Chrono Compendium
Zenan Plains - Site Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: dan_death on November 16, 2006, 02:32:12 am
-
Have you ever questioned your own existEnce? These...souls? This universe? Have you ever stoped and think that our whole universe could be a small ball in a test lab? Or that we're not actually? Here....just think about it..anything, I mean A N Y T H I N G is possible.
-
Yeah....I've wondered about that....I've been wondering about that for a long time.......but if your religous, look to your religion for answers......Hopefully you'll find an answer......I think I did....but it's different for everybody....SO you kinda have to look for yourself...
Good luck!!!!!
-
Who the hell cares? I'm more interested in why the fuck you capitolized that second E...8)
-
That was all me. I'm fucking sick of people spelling it existance. Fucking sick.
-
That was all me. I'm fucking sick of people spelling it existance. Fucking sick.
Oh my god, I think I may have been spelling it with an 'a' this whole time. CRAP. :shock:
-
Firefox 2 has a built-in spellchecker...
-
Why is it often spelled with an a? Well, let me theorize here. Maybe it's some sort of genetic Indo-European memory? You see, Existence - I'd have spelled it with an a if not told otherwise - seems to me to be a Greek word, or something related. At any rate, it seems old Indo-Eurpean. Why? The 'ste' part of it. In Greek, histemi is 'I stand' or 'I place' - and can be used to denote falling into a certain state of being, ie. falling into the state of war. The thing is, it is a bloody irregular verb. The present might go histemi, etc. but the past is, if I remember right, built off of... okay, I'll go check it out exactly. There we are, present: histemi, histes, histesin, histamen, histate, histasin. The present shows what I"m talking about in those last three (the plural, ie. 'we; you; they'; the first three are 'I; you; he/she/it') the 'ste' becomes 'sta'. It is an Indo-European quirk, and is called, if I'm not mistaken, an ablaudt, discovered by the brothers Grimm I believe. The point in this is, if existence does indeed come from that root (I think I will forthwith check), the e and the a are a bit variable. Existance might not be so far wrong... etymologically speaking, that is. Technically, it's still wrong. But maybe those of Indo-European descent innately have a desire to switch around a's and e's like that. Maybe that's why we mess that one up.
Oh, and as a side-note, that 'ste' root doesn't only exist in Greek. In German we say 'ich stehe' (I stand) which also in some cases changes to 'a' (ie. gestanden or some past perfect or something like that). And English is no exception. 'I stand.' Or, I suppose, the word 'stance', as well. There, that must be it. People are taking it to be exi-stance, thinking like someone in a state of being. In a stance. Ironically enough, though our technical spelling is different, they may not be wrong in thinking like that. I'll have to check it out, but if the word does come from that Greek/Indo-European root, then existence does, in fact, have very close ties with the word 'stance' and is, probably, the selfsame word spelled with an e instean of an a. What you're getting is people's mind going towards the more common English usage of the 'ste/sta' root, the spelling with an 'a'. Existence is, I believe, the anomoly.
There, is that a proper explanation for the mis-spelling? I think it is a good vindication of the 'existance' spellers.
UPDATE:
Okay, got it. I was close. It's not from Greek, but Latin (both of which are Indo-European, so I was right on that front.) The origin of 'exist' is ex-sistere. 'existence' is the present participular form, ex-sisterem, I think it was (exactly what it was slips my mind; you get the point, though.) The dictionary points this out to be a reduplicated form of the 'ste' root (ie. ste redulplicates to siste, reduplicating the s and putting an i inbetween.) As a side-note, in Greek this reduplication is also done, but they have the odd tendancy to turn an s into rough breathing (our h... the Greeks didn't consider it a letter.) Thus it's not 'siste' but 'histe' (remember the 'histemi I mentioned earlier?) That sort of thing is also seen in the word for 'I lead', in Greek hepomai, and Latin sequorem. The h for the s, and the older qu preserved in Latin in place of the later p which the Greek uses. Anyway... back to what I was saying, this means that the word existence does, indeed, stem from that old 'ste/sta' root, and uses the 'ste' as that is what it is in Latin (or, at least, in the Latin from which we get the word.) However, our English brand of Indo-European tends far more to the 'sta' root. So, in a sense, one might say that in saying 'existence' one is following the Latin root, whilst those who say 'existance' are in fact Anglisizing the word to follow English Indo-European convention. Just like we'd not say 'stend' but rather 'stand'. It is, therefore, a very reasonable mistake, and other than the cause of tradition which has us spell it in the Latin way, reason dictates that 'existance' is a more locial way to have it spelled. We are speaking English, after all. It's like as if we, for some reason, preserved the old Greek Alexandros in place of Alexander. It has become fossilized in our vocabulary, but there should be allowance for spelling it in a way that is more 'English.'
