Recent posts by Jantonaitis on Kongregate

Topic: Serious Discussion / The future of Kong's forums?

This post has been removed by an administrator or moderator
 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Book Club 2015

Originally posted by petesahooligan:

Don, throw us some structure here. I don’t know if anyone except me agreed to read (and be prepared to discuss) Equoid.

When will we discuss?
What’s the next story/book?

Do you have a process for nominating and choosing the next story?
Did you like the idea of rotating through genre and literary fiction, with some non-fiction thrown in?

(Maybe participants can be responsible for identifying the next story. Vika should choose next.)

I wouldn’t recommend Equoid. I mean, I did, but that was in a Lovecraft thread. Accelerando was pretty good though, as was his A Colder War. That last link is another sci-fi archive like tor.com.

Free online books can often be found through one’s public library, via Overdrive / Freading. Also this , or this.

I used to be really into hypertext novels like Sunshine ’69 but they aren’t for everybody. Personally I recommend Peter Watt’s Blindsight which features believable future tech, transhumanism, vampires, and the big questions. Here’s a good intro to the book, courtesy of the author, to give you an idea [click the links for extras].

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Metadiscussion On "Serious Discussion": A Comprehensive Analysis of Its Components and Purpose

I’m not a troll. I quoted that pm to show that I have tried FOR YEARS to end this feud and I got nothing to show for it. He doesn’t have any concept of compromise, or admitting any fault of his own [other than deflecting blame back to me]. I have at various times left SD, and no matter how long I leave for he’s the exact same bitter old asshole he was when I left. so yeah I’m frustrated.

I’ve had it. I’ve had enough of SD for 2015. Pete was right, even with punitive measures in place there’s nothing here worth saving. And you know what really ticks me off? It’s not karma. It’s that for as long as this has been going on, you all have stood by and done nothing but make snide remarks and feign sympathy in private. If I leave, the problem will not leave with me. The personal vendetta will, but he will continue to be as he is – and it’ll be your problem, not mine. Enjoy!

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Metadiscussion On "Serious Discussion": A Comprehensive Analysis of Its Components and Purpose

Originally posted by cromagin2:

Don’t you think it’s wrong to use private email and private “PM’s” on the public forum? Those are private thoughts and feelings, is that not against the rules?

I do, though in this case they’re my words. I don’t reveal pm’s other people send me.

One of the reasons I was so hung up on getting unmuted was so we could sort it out away from the forum. Vika’s right – it pollutes the atmosphere to have this continue. But it’s not enough to simply call it quits if there’s no resolve to change one’s behaviour.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Metadiscussion On "Serious Discussion": A Comprehensive Analysis of Its Components and Purpose

Had YOU been able to be objective when reading my post, you would have noticed that I DID take responsibility for my behavior … ya know, the behavior that I said was a result, mainly of YOU, ppl getting away w/ the very same.

That’s not taking responsibility. It’s like the Batman argument: “I had to become an asshole to fight the other assholes.” Uh, no. And in any case, it’s untrue. You may not remember but our feud originally began because I took exception to your vicious attacks on jhco, and you resented being mini-modded. Just as you resented any form of criticism that you can’t shift over onto someone else.

I have the original email right here, sent from an alt account because you’d muted me. I sent it 3 years ago:

You know who i am so let’s skip preliminaries.
I’m willing to make a truce with you if you are with me.
I’ve been annoyed with you for some time, and that’s partly your own habits, but it’s also the fault of my own irritation on another website bleeding over to this one. I’ve come to recognize that i’ve been overly harsh to you for that reason.
If you Unmute Jantonaitis then i think we can come to good terms. I’ll only make this offer once though; after that, they’ll be no respite.

It’s a bit melodramatic perhaps. But I don’t really see how you could view it as insisting you take all the blame, bowing down, etc etc. But then I don’t really understand a lot of your motivations. One thing I do understand though is that if Don puts this thing through I won’t need to go to the trouble of ending this feud or mini-modding. Because you’ll be silenced until you learn your lesson. And you’ll cry victim and accuse the mods of bullying – but it won’t make any difference.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Metadiscussion On "Serious Discussion": A Comprehensive Analysis of Its Components and Purpose

My time being spent on moving into a new house certainly takes precedence over petty bickering w/ ppl who aren’t able to view themselves as a part of the problem …

Actually as the quote you used indicates, I do view myself as part of the problem. The issue is that you don’t. You got a Kong admin telling you nothing is ever your fault and [surprise!] you don’t take any responsibility for the ad hominem attacks you frequently make. You also ignore the fact that I was willing to resolve this feud peacefully, privately, back in 2012 – but instead by your own admission you went to a mod to seek absolution [you also later reposted my pm’s in an attempt to humiliate me, because that’s just a thing you do].

