ribbings among friends, but I don't think anyone's been banned for something like that, and if you can get the other person to attest to the fact that it was a joke, those are quite likely to be reversed.

Inevitable perhaps but here are a few hints that will help you last a wee while longer.

1. Moderators don't care about what the intentions behind your posts are. It doesn't matter if you were making a conscious effort to offend or not, as long as your message can be construed as offensive then it will be moderated as offensive (same thing goes for trolling).

2. Try to avoid expletives or insulting words. I'm one of those guys who uses swear words in every day conversation and I presume that you are too. On gamespot it pays to be a little more clean in the way that you express things.

Gotta go to uni right now so I'll come back later.

A few comments, Sitri, since I figure it might be valuable to hear about it from the other side of the curtain:

GabuEx

I do think it valuable.  So many mods are unwilling to discuss anything that it is always appreciated when one does.

1. While the Terms of Use do stipulate that trolling is related to intent, actually strictly enforcing that is basically impossible, as we obviously don't have any mind-readers available. As such, we're forced to basically go by what can be considered "reasonable effect" - in other words, what effect something would likely have on a reasonable person. This obviously makes it rather subjective, but it's unfortunately the best I can do.

GabuEx

Which is why I see it as a moderation worthy offence as being completely bogus.

2. If there was one single piece of advice I would give to people desiring not to be moderated for trolling, it would be, "Don't get aggressive". Keep a cool, objective head, and ignore any attempt to goad you into anger. Don't make things personal, and never make any comment, even if it seems appropriate, that could be construed as insulting someone else's intelligence, reason, or similar qualities. There are always three categories a post can be in - the "white area" ("This would never be moderated"), the "gray area" ("This could have a case built for why it might be moderated"), and the "black area" ("This will definitely be moderated"). Posters can (and do) argue a lot for why a post in the gray area shouldn't have been moderated, but I always tell them the same thing: the only way you can be certain is to stay in the white area.

GabuEx

I like to debate, a certain amount of aggressiveness is innate to my character.  I took a personality test from some link over on Church and State that rated my aggreeableness as something less than 10 on a scale of 100.  It isn't trying to be a dick, it is just a matter of character, some of my best friends I argue with constantly and won't date anyone that can't assert herself.  That isn't something i will likely be able to change anytime soon.

The only times I have been angry here is when I see my words removed.  There is absolutely nothing anyone here could say to me to get me mad,  but censoring me is different matter all together.

 

Of course, this doesn't account for things like people mistakenly being moderated for things like joking ribbings among friends, but I don't think anyone's been banned for something like that, and if you can get the other person to attest to the fact that it was a joke, those are quite likely to be reversed.

GabuEx

Right but the fact someone tries (and does even if only temporarily) to get something so ridiculous removed, I find it infuriating.  This makes me that much more angry when this is someone that I have spent hours trying to make sure they got the right to say what they want.

I like to debate, a certain amount of aggressiveness is innate to my character. I took a personality test from some link over on Church and State that rated my aggreeableness as something less than 10 on a scale of 100. It isn't trying to be a dick, it is just a matter of character, some of my best friends I argue with constantly and won't date anyone that can't assert herself. That isn't something i will likely be able to change anytime soon.

The only times I have been angry here is when I see my words removed. There is absolutely nothing anyone here could say to me to get me mad, but censoring me is different matter all together.

Sitri_

Well, all I can say is that it might pay to just try to tone that down a little. I'll be honest: I do it too; there are things I've wanted to say but couldn't as well. But, in the end, it does really benefit things - my interactions with others tend to be much more fruitful when I'm approaching them in an amicable way (or at least as amicable as I can muster) as opposed to being directly confrontational. Agreeableness is not a vice.

Right but the fact someone tries (and does even if only temporarily) to get something so ridiculous removed, I find it infuriating. This makes me that much more angry when this is someone that I have spent hours trying to make sure they got the right to say what they want.

Sitri_

In that specific case, I think the report was based more on what seemed to be a very slight ridiculing of Christianity. The "silly atheist" part is something that I doubt played a part in the actual report.

