Rules of Engagement

G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

This is something that everyone here has probably read before, but
recent events show that it needs to be seen again.

====================================================================
The Rules of Engagement (simplified version)

1) If you resort to personal insults in a discussion, also known as
"ad hominem" personal attacks, you automatically lose the argument.

2) Don't psycho-analyze people that post. If you don't have the
training, you just look foolish and may find others psycho-analyzing you.

3) If you send a post that adds nothing to the logic of the discussion
and simply shows how mean you are, you automatically lose the argument
and may be killfiled.

4) Gross generalizations are rarely accurate and are easily proven
false. Don't assume anything about a poster that they haven't
explicitly expressed. If you do, prepare to lose the argument.

5) If you're looking to be offended, you probably will be. Don't
continually complain about it when you are, or engage in a volley of
retorts. If you do, you automatically lose status, waste bandwidth and
are likely to get yourself killfiled by the regulars. Sending posts to
the group that are never read can be very unrewarding.

6) The exchange of ideas is a challenging task. It is also one of the
most important things in the world, and a core part of discussion
groups like MCFL on usenet. If you are not capable of participating in
exchanges with civility, then at least have the sense to remove
yourself from the debate.

7) Please remember the facts and do your background research. Don't
just parrot rhetoric that you heard on the radio or read in print
somewhere. Unsupported rhetoric is the bane of usenet. If you're not
willing to spend the time collecting the information and facts to
support your position, then please sit on the sidelines. If you don't,
you may find that others who have done their research can totally
destroy your argument.

8) Please have the courtesy to post under a single name. Some posters
try to bolster their positions by posting from multiple accounts or
changing their name. This can temporarily confuse others, and thwart
killfiles, but those who do so are even more likely to be killfiled.
Don't bother saying you have killfiled a particular poster, it isn't
needed. Killfiling the worst offenders is the best way to keep the
group sane.

9) Keep your attributions and quotes straight. If you cut posts and
include portions in your responses incorrectly, you may give the
impression that poster A has said something that was actually said by
poster B. Trim posts, but be accurate and trim with context.

10) Don't even think about posting in HTML or posting with
attachments. Thoughtless behavior like this or massive uncorrected
spelling errors will get you killfiled.
====================================================================

Also, another tidbit I dug up, that Neo should take notice of:

"If you have not been abusive and are personally attacked by someone
who can't resist saying something like "you ignorant slut" or worse,
congratulate yourself on having won the discussion and respond only
with a simple "You lose." The regulars will recognise that you abide
by civilized "rules of engagement" Your continuing a discussion with a
person who has already resorted to a personal attack upon you is
strikingly similar behavior to that of a beaten wife who repeatedly
returns to the husband that beats her. Responding to insults is not
mature behavior and does not make you a better person. Resist the
impulse to try to reason with such people or placate them. Some of
these posters regularly engage in personal attacks for their own
enjoyment, and the resulting responses just clutter the group with
useless posts."


--
"There are of course many problems connected with life, of
which some of the most popular are `Why are people born?'
`Why do they die?' `Why do they spend so much of the
intervening time wearing digital watches?'"

-- The Book.
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

Timothy Pruett wrote:
>
> "If you have not been abusive and are personally attacked by someone
> who can't resist saying something like "you ignorant slut" or worse,
> congratulate yourself on having won the discussion and respond only
> with a simple "You lose."

This is not good advice. The correct response is not to reply with
"You lose". It is to not reply at all.

I find myself exercising that option a lot recently.
--
Jeff Lait
(POWDER: http://www.zincland.com/powder)
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

Jeff Lait wrote:
> Timothy Pruett wrote:
>
>>"If you have not been abusive and are personally attacked by someone
>>who can't resist saying something like "you ignorant slut" or worse,
>>congratulate yourself on having won the discussion and respond only
>>with a simple "You lose."
>
>
> This is not good advice. The correct response is not to reply with
> "You lose". It is to not reply at all.
>
> I find myself exercising that option a lot recently.

Oh, I agree completely. I'm just quoting this from another group's
FAQ I stumbled across online. I find that 99% of what was said is
valid advice that more people here should listen to. But yes, it's
better to just not reply to someone like that.


