I have been wanting to do this for awhile now but I was finally inspired by insultobots final post in 1ce's topic:

http://www.rpgmmag.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=7337

In which he goes off topic to remind us that we are all off topic (as though we needed him to do it) and in which suggests that it is OK to go off topic so long as you admit that you are doing it. He also could have said nothing but decided to vent his frustration within the topic that frustrated him making him just like the rest of us.

So here it is.

This topic allows you to preserve the topical integrity of other topics while allowing you to argue with others about something they may have said in that topic or any other disagreements that otherwise would have hijacked a given topic.

ALL RESPECTFUL ARGUMENTS ARE WELCOME HERE.

Remember however that just because there is a place to rant doesn't mean you can treat people with disrespect but at least you won't be silenced by the likes of those who remind us that we are off topic and you will also be able to let other topics stay in tact.

And if you are the type of person that does not respect argumentation, please don't visit this topic. You are however, welcome to make any criticisms about this topic within it. It is self consistent.

this topic will either be forgotten or trashed with posts about a wide range of topics. If you really want to complain about topics going off course, a PM to the moderator of the forum would do fine. We all go off topic, as it's bound to happen, and some of us, even the mods and admins, forget to go back on topic. If you have a problem with how it goes, PM us to let us know if this bothers you. That's how it should work. You should know that this topic will get out of hand. I won't lock it for now, but will if things get hairy or no one reads this post.

if this is for things that are off topic.. then whats the off topic thread for? o.O

It's for respectful arguments.

So instead of posting in a topic that would conflict with that topic's subject and destroy it, you can freely argue it here without being off-topic.

At last, that's what I interpeded from Bo's first post.

Correct. This is not the "off-topic" topic (i.e. the condensed SPAM Hammer). This is the topic to discuss what would be relevant points about the way we all communicate on this site without ruining someone else's topic. Things that often and always come up, time and time again, originating from a given topic but drifting enough from said topic to make it off-topic in THAT topic can be posted here for ongoing discussion if someone is unwilling to create a new topic for it.

The reason that PMs don't work in this instance is because PMs do not allow full disclosure to everyone about the communication. This allows everyone to keep up with what is being talked about as usually more than one person is involved. Too often Admins say things in a topic about (insert any topic here), "this is the kind of thing that should be in a PM". Yet they themselves didn't PM the person to notify them, but instead were also guilty of abusing the topic and now because they said that there anyone else who responds to them is guilty of doing what they are asserting is inappropriate.

This avoids the abuse of hypocritically silencing others. Others will always have a chance to respond here.

And wow ShadowFox1001, this topic will either be forgotten or trashed? That is not very fair, but I understand that this is your criticism. I myself would prefer to actually give it a chance and see if it is useful before preempting it out.

Good to see we've already go the arguing off-topic down pat.

^ don't interrupt nly, you're off topic.

i still think that really one could use the off topic thread for it... at least posting in there would diffuse any argument before the next one started. =P not that i'm saying we should use off topic, just that we now have 2 off topic threads. I'm all for more threads XD

See that is exactly why we shouldn't use the off-topic thread for this purpose. This topic is not about diffusing arguments, it is about confidently embracing their usefulness.

This not an off-topic thread. If you are not addressing argumentation about interactions you encounter on this site, you are off-topic here.

I guess where I would agree with your assessment is for example, regarding the discussion about ninja weapons that doesn't belong in 1ce's "Research" topic to the extent it has become. Maybe that would be better in the off-topic thread than here (so we are in agreement about that), but it would be perfect HERE to note "hey, stop talking about ninja weapons in the "Research" topic, go to the off-topic thread or create a new topic.

Then anyone who wants can go to the off-topic thread or create a new one can do so BUT (and this is the key point) anyone who wants to argue about why the discussion was appropriate (from their point of view) in the "Resarch" topic, or anyone who wants to point out the hypocrisy of a Magonian, especially an admin, making the suggestion within, say the "Research" thread intstead of using a PM, etc., can do so here.

