[Forum Guide] How to clean up the Realm Forums 🙂

[Boltwrench-argent-dawn]

Your posts don’t read as though you’ve googled a research paper on the particular subject you’re posting about and are attempting to regurgitate it through a thesaurus, so I think you’re ok.

As demonstrated below.

[Athramus-argent-dawn]

When looking at the term and the context given the meaning was explicit.

Not at all.
The term justification is actually used in an ambiguous sense.

That was a term used as a result of your belief that the term ‘justification’ can only be used to refer to something objectively moral rather than a person’s subjective morality.

No; you used it when I said Perroy’s intentions aren’t genuine. Tbh, I’m not sure what your point would disprove, really.

To make it so that we’re on the same page, replace the word ‘justification’ with ‘reason’. They basically mean the same thing in this conversation.

Which makes it a tautology. Everyone has a reason to do anything, but it has absolutely zero moral relevance to the topic. I have a reason to eat if I’m hungry, but by no means that means I am morally justified in eating something. I could have a reason to rob a person if I think the world owes me a debt because my car got crashed by a tree in a street, yet that’s not a moral justification.

Going against social norms is not necessarily a moral vice.

I never argued that it is.

This seems to imply that your ‘absolute moral justifications’ fall foul of the Naturalistic Fallacy, unless these ‘recent studies’ have proven the existence of morality itself.

The naturalistic fallacy claims that you can’t derive normative statements from descriptive ones; studies can merely attest the existence of universal normative judgement in infants, and therefore suggest that morality is universal = you can attest the existence of shared forms of moral normativity among humans.

People can have bad reasons for their actions

Yes, but as I said, at this point you’ve just made a tautology. It’s completely pointless in the debate for it tells us absolutely nothing on the value said reason has for Perroy or any of us.

Native English speaker here and in the English language ‘justification’ is used in a very similar way to ‘reason’.

Yes - which makes your definition valid, but still a tautology.

[Carees-argent-dawn]

Well no. The main point of language is to communicate ideas. Outside of art, or situations where you want to add a flair it is usually best to try to state things as plainly as possible. Doing otherwise goes against the whole point of the language’s existence.

[Athramus-argent-dawn]

I agree being plain is important, but accuracy and clarification are as important, and sometimes you have to sacrifice the first to get the other two.

And unless you’ve discovered the “point of language’s existence”, I think the additional prose there is uninspired and a bit formulaic.

[Boltwrench-argent-dawn]

Well no. The main point of language is to communicate ideas. Outside of art, or situations where you want to add a flair it is usually best to try to state things as plainly as possible. Doing otherwise goes against the whole point of the language’s existence.

You can essentially sum it up as ‘you can’t disagree with me if you can’t decipher my regurgitated word salad. looks like I win again ’.

[Bragi-argent-dawn]

@Perroy-argent-dawn

So the “calling out” part didn’t happen, then? Why did you reference it

The calling out happened when Ewe posted this in response to Vixi’s words.

Goldshire kid preying hub? What to do about it?

Feel free too, but you should know that: They don’t respond to tickets relating to forums. To report people, use the report flag. That is actually a threat against another player and falls under harrasment/breaking the CoC for the forums. and of course 3, you are nowhere near as intimidating as you might think so I will keep calling out your bs.

@Perroy-argent-dawn

So you attacking someone until the yield a point = good / allowed / noble (it’s only calling out)

Quote me saying this

Oh you can’t because it’s a strawman

@Perroy-argent-dawn

You’ve been attacking them in most posts you’ve made in the last hour. Come on

By calling them a bully? They did bully Rabies, they admitted harassing, threatening, and intimidating him - all things which are included in the UK government’s definition of bullying - and then they apologised for this. What’s your issue here? That she’s not a bully because she didn’t do it, that she did do it but she’s not a bully, that she did do it and she is a bully but that’s pretty based, that she did do it, she is a bully, but I shouldn’t call her a bully because that’s a personal attack, even though by her own admission she is?

I mean I’d believe her apology and consider both her forgiven and her deeds forgotten if it weren’t for the fact that in the same post she made the apology she said I had “sinister intentions” in asking her to apologise for something she definitely did. I don’t see what’s sinister in asking her to apologise to someone she’s wronged - and indeed, in this thread, we have Vixi claiming (paradoxically) that her apology was given off her own freewill but also “maliciously” compelled. Until such a time as she can decide which it was, it’s not an apology, and if she hasn’t apologised or made amends, there’s no forgiveness. If you’re not actually sorry for bullying someone, in what way are you not still a bully?

