Don't feel pressured Taleworlds

[BayBear]

This is a privately-owned forum.  There is no such thing as free speech or anything similar.  If you had bothered to read the forum rules, you would know this.  I will provide a link.  Follow it.
https://forums.taleworlds.com/index.php/topic,12250.msg208344.html#msg208344

Not to mention basic decency and respect for others. Taleworlds selected these unpaid moderators to enforce the community rules due to their dedication to Mount & Blade over the years. Moderators don’t have to spend their time here, but they volunteer their time fostering and growing the community nonetheless. The least one could do is play by the common sense rules present in any moderated forum.

 

[Orion]

You've been warned for triple-posting before, so one has to wonder what your intention was when you decided to do it again while comparing a moderator to a brutal dictator. Ask and you shall receive, I suppose.

Your insecurity is so strongly reflected in your posts, its a wonder you're able to function at all. Gee whiz!

It's a mystery to us both.

I don't care to not triple-post because I prefer to respond to each person individually in their own message. I don't know how to answer alternatively, anyways.

You answer alternatively by using the modify button in the top-right of your posts. If you want to add quotes in on the reply page, you can scroll down on the reply page to see the most recent posts in the thread you are replying to, and those all have "insert quote" buttons in the top right.

Look, I do not know what country you come from but, no matter your philosophical leanings, I believe in the absolute allowance of free speech. I have not said anything that would cross the boundary by which someone would leave that zone into inappropriate speech. You are the only one who continues to harass me on this point and all it does is interrupt productive and mind-stimulating conversation on tough (but universally constructive) themes.

I didn't claim you had. I issued your warning for triple-posting, which is against the forum rules (specifically, "Multi-posting — if you need to add something, and yours was the last post in the thread, edit your last post instead of adding a new one"), and for which you have already been both verbally and formally warned in the past. The free speech argument is irrelevant, as others have pointed out.

That fact that you continue to extrapolate an intention that does not exists in my writing

Quite the opposite, actually. Here are my exact words, for your convenience:

You've been warned for triple-posting before, so one has to wonder what your intention was when you decided to do it again while comparing a moderator to a brutal dictator. Ask and you shall receive, I suppose.

This isn't extrapolating an intention, this is questioning what your intention was. I made no assumptions, yet you have made your own and drawn incorrect conclusions from them.

Why don't you stop and let us have these discussions in peace?

Because you made a mess by spamming, and I volunteered to clean up messes.

I am not a troll

Debatable, since after receiving a warning from me for triple-posting you went and double-posted elsewhere within 24 hours and were muted for it by another moderator. We've also found your response to the mute which got a laugh out of me, at least, so thanks for that. You stick to your guns, I'll give you that.

 

[jamoecw]

This is a privately-owned forum.  There is no such thing as free speech or anything similar.  If you had bothered to read the forum rules, you would know this.  I will provide a link.  Follow it.
https://forums.taleworlds.com/index.php/topic,12250.msg208344.html#msg208344

a private platform not having to adhere to restrictions on a government to keep it from abusing its power isn't the best defense, though it is a rather typical one. it pretty much just trades one authority for another. though despite this it is also true.

and as i know you re muted and can't respond i will at least show how you respond to multiple posts:

You've been warned for triple-posting before, so one has to wonder what your intention was when you decided to do it again while comparing a moderator to a brutal dictator. Ask and you shall receive, I suppose.

Your insecurity is so strongly reflected in your posts, its a wonder you're able to function at all. Gee whiz!

It's a mystery to us both.

nice use of humor to show that it is allowed on the forum.

I don't care to not triple-post because I prefer to respond to each person individually in their own message. I don't know how to answer alternatively, anyways.

You answer alternatively by using the modify button in the top-right of your posts. If you want to add quotes in on the reply page, you can scroll down on the reply page to see the most recent posts in the thread you are replying to, and those all have "insert quote" buttons in the top right.

as i am now demonstrating, and as a bonus how to break up quotes and still have them link back to correct post (instead of just saying it is a quote). this makes it easy for people you are debating to find what you are talking about.

Look, I do not know what country you come from but, no matter your philosophical leanings, I believe in the absolute allowance of free speech. I have not said anything that would cross the boundary by which someone would leave that zone into inappropriate speech. You are the only one who continues to harass me on this point and all it does is interrupt productive and mind-stimulating conversation on tough (but universally constructive) themes.

