A theorem.

quote:

---

Original post by wild_pointer
Theorem:
All threads longer then 4 pages turn into flamewars.

---

Correct 80% of the time.

quote:

---

Proposal:
Limit thread length to 4 pages, sufficient space to thoroughly discuss a topic.

---

No, bad idea What about the 20%? And no it''s not sufficient space to thotoughly discuss matters - not by far.

Problem is many people are way too stubborn when debating and would rather die than change standpoint. People should relax more, drop the ad hominem and try to listen carefully to the other arguments. But of course that''s utopia - we''re all human and at times become too zealous.

quote:

---

Discuss.

---

Yes



**************************
The best way to accelerate a Win9x machine is at 9.81m/s2

You can't predict when someone will go into psychological convulsions because you can't predict when someone else will say something their little mind can't handle.

Playing junior psychologist isn't going to help you find a pattern in numbers because the pattern is in actions which aren't ruled by numbers.

Person A says something
Person B says Person A is wrong
Person A goes into psychological convulsions
Person B points out Person A is irrational and still wrong
Person A continues convulsing
Person B points out Person A is being an idiot
Flamewar

It could happen at anytime. The only way to prevent it, as I've said a number of times, is to ban people from discussions who can't deal with being told they're wrong. The thing I find most amusing is the junior psychologists who just don't get it. But that's okay because they're junior psychologists and it's natural to blame the patient.

I know this may shock a lot of people but the #1 reason for Person B not believing Person A is because Person A is a pompous ass who thinks he's above proving himself and therefore doesn't present an argument that Person B should reasonably be convinced by.

It's amazing how many people think they're God's (evolution's) gift to debating and get all pissed off when someone tells them they're argument blows and then junior psychologist just can't manage to wrap their mind around the concept that just because THEY agree with Person A, Person B may not be so easily swayed and that it has nothing to do with being stubborn.

Most people just suck at making a logical argument and then (because they're pompus asses) get all huffy that someone would dare question what THEY know like they're somehow the authority. Credentials mean shit if you can't give a reality based argument.

Guess what people? You're wrong. Everything you believe is wrong and NO ONE has ANY reason to believe ANYTHING you say. The sooner you get over the fact you're wrong the sooner you'll be able to stop making the stupid and obnoxious assumption that if someone doesn't change their mind, they're just stubborn.

Because in reality, your aguments blow chunks and you're not fooling anyone. So please proceed to get over yourself. The sooner that happens the sooner the flamewars stop.

Ben


IcarusIndie.com [ The Rabbit Hole | The Labyrinth | DevZone | Gang Wars | The Wall | Hosting | Dot Com | Rate My Screenshot ]

[edited by - KalvinB on August 4, 2002 7:33:33 AM]

quote:

---

Original post by KalvinB
their little mind can''t handle

---

quote:

---

Original post by KalvinB junior psychologist just can''t manage to wrap their mind around the concept

---

quote:

---

Original post by KalvinB Most people just suck at making a logical argument and then (because they''re pompus asses)

---

quote:

---

Original post by KalvinB Credentials mean shit if you can''t give a reality based argument.

---

quote:

---

Original post by KalvinB Guess what people? You''re wrong. Everything you believe is wrong and NO ONE has ANY reason to believe ANYTHING you say.

---

quote:

---

Original post by KalvinB you''ll be able to stop making the stupid and obnoxious assumption

---

quote:

---

Original post by KalvinB Because in reality, your aguments blow chunks and you''re not fooling anyone. So please proceed to get over yourself.

---

Wow KalvinB, seems to me like YOU might be the cause of the flamewars.

It's nice of you to pull everything out of context and put each sentence into a seperate quote to balloon your post as though by doing so your point will somehow magically appear between the lines.

The main gist of my original post, as you've so aptly demonstrated, is that people such as yourself can't deal with criticism, can't deal with being told they're wrong, can't deal with people not taking their word for it and can't deal with people telling it like it is in plain english.

