[cerevox]

I like it. Finally panthers actually puts forth an argument instead of a "read the rules again and you will get it" thing like usual.
And, here we go...

It's a document put in place so we as the Staff have some reference as to how to act in certain scenarios.

Except most of the staff don't read it. Look through the ban threads. The vast majority of the times the book gets refereed to are by me and lights, or others poking holes in it. The staff just follows intelli's rules and don't worry about the book.

The Book of Rules as it stands is a conglomeration of concurring opinions within the staff, and I try what I can to recreate it in an agreed upon form. The result is highly specific rules.

Considering some of the things the staff have said have contradicted what the book said, i don't actually think the book is agreed upon by all the staff.

You cry about complicated concepts, then don't read them and be a good Samaritan do the best of your ability

Complicated is fine. Needlessly complicated for the sake of complexity is just a bad idea. The book has clearly fallen into the second category. And do you expect everyone on the server to be good for goodness sake? Is that why the banlist is massively long? What is the point in having a rule list if it only applies to the good?

You cry about loopholes and other flaws, but feel either too lazy to make a legitimate argument, or cannot truly find any glaring flaws.

I regularly make legitimate arguments and you blow them off, and i find glaring flaws routinely and you blow them off. Its partly why i have given up on picking at the rules. I do it so you can fix them, not just because i enjoy finding flaws in the rules.

You cry about our inconsistency; the Book is the attempt to create consistency.

It fails. Badly.

What you read here you need not kid yourself about being able to understand, as it is mainly for the Staff's eyes.

Why would it be so hard to understand? Its not like the staff has any privacy or secrets, considering you leak chat logs from the modchat on a regular basis. Are you just saying that the staff is an inherently superior and more intelligent class of person and that us peons can not understand your high-class language? Because that is how that line reads.

The only reason I post this Book publicly is written in the disclaimer.

Disclaimer: Though these are the agreed upon rules for the time being, they may not be this way in the future. The main purpose of The Book is to provide an understanding of the spirit of the law and to be a guideline as to what the code of conduct is.

You claim its for the spirit of the law? Do you even know what that means? Look at 3.5 and then tell me its for the spirit and not the letter.

Cerevox, if you could bother yourself to remember past occurrences in this thread, you decide to make very clear that you love absolute, fine point, specific rules and guidelines.

Wrong. I love absolutes, that part is correct. Fine point is one of the things i have argued against. I have also argued against specific rules in preference to more general and less hole-ridden rules. Intelli's rules are great. Primarily because they don't have any specifics and thus there are no loopholes.

When I am "ambiguous" you cry about how you don't understand it.

I have said several times that while i understand it, i don't think many others would, and that as a rule, it is useless, because it is ambiguous. And as we already agreed upon,

I love absolutes

This list of rules has a few places where it goes all soft and squishy by being either vague or unsure. These are the rules. They should be 100% solid. No coulds, or mights, or maybes. Define everything. Be exact and precise. It is either against the rules, or its not. If you absolutely must be ambiguous then use phrases like "At the mod's discretion" or something similar so that the rules themselves are exact and un-arguable while the mods have more flexibility.

This is my favorite one^. You instigate Administrator Discretion, and then decide to begin ripping on how unfair and unpredictable it is.

You seem to have mistaken me for lightbulbs. He is the one who ripped on the admin discretion section. I have said, several times, that the admin discretion section is good. It is a general, absolute rule. It does not get better than that. Also, instigate is the wrong word.

And then you decide to switch gears almost by magic

Huh? How is that changing gears? I have been saying all along that your rules are becoming more complex and less useful. Previously i had picked at them both because it was amusing and so you could fix them. You ignore the vast majority of found problems, and they are so hole filled they just are not amusing any more. All of that is the logical progression of you continuing to increase their complexity. Gears were not changed as far as i can tell.

In short, just read my first few paragraphs.

Obliviousness to the Rules (7.8): A simple utterance: Being oblivious to an existing rule does not exclude you from its full enforcement. I expect to see this one quoted often in the Bans section.

You tell me not to read them, but the rules say not reading them is not okay. Which is it you want?

And then there is this unofficial Book of Rules, used more-so as a guideline on our part in order to create some consistency. I share it with you with the hopes that you can better understand how WE/I will react to certain scenarios.

Like i already said, it does not create any consistency. You are also missing a pro-noun(highlighted red words), which i assume would be we. However, if you replace it with I, then this whole thing makes sense. Panthers, this entire rule book, it is not an explanation of how the mods treat things, its an explanation of how YOU treat things. If you replaced the title with "Panther's theory of admin-ship" then you would not have to change a single thing. Its a great explanation of how you think the rules should be, but other that a better understanding of you, it doesn't really help in any way.