I didn't claim you had. I issued your warning for triple-posting, which is against the forum rules (specifically, "Multi-posting — if you need to add something, and yours was the last post in the thread, edit your last post instead of adding a new one"), and for which you have already been both verbally and formally warned in the past. The free speech argument is irrelevant, as others have pointed out.

to be fair that quote of the rules is mainly for dealing with posting after you have already posted and no one has posted since. this would be a double post, but is a bit different than making several posts at once to respond to different people. of course the rule of no double posting still applies, and as you described how to deal with doing such responses to prevent double posting hopefully anyone reading this thread will now know in the future.

That fact that you continue to extrapolate an intention that does not exists in my writing

Quite the opposite, actually. Here are my exact words, for your convenience:

You've been warned for triple-posting before, so one has to wonder what your intention was when you decided to do it again while comparing a moderator to a brutal dictator. Ask and you shall receive, I suppose.

This isn't extrapolating an intention, this is questioning what your intention was. I made no assumptions, yet you have made your own and drawn incorrect conclusions from them.

and you are showing how it is nice to use quotes to ensure that less 'telephone' style shifting of words helps to keep things straight. it makes for rather bulky debates when things drab on, but helps to keep words from being put into people's mouths (or at least making such more obvious).

Why don't you stop and let us have these discussions in peace?

Because you made a mess by spamming, and I volunteered to clean up messes.

think of it as a cop directing traffic to keep it flowing. sure sometimes they can over step their authority, but their role is clear and meaningful.

I am not a troll

Debatable, since after receiving a warning from me for triple-posting you went and double-posted elsewhere within 24 hours and were muted for it by another moderator. We've also found your response to the mute which got a laugh out of me, at least, so thanks for that. You stick to your guns, I'll give you that.

quite a bit is debatable, but i think personally that he is simply a product of this new internet culture. back when this forum first started up their was child porn and snuff videos floating around on the internet rather easy to get to if you wanted to, at least relative to how everything was on the internet. back then there was some skill in 'surfing' the web, and people that did their homework and brought facts to bear was respected as that was how you got anywhere on the net. today things are different as just about anywhere you go is in some database somewhere that can be looked up easily, and that means that very little of the net is unregulated. this means that there is far less objectionable content, and people lack reference to how objectionable things can get. this meant that people were more capable of handling objectionable content on their own, either by avoiding it or developing a thicker skin. now people simply expect others to clean away such content where ever they go. this leads to terms of service being ignored by those that write them in order to protect these people from uncomfortable experiences, which means that reading the ToS becomes pointless.

all of this results in people that don't know how to do anything on their own, not able to handle dissent, quite demanding of things, and who just assume things work the way they want them to. there are fewer people in charge of larger amount of content, and they adhere less to rules. some say that this is great, but it does mean that people need more hand holding today than before, and it is more likely that punishments will be made subjectively.

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

and that is how you handle multiple posts, even breaking them up to deal with each part on its own. of course to get the quote leading back to the post despite it being part of the quote and not the whole thing can be down in one of two ways:

1. using insert quote, as stated by Orion, then deleting the extra stuff within the quote that you aren't dealing with.
or
2. copying and pasting the full command to start quoting. then pasting or typing in the command to end the quote.
ex:

[quote="Orion"]quoted stuff
[/quote]

in either case one can go to the quote just by clicking on the link and see if one is putting words into one's mouth (such as when i put "quoted stuff" for quoting Orion).

hopefully this has been informative to at some people.

 

[Merced]

Life since Bannerlord was announced:

Finished college.
Got married.
Bought house.
Had first child.
Bought new Truck.
2nd child on the way.

I expect i shall have at least one more child, 2 more bought and sold houses, at least one more new truck, and perhaps have retired by the time this game releases.

 

[Orion]

I admire your optimism.

 

[killer-blead]

This game is not for our generation. It's like a Date tree. It takes 80 years to grow so we plant it for our grandchildren to use.

 

[Imanis]

A real brave lot we have on our hands....posting at me while I was sequestered.

The point is this: it is an inexorable truth that every atmosphere is better and more effective when speech is allowed unfettered. Whether someone agrees or disagrees is not the point. Mods hide behind the rules because they disagree with the things I say about TW. Whether something pis privately or publicly owned is immaterial. People need to be allowed to express their opinion, in their own way.

Oppressive rules do not allow that.

Taleworlds does not feel pressured, and I don't think they need to be. Why would they if they have a cow giving milk and an inevitable cash cow in the future (let's face it: even if BL was a horrid mess upon release, they would sell enough to recoup their investment and more)? Amargan is the one who feels pressured because he is a perfectionist and this is his baby. It's understandable.
He's well-insulated from the critiques, however, if you catch my drift.