@Perroy-argent-dawn

how awesome it was when you called out the big bully

Projection, strawman, etc

@Perroy-argent-dawn

until they were coerced into agreeing with you

Coerced by what? What threat was held over them? What penalty? I said shamed, and I said by themselves. Go ahead. Prove coercion.

@Perroy-argent-dawn

It’s the ultimate attack ape in tribe = bad attack ape outside of tribe = good philosophy at play

No it’s not that at all, it’s just you posted a series of desperately-reaching strawman arguments while shadowboxing with a figment of your own imagination

You keep having to put your words in my mouth to try manufacture wrong-doing because I’ve not actually said or even expressed the meanings you’re attributing to me

I think what’s actually happening here is that a couple of hours ago I called YOU out for taking no moral stand against bullying on the forums and ever since then you’ve been feverishly combing my posts in the hopes of discovering some grain of hypocrisy you could use to exonerate yourself - except that’s not how it works anyway and actually maybe just have a moral stance against bullying?

Instead of actually taking a moral stand against bullying all you’ve done is debate semantics by disputing the definition of bullying and try to spin the bullying behaviour of various posters in a dozen different ways so you don’t have to acknowledge any wrong-doing on their part and thus take action

How hard is it to say “bullying is wrong and it should be stopped”
not hard at all I just did it
I was happy to let lie at “agree to disagree” but since the argument did not in fact end there why don’t you just post your own definition of bullying so there can be no more confusion? What does it include?

So far we’ve established that it doesn’t include persistently insulting, demeaning, mocking, belittling, or verbally abusive behaviour since, after all, that’s not bullying, that’s just being a bit “rude” - pretty convenient - so what is bullying to you? At what point is bullying happening? When five or six people gang up on somebody, insult their intelligence, their character, their abilities, this is - according to you - not bullying, so what is?

I mean the most telling thing for me is this -

@Perroy-argent-dawn

So you attacking someone until the yield a point = good / allowed / noble (it’s only calling out)

Someone else doing the same = bullying

That’s pretty epic, I actually agree (though obviously with the positions reversed). I won’t call you out for this one

Here’s some handy summaries of bullying for you:

… it’s usually defined as behaviour that is:

• repeated
• intended to hurt someone either physically or emotionally
• often aimed at certain groups, for example because of race, religion, gender or sexual orientation

It takes many forms and can include:

• physical assault
• teasing
• making threats
• name calling
• cyberbullying - bullying via mobile phone or online (for example email, social networks and instant messenger)

Your school should have its own policy to stop bullying.

Bullying is the use of force, coercion, or threat, to abuse, aggressively dominate or intimidate. The behavior is often repeated and habitual. One essential prerequisite is the perception (by the bully or by others) of an imbalance of physical or social power. This imbalance distinguishes bullying from conflict

Hmmm, imbalance of social power? Sort of like five or six people belonging to a community ganging up on somebody else, then? No, not sort of like, exactly like.

I was challenging harassment, the posters you’re defending were attacking Rabies’ stupidity. One of those is a crime, the other’s just a person’s quality. So YOU’RE saying it’s okay to viciously attack someone for being less intelligent?

I already know the response - it’ll definitely include the phrase “100%” - and since ninety percent of your last post was you talking to yourself anyway, I’m bowing out. If you want to spend the rest of the thread chopping up my posts and putting words into my mouth so you can find a way to justify bullying, be my guest. On your conscience be it.

[Vashava-argent-dawn]

You don’t need to sacrifice plain speech for accurate speech. You are not debating quantum physics, you are bickering on a forum. Speak plainly or no-one will understand you, and then they’ll just ignore you as a mad rambling fool in the corner of the forum.

[Elyrius-argent-dawn]

Which makes it a tautology.

The term tautology is generally applied to two things that bear the same meaning but are expressed through different words in the same sentence, not just pointing out “x word means the same as y word”.

Your response to Carees didn’t actually mean anything at all (quite ironically given you implied similarly to them and their post) and is yet another of various examples across the forums of your pseudo-intellectual comic act that you can’t actually properly keep up

[Athramus-argent-dawn]

The term tautology is generally applied to two things that bear the same meaning but are expressed through different words in the same sentence, not just pointing out “x word means the same as y word”.

Im not even sure if you agree that her point is a tautology or not. Your definition also uses many more words than necessary, words that don’t have to apply for something to be a tautology. A tautology is anything that expresses the same thing through different words.

