|
|
| Are there more positive or negative sides to this guild? |
| Positive |
|
71% |
[ 5 ] |
| Negative |
|
0% |
[ 0 ] |
| Both |
|
14% |
[ 1 ] |
| I don't know |
|
14% |
[ 1 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 7 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Tue Oct 02, 2007 6:58 pm
I've talked to some people who think the mprilc is a guild filled with nothing but followers who follow the person who sounds most right... I try to assure them that it is because that person is most likely right and the majority of all the mprilc members are non-fluffy. So I want to know something... fill out this form.
[*]What is your opinion on the plus sides of this guild?:
[*]What are the negative sides to being in this guild?:
[*]What needs changing or improvement?:
Be as honest as possible, but don't do any personal attacks. If you dislike an individual in the guild we can't help that unless they break the rules.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Oct 02, 2007 7:06 pm
What is your opinion on the plus sides of this guild?:
its got great people in it who know what they're doing, and only the occasional a*****e.... well, the occasional fluffysteel syndrom.
What are the negative sides to being in this guild?:
sometimes the topics get a little stale...
What needs changing or improvement?:
hm... im not realy sure. youve done a great job on teh guild and its better then anything i can conjure up.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Oct 02, 2007 7:17 pm
What is your opinion on the plus sides of this guild?:
It's got some seemingly knowledgeable people with a comparatively low BS factor.
What are the negative sides to being in this guild?:
People sometimes seem to be cynical douchebags. I think it's because they don't want to later be told "Haha, you believe(d) in something silly."
What needs changing or improvement?:
I think a little less hostility/cynicism and a little more throwing of sources around might be nice to see.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Oct 02, 2007 7:42 pm
What is your opinion on the plus sides of this guild?: The guild leader likes skeptics.
What are the negative sides to being in this guild?: Sometimes people don't seem to know when to stop. They don't seem to know what they talk about, and there's a lot of bullshitting.
What needs changing or improvement?: Ehhh... it'd be nice if there were less subforums, but you can't change that... mostly because I don't read any of them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 03, 2007 2:48 am
What is your opinion on the plus sides of this guild?:
There is a few experiemented people with knowledge to share around here
What are the negative sides to being in this guild?:
It take a long time to get answer probably because people don't look in the sub forum much.
What needs changing or improvement?:
Not so sure... there seem to be some hostility which is never a good thing so that might need to be changed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Oct 04, 2007 6:51 am
What is your opinion on the plus sides of this guild?:
There's a nice equilibrium between skeptics and believers; many believers are willing to be skeptical, and many skeptics are willing to believe.
The guild topics often go above the generic I-Think-I-Saw-My-Spirit-Guide into the realms of Is-Cocaine-the-Alchemical-Equivalent-Of-Gold (Not exactly, but you get the picture). People here are willing to both tackle old and tried topics from new directions, as well as try out entirely new concepts.
There's a substantial amount less fluffiness here than in other realms cough hysteric realms cough.
Most of the top posters know a little about one another, so it's easier to discuss ideas amongst one another.
I live here.
What are the negative sides to being in this guild?:
Subforums. Many folk don't check'em, and hardly anyone uses them. Since we can't get rid of them, use them more plz.
I second what Obscurus said about some folk being a little /too/ cynical.
What needs changing or improvement?:
Stickies in every subforum should get a look-over to see if they're still necessary.
People should use subforums more. >.>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Oct 05, 2007 1:41 pm
What is your opinion on the plus sides of this guild?:
This guild is the guild to which I devote the most time, the most energy and the most spirit. I honestly think it's the best guild out there for our type of stuff. I think we can talk about spiritual side, we'll accept people who explain they think they have paranormal experiences, but cut down the one who casually explains they are a vampire-fairy-wolf-dragon. Around here, it's who says it, and how you react to what you claim, and that's how I like it.
What are the negative sides to being in this guild?:
I don't see many negative sides. After everyone said it, I do think the guild has gotten more skeptical, but that's ok, because I'm trying to remedy that. I know all in all we got more true blue believers, and I want to reflect that. I'll freely admit we don't have as much activity as some, but that is a question of quality over quantity. I would much rather be slow then have some bullshit 12 year old tell me what Wicca is really about.