[mikevb123]

woah there cowboy no need to troll panthers.

I believe his book of rules tries to create a consistency that is much needed on the server. Panthers is not trying to rule as a tyrant, hes trying to make the server's rules clearer and hes taking the initiative to actually write what he believes the rules to be. Personally i commend him for doing what i have not seen any other staff member do, which is to actually make it clear to us how he runs things.

I think this rule book covers basically all areas and sorts out much confusion in grey parts. Its organized, precise, and will help sort out many bans as well as serve to be a general guide to the new players.

[cerevox]

woah there cowboy no need to troll panthers.

For starting with this line, you automatically lose any and all points. Im not trolling, im arguing. Its different. Even if you assume that everyone who disagrees with you is a troll. Also, panthers can defend himself. He doesn't need you. Also, cowboy? Seriously? Every time i see someone use cowboy like that, all i can think of is this clip.

I believe his book of rules tries to create a consistency that is much needed on the server.

Yes, i know that is the goal. And its failing at it. TRIES is the key word there.

Panthers is not trying to rule as a tyrant

It would be better if he would.

Personally i commend him for doing what i have not seen any other staff member do, which is to actually make it clear to us how he runs things.

Your vote counts for next to nothing, and my issue is that it is not making things significantly clearer.

I think this rule book covers basically all areas and sorts out much confusion in grey parts

The covering every tiny detail is part of the problem. And its not decreasing confusion at all.

Its organized, precise, and will help sort out many bans as well as serve to be a general guide to the new players.

It is organized, i will give you that, but precise? Check how often he uses may in it. Every time may is used, it makes the rule pointless since he never defines when it is or isn't. Just that it may apply. And new players? No new player ever is going to read that and come away knowing any more than he started with. To quote panthers...

What you read here you need not kid yourself about being able to understand, as it is mainly for the Staff's eyes.

Did you even read the posts, or just see lots of text and blank out?

[panthers17nfl]

As this argument dwells in to the abyss of pointlessness, I'd like to alert lightbulbs that i updated my old post on page 7.

Except most of the staff don't read it. Look through the ban threads. The vast majority of the times the book gets refereed to are by me and lights, or others poking holes in it. The staff just follows intelli's rules and don't worry about the book.

The book is used, like I said, as a reference for us to be able to develop a form of consistency. You are right though my friend: the book gets referred mostly when it is being attacked. Verbally referred to*. Those Staff who use it without question need not quote it, am I right? (though on occasions I do see one of us posting them).

Considering some of the things the staff have said have contradicted what the book said, i don't actually think the book is agreed upon by all the staff.

That is a very interesting opinion. My opinion is that we do agree upon its principles, and when we don't, we work to remedy it, therefore, you see Book updates.

Complicated is fine. Needlessly complicated for the sake of complexity is just a bad idea. The book has clearly fallen into the second category. And do you expect everyone on the server to be good for goodness sake? Is that why the banlist is massively long? What is the point in having a rule list if it only applies to the good?

Who said I was purposely making this complicated? I am merely doing what the people shout for me to do; to make it specific, cut, and define is my goal, the rules out in the open for all to see exact policies, my dream.

I don't understand the "only applies to the good" portion of your argument. If you mean that only the good, earnest players read this Book, then I see an annoyance, but not a dilemma. You guys of good spirit, with your wisdom and understanding, can bring the knowledge from this Book unto the people, effectively having everyone read it.

I regularly make legitimate arguments and you blow them off, and i find glaring flaws routinely and you blow them off. Its partly why i have given up on picking at the rules. I do it so you can fix them, not just because i enjoy finding flaws in the rules.

Do you know how much I would pay to convince you that I think the exact same of you? I make legitimate arguments, and you go on with your same few arguments, acting as if I never responded. Me and you butt heads in quote wars regarding updates until your arguments are at rest, and you are happy. And then you come here and tell me I have ignored what you say, and merely say "herp derp your wrong im right gtfo"? I hope you joke.

And the last part is absolute B/S. How is your trash-talking of the Book, your saying it is worthless and incoherent, constructive criticism? Don't try to be the good guy; you aren't him. And it isn't your style anyway.

It fails. Badly.

Really? I can see why you may think this. Every so often we get a case where the Book's policies actually need be utilized and actually end up being used wrongly on the part of a Staff member. This is also known as an error. I do not recall one of these in recent history. However, there also arises an occasion where the Book need be utilized and, even when utilized correctly, controversy arises. This is also known as Bans QQ. With these events, it's easy to see how one may think we lack consistency. But also keep in mind the policies we follow to with almost a perfect unity: dealing with griefers, hackers, flint and steel'ers (if you will), racists, advertisers, general morons, non-english speakers, ban appeals, etc. Spare yourself the time of finding specific cases where one of these groups of people may have caused an inconsistent response on our part. We do on rare occasion share a mistake or two.