Your argument blows chunks. Maybe you'd like to try it again. People like you can't deal with people like me who don't sugar coat everything so that your fragile little ego doesn't get damaged.

One day maybe you'll grow up and join the rest of the real world that isn't run by Fisher Price. People are going to say things you don't agree with and you may not even like to hear it. When you learn to get over yourself you'll get over it and accept that not everyone agrees with you and you'll be a lot happier and be a lot less obnoxious.

Ben


IcarusIndie.com [ The Rabbit Hole | The Labyrinth | DevZone | Gang Wars | The Wall | Hosting | Dot Com | Rate My Screenshot ]

[edited by - KalvinB on August 4, 2002 8:15:56 AM]

LOL! This thread is interesting...

Unfortunately, I think instead of 4 pages, it is taking 4 posts to kindle a flamewar.

EDIT: Ok KalvinB. Now you have me irritated. It seems like you can't take criticism becasue he just gave a cruddy argument and you went BALLISTIC! You need to take your own advice or take a vacation from GameDev.

[edited by - Puzzler183 on August 4, 2002 8:18:36 AM]

Yup. Such is the price of having obnoxious junior psychiatrists who claim people are "stubborn" when they don't change their mind. Someone is bound to point out their obnoxious and don't have a clue and then Person A is bound to rear their ugly head proving every single one of my points.

There's little point in trying to have an intelligent discussion since J.P. and P.A. are just waiting for Person B to say something they don't like so they can jump in make complete asses of themselves.

Have fun.

-edit-
Since Puzzler didn't get it...I just reiterated my point for him in short form since he obviously didn't get it when it wasn't directed at him in the context of something he said. The #2 cause of flames is people who read emotion into threads that isn't there and as a result take what someone says the wrong way.

I should have probably included that in my first post.
-/edit-

Ben


IcarusIndie.com [ The Rabbit Hole | The Labyrinth | DevZone | Gang Wars | The Wall | Hosting | Dot Com | Rate My Screenshot ]

[edited by - KalvinB on August 4, 2002 8:29:28 AM]

Sorry Kalvin, but from my personal memory of nearly all the flamewars that happened here the last few months...

Here is the flowchart of your part in them:

---

1) You kinda post a lot of flamebait, and wait for people to bite...

IF a person doest bite:
GOTO step 1

2) flame that person down

IF that person doesn''t react two it
GOTO step 2

3) Accuse that person of flaming you.

IF that person says you started it:
Say that the person is total shit, and started himself

ELSE sat that the person is total shit, and should say something, then go to step 3.

---

The most important part of them: you kinda wait for someone to flame you, giving them lotsa hooks they can''t resist, and then continue to yelp about how everyone flames you... Oookaaaay...

yawn... this "random insult generator" thing is nothing new. There was even a thread a while ago where someone (pouya?) got access to a moderator''s account and "argued" back and forth with himself (pouya and mod account) using a random insult generator and many people thought it was real.

Never did find out where they got the insult generator from. I suppose the forums would slow down to a crawl if word got out and people used it to start random flamewars

Alright, that''s fair, some of the quotes were taken out of context. I thought they would help support my point, and that most of the posters here would be able to go back and find them in your original post. We''ll play your way, KalvinB.

So, did I miss the day when you became the authority on flamewars? Here, I''ll give out some advice I read...somewhere...

quote:

---

People are going to say things you don''t agree with and you may not even like to hear it. When you learn to get over yourself you''ll get over it and accept that not everyone agrees with you and you''ll be a lot happier and be a lot less obnoxious.

---

Which, of course, begs the question "Why am I posting? Why don''t I just get over it?" Because I feel that I need to point out the hypocrisy in your post. It''s not that I don''t agree with you, or am intentionally personally attacking you, it''s just that I think you need to be a more ethical debater in order for more people to take your posts seriously. Benjamin bunny pointed this out in another thread.