What needs changing or improvement?:
I don't know if I can say. Mostly the usual, more topics, more members, but we've had more of those of late and that's been good. Less skepticism as a focus would probably be good, so I'm gonna try to work on that. But everyone remember the guild is just the people it's made of, so if you want more topics about something, go head and make them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Oct 05, 2007 1:50 pm
Joshua_Ritter What is your opinion on the plus sides of this guild?:
This guild is the guild to which I devote the most time, the most energy and the most spirit. I honestly think it's the best guild out there for our type of stuff. I think we can talk about spiritual side, we'll accept people who explain they think they have paranormal experiences, but cut down the one who casually explains they are a vampire-fairy-wolf-dragon. Around here, it's who says it, and how you react to what you claim, and that's how I like it. I swear I've seen this before. And what's bad about skepticism?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Oct 05, 2007 2:10 pm
Baron von Turkeypants Joshua_Ritter What is your opinion on the plus sides of this guild?:
This guild is the guild to which I devote the most time, the most energy and the most spirit. I honestly think it's the best guild out there for our type of stuff. I think we can talk about spiritual side, we'll accept people who explain they think they have paranormal experiences, but cut down the one who casually explains they are a vampire-fairy-wolf-dragon. Around here, it's who says it, and how you react to what you claim, and that's how I like it. I swear I've seen this before. And what's bad about skepticism?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Oct 05, 2007 3:40 pm
^_^ Hooray Psych class! I finally get to use my knowledge.
There is a difference between skepticism and cynicism. Joshua seems to be talking about cynicism here, which is where you completely dismiss others' ideas and thoughts as completely wrong. A skeptic can accept others' viewpoints but objects them to scrutiny. So, we can try and show information that makes a claim improbable and still be skeptics.
The moment we go into "sry, ur jus rong kthxbai" is when we turn to cynicism (and n00bishness).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Oct 05, 2007 5:24 pm
Aye, there seems to be a major discrepancy in all our uses of "skepticism." If you're talking about Aristotelian skepticism, that's just plain silly, it's like you're making a straw-man argument. But if you're talking about modern scientific skepticism, that's a whole different story. True skepticism, by itself, can't lead to someone being sure of themselves, even in extreme skepticism. If you were to take on a more Aristotelian approach, you would have to be skeptical of your own skepticism - no one in reality (at least that I know/heard of) keeps to this view, and it seems to me that most attacks on skepticism are attacking a skepticism which doesn't exist. So being sure of yourself is actually not a skeptical approach, but quite the opposite - the approach of a man who is so unskeptical that he knows, and he knows he knows.
EDIT: Also, I don't think spending your time proving what you believe is different at all than time spent trying to do it. Isn't the best course to prove what you believe is real (paranormally speaking) is to try and do it?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Oct 05, 2007 8:21 pm
Baron von Turkeypants Aye, there seems to be a major discrepancy in all our uses of "skepticism." If you're talking about Aristotelian skepticism, that's just plain silly, it's like you're making a straw-man argument. But if you're talking about modern scientific skepticism, that's a whole different story. True skepticism, by itself, can't lead to someone being sure of themselves, even in extreme skepticism. If you were to take on a more Aristotelian approach, you would have to be skeptical of your own skepticism - no one in reality (at least that I know/heard of) keeps to this view, and it seems to me that most attacks on skepticism are attacking a skepticism which doesn't exist. So being sure of yourself is actually not a skeptical approach, but quite the opposite - the approach of a man who is so unskeptical that he knows, and he knows he knows. EDIT: Also, I don't think spending your time proving what you believe is different at all than time spent trying to do it. Isn't the best course to prove what you believe is real (paranormally speaking) is to try and do it?I think he has a point here. But I think Josh was more getting at sitting around and trying to figure out how it's possible when conforming to current scientific knowledge, but that's just my interpretation. Don't let me put words in your mouth, Mr. Ritter.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Oct 06, 2007 2:10 am
Obscurus Baron von Turkeypants Aye, there seems to be a major discrepancy in all our uses of "skepticism." If you're talking about Aristotelian skepticism, that's just plain silly, it's like you're making a straw-man argument. But if you're talking about modern scientific skepticism, that's a whole different story. True skepticism, by itself, can't lead to someone being sure of themselves, even in extreme skepticism. If you were to take on a more Aristotelian approach, you would have to be skeptical of your own skepticism - no one in reality (at least that I know/heard of) keeps to this view, and it seems to me that most attacks on skepticism are attacking a skepticism which doesn't exist. So being sure of yourself is actually not a skeptical approach, but quite the opposite - the approach of a man who is so unskeptical that he knows, and he knows he knows. EDIT: Also, I don't think spending your time proving what you believe is different at all than time spent trying to do it. Isn't the best course to prove what you believe is real (paranormally speaking) is to try and do it?I think he has a point here. But I think Josh was more getting at sitting around and trying to figure out how it's possible when conforming to current scientific knowledge, but that's just my interpretation. Don't let me put words in your mouth, Mr. Ritter.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Oct 06, 2007 12:07 pm
Joshua_Ritter Nah, you pretty much got it. And more personally, I would say an extremely questioning attitude could ruin some good magical exploration. I don't mean in general, but sometimes, it's good to set aside, when you are working, you know? If you do magic, that is. Mind if I hold onto this quote?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Oct 06, 2007 5:40 pm
Baron von Turkeypants Joshua_Ritter Nah, you pretty much got it. And more personally, I would say an extremely questioning attitude could ruin some good magical exploration. I don't mean in general, but sometimes, it's good to set aside, when you are working, you know? If you do magic, that is. Mind if I hold onto this quote?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
