Recent posts by StOtS on Kongregate

Flag Post

Topic: Off-topic / Fresh new haircut...

 
Flag Post

Topic: Kongregate / My personal opinion, Administrators are making Moderators handle trolls on chat rooms sort of wrong.

We have had a couple of mods who dealt with this kind of thing terribly, and because of that I totally understand your point.

It basically devolves into a pissing contest between the ‘troll’ and the mod and the rest of chat suffers because of it.

I think a lot of mods aren’t aware that when it comes to ‘trolling’, they’re as much a part of the problem as they are a solution.

Just the other day a mod from another room came into our chat and started egging on a ‘troll’ from one of their rooms and basically refocused the conversation almost entirely around the ‘troll’, giving him the attention he undoubtedly wanted for the sake of trying to prove their authority in a room they didn’t mod in.

Similarly, we’ve had plenty of cases where mods either respond to ‘trolls’ instead of just warning and moving on, or hold grudges against certain ‘trolls’ who (as you mentioned) may just be there for conversation but are interrupted immediately with something like “Oh, you again. I’m not going to warn you more than once”.

Granted, one of the mods most guilty of that in our room was demodded recently – so clearly the admins don’t approve of that kind of behaviour from mods. But I don’t think they do enough about it. I mean, if a regular user was ‘feeding the trolls’ the mods would likely tell them to move on. But when the mod is the one ‘feeding the trolls’…

Right now we’re fortunate to have mods who know how to deal with it properly, who don’t give elaborate and detailed warnings because they just assume the person is doing it intentionally and is aware of the specifics of what rules they’re breaking.

Admins don’t want mods to act like police and they don’t expect them to take their volunteer position extremely seriously, but some people do. I’d say just report the mods who do it and leave a detailed description of what’s happening. From experience, the admins do respond to mod reports and they take them seriously (so long as you have a valid complaint) and, if necessary, will ask the mod to handle things better.


Originally posted by cargo11900:

Mods have an obligation/duty if you must to stop something before it starts.

No they don’t, they’re free to act upon or ignore whatever they want.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Off-topic / I don't get how sex works.

I do it to release some stuff so my reproductive organs keep active and they don’t start malfunctioning.

Good move. I hear if you don’t masturbate every 1-2 days, your balls explode and you die.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Off-topic / Who do I trust and who is troll?

trust no1

 
Flag Post

Topic: Kongregate / OT NEEDS to be cleaned up

Maybe just don’t go to OT if you’re easily offended.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Off-topic / OT DEBATES #1: Does God Exist?

Originally posted by melbourneboy:

I disagree on all religious views on 2 things!

  • There are a veriaty of different religions
  • Some believe in a same god, the rest believe in a different god

Then I disagree that the bible can predict the future, as well as tell the whole story of the past

  • “In the beginning, god created the heavens and the earth… And on the seventh day, he rested”

No, and no. It took millions of years for our solar system to form, as well as it took billions of years for the Earth to come this far from dust and rocks. Actually, it took over 14 billion years for our universe to come to how it is today.

  • “And God created a flood in which Noah built an Ark to save every species, 2 of each kind.”

No once again. Ok, there is evidence that there was a time when Earth was covered in water with very little landmass. But that was during the “Late Heavy Bombardment” when comets came smashing into Earth for millions of years, giving water to this planet. And back in the early Earth, the planet was spinning a lot faster, due to:

  • A planet called Thea, crashing into Earth during the time when Earth was still forming, giving the planet a rapid rotation where an entire day lasted 6 hours
  • And the moon Formation, placing the moon closer to the earth, in the first few millions of years after it formed.

There is also other things that I could say, but the way I see it, the “so-called” bible, doesn’t hold any good knowledge of anything, past, present or future.

You realise that the Bible doesn’t present itself as a historical or scientific text, and that most Christians agree that the stories of the old testament (which is what you’ve mentioned) are metaphorical and designed to teach right?

Genesis (where man’s creation and the story of the flood appear) is about the omnipotence of God, the corruption of man, the benevolence of God and the necessity of man’s servitude to God in order to resist corruption. The story of Noah’s Ark is about cleansing (think, symbolic use of water) the world of corruption and starting anew.