--
"There are of course many problems connected with life, of
which some of the most popular are `Why are people born?'
`Why do they die?' `Why do they spend so much of the
intervening time wearing digital watches?'"

-- The Book.
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

Jeff Lait wrote::

> Timothy Pruett wrote:
>
>>"If you have not been abusive and are personally attacked by someone
>>who can't resist saying something like "you ignorant slut" or worse,
>>congratulate yourself on having won the discussion and respond only
>>with a simple "You lose."
>
> This is not good advice. The correct response is not to reply with
> "You lose". It is to not reply at all.
>
> I find myself exercising that option a lot recently.

IMO it's the better option. Any message, particularly a "you lose" can
trigger a response (in that case most likely a flame) while not sending
a message most likely ends the thread at that point.

--
c.u. Hajo
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

Hansjoerg Malthaner <hansjoerg.malthaner@nurfuerspam.de>
wrote on Mon, 09 May 2005 11:24:56 +0200:
> Jeff Lait wrote::
>> Timothy Pruett wrote:
>>>"If you have not been abusive and are personally attacked by someone
>>>who can't resist saying something like "you ignorant slut" or worse,
>>>congratulate yourself on having won the discussion and respond only
>>>with a simple "You lose."
>> This is not good advice. The correct response is not to reply with
>> "You lose". It is to not reply at all.
>> I find myself exercising that option a lot recently.
> IMO it's the better option. Any message, particularly a "you lose" can
> trigger a response (in that case most likely a flame) while not sending
> a message most likely ends the thread at that point.

I think it's worthwhile to respond to a hate message with a plonk,
maybe a few words saying why. Some people are too stupid or insane to
understand plonks, though, which is why I have my plonk page:
<http://kuoi.asui.uidaho.edu/~kamikaze/doc/plonk.html>

--
<a href="http://kuoi.asui.uidaho.edu/~kamikaze/"> Mark Hughes </a>
"Gibson and I dueled among blazing stacks of books for a while. [...] The
streets were crowded with his black-suited minions and I had to turn into a
swarm of locusts and fly back to Seattle." -Neal Stephenson, /. interview
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

Mark 'Kamikaze' Hughes wrote:
> Hansjoerg Malthaner <hansjoerg.malthaner@nurfuerspam.de>
> wrote on Mon, 09 May 2005 11:24:56 +0200:
>
>>Jeff Lait wrote::
>>
>>>Timothy Pruett wrote:
>>>
>>>>"If you have not been abusive and are personally attacked by someone
>>>>who can't resist saying something like "you ignorant slut" or worse,
>>>>congratulate yourself on having won the discussion and respond only
>>>>with a simple "You lose."
>>>
>>>This is not good advice. The correct response is not to reply with
>>>"You lose". It is to not reply at all.
>>>I find myself exercising that option a lot recently.
>>
>>IMO it's the better option. Any message, particularly a "you lose" can
>>trigger a response (in that case most likely a flame) while not sending
>>a message most likely ends the thread at that point.
>
>
> I think it's worthwhile to respond to a hate message with a plonk,
> maybe a few words saying why. Some people are too stupid or insane to
> understand plonks, though, which is why I have my plonk page:
> <http://kuoi.asui.uidaho.edu/~kamikaze/doc/plonk.html>

Even though it's a bit harsh, I always chuckle whenever I see your
plonk page. I guess, if you're going to killfile someone, you might
as well do it in style. ;-)


--
"There are of course many problems connected with life, of
which some of the most popular are `Why are people born?'
`Why do they die?' `Why do they spend so much of the
intervening time wearing digital watches?'"

-- The Book.
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

Timothy Pruett wrote:
> 6) The exchange of ideas is a challenging task. It is also one of the
> most important things in the world, and a core part of discussion groups
> like MCFL on usenet.

MCFL?

Anyways, the problem is that the exchange of ideas is the furthest thing
from some peoples' minds, particularly the one pretending (very badly,
at that) to be my mother.

> 8) Please have the courtesy to post under a single name. Some posters
> try to bolster their positions by posting from multiple accounts or
> changing their name.

This seems directed directly at the aforementioned net.stalking prick.