There is no need to add “in the same sentence” or anything like that because it’s not needed and not true.

If you say X refers to Z and Y refers to Z, and there’s no difference between the two, then they express the same thing.

Your response to Carees didn’t actually mean anything at all

My point is actually important, because it says that at this level of the discussion any solid concept of having an justification (even a morally subjective one) - “why something is right to do” - is already lost in her definition.

[Carees-argent-dawn]

I agree being plain is important, but accuracy and clarification are as important, and sometimes you have to sacrifice the first to get the other two.

Your posts are so unintelligible as a result of you trying to be ‘accurate and clear’ that you might as well be posting nothing but jargon* for all the good it does.

*Basically Jargon means technical terms and expressions from professions that lay people are unlikely to understand. Ironically the term itself fits the definition.

And unless you’ve discovered the “point of language’s existence”

You not understanding simple English despite attempting to swing around your vocabulary at every chance was funny. You not even understanding where and how I was arguing from despite how clear it was became sad. This comment? That’s just mind numbing.

[Krasarang-argent-dawn (Krasarang)]

I started this thread dead against the O/P’s idea and tool, but after scrolling through it all, I am tempted by such powers the O/P offers…I must…resist…

[Boltwrench-argent-dawn]

There is no need to add “in the same sentence” or anything like that because it’s not needed and not true.

A tautology is a sentence or phrase that contains words that convey the same meaning and render each other unnecessary, for example “the service was adequate enough” or “we must come together and unite”. This is such a weird hill to die on honestly.

[Carees-argent-dawn]

When you stare into the forums the forums stare back.

[Athramus-argent-dawn]

You not understanding simple English despite attempting to swing around your vocabulary at every chance was funny.

Saying that it is ambiguous could mean - it did mean that - that it could refer to multiple things in the context, and that such should be clarified.

I know you want to sound smart, but saying things like your arguments are bad because I don’t understand them is not necessarily a good point to make.

[Krasarang-argent-dawn (Krasarang)]

Yeah for me the problem is that my curiosity consumes me to know what people are saying, even though I find the general toxicity of the forums to sometimes be a tad bit upsetting, but I gotta tell myself to get a grip.

[Carees-argent-dawn]

Take it all as a bit of a joke. I’m sure even the most rude posters can be nice enough ingame when you have a one on one chat with them. It’s just the nature of the beast for the forums to be rude.

[Athramus-argent-dawn]

A tautology is a sentence or phrase that contains words that convey the same meaning

They don’t have to be in the same phrase, as long as they are associated, the result is the same.

[Bloodshroud-argent-dawn (Bloodshroud)]

Im not even sure if you agree that her point is a tautology or not.

He probably doesn’t because you’re wrong and her point is in fact not a tautology

Your definition also uses many more words than necessary, words that don’t have to apply for something to be a tautology. A tautology is anything that expresses the same thing through different words. There is no need to add “in the same sentence” or anything like that because it’s not needed and not true.

After the incorruptible (read: unfixable) supreme grasp upon the English language you’ve demonstrated in this thread I can’t believe I have to correct the old dragon, but if you were to actually google what tautology is you would find this as the first and main definition:

the saying of the same thing twice over in different words, generally considered to be a fault of style (e.g. they arrived one after the other in succession).

Which unless you’ve somehow unlocked [Spectral Sight] on the forums makes the point you’re chasing simply incorrect (as you almost always and exclusively are)

Here are some more fun things for you to look up and incorrectly use in the future:
Synonym: a word that means the same thing as another word (sound familiar?)
Polysemy: a capacity for a single word to have multiple meanings
Antonym: a word that means the opposite of another word
Contronym: a word that is the opposite of itself

Happy language butchering, dragon erper

[Mithchá-argent-dawn]

Take it all as a bit of a joke. I’m sure even the most rude posters can be nice enough ingame when you have a one on one chat with them. It’s just the nature of the beast for the forums to be rude.

Can’t help but think part of the issue is perception of tone. Noticed that IG people tend to use emoticons and such more, or the text… equivalent… they are text. Yeah. : ) : P etc. Whereas here, if they are used, they’re almost used in mockery.

And of course people read something as hostile or angry when it’s typed out in, from the posters perspective, calmness.

Forums. Weird places.

[Carees-argent-dawn]

Yeah. You honestly need to go all out with the theatrics to get your emotions across sometimes.