The Town Hall

The Top Crusader · Post by **The Top Crusader** » Tue Oct 03, 2006 2:24 pm

Lord_Kappa wrote:Fact = something that actually exists; reality; truth: Your fears have no basis in fact.

Respect = full of, characterized by, or showing politeness or deference: a respectful reply.

Can you factually say that respect was not present? You now have the responsibility to prove that your claim that
The debates were getting unruly, disrespectful, and generally out of hand. Namecalling was rampant.
is true.

It's very clear by reading a number of the debates in there that there was often a major lack of respect.

Lord_Kappa · Post by **Lord_Kappa** » Tue Oct 03, 2006 2:30 pm

That, to me, is an opinion. In my opinion everyone was polite.

STRYPER · Post by **STRYPER** » Tue Oct 03, 2006 2:30 pm

Lord_Kappa wrote:Fact = something that actually exists; reality; truth: Your fears have no basis in fact.

Respect = full of, characterized by, or showing politeness or deference: a respectful reply.

Can you factually say that respect was not present? You now have the responsibility to prove that your claim that
The debates were getting unruly, disrespectful, and generally out of hand. Namecalling was rampant.
is true.

Kappa, I appreciate your wanting to think the best about people and assume that everything was debated respectfully, however a number of people disagree. They, along with myself, saw many instances of not only name calling but a general attitude of attacking the person rather than the idea at hand.

I would prefer not to quote specific instances here so you'll simply have to take the word of myself and others in authority.

The Top Crusader · Post by **The Top Crusader** » Tue Oct 03, 2006 2:31 pm

Lord_Kappa wrote:That, to me, is an opinion. In my opinion everyone was polite.

Your opinion is wrong.

Lord_Kappa · Post by **Lord_Kappa** » Tue Oct 03, 2006 2:34 pm

The Dorky Crusader, that's another opinion again, and in my opinion that opinion is wrong.

STYRPER, I guess my level of tolerance is just higher. I'm glad the board is getting clear rules so we can avoid this in the future. I just wish it wouldn't take so long!

Don't rush it though, it should be well done.

Post by **Catspaw** » Tue Oct 03, 2006 2:59 pm

Now there's fighting about how there was fighting on the TH. Looks like things are going well! $\:D/$

I must agree with those who have stated that there was a lack of respect in general during the debates. Rudeness was almost continually present. There was one debate in recent memory that was cleraly noted in the thread as a good one, because, as multiple people pointed out, it was the only one in recent memory without rudeness and fruitless bickering. One thread out of so many doesn't seem like an acceptable percentage. Change doesn't happen overnight - you can just keep on fighting about that lack of fighting if you're that bored without the TH around.

Lord_Kappa · Post by **Lord_Kappa** » Tue Oct 03, 2006 3:49 pm

We weren't fighting. I had questions, they answered them.

Jonathan · Post by **Jonathan** » Tue Oct 03, 2006 3:52 pm

Lord_Kappa wrote:We weren't fighting. I had questions,

...that you posted in an argumentative tone >_>

Lord_Kappa · Post by **Lord_Kappa** » Tue Oct 03, 2006 3:55 pm

It was a statement yes, arguments are made up of statements yes, the Bible is also made up of statements. Throwing emoticons into my post to clearly show that I'm not trying to fight is a bit ridiculous and rather ineffective. There is no clear way to show online that I'm not fighting.
As a rule of thumb, if I say something like "We weren't fighting. I had a question," It's an explaination, not an argument. "You are clearly mistaken, this question is simply answered by the fact that Johnathan started it" would be an argument.

Now this post was argumentative too wasn't it?

Fei · Post by **Fei** » Tue Oct 03, 2006 5:17 pm

Im sensing that you guys will argue about argueing!

STRYPER · Post by **STRYPER** » Tue Oct 03, 2006 5:34 pm

Lord_Kappa wrote:It was a statement yes, arguments are made up of statements yes, the Bible is also made up of statements. Throwing emoticons into my post to clearly show that I'm not trying to fight is a bit ridiculous and rather ineffective. There is no clear way to show online that I'm not fighting.
As a rule of thumb, if I say something like "We weren't fighting. I had a question," It's an explaination, not an argument. "You are clearly mistaken, this question is simply answered by the fact that Johnathan started it" would be an argument.

Now this post was argumentative too wasn't it?

No, not that much

Jonathan's post was more of a joke: almost sarcastic in nature.

Kappa, the more I see you post, the more you remind me of myself at that very age. I was never purposefully trying to be the trouble maker or anything but at times my posts we're "misunderstood," as I interpreted, to be more argumentative than I expected. Through time, maturity and a lot of God's grace, my debate posts gradually started to become more acceptable. I'm pretty sure I understand where you're coming from when you debate, but often times I have to look past the general tone of your post. For some reason, your tone rubs the wrong way with certain people even though your heart and mind do not succumb to its level.

WINDSHEAR · Post by **WINDSHEAR** » Tue Oct 03, 2006 5:42 pm

Yes, Lord_Kappa, I'm afraid your posts have rubbed me the wrong way as well, especially your persistence on certain subjects that I didn't even care about, and weren't even slightly a relevant or in any way important issue. You seemed bent on crucifying me. That was probably not your intention. I think I did pretty well at not taking it personally, I tried anyways.

So, people, the lesson is, it's really easy to take things the wrong way. $\:D/$

Lord_Kappa · Post by **Lord_Kappa** » Tue Oct 03, 2006 5:56 pm

Crucify WINDSHEAR!

Ok, I'm going to use way more emoticons.

WINDSHEAR · Post by **WINDSHEAR** » Tue Oct 03, 2006 5:58 pm

I don't know if it's the emoticons so much as the wording, but emoticons will definitely help smooth it out some, even if it doesn't fix the problem.

Good luck Kappa! $\:D/$

Lord_Kappa · Post by **Lord_Kappa** » Tue Oct 03, 2006 6:02 pm

Good luck to you, you're going to need it to escape me and my angry crowd that is bent on seeing you crucified. Mwuahahaha!
Thanks guys, I will deffinately keep this in mind when the TH, or Continental Breakfast Club, comes back.

Why couldn't the name be the Coffee House? In remembrance of the London Coffee houses which were the centers of discussions.

STRYPER · Post by **STRYPER** » Tue Oct 03, 2006 6:06 pm

Lord_Kappa wrote:Good luck to you, you're going to need it to escape me and my angry crowd that is bent on seeing you crucified. Mwuahahaha!

emoticon lesson: you should insert a

there.

Lord_Kappa wrote:Why couldn't the name be the Coffee House? In remembrance of the London Coffee houses which were the centers of discussions.

That's not a bad idea

Though I generally think of coffee houses as a place for light discussion

WINDSHEAR · Post by **WINDSHEAR** » Tue Oct 03, 2006 6:08 pm

Emoticons make it seem overall friendlier... usually.

The Top Crusader · Post by **The Top Crusader** » Tue Oct 03, 2006 6:10 pm

We should call the new board "The Killing Field".

WINDSHEAR · Post by **WINDSHEAR** » Tue Oct 03, 2006 6:12 pm

The Top Crusader wrote:We should call the new board "The Killing Field".

perhaps we should have a Town Hall or Coffee House or whatever just for debates, and have a Killing Field for just that, real serious killing! $\:D/$

Lord_Kappa · Post by **Lord_Kappa** » Tue Oct 03, 2006 6:48 pm

The killing field sounds so violent, and it's not very asthetically pleasing, why not the Field of Gorgoroth? (Which is basically the same thing, Gorgoroth being in Mordor in LoTR.)

I hate appearences.