--
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
Palladium? Trusted Computing? DRM? Microsoft? Sauron.
"One ring to rule them all, one ring to find them
One ring to bring them all, and in the darkness bind them."
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

Mark 'Kamikaze' Hughes wrote:
> I think it's worthwhile to respond to a hate message with a plonk,
> maybe a few words saying why. Some people are too stupid or insane to
> understand plonks, though, which is why I have my plonk page:
> <http://kuoi.asui.uidaho.edu/~kamikaze/doc/plonk.html>

I wonder... who from rgrd is in your killfile? Plain curiosity. I for
instance never had *plonked* anybody. Although "TO mom" is the closest yet.
--
At your service,
Kornel Kisielewicz (charonATmagma-net.pl) [http://chaos.magma-net.pl]
"From what I've read, a lot of people believe that GenRogue
exists and will be released some day" -- Arxenia Xentrophore
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

Kornel Kisielewicz <kisielewicz@gazeta.pl>
wrote on Tue, 10 May 2005 01:44:05 +0200:
> Mark 'Kamikaze' Hughes wrote:
>> I think it's worthwhile to respond to a hate message with a plonk,
>> maybe a few words saying why. Some people are too stupid or insane to
>> understand plonks, though, which is why I have my plonk page:
>> <http://kuoi.asui.uidaho.edu/~kamikaze/doc/plonk.html>
> I wonder... who from rgrd is in your killfile? Plain curiosity. I for
> instance never had *plonked* anybody. Although "TO mom" is the closest yet.

I normally killfile idiots in all groups (they're not gonna get
smarter by going somewhere else), so I'm not sure about everyone, but
the rgr*-only kills are:
From: "blondy" <blondy@ihug\.com\.au>
From: doom_Machine@hotmail\.com
From: "copx" <invalid@invalid\.com>

I've got all posts from Twisted One killfiled in all groups, and here
I have all replies to him scored down a bit, so it takes a higher-scored
poster for me to see any reply.

Life's short. Once someone shows they're not worth my time, it's not
profitable for me to spend time reevaluating them. Like I say in my
plonk page, if they catch a clue quick maybe everyone won't have
killfiled them.

--
<a href="http://kuoi.asui.uidaho.edu/~kamikaze/"> Mark Hughes </a>
"Gibson and I dueled among blazing stacks of books for a while. [...] The
streets were crowded with his black-suited minions and I had to turn into a
swarm of locusts and fly back to Seattle." -Neal Stephenson, /. interview
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

Twisted One wrote:
> Timothy Pruett wrote:
>
>> 6) The exchange of ideas is a challenging task. It is also one of the
>> most important things in the world, and a core part of discussion
>> groups like MCFL on usenet.
>
>
> MCFL?

This list was taken from another group's FAQ. I don't remember which
group, but it doesn't really matter.

> Anyways, the problem is that the exchange of ideas is the furthest thing
> from some peoples' minds, particularly the one pretending (very badly,
> at that) to be my mother.

Which is why all those not engaging in the exchange of ideas should be
completely ignored.

>> 8) Please have the courtesy to post under a single name. Some posters
>> try to bolster their positions by posting from multiple accounts or
>> changing their name.
>
>
> This seems directed directly at the aforementioned net.stalking prick.

It's not really directed at anyone. I didn't create this list.
Indeed, a number of groups have some variant of this list in their
FAQ. However, in here, it's definitely most applicable to "Twisted
One's Mother", who's undeniably the worst troll rgrd has ever seen.
All flames, and not one valid post.


--
"There are of course many problems connected with life, of
which some of the most popular are `Why are people born?'
`Why do they die?' `Why do they spend so much of the
intervening time wearing digital watches?'"

-- The Book.
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

On Tue, 10 May 2005, Twisted One wrote:

>> 8) Please have the courtesy to post under a single name. Some posters
>> try to bolster their positions by posting from multiple accounts or
>> changing their name.
>
> This seems directed directly at the aforementioned net.stalking prick.

YOU STUPID IDIOT. Listen, you have posted under different names. I have
not. Also, how am I net.stalking you? You're so full of it, shithead.
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

Timothy Pruett wrote:
>> This seems directed directly at the aforementioned net.stalking prick.
>
> It's not really directed at anyone. I didn't create this list.