So no. You aren’t going to weasel out of this. I want an end to this conflict right right now, and that requires YOU to show a little more responsibility than you’ve previously shown, and it requires ME to keep the agreement even when right now I’d like nothing better than to troll you until you gtfo and stay out.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Metadiscussion On "Serious Discussion": A Comprehensive Analysis of Its Components and Purpose

Don, I’m a major troublemaker here [now that karma’s gone] but nonetheless would you mind explaining in detail what you have in mind? I’m bugged by the persistent notion that we could’ve easily accompanied Petesahooligans’ arguments – except we were arguing blind because we lacked the details. That was problematic and should’ve been explained at the same time you indicated you were interested in doing this.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Metadiscussion On "Serious Discussion": A Comprehensive Analysis of Its Components and Purpose

Originally posted by petesahooligan:

This place sucks. Sorry, I’m out. Can’t do it. I’m actually feeling frustrated, and I don’t want to feel frustrated in a place I would come for ideas. It’s all yours, lads (and lass). Goodbye.

hmm, can’t say I was expecting that.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Metadiscussion On "Serious Discussion": A Comprehensive Analysis of Its Components and Purpose

Originally posted by cromagin2:
Originally posted by vikaTae:
Originally posted by cromagin2:

This is rather unfriendly and harsh, don’t you think?

You reap what you sow. Yeasy’s been here long enough to make his ‘debate’ style well known. He doesn’t believe evidence has any part in a debate, which makes it rather hard to get anywhere. Add in his insistence that only one very narrow-field type of logic has any merit, and you get a complete waste of time all round.

So yes, we’re rather unfriendly towards him.

My point was saying “Fuck off back to OT” is a violation of the rules and a quite blatant one. It’s frankly not Jantonaitis job to punish other members it’s the moderators. It’s telling that the person who was told to “fuck off” still has his posts on this thread yet Jantonaitis posts were removed. To me that says the moderator disagrees that Yeasy is a problem and yelling at him just because he is from OT is unfortunate

If the mod disagrees you’ll know because he deleted the post. Which he did. And yet yeasy is gone, so I think I’ll pat myself on the back for stopping that shitposter in his tracks.

The alternative, which is preferred by most SDers, would’ve been to debate him, but use snide, passive-aggressive language to subtly persuade him to fuck off back to OT [which never actually works]. I like my way better.

Originally posted by Kasic:
Now, Nokken as OP may not have intended the thread to be about actual practical problems with SD but he also wanted to get banned

This is something I don’t get. Why would he think posting this would get him banned?

Because he’s a drama queen. Takes one to know one.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Metadiscussion On "Serious Discussion": A Comprehensive Analysis of Its Components and Purpose

Originally posted by petesahooligan:

There’s a couple of things I don’t really appreciate about how SD operates that are exemplified in this very thread.

Namely, and most obviously, it doesn’t provide any value to NEW participants to pull out the “we’ve been through this before” rationale for shutting someone down. Who’s we? You mean you’ve been through this before.

And I suppose if this has already been talked about then what’s really the point, right? It’s already figured out.

I consider that response patronizing and disruptive. Just because it’s been talked about before doesn’t mean that people aren’t allowed to talk about it again. It’s the conversation sometimes that has value and not necessarily the outcome.

There’s your problem.

The thread was derailed for awhile, you may’ve noticed, first for those drunk driving textwalls and now this objective morality stuff. Now, Nokken as OP may not have intended the thread to be about actual practical problems with SD but he also wanted to get banned so I’m kinda glad we made something productive come from this thread instead of essay-length meanderings. Even the part where we were all flaming each other was more on topic than some of you guys’ recent posts.