Well, all I can say is that it might pay to just try to tone that down a little. I'll be honest: I do it too; there are things I've wanted to say but couldn't as well. But, in the end, it does really benefit things - my interactions with others tend to be much more fruitful when I'm approaching them in an amicable way (or at least as amicable as I can muster) as opposed to being directly confrontational. Agreeableness is not a vice.

GabuEx

I hear you and think it has merit, but my amicability is in that I can have a tooth and nail arguement with someone and 5 seconds later be perfectly friendly with them.  I can't count how many hostile discussions Lans and I had on this board, but until he started reporting me for moderation, I would consider him as much of a friend as anyone could have on the internet.  I could say basically the same thing for Jemdude.  I don't think heated disagreements = lack of amicability.  

In that specific case, I think the report was based more on what seemed to be a very slight ridiculing of Christianity. The "silly atheist" part is something that I doubt played a part in the actual report.

GabuEx

I don't think I should have to pretend the bible is something that it isn't.  It is special in that people put it on a pedestal and give it power, but it in and of itself is nothing but fairy tails, and there are a lot better fairy tales out there.  Saying that I should give something merit that doesn't deserve is bigoted.  I don't (and couldn't if I wanted to) demand that someone show disingenuous reverence for some book on atheism.  The one sidedness is immense.

I hear you and think it has merit, but my amicability is in that I can have a tooth and nail arguement with someone and 5 seconds later be perfectly friendly with them. I can't count how many hostile discussions Lans and I had on this board, but until he started reporting me for moderation, I would consider him as much of a friend as anyone could have on the internet. I could say basically the same thing for Jemdude. I don't think heated disagreements = lack of amicability.

Sitri_

Yes, but those "tooth and nail" arguments are precisely the moments from which moderations arise. What I'm saying is that you should step back a little while debating someone if your words are starting to get a bit too pointed, confrontational, and insulting. You can still get across your point perfectly well without attaching barbs to your words - I can attest to that, having had to restrain myself in the past as well.

I don't think I should have to pretend the bible is something that it isn't. It is special in that people put it on a pedestal and give it power, but it in and of itself is nothing but fairy tails, and there are a lot better fairy tales out there. Saying that I should give something merit that doesn't deserve is bigoted. I don't (and couldn't if I wanted to) demand that someone show disingenuous reverence for some book on atheism. The one sidedness is immense.

Sitri_

I never said that you should actually change the content of what you say. What I'm saying is that you should change the way in which you say it. The only difference between "I don't think that there is any evidence that the events in the Bible actually happened" and "The Bible is a goofy pack of fairy tales and I can't see how anyone could believe it" is the way in which the underlying content - that you don't think the Bible is accurate - is conveyed. One is detached and matter-of-factual, whereas the second one is very aggressive and is told in a much more emotionally charged fashion. The former would never get you moderated; the latter, I couldn't be so sure; but in neither case are you compromising what you actually want to say.

Yes, but those "tooth and nail" arguments are precisely the moments from which moderations arise. What I'm saying is that you should step back a little while debating someone if your words are starting to get a bit too pointed, confrontational, and insulting. You can still get across your point perfectly well without attaching barbs to your words - I can attest to that, having had to restrain myself in the past as well.

GabuEx

Then you know when the rubber hits the road are the moments that matter.  I don't see anything wrong with confrontation.  I expect people to be able to be adults and either bite back or don't play.  Crying that they don't like the way something was worded so they want someone punished is despicable in my opinion.  This is the trait of either a vile or immature human being.

I never said that you should actually change the content of what you say. What I'm saying is that you should change the way in which you say it. The only difference between "I don't think that there is any evidence that the events in the Bible actually happened" and "The Bible is a goofy pack of fairy tales and I can't see how anyone could believe it" is the way in which the underlying content - that you don't think the Bible is accurate - is conveyed. One is detached and matter-of-factual, whereas the second one is very aggressive and is told in a much more emotionally charged fashion. The former would never get you moderated; the latter, I couldn't be so sure; but in neither case are you compromising what you actually want to say.