That makes sense, generally in the past the policy of the Mag has been to make a new topic instead of continuing any off topic discussion in a thread. Thats why the spam hammer was so popular because discussions followed a natural progression. But my own 'Research' tells me that if everyone actually did this all the time the internet would cease to exist. That's a fact. ^__^
But none of that really matters because this is a pun and puns take priority. Therefore we should stuff the whole thing into off topic thread and watch it catch fire from the friction of mass posting XD (meaning you're still wrong, i mean seriously, you're the man who thinks apes and monkeys are different animals. pfft!)

I think, in it's own way, this topic is accomplishing exactly what it was made for.

^ well it fits it's title

This is from another topic: http://www.rpgmmag.com/forums/viewtopic ... 0&start=20

I am including this here additionally because this may be more relevant here. At first I thought that I was for sure acting inconsistent with my intention of this topic by posting this content where it originated (being arguably off topic) instead of here, but I sort of meant this topic to vent when abuses are occuring (usually by mods) as opposed to just address overall community communication.

Nevertheless, we'll see if it is better here. I didn't delete the post in the original topic because I do not delete my posts once made. If it is thought that it should be deleted from the original topic than I am OK with that so long as this one stays here.

Here is the original message:


OK, let's be clear to everyone reading this. No one has to post in any topic that I present. Therefore nobody has to discuss anything they don't want to. Also when I ask questions they are usually general so they are not directed toward you necessarily. Even if they are directed toward an individual you don't have to reply. Therefore if you find yourself compelled to reply in one of my posts I won't accept any responsibility because you can choose not to.

Now, I understand many points of view and one that I do understand that several of you apparently do not, is that if you challenge conventions and if you are self-critical and if you challenge social consistency you are not necessarily anarchistic nor do you necessarily open the floodgates to chaos. Now maybe many of you are conservative and do not believe that there is any reason to be critical of convention or tradition but I believe that both have led us to some negative things in addition to positive things. One way to prevent people from seeing those negative things is by trying to silence them (whether consciously or subconciously) by calling people "anarchist" or "absent-minded" or by saying that chaos must ensue.

I do understand the tradtional dogmatic perspective that stealing is inherently wrong and I also understand the skeptical critically rational perspective that no claim is ever fully justified including that stealing is inherently wrong.

But even if I didn't, what is the point in calling me "absent minded"? Maybe I simply don't share the same perspective but to call whatever perspective I have as absent minded is name calling, an attempt to insult the arguer instead of address the argument OR simply to (what would be the truly respectful thing to do) disengage from the topic at hand.

But it is true, it is easier to attack me than to be self-critical. Anyone stealing any intellectual property out there? I posed this before and it hasn't been addressed (regarding the moral merit of disrespecting someone in a way that they won't feel it akin to other types of stealing or cheating consistent with this topic).

If you guys don't want to engage in a theoretical social and individual self growth then why don't you go back to your posts full of stolen images and data files and have a ball. Oh yeah, and all the while you can hypocritically shout how stealing is wrong because you are to inconvenienced to stick around for some depth in critical analysis.

Otherwise, I'm still here.

And if you don't agree with what I'm saying here then I'll listen to what you have to say.

I cannot begin to believe the things you said in that other topic! I'm gonna have to take some time to think about it all and come back with a proper statement for it.

From:
http://www.rpgmmag.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=7641




Here is the problem with telling someone else what was in their mind when all you know is your own.

I myself originally didn't say anything about hunting. What I said was don't shoot animals with guns. Since I know hunting involves shooting animals with guns to kill them I knew that when you asked about hunting you probably meant hunting which includes killing. So yes, I could have simply addressed what was wrong with killing animals. But I myself felt you yourself had your own agenda. I felt that by phrasing the question as to what was wrong with hunting when you actually meant killing animals, you were trying to make the killing of animals more palatable by relying on a valued tradition that includes killing. Otherwise why didn't you simply ask "what is wrong with killing animals?"? It would have been a more appropriate and direct response to my comment "don't shoot animals". But it seemed that you went out of your way to bring hunting into the discussion. To me this was a possible attempt to imply that killing animals when it is within the scope of hunting somehow made it less wrong. Since you left it open I decided to then address my own agenda that the tradition of hunting can still preserve the most important aspects while adapting to a more empathetic mindset. Therefore what is wrong with killing animals is that it is unnecessary to hunting and furthermore it causes suffering.