-
Who the hell cares? I'm more interested in why the fuck you capitolized that second E...8)
My lord, learn the difference between capital and capitol before tossing the stones in a glass house, why don't you?
-
Who the hell cares? I'm more interested in why the fuck you capitolized that second E...8)
My lord, learn the difference between capital and capitol before tossing the stones in a glass house, why don't you?
:shock: 8) :? :? 8) 8) :x :x 8) :) :jiraiya: :lee:
(http://www.kiba.hello-work.jp/index/keybar.gif)
In December 2005, a referendum approved a new constitution, and a presidential election was held on July 30, 2006 (having been delayed from an earlier date in June).[5] The new constitution lowers the minimum age of presidential candidates from 35 to 30; Kabila turned 35 shortly before the election. In March 2006, he registered as a candidate.[6]
(http://www.lzi.ch/lol/dc/images/oneTime/coluche.jpg)
-
Uh, anyways...I wasn't doing that...I wasn't trying to correct any spelling (that's just not something I do normally)...I just wanted to know what was up...>_>
-
Ummm... anyone care for my etymological analysis for WHY we spell it both ways, and why those spelling it 'existance' might be vindicated on grounds that they are being more properly English?
-
Ummm... anyone care for my etymological analysis for WHY we spell it both ways, and why those spelling it 'existance' might be vindicated on grounds that they are being more properly English?
If caring for it means having read it, I'm afraid not. At least not me. Sorry :/
-
I read it. But does anyone care for my DASHING SENSE OF HUMOR!?
-
I've read both. Zeality, you, it's been quite entertaining. Daniel, it's been quite educationel, mispelling intended.
-
I've read both. Zeality, you, it's been quite entertaining. Daniel, it's been quite educationel, mispelling intended.
HA! As if he would believe you.
-
Ummm... anyone care for my etymological analysis for WHY we spell it both ways, and why those spelling it 'existance' might be vindicated on grounds that they are being more properly English?
I found it to be informative. I even checked the etymology in my dictionary, and saw that you were correct in your analysis. Well done, you! I'm a big fan of language--words, linguistics, structure, grammar, and so forth...
-
BACK TO THE MAIN SUBJECT KIDDIES.
I would advice you to watch the first Men In Black. that is'nt true but its somthing to beleive in if you beleive in that.
-
BACK TO THE MAIN SUBJECT KIDDIES.
I would advice you to watch the first Men In Black. that is'nt true but its somthing to beleive in if you beleive in that.
I would advise you to never believe something you know to be false.
-
BACK TO THE MAIN SUBJECT KIDDIES.
I would advice you to watch the first Men In Black. that is'nt true but its somthing to beleive in if you beleive in that.
I saw a bright red object in the sky with one day...
Lavos is coming!
-
BACK TO THE MAIN SUBJECT KIDDIES.
I would advice you to watch the first Men In Black. that is'nt true but its somthing to beleive in if you beleive in that.
I saw a bright red object in the sky with one day...
Lavos is coming!
Actually, that red object was my pet dragon, Bonkers.
-
Ummm... anyone care for my etymological analysis for WHY we spell it both ways, and why those spelling it 'existance' might be vindicated on grounds that they are being more properly English?
I found it to be informative. I even checked the etymology in my dictionary, and saw that you were correct in your analysis. Well done, you! I'm a big fan of language--words, linguistics, structure, grammar, and so forth...
i always thought that existence was spelled, existance, because that's how it is in my literature book, and writting and grammar
-
i always thought that existence was spelled, existance, because that's how it is in my literature book, and writting and grammar
I don't think so.
-
so, what makes the spelling of a word "correct", i mean, one guy just decided that, that's just was one person's veiw of his own mind of what it should be, and why can't other people do that? nothing makes it right or wrong, words are just words, if you can read it, then it doesn't matter how you spell it.
-
so, what makes the spelling of a word "correct", i mean, one guy just decided that, that's just was one person's veiw of his own mind of what it should be, and why can't other people do that? nothing makes it right or wrong, words are just words, if you can read it, then it doesn't matter how you spell it.