GabuEx

Well two problems, not everything can be worded so passively, and I don't know why it should have to be.

Could you rephrase the following comment that started this latest group of censors more passively?  Note it is desirable to keep the comic value of it.

"No No No.  The written and translated hodge podge of oral legends holds power over god.  He is bound by their words and our interpretations of them.  Silly atheist  "

Then you know when the rubber hits the road are the moments that matter.  I don't see anything wrong with confrontation.  I expect people to be able to be adults and either bite back or don't play.  Crying that they don't like the way something was worded so they want someone punished is despicable in my opinion.  This is the trait of either a vile or immature human being.

Sitri_

I recognize that that's how you feel, and to be honest I myself am sympathetic to that view, but the fact of the matter is that it's basically impossible to tell where the line precisely is at all times between normal adult discourse and overly harsh or insulting language.  Like I said, as long as your posts are in the gray area, I really can't offer any guarantee that they won't be moderated.

Well two problems, not everything can be worded so passively, and I don't know why it should have to be.

Could you rephrase the following comment that started this latest group of censors more passively?  Note it is desirable to keep the comic value of it.

"No No No.  The written and translated hodge podge of oral legends holds power over god.  He is bound by their words and our interpretations of them.  Silly atheist  "

Sitri_

Well, that's basically the problem with sarcasm: it's basically impossible to say something in a sarcastic manner that doesn't also carry with it an air of condescension or haughtiness, since the very nature of sarcasm is the implicit statement that you consider a point of view or a statement to be so ridiculous, laughable, or flimsy that you don't even consider it worthy of a serious response.  Again, this is another case of a post being in the gray area.

I recognize that it can be momentarily satisfying to reply like that, but really, I can tell you from experience that you'll get much better results if you tone it down a bit and keep things more respectful.  Retaliation has never particularly solved anything; to be frank, I think the best thing you could do to get under someone's skin is to effectively reply to what they're saying without giving them a single thing to possibly report.  Not only will it keep you safe from people going to the moderators, but I also found my arguments becoming much more well-received when I conveyed them in a respectful manner.

I recognize that that's how you feel, and to be honest I myself am sympathetic to that view, but the fact of the matter is that it's basically impossible to tell where the line precisely is at all times between normal adult discourse and overly harsh or insulting language.  Like I said, as long as your posts are in the gray area, I really can't offer any guarantee that they won't be moderated.

GabuEx

And I appreciate you hearing me out on this.  I just wish I knew what to expect in the grey area.  I think I tend to live there, and if there was a clear standard that was constantly enforced, I could either say "this is something I can live with" or "I don't think this place encourages the free flow of ideas that I need to make it satisfying."

Well, that's basically the problem with sarcasm: it's basically impossible to say something in a sarcastic manner that doesn't also carry with it an air of condescension or haughtiness, since the very nature of sarcasm is the implicit statement that you consider a point of view or a statement to be so ridiculous, laughable, or flimsy that you don't even consider it worthy of a serious response.  Again, this is another case of a post being in the gray area.

GabuEx

Don't some things demand it of us to give a little relief at times.  Also I am sure you have seen this quote: 

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus."  -Thomas Jefferson, letter to Francis Adrian Van der Kemp, 30 July, 1816 

I think the theme can be extended beyond the trinity.  Some ideas really don't deserve a serious response.  I haven't seen anything in the TOU that say sarcasm if forbidden, and you can find it in abundance on the boards.

 I recognize that it can be momentarily satisfying to reply like that, but really, I can tell you from experience that you'll get much better results if you tone it down a bit and keep things more respectful.  Retaliation has never particularly solved anything; to be frank, I think the best thing you could do to get under someone's skin is to effectively reply to what they're saying without giving them a single thing to possibly report.  Not only will it keep you safe from people going to the moderators, but I also found my arguments becoming much more well-received when I conveyed them in a respectful manner.