Nevertheless, my whole point that you don't know what is in my mind is that my attempts were not a "dodge" because I will ALWAYS more than gladly have the discussion, argument, or debate, for reducing suffering, especially by preventing the killing of animals when there are other alternatives. Why would I want to dodge that question? I don't. Bring it on whenever you want.

^ that seems to call back to 'absent-minded' in a way...

How so? I don't understand to what you are referring above as 'absent minded'. Is it when someone else thinks they are in another's mind but are not really there so they are 'absent minded'?

no, but thats a good one. i can see how you thought that since i didn't make what i meant particularily obvious. unlike what nly meant with his question which was quite obvious.

but you said he should make his meaning more clear by using the same words you did. picky picky.
if he said a question to you, and it wasn't the words you used, what words did you use that mean the same thing as the words he used? obvious.
there's a pretty distinct trail of thought in the between posts.
sure elaborate that you think hunting is ok, just in case he did think you were against it as a whole, but it's still obvious what the question is, so why not answer it?
any reasons i can think of seem absent minded, as in part of your mind might be absent.

that or you are actually a computer! actually i like this theory better. maybe you're a computer. computers are sytactical as well, thats like stuff they're working on in AI, being able to communicate effectively etc. it's a really cool field actually.

you know, you never did call that expert of the world friend of mine about the ape monkey thing.

I answered the question in the original topic. I just continued the remainder of the discussion over here. I explained above why I didn't answer the question directly at first because I wanted to see why he would go out of his way to bring up hunting instead of shooting animals (including humans).

Hunting was only partially my concern. I also don't want people to shoot animals to "put them to sleep" or shoot fellow humans in gangs or their spouses for pissing them off. That was the originally intention of my suggestion that guns aren't bad as long as you know where to point them, which is to say not at the living.

He singled out hunting. I can honestly say that if I thought that was really a problem I would have gladly answered the question right away and still asked why he thought hunting was somehow a special consideration where killing animals with guns is apparently OK now. I wasn't being picky about his words like someone insistent on proper etiquette, I wasn't standing for his potential slight of hand to ask what seemed to be more socially palatable to others (but in my opinion every bit as suffering causing) by referring to "hunting" instead of "shooting animals (including humans)". I knew that if my answer didn't suffice or if I misunderstood his intentions or mistakenly suspect a potential agenda he could always clairify as he did.

Although I honestly thought my answer would suffice, in other words to all you obvious mongers out there if I said don't shoot the animal when you can take a picture of it wouldn't it be obvious to you that my reasons were because it is either unnecessary to end a life or to cause suffering?

For me I don't mind explaining it, as a matter of fact, I welcome it, but for you guys who hate syntax and want obviousness read into the assertions or questions why would he follow up with the direct question about killing specifically and why would you call me picky and then require me to answer specifically what to you should be obvious I would think. If it is still unclear, when you take a picture you don't need to kill an animal. When you kill an animal you cause suffering.

I still don't understand where any of this is "absent minded". I didn't follow your explanation.

I didn't call your expert because I don't prefer to talk on the phone, especially at long distance. Give me his email and I will gladly contact him. Why are you bringing that up now? Is that relevant here?

no it's not relevant. i just thought of it at that moment in time. he doesn't have email because computers and internet don't actually exist, unfortunately.

i can tell you didn't follow my explanation, you barely even replied to it. on the whole, you're sort of losing the plot here. Anyway, ice cream is also nice.

What is your point about the email?

I'm sort of losing what plot?

Ice cream is also nice to what?

EDIT: I might also assume that you are trying to communicate non-literally, symbolically, musically, or impressionistically, but so as not to waste time I am clarifying first with the above questions.

EDIT EDIT: Oh, I just checked, and yes I should have checked before that losing the plot means "going crazy". Well, I disagree.