Why would it be so hard to understand? Its not like the staff has any privacy or secrets, considering you leak chat logs from the modchat on a regular basis. Are you just saying that the staff is an inherently superior and more intelligent class of person and that us peons can not understand your high-class language? Because that is how that line reads.

Wasn't it you that said something along the lines of, "I understand this, but I fear that the others may not find it so easy to comprehend."? I am agreeing with you my friend; agree with yourself. There are some people here that simply don't understand it.

You claim its for the spirit of the law? Do you even know what that means? Look at 3.5 and then tell me its for the spirit and not the letter.

The latter*. (No I'm not heiling grammar nazi, the typo actually confused me for a moment).

I think you misread me. Even in a chapter so specific as (3.5), the spirit of that law can be understood; be an honest business owner, and you should find yourself free of legal issues. Legitimate question: do you wish for me to end each chapter highlighting what the spirit of that law is? More-or-less a tl;dr for some, but yeah.

Wrong. I love absolutes, that part is correct. Fine point is one of the things i have argued against. I have also argued against specific rules in preference to more general and less hole-ridden rules. Intelli's rules are great. Primarily because they don't have any specifics and thus there are no loopholes.

I hope you aren't serious. You are saying that because the seven laws are simple, they are free of any loopholes or arguments?

Cerevox, if I were to post the seven laws, I foresee you making the following arguments:
"No Griefing? What is griefing panthers? What I think is griefing and what you think is griefing are totally different."
"Respect all players panthers? What if in my culture, respect = swearing about their mothers?"

You get the jist of it.

Please don't be a hypocrite, you are above that (I hope). You tell me ambiguity is bad, that absolute rules are good, that fine points are bad, that simplicity is good. Simplicity can equal ambiguity, as I said in the above examples. Absolute rules often call for fine points so we can nail down what those rules pertain to.

I have said several times that while i understand it, i don't think many others would, and that as a rule, it is useless, because it is ambiguous. And as we already agreed upon,

I love absolutes

Right on. No ambiguity; that's the style i strive for.

You seem to have mistaken me for lightbulbs. He is the one who ripped on the admin discretion section. I have said, several times, that the admin discretion section is good. It is a general, absolute rule. It does not get better than that. Also, instigate is the wrong word.

General could = ambiguous, or at least it does the way I am looking at it.

It was you that complained that you must read the Staff's minds to be able to decipher whether or not a player should be banned, so don't pretend that you wave a foam finger at the admin discretion concept.

Huh? How is that changing gears? I have been saying all along that your rules are becoming more complex and less useful. Previously i had picked at them both because it was amusing and so you could fix them. You ignore the vast majority of found problems, and they are so hole filled they just are not amusing any more. All of that is the logical progression of you continuing to increase their complexity. Gears were not changed as far as i can tell.

Are you blind to my responses? I quote everything you utter that could possibly pose an argument and respond to it in as legitimate a manner as I can muster, just as you do. Don't pretend I don't address you. Because I very clearly do.

And by changing gears, I referred to the fact that you declared you hate the idea of ambiguity, and sometime thereafter complaining that the rules are too complex.

In short, just read my first few paragraphs.

Obliviousness to the Rules (7.8): A simple utterance: Being oblivious to an existing rule does not exclude you from its full enforcement. I expect to see this one quoted often in the Bans section.

You tell me not to read them, but the rules say not reading them is not okay. Which is it you want?

Tell you not to read what?

Like i already said, it does not create any consistency. You are also missing a pro-noun(highlighted red words), which i assume would be we. However, if you replace it with I, then this whole thing makes sense. Panthers, this entire rule book, it is not an explanation of how the mods treat things, its an explanation of how YOU treat things. If you replaced the title with "Panther's theory of admin-ship" then you would not have to change a single thing. Its a great explanation of how you think the rules should be, but other that a better understanding of you, it doesn't really help in any way.

I'm disappointed. I imagined a classic closer from Cerevox, but I am dealt with this. *Sigh*.

All I can say is what I said earlier: That is a very nice opinion you have there. As I've said, whether you believe it true or not, the Book does create consistency. The reason you think otherwise is the few controversial cases that pop up (I can name two) are the ones you cling to, assuming that every case is hectic and raises questions about the very text of the Book.