Wrong
-
so, what makes the spelling of a word "correct", i mean, one guy just decided that, that's just was one person's veiw of his own mind of what it should be, and why can't other people do that? nothing makes it right or wrong, words are just words, if you can read it, then it doesn't matter how you spell it.
Wrong
You should qualify that.
The thing is, the correct way exists because that's what our convention is. The words have developed over time to where they are now. They're not merely invented, and they weren't always as they are. Yes, they'll change - language does develop. We no longer use thee, thou, etc. in the way we used to, and the word 'wise' has lost one meaning as 'way' (though we retain it in such words as 'otherwise'.) The thing is, we can spell differently than the norm. One can say existance. But that doesn't make it RIGHT. I tried to defend it based on its history, but most other mis-spelled words aren't so defensible. Mostly, it is simply wrong to spell it like that - not to say that you can't, but it's a linguistic crime. What makes the norm, you ask? Not because some guy decided it, but because English speakers as a whole have decided it. I'd suggest you look at the Oxford English Dicionary - not the normal one you see in school, but the full one. That's where I checked on the history of 'existence', and found its root in Latin (though, I suppose, any other Oxford English Dictionary will tell you this, too, the full one gives you lists of its prior usage in different forms.) What you'll see is no one decision or standard, but that the norm is dicated by the current state of things. Basically, what makes a spelling correct is that the OED says it does. The other day, trying to translate a word that is basically the adverb of Centaur, I wrote Centaurishly. Is this correct? No. I made the word up. Poetic license. But it's not correct, and I can't claim it for that.
Ummm... some help here? I can't quite make a convincing statement at this point.
-
BACK TO THE MAIN SUBJECT KIDDIES.
I would advice you to watch the first Men In Black. that is'nt true but its somthing to beleive in if you beleive in that.
I saw a bright red object in the sky with one day...
Lavos is coming!
Actually, that red object was my pet dragon, Bonkers.
Stop letting it loose, it peed in my garden again.
-
Oh... umm, Zeppy, ..... That was me. :oops:
Well I think that you should spell how the word is pronounced. Wrong= rawng, mispelling= misspeuleeng, incorrect grammar= inkurekt gramur.
-
so, what makes the spelling of a word "correct", i mean, one guy just decided that, that's just was one person's veiw of his own mind of what it should be, and why can't other people do that? nothing makes it right or wrong, words are just words, if you can read it, then it doesn't matter how you spell it.
Wrong
You should qualify that.
The thing is, the correct way exists because that's what our convention is. The words have developed over time to where they are now. They're not merely invented, and they weren't always as they are. Yes, they'll change - language does develop. We no longer use thee, thou, etc. in the way we used to, and the word 'wise' has lost one meaning as 'way' (though we retain it in such words as 'otherwise'.) The thing is, we can spell differently than the norm. One can say existance. But that doesn't make it RIGHT. I tried to defend it based on its history, but most other mis-spelled words aren't so defensible. Mostly, it is simply wrong to spell it like that - not to say that you can't, but it's a linguistic crime. What makes the norm, you ask? Not because some guy decided it, but because English speakers as a whole have decided it. I'd suggest you look at the Oxford English Dicionary - not the normal one you see in school, but the full one. That's where I checked on the history of 'existence', and found its root in Latin (though, I suppose, any other Oxford English Dictionary will tell you this, too, the full one gives you lists of its prior usage in different forms.) What you'll see is no one decision or standard, but that the norm is dicated by the current state of things. Basically, what makes a spelling correct is that the OED says it does. The other day, trying to translate a word that is basically the adverb of Centaur, I wrote Centaurishly. Is this correct? No. I made the word up. Poetic license. But it's not correct, and I can't claim it for that.
Ummm... some help here? I can't quite make a convincing statement at this point.