 

[Kentucky 『 ＨＥＩＧＵＩ 』 James]

The point is this: it is an inexorable truth that every atmosphere is better and more effective when speech is allowed unfettered.

So if I falsely accuse you of rape or call you a filthy &*"£^"&(£^ or post allcaps rants saying your family should be lynched, it's okay?

These are silly extremes but free speech is honestly fairly low priority in just about every scenario, especially in law. What "free speech" means is that you can express any opinion, even a straight up lie, so long as it doesn't cause direct damage. What is usually regulated is how you say it.

"The sky is blue, you disgusting pedophile human filth who should be raped by dickwolves"
^ not protected speech in any scenario

"The earth is flat, and I can prove it"
^ protected speech

And I say this as a guy who hides the N word in my posts just to mess with the mods. The difference is that I don't whinge when I get warned.

 

[Imanis]

The point is this: it is an inexorable truth that every atmosphere is better and more effective when speech is allowed unfettered.

So if I falsely accuse you of rape or call you a filthy &*"£^"&(£^ or post allcaps rants saying your family should be lynched, it's okay?

These are silly extremes but free speech is honestly fairly low priority in just about every scenario, especially in law. What "free speech" means is that you can express any opinion, even a straight up lie, so long as it doesn't cause direct damage. What is usually regulated is how you say it.

"The sky is blue, you disgusting pedophile human filth who should be raped by dickwolves"
^ not protected speech in any scenario

"The earth is flat, and I can prove it"
^ protected speech

And I say this as a guy who hides the N word in my posts just to mess with the mods. The difference is that I don't whinge when I get warned.

I wasn't whining, I was responding succinctly to a bunch of people that heaped on top of me while I was muted.

The great majority of your examples do not constitute free speech because they are vehicles for threatening or intimidating; not the expression of a stance or opinion. I especially disagree with your assertion that free speech is of low priority "especially in law". A lot of cases (mainly civil but it is present even in some criminal proceedings) hinge on whether something said was protected under free speech, or if it was something else (defamatory, threatening, damaging). It literally decides cases in some scenarios.

As to the specific examples you provided of what would and would not be covered: you are right on the first one (ironically for the same reason one of your earlier examples was ineffective: because it involves further investigation as to the facts of the case, being accusatory in nature) and could be wrong on the second, depending on the intent of the speaker.

And that is my main point: intent is king.

 

[Orion]

A real brave lot we have on our hands....posting at me while I was sequestered.

With the understanding that you'd be allowed back to read it. You're welcome, by the way. I made an argument to the other mods to not escalate your mute to a ban, despite your declared intention to continue violating the same rule repeatedly. An odd thing to do, if I'm trying to repress you, but make of that what you will.

The point is this: it is an inexorable truth that every atmosphere is better and more effective when speech is allowed unfettered. Whether someone agrees or disagrees is not the point. Mods hide behind the rules because they disagree with the things I say about TW. Whether something pis privately or publicly owned is immaterial. People need to be allowed to express their opinion, in their own way.

I didn't once tell you whether I agree or disagree with any of your posts, Imanis. If you think I'd try to obliquely confer my disagreement by abusing my position as a moderator--as part of an overarching campaign to suppress dissidents and naysayers--then you've given me much more credit than is due. You also seem to be giving yourself more credit than you deserve, because it looks to me like you're trying to play martyr. The problem is that you're trying to force it, not by being solely controversial but by doing so while also flagrantly breaking the same rule over and over again. You're not a very compelling moral crusader if your idea of rebelling against the system is to break a rule about spamming. You won't believe a single word I write because I'm the big bad bogeyman, but I insist that the only reason behind your recent mute is your continued spam.

You'll also kindly note that the contents of your triple posts were preserved in the instance where I merged them. I must not be very good at this censorship thing.

 

[Triune Impurity Rites 999]

I'm more interested in Imanis, what should you call it, martyrdom of free speech?

Can we have a thread just for him? I don't even remember what this thread is about, but Imanis is popping up everywhere with this crap.

 

[Noudelle]

This guy is absolutely relentless. It's impressive.

