Conquer Club

I'll join.

Seems like you're forming this in opposition to the FT, though. If the FT is too conservative for you (even though we wanted to kick out Lucas and BES [conservatives] and keep PLAYER [liberal]), then I can imagine what this place might be like.

If some of the FT rejects do well in this place, then I would suggest that the two clans merge (only kicking out the really annoying people). But I still think your efforts would be better spent trying to convince PBG to lower the admission standards for the FT (which will probably happen soon anyway), rather than starting a whole new clan. Just sayin'.

john9blue wrote:Seems like you're forming this in opposition to the FT, though.?

I stated this a while before I gave up on the FT, and I really didn't intend for them to "compete" or anything. The way I saw it when I had the idea: these would serve two different functions. The FT is a lot more exclusive than this is going to be, and that makes it safer in terms of guaranteeing legitimate discussion. I was looking forward to having that as an option.

john9blue wrote:If the FT is too conservative for you (even though we wanted to kick out Lucas and BES [conservatives] and keep PLAYER [liberal]), then I can imagine what this place might be like.

But now, I'm glad I have this, so I can learn from FT's mistakes. I definitely do not want to make this a liberal counterpart to FT's shortcomings: my goal is to allow for diversity. I'm going to hope the leadership find themselves in opposition in most issues, to where there'll be at least one leader on any side of a debate. In short: I want this to be legitimate as a "safe rationality forum" (like FT claimed to be), not just a getaway from people I personally dislike (which is what the FT really is). I'm looking for a diverse exchange of ideas.

john9blue wrote:If some of the FT rejects do well in this place,

(Oh god, I hope the irony of this statement will become public knowledge soon...)

john9blue wrote: then I would suggest that the two clans merge

I actually don't think that's a good idea... If the FT becomes a bit more reasonable, I'll likely re-apply for admission. But the FT aims to be an exclusive clan (in the good sense of the word), while TRU aims for diversity and benifit-of-the-doubt inclusiveness. Those two goals are incompatible, but I'd be glad to have both available to me.

john9blue wrote:But I still think your efforts would be better spent trying to convince PBG to lower the admission standards for the FT (which will probably happen soon anyway), rather than starting a whole new clan. Just sayin'.

Well, back when I made this I was still trying to "lower" the admission standards... but people have been pressing for fair trial since the FT was created. I don't think it's really likely to happen. Rather than force the FT to fit a different set of ideals than it was built on, I'd rather start anew, leaving both sets of ideals available.

Ditocoaf wrote:(Oh god, I hope the irony of this statement will become public knowledge soon...)

Ehh? Do tell.

Ditocoaf wrote:But now, I'm glad I have this, so I can learn from FT's mistakes. I definitely do not want to make this a liberal counterpart to FT's shortcomings: my goal is to allow for diversity. I'm going to hope the leadership find themselves in opposition in most issues, to where there'll be at least one leader on any side of a debate. In short: I want this to be legitimate as a "safe rationality forum" (like FT claimed to be), not just a getaway from people I personally dislike (which is what the FT really is). I'm looking for a diverse exchange of ideas.

Ditocoaf wrote:I actually don't think that's a good idea... If the FT becomes a bit more reasonable, I'll likely re-apply for admission. But the FT aims to be an exclusive clan (in the good sense of the word), while TRU aims for diversity and benifit-of-the-doubt inclusiveness. Those two goals are incompatible, but I'd be glad to have both available to me.

Ditocoaf wrote:Well, back when I made this I was still trying to "lower" the admission standards... but people have been pressing for fair trial since the FT was created. I don't think it's really likely to happen. Rather than force the FT to fit a different set of ideals than it was built on, I'd rather start anew, leaving both sets of ideals available.

Sure, I see where you're coming from. No point in quitting when you're thinking about reapplying, though, imo.

But, if FT opens up its admission, and becomes less strict about its guidelines, we've got two nearly identical clans with the same goals. I don't want to have to post an interesting article or hot topic in two different places, and I don't think that Zeak, Skittles!, CA, etc. will want to reply to both of them. So we either have to split the argument into two (and some people will be missing out on key points), or repeat ourselves in both forums (and some people will be wasting their time reading both).