Somewhere in between grammatical fascism and linguistic anarchy is a good rule for how to spell things. I think you're on the right track, Daniel--and you too, ZeaLitY--but I would make a different argument to reach a similar conclusion. Popular consensus ultimately does have the final say in the actual usage of a language. But it never has authority over how well the language works. It is a case of desire subverting the truth, and so I don't want to rely upon popular consensus to argue any rules for English usage. Instead, my technique--which is far from an absolute--is to proceed with as much loyalty to the existing laws of grammar as possible, but also to not fear amending the language when a higher degree of communication is at stake. I base this upon English's dazzling potency; I don't want to mess with a good thing without cause. English is smarter at English than most of us; I prefer to focus upon my study of the language, as its pupil, rather than attempt to control it arbitrarily...and I'm a master. What about all the neophytes and numbskulls who think they can wield the Sword of English without appreciating its power? They'll blunt their ideas' edge, at best--and disembowel themselves at worst. This "Anglish" tongue of ours is sophisticated enough that common usage tends to dilute the language's efficacy as a mode of communication. One need only look online at the IM ravings of mad-fingered fools to see that. Grammatical strictures and usage rules are essential for preserving the high degree of information potency inherent to modern English. That is why usage experts--typically in the employ of dictionary companies--are so important. Their consensus, as opposed to popular consensus, is better informed.
Whatever power the language must answer to, at the heart of any language is the utility of communication and the facility to formulate a superior thought. These are the only purposes rightfully served by adherence to the existing rules or defiance against them. If you find yourself wanting to break the laws of grammar, you need only ask yourself whether doing so will further your ability to formulate or communicate ideas. This begs the question: Do you understand English well enough to venture a reply? I'm looking at you, dan_death.
My preference is that we adhere to English wherever possible, because for most of us it already works beyond our ability to confound it. English is a social enterprise, and a community venture. How we use it affects others. Therefore we cannot arbitrarily impose our own preferences upon the language, because this hurts other people's comprehension of our message. Sometimes these hurts are the mark of growing pains, but more often they are plainly a barrier to communication--as evidenced, for example, by the recent news article out of Britain about office workers who are disdainful of and intimidated by their managers' use of Dilbertesque corporate-speak.
So...here at the end of the story is the lesson for dan_death and those of like mind: Obey the laws of grammar. Aspire to understand them fully. Do not bend or break them unless it is in the service of language--which is essentially the formulation and communication of ideas. Never forget that language is our most important tool as a species, and is diminished at our own expense when we fashion it into a mechanism of our personal convenience and sloth.
-
Yeah, but the laws of grammar were still MADE UP by some people of THEIR own mind. Just think, if we didn't have the laws of grammar or any of that stuff, and we/our generation had to make up/spell words, alot of people would have different spellings. (And get back on subject.)
-
Though you have made many good points, Lord J, I didn't see a need to waste time in typing a book to state that poor grammar is not a good habit.
You all could've just said, "Take the time to correct grammatical errors. If you are unsure of something, read a dictionary, or WIKI it.
-
Though you have made many good points, Lord J, I didn't see a need to waste time in typing a book to state that poor grammar is not a good habit.
You all could've just said, "Take the time to correct grammatical errors. If you are unsure of something, read a dictionary, or WIKI it.
Corey, that's what liberals do, make long speeches on something so simple to say.
-
guvermint edit: liburuls downt doo that. wee simplee wawnt to wayst time on a speche ubowt nutheng lol.
Lord J is liberal... :shock:. Liberals suck. It all makes sense now. Massive posts made by Lord J = the same as a very simple statement.
Who editted my post? :)
<<Last Edit: at 12:20:43 AM by The U.S. Government>>
-
Writing at length has the added virtue of supporting a premise with reasoning. Anything less is idle opination--the pastime of fools.
-
Though you have made many good points, Lord J, I didn't see a need to waste time in typing a book to state that poor grammar is not a good habit.
You all could've just said, "Take the time to correct grammatical errors. If you are unsure of something, read a dictionary, or WIKI it.
On the contrary, simply stating an opinion has no real power. I ran into a problem with my post in that I couldn't come up with any convincing argument as to why. I certainly said my opinion, but opinion hardly matters if you can't back it up. That's why I called out for help (and, as I expected, Lord J took up that call - I wasn't feeling particularly intelligent at that moment, nor am I now, for that matter.)
Oh, and by the way, it's not a Liberal tendancy. I'm more of a conservative, and heck, when I get going, and if I'm in the mood... I'll do just what Lord J did.
