Why You Believe

[Aino Ailill]

Violet Song jat Shariff

*puts on crew hat*
Ishtar Shatki, if you are done in this thread (as you said you were a page or two ago), then be done with it and move on. Do not revisit it. Do not continue to post in it. To keep posting in this thread anymore aside from responding to Nuri's request is viewed as trolling.

Why?  

[Recursive Paradox]

Aino Ailill

Violet Song jat Shariff

*puts on crew hat*
Ishtar Shatki, if you are done in this thread (as you said you were a page or two ago), then be done with it and move on. Do not revisit it. Do not continue to post in it. To keep posting in this thread anymore aside from responding to Nuri's request is viewed as trolling.

Why?

I would hazard a guess to say it's because Ishtar's patterns are beginning to match that of a concern troll and a noise troll at the same time. She's incorporating a great deal of nonsense into her posts (i.e. inconsistencies, non sequitors, irrelevancies, and "I was just messing with you" goalpost moving) and has continued to do so despite being asked to adjust her wording for folks who have a tough time reading it. Her approaches have been to assert fairly offensive and problematic things (bait for responses) in a concerned, I'm on your side sort of way and then quickly push to offensive zones and subtle griefer tactics (condescension, "I was just messing with you" goalpost moving, personal attacks, etc)

This all combined leads to a very strong impression that she's intentionally trolling. Or at the very least is very antagonistic (without having a firm basis behind which to justify any kind of antagonism). All of which are problematic in a guild that bans trolling and trolling-similar antagonistic posting.

That would be my guess anyways.  

[Fiddlers Green]

Maze

Only if you state your new way of viewing it was the one you always held.

I tend to change my mind with disclaimers. "Look, I know I said 'x' back then, but I've since come to realise that, given 'y' and 'z', B is the answer that I currently view to be correct."

Unless it's not a rational decision I changed my mind on, in which case I may just go "*shrug* Changed my mind."

I don't feel like I would have been lying at the time, though, because, obviously, when I declared A to be my answer, I must have thought it correct.

Unless I knew it to be incorrect, in which case I totally would be a liar. But I would have been a liar prior to changing my mind 'in public' as well, then, and would continue to be one after.

But the act of changing my mind itself does not turn me into a liar, as it were. It just means that I have changed my mind.

So, are you of the mind that we are not responsible for events that have yet to transpire in our narratives when assessing the validity of our statements or is that taking it too far to an extreme?
I recently had something of a breakdown in my ability to parse linear time and I'm trying to rebuild it. I'm not exactly sure what happened, and I apologize if this is getting pretty weird. sweatdrop

Does this apply differently to oaths? Can a statement of future action be valid? Is breaking an oath a form of lying?

confused I've been chomping at how to post this part politely for about an hour now... about whether I should or shouldn't... this isn't my guild to force my standards upon, yet I voluntarily associate here and as such give my name to it's actions. I respect and bear fondness for the persons most likely to be offended by this. In the end, I must make the decision that I can live with. Others can Ignore me or Ban me or the like. I have no such luxury with myself. I have failed utterly to give voice to my succeeding statement as I would prefer to. It is a personal failing. I lack the eloquence of word and evenness of temper to express this in keeping with the fullness of my intents. So I sell the smaller portion of my soul and suffice with what follows. I hope what hurt I might create is small... however I own my words, and sometimes they are my only tool for expressing myself... and I am a crude and beastly creature with barely the grasp of how a tool is used.

Crew-person Violet Song jat Shariff, my question also stands directly to you. Caveat: I accept any form of punishment my inquiry might reward me with. However, as this was posted in the thread for all to see, I take responding to it as fair game.
When did the definition of Trolling extend to including changing one's mind? Shall we all be locked into the posts we made here ad infinitum? I fully accept that one might take umbrage at Ishtar Shakti's wording. If that were the point you levied as grounds for an accusation of Trolling, then I would accept. However, that is not the case. I must decry a change of mind as grounds for such accusation. By adding the caveat that responding to specific persons will be tolerated, but not others, further concerns me. Is the Posting after declaration of intent to leave the Trolling or is it responding to people other than those one is cleared for the Trolling?

For weal or woe the die is cast. neutral  

[Aino Ailill]

Recursive Paradox

Aino Ailill

Violet Song jat Shariff

*puts on crew hat*
Ishtar Shatki, if you are done in this thread (as you said you were a page or two ago), then be done with it and move on. Do not revisit it. Do not continue to post in it. To keep posting in this thread anymore aside from responding to Nuri's request is viewed as trolling.

Why?