I think I''ll close with my favorite snippet:

quote:

---

The main gist of my original post, as you''ve so aptly demonstrated, is that people such as yourself can''t deal with criticism, can''t deal with being told they''re wrong, can''t deal with people not taking their word for it and can''t deal with people telling it like it is in plain english.

Your argument blows chunks.

---

Won''t be able to continue conversation for a few hours, I have a tee time real soon.

Mwa, I''ll see if I can hold the fort *grins*

The pattern I generally see in flame wars is more like this:

A: I belive this, because of this
B: You''re wrong, because of this
A: You''re wrong, because of this
B: Dude, that makes no sense
A: No dude, that makes no sense
B: Not uh
A: Yeah huh
B: Poo poo head
A: Caa caa face
C: You''re both being imbesils, shut the hell up
AB: He started it

Generally, both sides have made every argument they can, and have started repeating themselves, which is insanely annoying. But they don''t want to back down, so they dig further for arguments, and all you really get are insults after a while. Sometimes one side or the other is obviously trying harder to keep things civilized, but if they both end up throwing insults then they''re both wrong. Period. Don''t respond to insults, and the thread will die pretty quick. Speak until you have nothing constructive to say, and then stop.

I admit that sometimes I go a little overboard with my arguments. Especially when I think the person responding to me doesn''t know what he''s talking about (my most recent post in the patents thread is a prime example of this). But I do try to step out of the discussion when all logic flies out the window.

KalvinB: keep in mind that it is quite possible for both sides to have perfectly logical arguments and still not have either side be persuaded. It''s just that if you disagree with an argument, it''s not going to seem logical. If it did, you''d agree with it. The very fact that you imply the cause of all flamewars being that one side is dumb and incapable of making logical arguments says alot about you. Presumably, you''re never Person A.

Person B called Person A an idiot, and yet Person A should be banned from all discussions. Had Person B not said anything at all, wouldn''t that have stopped the flamewar as well?

And who the hell is the junior psychologist supposed to be?

CM

My best advice would be this:
When engaging in an 'argument' on the internet I find a good rule of thumb is that if the other person does not understand at least some of the information you're trying to provide (ignores it) within two posts (the first to present it, the second to clarify any points) then there is no point in wasting your time continuing. Just leave the discussion and they'll screw themselves by continuing to rant and rave. Some people are just assholes, leave them to their little fantasy world of moral and intellectual superiority. If left on their own they do more harm than good to their viewpoint by throwing that holier than thou attitude at everyone else listening, including those that previously shared their viewpoint. The hallmark of a good debate is that both sides learn (are *willing* to learn) something from the other, and come to realise the that truth exists somewhere in the middle (though the middle can sometimes be a lot closer to one person than the other)

[edited by - michalson on August 4, 2002 10:25:24 AM]

I think we can all agree that KalvinB needs to relax, and take some time away from the computer. Maybe get some anger management classes.

Has anyone noticed that in nearly 75% of all his posts, he resorts to calling people immature little brats? Or he''ll tell a person to grow up. I laughed when I he did it in this thread; I was almost expecting it.

Kalvin, not everyone is living in this Fisher Price world you seem to be so familiar with. Stop getting so overworked, and try and be more civilized.

Well, so far it isn''t a flamewar yet, so the theorem could still stand.

Right now it''s just a "Flame the Kalvin Feast"

you''re all wrong.

morons...

my thoerem: anyone who even mentions the topic of flames, will get flamed by those looking for a quick joke. Then the flamee will flame back at the flamer, because he did not realise that the flamer was joking.

Thus ensues a large flamewar with no purpose except to waste our time and pull us away from productive tasks, such as, Programming Games.

I always thought flamers were gay guys.
And Michalson, that picture...your such a bad person.

Even if I''m not interested in the topic, I tend to check it once it hits 4 pages or so, fully expecting a) a flamewar and b) KalvinB''s involvement in one way or another. I''m rarely disappointed

Chris Barry (crbarry at mts.net)
My Personal Programming Depot