PS If you're unsure of something DON'T bloody Wiki it. Pick up an encyclopedia or dictionary, or look it up in a peer reviewed journal article or something of a similar nature. Don't just trust Wikipedia, it leads to the Dark Side. Of course, Wikipedia is often correct, but things can slip past their moderation. I know someone who told me he was able to write on an article about the Samurai that the last one was called Tomachiro Cruise - as well as putting up a picture from the movie - and it got past their moderation. He was trying to make a point on the fallibility of their system. Plus, the problem with Wiki is, everyone begins to think they're an expert on everything because they can look it up on Wiki. For me, save for certain topics (ie. Star Wars stuff) it's a last resort.
Okay, okay, so I'm just a Wiki hater. But there's something about that mass-information system that doesn't sit right with me. Maybe because it is just information. It just teaches bits and factoids, without really making you think and learn the topics. What I went through regarding the grammar there isn't something that could be learned via Wikipedia. It came from what I've been taught regarding languages in various languages courses (chiefly Greek), and from researching it in the dictionary. I looked at the word, a hypothesis struck me, and I sought to prove it. Knowing a whole lot of facts isn't a substitute for being able to think through something - I'd rather know a tenth of the facts and have a reasoning mind, than know everything there is to know, and not be able to reason through it myself. That limitation must be remembered. Wikipedia cannot give you knowledge or understanding, only facts - and even that's shaky, sometimes.
PPS Funny thing that you just said that about opinion and reasoning, Lord J. Everything that follows before this PPS I wrote as you were writing that.
-
Writing at length has the added virtue of supporting a premise with reasoning. Anything less is idle opination--the pastime of fools.
I was going to post a similar response myself. It was going to be longer, however. I'm hardly what most people would consider a conservative in the general sense, but it's not a tough case to argue that I'm more conservative than Lord J.
-
I find Wikipedia is good for things that wouldn't normally have a fanmade Compendium to back them up. An obscure game might have reviews across the internet, but the Wikipedia entry might be the only place of centralized information. Same for ibuprofen; I'd probably find sites selling it in a search or some kind of scattered information. Or, if I used EBSCO or something, I'd find relevant current issues.
-
On the contrary, simply stating an opinion has no real power. I ran into a problem with my post in that I couldn't come up with any convincing argument as to why. I certainly said my opinion, but opinion hardly matters if you can't back it up. That's why I called out for help (and, as I expected, Lord J took up that call - I wasn't feeling particularly intelligent at that moment, nor am I now, for that matter.)
A simple statement is all that is needed until someone dissagrees. Then, if you can support your opinion with facts and what not. I may not be the smartest of people but I know when enough is enough. I see it as wasted time and effort posting the origin of the subject argued over which has the same effect as a simple statement.
I find Wikipedia is good for things that wouldn't normally have a fanmade Compendium to back them up. An obscure game might have reviews across the internet, but the Wikipedia entry might be the only place of centralized information. Same for ibuprofen; I'd probably find sites selling it in a search or some kind of scattered information. Or, if I used EBSCO or something, I'd find relevant current issues.
I agree with ZeaLitY on that. Wikipedia is an excellent reference source.
-
On the contrary, simply stating an opinion has no real power. I ran into a problem with my post in that I couldn't come up with any convincing argument as to why. I certainly said my opinion, but opinion hardly matters if you can't back it up. That's why I called out for help (and, as I expected, Lord J took up that call - I wasn't feeling particularly intelligent at that moment, nor am I now, for that matter.)
A simple statement is all that is needed until someone dissagrees. Then, if you can support your opinion with facts and what not. I may not be the smartest of people but I know when enough is enough. I see it as wasted time and effort posting the origin of the subject argued over which has the same effect as a simple statement.
It is a logical fallacy to grant a given premise as true until someone disagrees with it. It is a form of the "appeal to authority" fallacy. If you actually believe what you wrote, you are preventing yourself from considerable intellectual development.
I find Wikipedia is good for things that wouldn't normally have a fanmade Compendium to back them up. An obscure game might have reviews across the internet, but the Wikipedia entry might be the only place of centralized information. Same for ibuprofen; I'd probably find sites selling it in a search or some kind of scattered information. Or, if I used EBSCO or something, I'd find relevant current issues.
I feel somewhat between Daniel and ZeaLitY on this. Wikipedia rubs me the wrong way, because it relies upon the consensus of some very pretentious and not necessarily intelligent people, almost none of whom truly value objectivity. (This is evident in the angling of almost any Wikipedia entry.) But Wikipedia is nevertheless an excellent general reference. Being naturally skeptical and more than a little intelligent, I have never to my knowledge been duped by it, nor have I found its information an impediment to my original goal of learning more about a given topic.