A handful of self-contradictions, some fiery personal insults, and a few unlearned statements later, and I have finished reading your reply. I assume you will cease to submit to anything I say, as is your style, so I will leave on this note and await your response. Inb4 you say I do the same; I have been known to make numerous changes as a result of your legitimate arguments which seem so rare nowadays.

[Lightbulbs]

A bit long of a response to deal with such a weak argument, but oh well.

It's funny your response to a specific incident in which you banned a person who proved he broke no rules according to your rulebook changed into a tirade about how I won't be coming back to a server I publicly state I have no interest in coming back to. I mean, did you really think that anyone other than me would be awesome enough to use your own rules against you?

I don't think you know what an argument is. You should ask Cerevox for help.

EDIT: Also.

You claim its for the spirit of the law? Do you even know what that means? Look at 3.5 and then tell me its for the spirit and not the letter.

The latter*. (No I'm not heiling grammar nazi, the typo actually confused me for a moment).

Oh God. Please tell me you are trolling.

[panthers17nfl]

A bit long of a response to deal with such a weak argument, but oh well.

It's funny your response to a specific incident in which you banned a person who proved he broke no rules according to your rulebook changed into a tirade about how I won't be coming back to a server I publicly state I have no interest in coming back to. I mean, did you really think that anyone other than me would be awesome enough to use your own rules against you?

I don't think you know what an argument is. You should ask Cerevox for help.

EDIT: Also.

You claim its for the spirit of the law? Do you even know what that means? Look at 3.5 and then tell me its for the spirit and not the letter.

The latter*. (No I'm not heiling grammar nazi, the typo actually confused me for a moment).

Oh God. Please tell me you are trolling.

You seem defeated, bro. IIRC, every time you got in to a big argument with me over all-chat, it ended in you being absolutely and utterly wrong, Kerovon stepping in and nailing the final... nail... to your coffin, and leaving you mute for some hours.

And here we are, but this time you choose the troll me until I get sucked in to your argument-that-isn't-really-an-argument. That, coupled with the tried and true pick-one-thing-out-of-50-that-panthers-said-and-ignore-everything-else strategy, composes the pride of your arguing style.

And the one legit point you have said is that I still am not getting what the letter-latter debate is. I haven't heard "the letter" used in this way, so sorry if a simple benign misunderstanding piled next to a massive argument worries you.

[Lightbulbs]

Panthers, you don't seem to understand how argument conventions work, so I'll try to give you some basic lessons.

Person A makes a claim (The book of rules is used as an interpretation of the rules for people to refer to), and Person B makes a claim that opposes that idea (The book of rules is pointless and ignored when it harms a mod's case). Being that the burden of proof is on Person B for going against the popular claim, they give evidence to refute the point (A ban was issued for using lava to harm people when the rules said that it is only bannable if used to kill and the items are kept). Person A then had to give reasoning or further evidence to refute that. Now if Person A wasn't able to, and decided that he could change B's argument into a weaker one (That the banned person is innocent and didn't deserve to be banned), then disproves that, it wold be a fallacy called a Strawman, and at which point Person A's entire argument would be invalidated until the original point could be discredited.

I hope this clears it up. If you still don't understand, talk to someone who's better at giving people remedial lessons without referring to them as twats after 10 minutes.

[panthers17nfl]

Panthers, you don't seem to understand how argument conventions work, so I'll try to give you some basic lessons.

Person A makes a claim (The book of rules is used as an interpretation of the rules for people to refer to), and Person B makes a claim that opposes that idea (The book of rules is pointless and ignored when it harms a mod's case). Being that the burden of proof is on Person B for going against the popular claim, they give evidence to refute the point (A ban was issued for using lava to harm people when the rules said that it is only bannable if used to kill and the items are kept). Person A then had to give reasoning or further evidence to refute that. Now if Person A wasn't able to, and decided that he could change B's argument into a weaker one (That the banned person is innocent and didn't deserve to be banned), then disproves that, it wold be a fallacy called a Strawman, and at which point Person A's entire argument would be invalidated until the original point could be discredited.

I hope this clears it up. If you still don't understand, talk to someone who's better at giving people remedial lessons without referring to them as twats after 10 minutes.

And once again the troll in you emerges. Once you have a legitimate argument prepared as opposed to pointless "lessons" meant to explain something I already know (or suggest that I am doing something wrong and my whole life is a lie), come back to me. Furthermore, you are banned from the in-game servers and already said you don't like MineRealm. Why have I not banned you?

Also,

The Glorious Argument Style of Lightbulbs Unraveled.jpg (73.6 KiB) Viewed 2352 times

[Kress_91]

No need for threats of ban, Panthers.

[panthers17nfl]

No need for threats of ban, Panthers.

*Raises arms as if I dropped a ceramic plate*

Hey hey, just contemplating.