I would hazard a guess to say it's because Ishtar's patterns are beginning to match that of a concern troll and a noise troll at the same time. She's incorporating a great deal of nonsense into her posts (i.e. inconsistencies, non sequitors, irrelevancies, and "I was just messing with you" goalpost moving) and has continued to do so despite being asked to adjust her wording for folks who have a tough time reading it. Her approaches have been to assert fairly offensive and problematic things (bait for responses) in a concerned, I'm on your side sort of way and then quickly push to offensive zones and subtle griefer tactics (condescension, "I was just messing with you" goalpost moving, personal attacks, etc)

This all combined leads to a very strong impression that she's intentionally trolling. Or at the very least is very antagonistic (without having a firm basis behind which to justify any kind of antagonism). All of which are problematic in a guild that bans trolling and trolling-similar antagonistic posting.

That would be my guess anyways.

I suppose this might make some sense and I cannot comment on the validity of the accusation levied based on the content of Ishtar's posts given that the majority of e's post are rather long and not relevant to my interests and, as such, I do not read the majority. However, I do not see how this is justification for telling a person that they may no longer post in a specific thread unless in response to a specific person, else it is to be considered trolling because the person in question had previously stated e's intent to not return to the specific thread.

I apologize for any confusion of wording.  

[maenad nuri]

The main reason I asked? Because I can't make sense of her posts, and I want a succinct reasoning so that I can figure this s**t out. IS's posting style is incomprehensible to me and as captain, it's my responsibility to determine if she is trolling or not, since I have received several complaints.

Disregarding my request to post more? Not a plus.  

[Recursive Paradox]

Aino Ailill

However, I do not see how this is justification for telling a person that they may no longer post in a specific thread unless in response to a specific person, else it is to be considered trolling because the person in question had previously stated e's intent to not return to the specific thread.

Yeah, that part I didn't get either, until Nuri came in and said she couldn't understand whether trolling was occurring cuz she couldn't read the mess of IS's posts.

I can see how responding to the request to summarize there would be considered a necessity so Nuri can do her job. Because my analysis alone really isn't enough for crew to make a decision as I'm not crew (Note: This is not a request to become crew! gonk ).

I don't understand where changing her mind to not come back is an issue, that part confuses me. But the rest of it makes sense.  

[Ishtar Shakti]

maenad nuri

IS: I'm afraid I can't make any sense of this and your argument. There's words there, but they aren't lining up into comprehensible English to this captain. Can you sum up, in a short paragraph, what you are attempting to say?

(This, this is what happens when I just don't have the spoons to deal with anything but my job.)

Sure
Summation
Its impossible to be completely objective unless your omniscient. Thus all of your senses and interpretations are subject to bias. Its also impossible to have free will if your creator knows everything you will ever do from before the second they created you onwards. The path your life will take is already laid out for you. Thus to believe in god was to reject free will. I chose to believe in free will... because I couldn't see the point in making choices and living if everything I was going to do was already set out for me.

I couldn't believe in a All powerful omniscient god and still see a point to living life in the same universe as one. There is no change... there isn't even a possibility for change! It seemed to be a universe bereft of hope or possibility.

All definitions, like all societies cultures and language are created things made in order to translate the world. They are a construct of definitions which we either do or do not agree with and thus do or do not internalize and accept. The definitions which I was provided when I was a child didn't make sense, I couldn't internalize the frame work that life provided me because it seemed to contradict itself. It also made the universe seem to lack meaning.

Thus I became an atheist and rejected everything that I was led to believe because at my center I wanted a meaningful universe. Through non belief I found a belief system and contextual system which made sense and didn't have internal contradictions or external contradictions. My belief system only has several core components... one of which is the understanding that belief is the foundation of all knowledge.

I came to a point that rejecting belief inevitably meant I was rejecting reality. I realized that no matter how far I dug... how detailed my notes were... how meticulous I became there was no way to account for all variables. There was no way to see all angles. I had to believe in something and I was every time I trusted my eyes every time I heard a sound.

Thus I regained "belief" and I rebuilt my belief structure which I'd made all that effort in tearing down. Not the same belief system I had as a child. It took me a while to realize that life was only meaningful because we gave it meaning through our constructions... the sounds had no meaning before we gave them meaning. Through this I built a conceptual framework for all of existence which made sense to me and allowed for personal freedom and change.

Thats the summary of everything.

There are other frameworks which I jump between but that is the one I chose over the other frameworks because I wanted to believe in free will. Thats my leap of faith. I want to believe that life has meaning and that my actions are mine and that I can accomplish something with my life. Its the choice I made.  

[maenad nuri]

Thank you, IS -- that helps me allevate my concerns.

Nevertheless, due to massive derailment, I am going to lock this topic.