Sometimes veracity is not as important as assembling enough preliminary information as to be able to proceed with a more thorough investigation elsewhere. How many times have I been googling for something, only to find a Wikipedia entry in the results?
-
It is a logical fallacy to grant a given premise as true until someone disagrees with it. It is a form of the "appeal to authority" fallacy. If you actually believe what you wrote, you are preventing yourself from considerable intellectual development.
That may be true but I am not one to express my knowledge. Though I am extremely smart according to a recent PROFESSIONAL IQ test. Four hours of some lady asking the simplest of questions! My IQ is somewhere within 124-129. But that's not the point. IQ has nothing to do with this conversation nor does it affect the quality of my posts. I feel it is not neccessary to spend time looking up as many facts possible just to prove a simple statement. 'Tis not needed.
Sometimes veracity is not as important as assembling enough preliminary information as to be able to proceed with a more thorough investigation elsewhere. How many times have I been googling for something, only to find a Wikipedia entry in the results?
Lawrd J juss mayd mee smawrt! :lee:
-
I feel it is not neccessary to spend time looking up as many facts possible just to prove a simple statement. 'Tis not needed.
If it is not with facts, how then, do you prove something?
-
It is a logical fallacy to grant a given premise as true until someone disagrees with it. It is a form of the "appeal to authority" fallacy. If you actually believe what you wrote, you are preventing yourself from considerable intellectual development.
That may be true but I am not one to express my knowledge. Though I am extremely smart according to a recent PROFESSIONAL IQ test. Four hours of some lady asking the simplest of questions! My IQ is somewhere within 124-129. But that's not the point. IQ has nothing to do with this conversation nor does it affect the quality of my posts. I feel it is not neccessary to spend time looking up as many facts possible just to prove a simple statement. 'Tis not needed.
That's enough of this...
You're all ego and no depth. You offend reason, sir. You're either putting us on with this "Corey Taylor" schtick, or you are deluded. I don't know which, but I know this: You are banned from the Compendium for ten days--and I suggest you use it to contemplate the meaning of foolery.
-
It is a logical fallacy to grant a given premise as true until someone disagrees with it. It is a form of the "appeal to authority" fallacy. If you actually believe what you wrote, you are preventing yourself from considerable intellectual development.
That may be true but I am not one to express my knowledge. Though I am extremely smart according to a recent PROFESSIONAL IQ test. Four hours of some lady asking the simplest of questions! My IQ is somewhere within 124-129. But that's not the point. IQ has nothing to do with this conversation nor does it affect the quality of my posts. I feel it is not neccessary to spend time looking up as many facts possible just to prove a simple statement. 'Tis not needed.
That's enough of this...
You're all ego and no depth. You offend reason, sir. You're either putting us on with this "Corey Taylor" schtick, or you are deluded. I don't know which, but I know this: You are banned from the Compendium for ten days--and I suggest you use it to contemplate the meaning of foolery.
If what you say is true, I have lost all respect for you.
-
That kid has been a strain on the community. He's been trouble since day one, and I've had my eye on him almost as long. His last statement wasn't enough for a temporary ban in itself, but with respect to his posting history--which you are free to read--it is a good place to draw a line in the sand and say "no more."
If you are upset for his free speech rights, take it up with ZeaLitY. His authority outranks mine, and I'll defer to his judgment. But, other than the so-called "retard crew," this is the first ban I've ever done, and I'm pretty comfortable with it.
As for your lost respect, Zeppy...oh well. I can't say I'm sorry to see it go. If that's the worst you want to do to me, I'll count myself lucky. I probably never deserved your genuine respect anyway.
-
My hat goes off to you, Josh.
Though your ban has done nothing; he's just posting on an alternate account now.
-
Though your ban has done nothing; he's just posting on an alternate account now.
That would be grounds for a more serious violation of the forum rules. You are free to report such messages to the moderators.
-
I just hate banning, so I leave it up to my advisors. The all-access power of being director of the Compendium allows for some pretty serious positive things to come about, like news, features, and files. But becoming judge, jury, and executioner makes me worry that I'd be exercising too much of my own judgment on the Compendium, so I leave it up to others.
-
I just hate banning, so I leave it up to my advisors. The all-access power of being director of the Compendium allows for some pretty serious positive things to come about, like news, features, and files. But becoming judge, jury, and executioner makes me worry that I'd be exercising too much of my own judgment on the Compendium, so I leave it up to others.