 

[Ettenrocal]

I don't remenber when i've done my avatar profile pic, two or three years ? At this point i would prefer they just say the truth, than just "soon"... Saying don't expect Bannerlord until 2020 would be the more honest thing. Taleworlds should have done a Warband 1.5 with mutilcore support, more props and few improvements. I think Bannerlord is complicated to do 3 levels of AI, an economy and human relations to simulate. I would really be surprise to see Bannerlord before summer, they will probably announce something next Gamescom...

 

[Balexander]

Im Impressed of you guys how you know nothing of the Progress of the game nor the status of Taleworlds and can Complain about it 

 

[DtheHun]

Im Impressed of you guys how you know nothing of the Progress of the game nor the status of Taleworlds and can Complain about it 

So, are we the dumbs or the weekly devblogs are meaningless?

 

[Terco_Viejo]

Im Impressed of you guys how you know nothing of the Progress of the game nor the status of Taleworlds and can Complain about it 

So, are we the dumbs or the weekly devblogs are meaningless?

They think we are...

 

[DtheHun]

That's not the worst scenario.

 

[newplayerz1]

Taleworlds should have done a Warband 1.5 with mutilcore support, more props and few improvements.

This I would have liked to have seen

 

[Imanis]

A real brave lot we have on our hands....posting at me while I was sequestered.

With the understanding that you'd be allowed back to read it. You're welcome, by the way. I made an argument to the other mods to not escalate your mute to a ban, despite your declared intention to continue violating the same rule repeatedly. An odd thing to do, if I'm trying to repress you, but make of that what you will.

The point is this: it is an inexorable truth that every atmosphere is better and more effective when speech is allowed unfettered. Whether someone agrees or disagrees is not the point. Mods hide behind the rules because they disagree with the things I say about TW. Whether something pis privately or publicly owned is immaterial. People need to be allowed to express their opinion, in their own way.

I didn't once tell you whether I agree or disagree with any of your posts, Imanis. If you think I'd try to obliquely confer my disagreement by abusing my position as a moderator--as part of an overarching campaign to suppress dissidents and naysayers--then you've given me much more credit than is due. You also seem to be giving yourself more credit than you deserve, because it looks to me like you're trying to play martyr. The problem is that you're trying to force it, not by being solely controversial but by doing so while also flagrantly breaking the same rule over and over again. You're not a very compelling moral crusader if your idea of rebelling against the system is to break a rule about spamming. You won't believe a single word I write because I'm the big bad bogeyman, but I insist that the only reason behind your recent mute is your continued spam.

You'll also kindly note that the contents of your triple posts were preserved in the instance where I merged them. I must not be very good at this censorship thing.

Nobody's calling you the big, bad bogeyman and I have no problem believing that you believe what you say. You wrote your whole statement with the attitude that everyone is expected to believe that your intentions are the most upright and correct on the planet. I am not afforded that same luxury.

Thanks for arguing against it...at least there is one reasonable mod who understands that free speech is not a government or "public" principle. However, if double (or *gasp* triple) posting  legitimate and sincere issues are spamming then it's the policy that is inept (for which no one can blame my accusations of guilt by association). That's fine. But, remember, that a tyrant can sit in his office all day talking about the reasons that he is not a tyrant or exculpate himself of his tyrannical activity...but he is still a tyrant.

And *sigh* I feel I need to clarify, because people are sensitive around here. I am not calling you a tyrant. It was an simply an example of the negative rationalization going on.

Thanks, again!

 

[Orion]

Our only problem with your posts is that you split your replies into multiple, sequential posts. If you'd like to clearly distinguish one reply from another within the same post, you can utilize a horizontal rule like so:

The code for it is this:

Some users also specify who they're replying to by name, either plainly or with an @, e.g. @Imanis. A stylistic change is really all we're asking for. This is a minor issue that has ballooned out of proportion.

As I feel it is also important to understand the why of a rule and not just the what, I will say that the reason the rule exists is to improve readability and reduce unnecessary post accumulation in topics. That last might sound weird, but it's a known issue that topics begin to have a noticeable performance hit on the server around the time they reach 1,000 pages (15,000 posts). Topics don't usually go on that long in the On-Topic sections, but it has happened many times in the Off-Topic sections. It's a valid concern there, and we enforce the rule uniformly for the sake of consistency. It's more confusing for everyone if we allow sequential posting in some places but not others, as everyone is free to go to any section of the board they want at any time. Finally, the rule also discourages intentionally disruptive behavior, like spamming several pages in a single topic to try & shout others down.

Thanks for arguing against it...at least there is one reasonable mod who understands that free speech is not a government or "public" principle.

There were two of us, actually. The other was this guy.