It’s not meant to be a realistic representation of anything. I mean, many figures in the first 2 parts of the old testament live around 180-970 years of age (it varies) which we KNOW is scientifically impossible. That in itself has symbolic meaning. When man was ‘created’ by God, he was meant to be able to live forever, should he not succumb to sin – but man DID succumb to sin (the apple and the snake – could those symbols be any more obvious if they tried?) and from that point on (particularly after the Flood) the lifespans began to decrease until the average man lived to 70-80.

The Old Testament is all metaphorical. There’s no reason to suggest it ever intended to replace scientific knowledge, just to supplement it with some kind of ‘grand narrative’. And history isn’t taken to account at all until the New Testament – it was unimportant to produce a historically accurate account of events until then. In Christianity, think of the significance of the way we number our years – ‘Year 0’ was the year Jesus was supposedly born. Time started with Him.

Look at a show like Sesame Street, with big talking birds and shit. It teaches kids how to read, write, count, distinguish between colours etc. We don’t say “oh look a big fucking yellow bird that can talk, that can’t exist so let’s just ignore everything this show has to offer our kids, condemn it for being scientifically inaccurate and convince everyone it’s pointless shit”.

No, we don’t do that. Because we know it’s fictional and that for kids that’s an engaging way of learning.

The same can apply to basically any work of fiction that provides a moral message. Animal Farm? Talking animals? No one gives that shit, because they recognise it’s an allegorical tool.

I’m not sure why people find it so hard to consider the Bible in the same light as either of those things.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Off-topic / Overheard in Anthill * Warning offensive!

What the fuck.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Off-topic / Aguspal vs niceman

Originally posted by niceman555:

Which tumor is worse for the future of OT?

You.

I like aguspal.

 

Topic: Off-topic / do you have a signifigant other?

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

Topic: Off-topic / OT DEBATES #1: Does God Exist?

Flawed logic.
The problem is, let me find the correct comic…
http://imgur.com/mNGdkeS
Religious people shout secularism but let it seep into policy.
So in order to say “Hey, let’s base our policy on EVIDENCE and not beliefs” we need to “debunk” their beliefs so our policy can be grounded in reality as opposed to fantasy and whim.

I’m not sure how that’s related to the point I was making about explaining the existence of God. To go into a little more detail:

You can’t use science to rationalise spirituality and more than you can use the irrationality of religion to explain scientific phenomena. “God created man” isn’t a satisfactory response to “HOW do humans exist”, yet “we evolved over billions of years” isn’t a satisfactory response to “WHY humans exist”. In my opinion (and that’s all it is), science and religion are trying to answer fundamentally different questions.

That being said, Discussing whether or not God exists is very different to discussing religion’s role in state affairs.

I agree that we shouldn’t derive social policy from a text which is no longer contextually relevant. And I acknowledge that despite that, religion still has a presence in state affairs. But to argue that ‘evidence’ is a more suitable foundation for policy than ‘belief’ is flawed logic.

Economic policy (neo-liberalsm vs. Keynesian policies vs. Socialism) is heavily grounded in ‘belief’ – it may not be religious belief, but it’s a belief nonetheless – a belief that one will produce more beneficial results, a belief in the way those in charge think their nation should develop.

If we wanted to be purely rational about it, perhaps we’d adopt a policy of social Darwinism where only those capable of supporting themselves are able to survive, because the rest are nothing more than a burden. Surely then we’d produce the most efficient society.

I mean, that’s just one example. But if you look at other areas of policy, such as education, industrial relations, defence/security, the environment, etc. they’re all defined by beliefs rather than ‘evidence’ – and I hope it stays that way, because if we start trying to approach these questions scientifically, we’ll rationalise them to the point of irrationality.

And really, if we’re talking about Western nations – religion doesn’t interfere anywhere near as much as people would have us believe. The big areas are really concerned with marriage/sexuality/children – and despite the loud voices of opposition, there has been a lot of progress in liberalising policy in that regard.

And it’s not ‘evidence’ which is pushing for marriage equality, or progressive abortion law or whatever – it’s the belief that people should be free to make their own choices concerning personal affairs.