If, and only if, FT relaxes its guidelines, then the two should merge. I would suggest bringing everyone from TRU into FT, since all the topics are already there (and since the leader doesn't have much power in TRU, you shouldn't mind not being a leader anymore). I hope you get what I'm saying. A single forum would be so much easier than two forums with the same purpose.

I'm in

Thanks to all those expressing a desire to join; as soon as the usergroup is created, I'll add you.

I'd like to join please.

john9blue wrote:But, if FT opens up its admission, and becomes less strict about its guidelines, we've got two nearly identical clans with the same goals. I don't want to have to post an interesting article or hot topic in two different places, and I don't think that Zeak, Skittles!, CA, etc. will want to reply to both of them. So we either have to split the argument into two (and some people will be missing out on key points), or repeat ourselves in both forums (and some people will be wasting their time reading both).

Since Skittles and Zeak got kicked out of FT I don't see much of a problem.

whats your definition of intelligent interesting ?
when you say things like that it means who ever has a good outlook on things and never thinks deeply
to really understand thing you must look outside the box and find a new prospective and the resulting truth scares too many people so you ingnore true logic to maintain innocence
this is why the clan is a lie
i did not mean to offend or anger merely pointing out the obvious hypocrisies

Stephen Wayne wrote:whats your definition of intelligent interesting ?
when you say things like that it means who ever has a good outlook on things and never thinks deeply
to really understand thing you must look outside the box and find a new prospective and the resulting truth scares too many people so you ingnore true logic to maintain innocence
this is why the clan is a lie
i did not mean to offend or anger merely pointing out the obvious hypocrisies

The "intelligent" part simply pertains to rational debate: Instead of insulting your opponents, provide a counterpoint to their opinion. Don't say someone's "stupid" or "ignorant," simply show, logically, where what they said might be wrong. I definitely don't want everyone to agree. I said "interesting" because I didn't want it to sound boring .

Ditocoaf wrote:

Stephen Wayne wrote:whats your definition of intelligent interesting ?
when you say things like that it means who ever has a good outlook on things and never thinks deeply
to really understand thing you must look outside the box and find a new prospective and the resulting truth scares too many people so you ingnore true logic to maintain innocence
this is why the clan is a lie
i did not mean to offend or anger merely pointing out the obvious hypocrisies

The "intelligent" part simply pertains to rational debate: Instead of insulting your opponents, provide a counterpoint to their opinion. Don't say someone's "stupid" or "ignorant," simply show, logically, where what they said might be wrong. I definitely don't want everyone to agree. I said "interesting" because I didn't want it to sound boring .

well defended ill give you that one
if the debates are anything of that nature id join.... that is if my reputation does not betray me

Stephen Wayne wrote:

Ditocoaf wrote:

Stephen Wayne wrote:whats your definition of intelligent interesting ?
when you say things like that it means who ever has a good outlook on things and never thinks deeply
to really understand thing you must look outside the box and find a new prospective and the resulting truth scares too many people so you ingnore true logic to maintain innocence
this is why the clan is a lie
i did not mean to offend or anger merely pointing out the obvious hypocrisies

The "intelligent" part simply pertains to rational debate: Instead of insulting your opponents, provide a counterpoint to their opinion. Don't say someone's "stupid" or "ignorant," simply show, logically, where what they said might be wrong. I definitely don't want everyone to agree. I said "interesting" because I didn't want it to sound boring .

well defended ill give you that one
if the debates are anything of that nature id join.... that is if my reputation does not betray me

Of course you can join. One of the key tenets of this usergroup is that we give everyone the benefit of the doubt.

In please.

In light of recent events, I'd like to respectfully withdraw my application for membership.
Thank you

Juan, did you scare him away?

No it just has to do with the attempted willfull destruction of another clan. I think it shows a lack of class on the part of some members here and would rather not be associated (share a clan) with them.

The destruction was internal. The cause was an attempt to prove a point. The effect was an overreaction. There was never any intent to destroy the group.