Ah, very good! You have correctly ascertained that, to build further power, one should generally refrain from exercising powers that one already possesses, and instead delegate those powers to subordinates. It's how Captain Picard seldom orders the shields up or the torpedoes armed; Riker usually does that. Picard simply gives the order to fire.
Of course, you must also have realized that the type of power thusly built is of a different sort than mere authority: character stature. Impressive.
-
Ooo! New idea for ranks! Judge, jury and executioner!
Judge-Zealty (or someone else with power)
Jury-nightmare975 (because you always need a conservitve to make the final verdict)
Executioner-Lord J esq. (because you've already shown us your ban hammer)
Though I would presume that the ranks would only be used for a perma-ban.
-
I don't think so, Tim.
-
I don't think so, Tim.
But Josh, wouldn't you want the judge sprite as you icon?
-
I like my little Crono icon.
-
I suppose there is a large distinction between doing something with a vague idea of correctness and fully being aware of an ideal. In the event of a Chrono game...the Compendium's management will be put to the ultimate test.
-
That kid has been a strain on the community. He's been trouble since day one, and I've had my eye on him almost as long. His last statement wasn't enough for a temporary ban in itself, but with respect to his posting history--which you are free to read--it is a good place to draw a line in the sand and say "no more."
If you are upset for his free speech rights, take it up with ZeaLitY. His authority outranks mine, and I'll defer to his judgment. But, other than the so-called "retard crew," this is the first ban I've ever done, and I'm pretty comfortable with it.
As for your lost respect, Zeppy...oh well. I can't say I'm sorry to see it go. If that's the worst you want to do to me, I'll count myself lucky. I probably never deserved your genuine respect anyway.
Nah, I'll always love you Josh :P
But he has been acting a bit better recently. Good grammar anyone?
-
I feel like Rodney Dangerfield, don't get no respect.
I felt that the punishment I received was completely uneccessary. I may use poor judgement from time to time but I did not do a thing to get banned for ten days! Okay, I get it now. Everybody, watch out. If you argue with Lord J, or you have your own opinion and want to stick with it, you'll get banned.
As for Zeppelin, I thank you for... well you did something. My name was used and It wasn't used in a bad way.
-
I feel like Rodney Dangerfield, don't get no respect.
I felt that the punishment I received was completely uneccessary. I may use poor judgement from time to time but I did not do a thing to get banned for ten days! Okay, I get it now. Everybody, watch out. If you argue with Lord J, or you have your own opinion and want to stick with it, you'll get banned.
As for Zeppelin, I thank you for... well you did something. My name was used and It wasn't used in a bad way.
Corey, I've argued horridly with Lord J before, and we tend to be diametrically opposed on many issues - often irreconcilably so - but he's never banned me before. He doesn't just dole that out because someone has a difference of opinion.
-
Daniel's right, Corey. You were banned for a long string of misbehavior that didn't look to be improving. There was a general consensus among the leadership that you were detracting from the community atmosphere we'd like to maintain. You had better take that into consideration from here on out.
As for me, I might have a strong opinion when I argue issues or discuss big ideas in the forums, but I keep that separate from my role as a forum "Entity." Nor do I have any reason for this to be otherwise: It would be embarrassingly petty of me to try and preen my ego by playing god in a theater like this. Message board admins who use their rank to take power trips are pretty silly people.
Looking back, I think the only time I've misused my admin powers was to promote Celesti to "Guru of Guinness" status--which I stand by 100 percent!
-
I feel like Rodney Dangerfield, don't get no respect.
Rodney Dangerfield got plenty of respect regardless of his act...Don't disrespect the dead! :mrgreen:
-
I feel like Rodney Dangerfield, don't get no respect.
Rodney Dangerfield got plenty of respect regardless of his act...Don't disrespect the dead! :mrgreen:
I realise you said, "regardless of his act", but I was pretty much quoting him more than stating his social status. And I am not "disrespecting the dead :mrgreen:"
Though I have misbehaved, my actions in no way affected the atmosphere in which you guys dwell upon. I am a mere speck of immaturity in the continuously growing fan-based site. The chances of me being noticed out of all of the intelligent members is pretty much too low to even take consideration to. Let's just drop the subject for I have dissagreed, once again, and may be banned again.
-
damn u guys went of topic, majorly major