TL;DR – It’s not a question of ‘evidence’ vs. ‘belief’, because belief is what primarily determines government policy today – it’s why we generally operate under a 2/multi-party system in democracies rather than a 1-party state. That belief used to be religion, now it’s ‘civic religion’, a dedication to the principles of liberty, democracy, universal rights, capitalism, etc. Religion doesn’t occupy the same place it once had, and rather than religion ‘seeping into’ policy, it’s more likely that religion is ‘seeping out’ or being replaced by new beliefs.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Off-topic / OT DEBATES #1: Does God Exist?

It doesn’t matter whether or not God actually exists.

What matters is that people think God exists, and that can provide them with guidance, answers, comfort or whatever.

And it should be left at that. Trying to fight it with science or logic is pointless. You can’t use science to explain or debunk religion any more than religion can be used to explain or debunk science. They’re two very different paradigms.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Off-topic / how many of your posts have been removed by mods

Not enough.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Off-topic / Write an Rotten-Tomatoes movie review

Rotten Tomatoes is a review aggregator and bases its scores on a combination of scores from critics (or users, depending on which score you view). That means, there isn’t any one review for a movie. RT provides a synopsis and an assortment of reviews, but not one kind of all-encompassing review. It’s like Metacritic.

Aside from the fact this is a shitty bandwagon thread, you’ve totally missed the point of what RT does.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Off-topic / I am tempted to switch schools just so I can 100% fully ignore this ugly girl.

Originally posted by Darkscanner:

Honestly I’m just in a bad mood now. I momentary forgot how aggressive people on the internet tend to be toward my taking sympathetic position. >_>

It’s possible to take a sympathetic position without taking an antagonistic or judgmental one towards the person making the complaint.

Clearly something this girl is doing is bothering him, and the last thing anyone in that situation wants to hear is something along the lines of “you’re being a shallow jerk, change your attitude and get over it”.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Off-topic / I am tempted to switch schools just so I can 100% fully ignore this ugly girl.

Originally posted by Darkscanner:
Originally posted by StOtS:
Originally posted by Darkscanner:

You may have said you hate everything about her, yet the only features you mention are ones of her distasteful appearance, you even emphasize it by including that detail in the title. Seems to me as though it’s at the top of your list.

He does say “I hate her, in every last aspect as a human and a soul” – so it does go beyond appearance.

You’re making the assumptions here. Cara doesn’t mention appearance until the last line, the first thing he mentions is what she’s like as a person and the fact that she won’t leave him alone. People can have “ugly” personalities.

As for the “still shallow either way” shit, appearance and aesthetics are important in terms of attraction. Appearance is the real “first impression”, get over it. Either way, this isn’t a case of “I hate her because she’s ugly”, it’s “I hate her because she’s stalking me, because she’s a clingy and obsessive bitch who also happens to be ugly”.

Read the OP before you start spouting shit you mong.

You say he doesn’t mention she’s ugly until the last line, except, you know, by putting it in the title he is effectively putting it in the first line as well.

I didn’t deny the fact that he may have other reasons for disliking her, I only called him out on the fact that he admitted that her being unattractive was a key reason behind his dislike.

I agree, appearances do matter. I also still uphold my belief that it’s shallow to dislike someone on the basis of appearance, even if it is in our nature.

I did read the OP, but I’m not quite sure you read my post all the way through…

Looks like you can’t read posts either, specifically the “people can have ugly personalities” part, which covers the title. If I have to spell it out further, the title doesn’t say anything about whether or not the girl is physically unattractive, that conclusion was drawn from your assumption.

Furthermore, if you bothered reading my third paragraph you’d note that “this isn’t a case of ‘I hate her because she’s ugly’, it’s ‘I hate her because she’s stalking me…” – clearly his “key reason” behind the dislike is that she “won’t leave him alone” and that he hates “every last aspect as a human and a soul”.

Of course, we aren’t given any insight into what aspects of her soul he dislikes, but we can probably guess it has something to do with her obsessive and clingy personality and these patterns of behaviour which have been going on for a number of months now.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Off-topic / I am an ugly girl and this cute guy keeps avoiding my advances

Stop being so materialistic all you talk about is how attractive he is but you don’t talk about what he’s like as a person. You’re really shallow!!

 
Flag Post

Topic: Off-topic / I am tempted to switch schools just so I can 100% fully ignore this ugly girl.