Second, and closely tied to the first, is that YES, vika and I and several others have been down this exact ‘lets be honourable’ road before and it did nothing, so if Don says he can push for more modding powers THAT’S what I want to hear more about, and if you want to have your ontological digression, go ahead, but please don’t do it here, because I want to hear actual brainstorming in this thread, not your repackaged personal philosophy.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Creating Change in Your Community

Originally posted by RollerCROWster:

Best way to change your community: Create more long term jobs. Fewer poor ppl = less crime = better community.

This can be achieved by bringing in more business, encouraging locals to start their own businesses, and creating jobs that focus on improving the community.

Bringing in more businesses is probably the least helpful of the three, because non-local businesses tend to underpay workers and take money from the local economy and send it elsewhere.

Encouraging locals to create businesses is the best way. Maybe make it cheaper for businesses to get made in your community, then add a fee for non-locals who want to start them. Since the businesses are local, all profits stay in the community, boosting the local economy.

Creating jobs focusing on improving the community can help too. For example, someone’s job could be picking up trash in back alleys. Someone’s job could be planting trees to fight air pollution. Someone’s job could be to FEED CROWS so that the community will be spared when the CROWpocalypse happens.

Holy shit you actually made a [mostly] serious post.

@Petes

idk about the rest but imo it’s certainly easy to perceive Hawk as a sell-out when your knowledge of him comes from a mediocre videogame series. He was the Shaq-fu of the 2000s [OMG there’s a sequel!].

 

Topic: Serious Discussion / Metadiscussion On "Serious Discussion": A Comprehensive Analysis of Its Components and Purpose

This post has been removed by an administrator or moderator
 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Creating Change in Your Community

Originally posted by petesahooligan:

I’m sorry, Cromagin, but I cannot talk with you anymore. I hope you have a pleasant and informative time here in Serious Discussion. I am detecting too much antagonistic bait in your responses to take your viewpoint seriously.

I see nothing that indicated this. What do you mean?

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Metadiscussion On "Serious Discussion": A Comprehensive Analysis of Its Components and Purpose

We know this because we’ve been down this road before, several times, and it plain does not work to set up a code and hope everyone is decent enough to always follow it on their own.

Yup, agree 100%.

Petes, I think I understand your anxiety over the idea of an overly legalistic forum – I share that concern, but as long as it’s pragmatic rather than draconian in spirit it might just work. We’d need to hear Don’s pitch though, as right now we ARE putting the cart before the horse since we don’t have any details.

 

Topic: Serious Discussion / Metadiscussion On "Serious Discussion": A Comprehensive Analysis of Its Components and Purpose

This post has been removed by an administrator or moderator
 

Topic: Serious Discussion / Metadiscussion On "Serious Discussion": A Comprehensive Analysis of Its Components and Purpose

This post has been removed by an administrator or moderator
 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / The Off Topic is below Average.

Originally posted by TheAznSensation:

I briefly perused through the age range of SD’s regulars; you guys are roughly 20 – 40 years of age.

OT is roughly 13- 20 years of age.

The real life equivalent of this thread is an adult, with a career and plenty of life experience, going up to a teenager, young and inexperienced, and telling him/her: “Man, your thoughts are worthless. My thoughts are sooo much better than your thoughts.”

True, though OP was an OT troll, not one of ours.

I’ve grown to not mind it so much as I used to. I’ve noticed that there’s a lot of smart, engaging posters in OT – they just can’t stand SD’s hum-drum atmosphere. It a shame because we could use more such people around here, and imo they tend to get drowned out by the trolls and shitposters in OT anyway.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / The Off Topic is below Average.

OT also has a high population constantly making new posts and threads. Whereas we had 4 threads being discussed yesterday and imo they were all boring as hell.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / E-cigs and vaping directly linked to cancer.

Nicotine is inherently harmful.

I hate heavy cologne smells but I don’t think it should be banned.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / E-cigs and vaping directly linked to cancer.

Originally posted by petesahooligan:

(Why do I get the impression that cromagin2 is an alt account?)

He’s from OT, as he mentioned.

A new study is out that directly links E-cigs and vaping to cancer. I knew this was coming myself. I feel this is the smoking gun to enact stronger laws against e-cig and vaping usage in public. It’s the persons choice, but when they use e-cig or vape around me, they are forcing that choice on me without my consent. How do you feel about this scientific discovery? Will you keep using E-cig or vape if you do knowing this? Will you choose to being to use e-cig and/or vape knowing this?