GabuEx

Isn't that what the bulk of a forum is?  momentary satisfaction.  None of us are pulling a paycheck or getting credit here.  We just share ideas, thoughts, outside resources.  Occasionally we get a laugh, occasionally we identify with someone, occasionally if we are lucky we learn something new.  In one of my arguments with BR he corrected a misconception I had about a very common Mohamed myth.  I felt like a better person after it was done because I now know something that I think I should. If it wasn't for the challenging of ideas I wouldn't have been so lucky.  That wass one of the times here where satisfaction has been more than momentary, but if it wasn't for many short term payoffs, I wouldn't have been here for that one or others.  And those payoffs are always the result of something you did read, no one could ever possibly claim that they really gained anything or are better off because of something they didn't read or something they read and were able to get deleted.

1. Evangelism threads

2. blackregiment and Lansdowne

3. Personal grievances

4. blackregiment

5. TCWU

Feeling a bit frustrated Sitri_?

domatron23

1. While the Terms of Use do stipulate that trolling is related to intent, actually strictly enforcing that is basically impossible, as we obviously don't have any mind-readers available. As such, we're forced to basically go by what can be considered "reasonable effect" - in other words, what effect something would likely have on a reasonable person. This obviously makes it rather subjective, but it's unfortunately the best I can do.

GabuEx

 

The evidence is stacked against you 

Sitri_

Yeah, the theory can't ever be properly observed, let alone tested. But hey, the evidence is still in favour of it........

But fear not, with this handy dandy guide, you the obvious underdog, can soon win the debates.

Sitri_

This seems more like a "how to argue against a 'certain user' of the CWU", to me. 

 

1)      Be reluctant to answer direct questions.  When you are asked something and the answer poses a real threat to your credibility or position, misdirect or refuse to answer.  After all this isn't about getting to truth, this is about your ideas prevailing.

Sitri_

This seems like a tactic used by most atheists, actually. There have been numerous occasions where you and other members have been reluctant to answer, or ignored my posts completely. 

  

2)      Post a lot of really long articles that are written by fellow creationists.  It doesn't really matter if there are any facts in them or not.  If someone challenges them, just press on as if nothing ever happened and avoid speaking to their points.  What took them an hour to tear down only took you two minutes to pull off your favorite creationist website.  You can fatigue them into submission.

Sitri_

Oh? So just because you don't believe in Evolution that automatically makes you a Creationist, does it? Funny logic there. Regardless, if the article deals with what you want to say, and says it better than you could, why not post it?

 

3)      Censor anything you possibly can from the opposing side.  It really doesn't matter what it says, if you can get it fit the completely wide open definitions of offensive and trolling laid out in the TOU, go for it. 

Sitri_

If it breaks the ToU it shouldn't be up there. When you join Gamespot you enter a contract to observe and obey their terms and regulations. If you break them, you're breaking the agreement you made, and thus they have every right to remove the content which breaks it.

 

One thing that may be to your benefit here is that many of the gamespot moderators are here primarily for gaming purposes.  If you get lucky enough to get one of these guys to read your complaint it is a sure fire in because not only do they know nothing contextually of the argument, everything that has anything to do with religion can be seen as offensive somehow. 

Sitri_

Sometimes they make mistakes, 99% of the time they don't. They read the context and content of the post. If it abides by the Terms of Use, they leave it, if it doesn't, they remove it. Simple as. ;)

  

Partly you do this to remove things that you don't like and don't want others to have the freedom to say, but you do this partly to piss off your opposition and then you don't have to deal with him/her pummeling you with logic and evidence.

Sitri_

Nasty tactics. Shame on anyone who does this. I report ANYTHING that breaks the Terms, regardless of the user who broke them, regardless of their beliefs, regardless of whether I don't like them.

  

4)      Complain about formatting whenever possible.  Gamespot forum is not very user friendly at times and when responding to multiple points in one long post it is easy for it to lock up.  If your opponent tries to deviate from the exact method of quoting that you think he should use, complain and refuse to address ideas in that format and it effectively destroys their entire argument and all the time they put into it.  