Originally posted by Darkscanner:

You may have said you hate everything about her, yet the only features you mention are ones of her distasteful appearance, you even emphasize it by including that detail in the title. Seems to me as though it’s at the top of your list.

He does say “I hate her, in every last aspect as a human and a soul” – so it does go beyond appearance.

You’re making the assumptions here. Cara doesn’t mention appearance until the last line, the first thing he mentions is what she’s like as a person and the fact that she won’t leave him alone. People can have “ugly” personalities.

As for the “still shallow either way” shit, appearance and aesthetics are important in terms of attraction. Appearance is the real “first impression”, get over it. Either way, this isn’t a case of “I hate her because she’s ugly”, it’s “I hate her because she’s stalking me, because she’s a clingy and obsessive bitch who also happens to be ugly”.

Read the OP before you start spouting shit you mong.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Off-topic / Good movies?

Here are some thrillers – not always action, but all very engaging nonetheless.

- The Silence of the Lambs
- The Usual Suspects
- No Country for Old Men (probably my favourite film)
- The Grey
- Memento
- A Most Wanted Man (Hoffman’s last lead role, great performance, great thriller).
- A Walk Among the Tombstones (Liam Neeson, so you know it’s great).

 
Flag Post

Topic: Off-topic / Have you ever taken "dangerous" drugs?

Alcohol and tobacco yes, although I’ve been sober for a couple of months and plan to keep it that way.

As for illicit drugs – I’ve never seen the appeal and haven’t felt the need to experiment. The thought of essentially losing the capacity to control myself unsettles me, and I would never willingly do that – especially with something that I don’t know how it would affect me.

I’ve always felt alcohol was different in that regard, because at least I could (theoretically) control the amount I consume and stop when I felt my control was slipping. That said, I’ve realised that I have a hard time of stopping once I’ve started so I decided the best solution was to not drink at all.

I have close friends who do use drugs – at first I did publicly express my disapproval about it but have since given up on that. They’re free to do what they want, take whatever risks they want (whether it be health-wise or legal) and even encourage it if they so wish.

But coming from a relatively conservative background, being brought up somewhat religiously, with family members in the legal profession, and from a personal moral standpoint, I have always thought of drugs as ‘bad’, and the level of respect I have for people who take them plummets because I subconsciously make the association between drugs and ‘weakness’, ‘temptation’, ‘depravity’, ‘recklessness’ and a whole load of other Biblical buzzwords. I don’t criticise people for their choices publicly, I try to steer clear of making my opinions known when asked, but I don’t seek to alter the way I feel about it.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Off-topic / Write an IGN review

Originally posted by Gabidou99:
Originally posted by burntfires22:
Originally posted by abraaz:

Pokemon ORAS: Too much water, 7.8/10

Beat me to it, damn.

IGN really rated it 7.8 for that reason, too.

Yeah that was the joke.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Off-topic / Describe OTers in one word

Originally posted by Gabidou99:
Originally posted by StOtS:

So we can’t call people shitposters even if they clearly are, but you’re allowed to call people bullies and haters? That’s just as harsh, especially if they aren’t either of those things.

Hater and Bully aren’t harsh a lot compared to “Shitposter”.

Shitposter isn’t a harsh term.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Off-topic / Describe OTers in one word

So we can’t call people shitposters even if they clearly are, but you’re allowed to call people bullies and haters? That’s just as harsh, especially if they aren’t either of those things.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Off-topic / Have you ever taken "dangerous" drugs?

Originally posted by pig5:

And pcp

Originally posted by radar816:

There are only 3 “dangerous” drugs.
Meth
Heroin
Cocaine
The rest, while harmful in some way, don’t even reach the scale of those.

And alcohol, and tobacco.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Off-topic / "Bandwagoning" is a thing here in kong forums?

Originally posted by aguspal:

Yes, and it had potential to make the overall thread quality to go really high or really low… it depens on some factors, but I think itd safe to say, they can be an absolute game changer to OT, at least until mod comes and locks them….

What the fuck are you talking about? Bandwagon threads are always spam. They can be fun sometimes, but they’re still spam nonetheless. All it takes is one person taking it too far to turn this forum into a big fucking mess.

 

Topic: Off-topic / Define a troll.

This post has been removed by an administrator or moderator