Hence the choice of the word "seems". :)

> However, in here, it's definitely most applicable to "Twisted One's
> Mother", who's undeniably the worst troll rgrd has ever seen. All
> flames, and not one valid post.

Not under that 'nym at any rate.

--
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
Palladium? Trusted Computing? DRM? Microsoft? Sauron.
"One ring to rule them all, one ring to find them
One ring to bring them all, and in the darkness bind them."
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

On Tue, 10 May 2005, Twisted One wrote:

> [snip lies and deceit]

You still harping on this? Are you so stupid that you think people read
that and believe you? Get over it, idiot boy.
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

Kornel Kisielewicz wrote:
> Mark 'Kamikaze' Hughes wrote:

> I wonder... who from rgrd is in your killfile? Plain curiosity. I for
> instance never had *plonked* anybody. Although "TO mom" is the closest yet.

I'm not reading anything from any poster whose name contains
"Twisted O" as a substring here.

For a while, I had it set so nothing posted referring to an
article from such a person would show either, but that's
become less necessary and it was nuking most of the group.

Bear
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

In article <Ls6dnbHrcMf_6-PfRVn-2w@adelphia.com>,
Timothy Pruett <drakalor.tourist@gmail.com> wrote:
[...]
>The Rules of Engagement (simplified version)
[...]

Even more simplified: If your message isn't interesting to the group
as a whole, don't post it. That's what email is for.

Troll baiting, like other kinds of baiting, should not be done in
public.


--Chris


--
Chris Reuter http://www.blit.ca
"It's a worse addiction than drugs, I'll tell you that. ... Guys like Lou Reed,
Iggy, Dylan, Neil Young ... Pantera, Megadeth, Metallica and all those bands
out there playing golf. Everyone plays." --Alice Cooper
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

Chris Reuter wrote:
> In article <Ls6dnbHrcMf_6-PfRVn-2w@adelphia.com>,
> Timothy Pruett <drakalor.tourist@gmail.com> wrote:
> [...]
>
>>The Rules of Engagement (simplified version)
>
> [...]
>
> Even more simplified: If your message isn't interesting to the group
> as a whole, don't post it. That's what email is for.
>
> Troll baiting, like other kinds of baiting, should not be done in
> public.

I fail to see how it could possibly be interpreted as troll-baiting.
It's valid, helpful advice, that many groups put in their FAQ for that
very reason. I don't know if it's coincidence or whether this
actually helped, but not too long after this was posted, Neo killfiled
"TOm", and this group got a lot quieter and more civil.

This thread generated no flames, with the sole exception of the posts
from "TOm", but he flames every thread, so it doesn't count. And to
your original point, I don't care whether or not the whole group found
it "interesting", because it was still something that several
individuals needed to read. If you didn't feel it was necessary,
well, don't read it. Once again, I don't know if it's coincidence or
not, but this group has certainly been a lot more peaceful these last
few days, and I'd like to think that this thread was somehow helpful
to achieving that goal.

Suggesting that people act civil, show courtesy to other posters, and
generally behave like mature adults could hardly be considered
"troll-baiting".


--
SoulEaterRL... Coming soon!

http://www.freewebs.com/timsrl/index.htm

--
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

Timothy Pruett wrote:
[snip]

I think he was suggesting that "if it's not interesting to the whole
group take it to email" be a simplified replacement for those rules, not
that those rules themselves should be taken to email. :)

--
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
Palladium? Trusted Computing? DRM? Microsoft? Sauron.
"One ring to rule them all, one ring to find them
One ring to bring them all, and in the darkness bind them."
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

Twisted One wrote:
> Timothy Pruett wrote:
> [snip]
>
> I think he was suggesting that "if it's not interesting to the whole
> group take it to email" be a simplified replacement for those rules, not
> that those rules themselves should be taken to email. :)

Er... After rereading Chris's post, I see that you're right. Man, do
I feel like a retard. ;-P

My sincere apologies to Chris if I came across sounding a bit
hotheaded. I really do feel like a bit of an idiot right now...


--
SoulEaterRL... Coming soon!

http://www.freewebs.com/timsrl/index.htm

--