Sitri_

If you intermingle other people's words with your own, or miquote them, why should they not object? It just makes it ten times more difficult to reply if you mess up the wording of their original arguments and insert your own words into them in this colour, and then that colour, and then a different size.......etc. 

 

5)     Keep little safe havens where people can't rebut your positions.  You are going to be dodging a lot of information out on the public sphere, so you will need a place to regroup and spread propaganda where you know everyone will accept it.   Consider it your hospital and ammunition room all in one.

Sitri_

Like....here, for instance? Safety in numbers and all? Anyway, what on earth has this got to do with evolution? This is just a load of subtle digs aimed at a certain union. :roll:

If you intermingle other people's words with your own, or miquote them, why should they not object? It just makes it ten times more difficult to reply if you mess up the wording of their original arguments and insert your own words into them in this colour, and then that colour, and then a different size.......etc. 

Lansdowne5

Yeah, the theory can't ever be properly observed, let alone tested. But hey, the evidence is still in favour of it........Lansdowne5

Yeah, the theory can't ever be properly observed, let alone tested.Lansdowne5

That's not exactly true.  Any scientific theory makes predictions, and it can be tested very easily by seeing whether or not those predictions are proven correct or incorrect.  For example, evolution predicts that there should be a mechanism by which mutations in animals could occur.  There is (DNA).  Evolution predicts that there should be similarities between animals that become stronger and stronger the closer they are together in the Tree of Life.  That's exactly the case.  Evolution predicts that life should become more diverse as time passes.  That has been shown to be the case (there is much more diversity in fossils dated closer to the present day than fossils dated further in the past).

There are even specific cases in which evolution's predictions have been proven right.  For example, humans have 46 chromosomes, whereas chimps and other great apes have 48.  Evolution says that there must be evidence that our 46 chromosomes came from someone else's 48 chromosomes, or else evolution is wrong.  And that's exactly the case: it has been shown that chromosome 2 was formed by the fusion of two chromosomes, on account of the fact that there exist teleomeres - present only on the ends of great ape chromosomes - within the middle of chromosome 2 in humans.

Or, as another example, irreducible complexity is another often used argument against evolution, and it is actually a cogent one, as it is completely correct to say that if irreducible complexity is true, then evolution is false.  Only problem is that it's not true - for example, the components of the bacterial flagellum, a favorite among opponents to evolution, have been shown to be perfectly functional in isolation.

To say that evolution on the species-changing scale (or even higher) has never been observed is, of course, true.  But atoms, electrons, and quarks have never been observed either, yet atomic theory remains the backbone of all modern chemistry, just as evolution is the backbone of all modern biology.  Like evolution, the existence of atoms is borne out through inferential evidence - one of the cornerstones of science, really.  Evolution doesn't require any faith - it just requires that one looks at the facts and understands what it is and what it predicts.

So Lansdowne, what if the ToU changed to include a prohibition of posting Bible verses? Would you then oppose the posting of Bible verses as breaking the ToU?Funky_Llama

I would probably leave Gamespot until the Terms were changed, if that happened.

[QUOTE="Funky_Llama"]So Lansdowne, what if the ToU changed to include a prohibition of posting Bible verses? Would you then oppose the posting of Bible verses as breaking the ToU?Lansdowne5

I would probably leave Gamespot until the Terms were changed, if that happened.

This doesn't really make any sense to me. The only reason not to something is because it's morally wrong, so unless you think that the ToU banning the posting of Bible verses would make it immoral, why would you obey it?Funky_Llama

Because if I broke the ToU I would be breaking the agreement I made. Which I will not do. 

[QUOTE="Funky_Llama"]

This doesn't really make any sense to me. The only reason not to something is because it's morally wrong, so unless you think that the ToU banning the posting of Bible verses would make it immoral, why would you obey it?Lansdowne5

Because if I broke the ToU I would be breaking the agreement I made. Which I will not do.