I think this is a significant development in the medical field. After all, the New England Journal of Medicine put out this scientific study. Here is the source as per the rules of the forum:

http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc1413069?query=featured_home

Yeah I was impressed too, until I read this

I’m biased because I do use an e-cig, but after smoking for 7 years it’s a relief to be able to get my nicotine fix cheaply, at home and without the lingering stench and teeth yellowing. It may be carcinogenic but that’s as yet unproven, but even if it was it’s an acceptable tradeoff imo.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Metadiscussion On "Serious Discussion": A Comprehensive Analysis of Its Components and Purpose

Unless anyone has a better option?

delete long, interpersonal textwalls that get on topic ‘halfway through’, whilst continuing to discourage double posting. They’re eyesores, frankly, and they’re almost never anything but rants, and in the rare case where they aren’t, they’re still seldom worth reading. If you need more than 2000 words at one time, go write a blog. I especially hate those ‘debates’ which are lengthily dissected and quoted sentence by sentence.

 

Topic: Serious Discussion / Metadiscussion On "Serious Discussion": A Comprehensive Analysis of Its Components and Purpose

This post has been removed by an administrator or moderator
 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Metadiscussion On "Serious Discussion": A Comprehensive Analysis of Its Components and Purpose

Originally posted by donseptico:

@Jan – sorry about the paragraph… I’ve spent the last 4 hours composing various things in the mod forum (only some of which are for here, more later on that… I guess it rubbed off on me… Don’t be an ass, ok? :P

Fair enough. I’m often curious about how our overlords think behind closed doors.

to whit I guess I’m kinda seeking the group’s consent to do so, so that I’ll have a stronger argument to put forward to the admins, etc.

Oh. Ok then, sure. Sign me up too.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Metadiscussion On "Serious Discussion": A Comprehensive Analysis of Its Components and Purpose

Originally posted by donseptico:

Well this has taken an interesting turn…

Whilst it could be said that the posters herein definitely qualify as a key component of the ‘SD Experience’ being deliberately antagonistic towards them and/or their posting styles whilst doing a reasonable impression of it is somewhat hypocritical don’t we think?

Maybe it’s just from coming out of OT, but that was a rather overcomplicated paragraph imho. You’re the mod, you don’t need to hint at which posters are being douches. I’m not going to get butthurt if you call me out. It’d actually be preferable to the current strategy of anonymously deleting posts because reasons.

Methinks we need some sort of enforceable ’gentleman’s agreement’ to treat each other civilly regardless of how we feel about the opinions held by other people, maybe tone down the vitriol some, recognise our own hypocrisy and shortcomings… and dare I say it? some actual sanctions for breaking the agreement??

This is similar to how Lax policed SD and the reason I started minimodding in the first place. Mods have actual sanctions. The community doesn’t. BSG tried that gentlemanly agreement and we all applauded and it did exactly nothing because there are no consequences other than the ones in YOUR power.

Personally, I’d rather have a tyrant in charge than someone who doesn’t want to hurt our special snowflake feelings. We have one major advantage over OT [no, it isn’t that we’re more mature]. We regs tend not to make alts, so banning one troublemaker is almost as effective as an ip ban. Sure, he/she/ne might be back, but he’s going to be a lot more careful in the future. I got silenced back in November 2012 [simultaneously confirming Lax had balls after all], and it set me straight for..ah, a few months, anyway.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Metadiscussion On "Serious Discussion": A Comprehensive Analysis of Its Components and Purpose

If we can’t rely on our own people not being oversensitive, ranting, ageist douchebags [not to name names or anything] then what we SHOULD do is try to increase our population so the aforementioned douchebags will be drowned out. We can do this by poaching smart, chatty people from OT or FG [or others] and then not burn them when they arrive. Or not burn them as much as usual. Or at least – those of us who participate – trying to make them feel welcome.

I’ve already started doing this on an old alt. I think other regs who are interested in the idea should do the same, not just to widen the net but also to avoid having a single point man who is “….a contrarian hipster…who knows better and everyone else is a stupid sheep that follows trending thought.”

:) I object to the hipster label but the rest is pretty on-target.