Actually there was no destruction, internal or otherwise. I said attempted destruction. Prove a point? Sure one small group has "proven" that they will go to great lengths in the attempt to insure that nobody sets a rule that they disagree with (mind you they can set or break any rule they like). There was no point; only a flimsy excuse. An outside member of the group stated clearly "this forum will be dead in a month" when it wasn't he used a members username and password to come inside and gripe about or admissions standards. As if turning our callouts thread into a bitchfest (to the point that it was shut down) wasn't enough.


Which isn't my intention here; so I'll refrain from any more comments as long as you don't mention me or the issue. Good luck all.

CrazyAnglican wrote:Actually there was no destruction, internal or otherwise. I said attempted destruction. Prove a point? Sure one small group has "proven" that they will go to great lengths in the attempt to insure that nobody sets a rule that they disagree with (mind you they can set or break any rule they like). There was no point; only a flimsy excuse. An outside member of the group stated clearly "this forum will be dead in a month" when it wasn't he used a members username and password to come inside and gripe about or admissions standards. As if turning our callouts thread into a bitchfest (to the point that it was shut down) wasn't enough.

It's looking fairly bleak inside the forum, when such civil discussants as yourself and GT have either removed themselves or been removed. But that's beside the point, and you seem to be missing the point of what they endeavored to achieve. But if you don't want to talk about it, so be it.

There was nothing they could have acheived that opening their own forum with differing standards (such as this one) wouldn't have done nicely. What they did was interfere with the internal workings of another clan. Hence the "we're right; screw off" mentality that is so prevalent in their posts (which btw was the reason that they weren't welcome in the first place.)


Isn't a common complaint (by the very same folks) against differing belief groups that they try to enforce their will on others? It's exactly what was done, and it's hypocrisy no matter how you try to paint it. I'm very well aware of what the intent was, and haven't missed the point at all. Why the interest in how bleak it is (not to mention knowledge of specific membership) if the intent was not to harm?

Neoteny wrote:

CrazyAnglican wrote:Actually there was no destruction, internal or otherwise. I said attempted destruction. Prove a point? Sure one small group has "proven" that they will go to great lengths in the attempt to insure that nobody sets a rule that they disagree with (mind you they can set or break any rule they like). There was no point; only a flimsy excuse. An outside member of the group stated clearly "this forum will be dead in a month" when it wasn't he used a members username and password to come inside and gripe about or admissions standards. As if turning our callouts thread into a bitchfest (to the point that it was shut down) wasn't enough.

It's looking fairly bleak inside the forum, when such civil discussants as yourself and GT have either removed themselves or been removed. But that's beside the point, and you seem to be missing the point of what they endeavored to achieve. But if you don't want to talk about it, so be it.

I'm going to have to ask both of you to take this to PMs...

Certainly,

sorry ditocoaf

CrazyAnglican wrote:Certainly,

sorry ditocoaf

Thanks CrazyAnglican.

Grtz
MarVal

CrazyAnglican wrote:Actually there was no destruction, internal or otherwise. I said attempted destruction. Prove a point? Sure one small group has "proven" that they will go to great lengths in the attempt to insure that nobody sets a rule that they disagree with (mind you they can set or break any rule they like). There was no point; only a flimsy excuse. An outside member of the group stated clearly "this forum will be dead in a month" when it wasn't he used a members username and password to come inside and gripe about or admissions standards. As if turning our callouts thread into a bitchfest (to the point that it was shut down) wasn't enough.

You had this weird belief that some people can't behave civilly when they are asked to do it. I proved you wrong. You and the others responded by kicking out everyone who just happened to share a clan with me.

Have fun agreeing in your subforum.

Sign me up for this.

Snorri1234 wrote:

CrazyAnglican wrote:Actually there was no destruction, internal or otherwise. I said attempted destruction. Prove a point? Sure one small group has "proven" that they will go to great lengths in the attempt to insure that nobody sets a rule that they disagree with (mind you they can set or break any rule they like). There was no point; only a flimsy excuse. An outside member of the group stated clearly "this forum will be dead in a month" when it wasn't he used a members username and password to come inside and gripe about or admissions standards. As if turning our callouts thread into a bitchfest (to the point that it was shut down) wasn't enough.

You had this weird belief that some people can't behave civilly when they are asked to do it. I proved you wrong. You and the others responded by kicking out everyone who just happened to share a clan with me.

Have fun agreeing in your subforum.

that should have been a PM.