So this is how this'll work: If you're okay with your real name appearing anywhere on this blog, say so here. Otherwise, nicknames of all sorts will be used in their place. If you don't respond, it will be assumed that you never saw this post, and your real name will be withheld out of respect for your privacy and/or paranoia.
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Đēsmónðe wæs boürnne ínn Isse-Lünde, änð hē wásse dēaðe. (New readers: go here.)
My Blog List
-
▼
2007
(552)
-
▼
April
(52)
- A Tale of Three Men: Part Four, Part Two
- The Chronicles of Desmond, Chapter 45: A Meeting a...
- A Song of Nikolas
- The Chronicles of Desmond, Chapter 41: Of Matthias...
- Pessie?
- A Tale of Three Men: Part Four, Part One
- A Tale of Three-Hundred Men: Part One, Part SEVEN
- A Tale of Three Men: Part Three, Part Two
- Eating Cheesesteak in Philadelphia
- A Tale of Three Men: Part Three, Part One
- VG Cats
- A Tale of Three Men: Part Two, Part Two
- A Tale of Three Men: Part Two, Part One
- Chronicles of Desmond Movie: StoryBoard
- The Isse-Landic Constitution
- Contrasting Interpretations of King Kessler
- A Tale of Three Men: Part One, Part Two
- A Tale of Three Men: Part One, Part One
- A Portrait of Desmond
- Contrasting Interpretations of the Ratte-Kinge
- THE KRONIKKLES OF DESMOND: THE MOVIE—Planning stages
- The Chronicles of Desmond, Chapter 35: Nikoulasse ...
- Yaplet
- Spring Break
- The Eastern League: In Christ Ascendatus
- The Auncient Rule in Isselunde
- Blag Facts
- Bird-Gecko Mamluks
- The Misheard Lyrics of Wishmaster
- The Hobo Chronicles of Desmond
- Shadow
- Dr. McNinja
- Link problems
- More Lame Jokes
- ATTN: Kessler RE: Wiimote w/ Compy
- Real Names
- Blah, blah, blah
- BLOG PROPOSAL #2: Widen the blag
- BLOG PROPOSAL #1: Restricting Blog Access
- Hm.
- This isn't really that cool...
- Let's use Internet democracy!
- Vicious Bear-Weasels
- The Eastern League: Jesus!
- A Series of Ridiculity
- The Northern League: To Furthest North
- Ongoing
- A Transcript of the Latest Episode of "Scroungers"
- NikolasTech
- Isotown!
- Soul Force
- Things from this April Fool's Day
-
▼
April
(52)
11 comments:
Quessler! God darn it, stop doing things like this! The default should be permissiveness - I just had an hour and a half long running fight with you about this!
You know how frequently (or, rather, infrequently) some dudes read this blag. When are you going to take things down? Some people hardly read once a week. Some read less frequently!
Give it up. If dudes complain, sure, turn them into nicknames. But that really shouldn't be a default.
*weighs in*
Cut that out, oh Kessler-y dude. No one but you, as far as I know, gives a damn. I don't think anything'd be wrong with having your name omitted, but no one else cares.
David does. That's two to one. (Ethan doesn't count, as he's only a member by heritage.) Considering that half of those even participating in this discussion think it's a bad idea to force it on people, shouldn't we have said victims decide if they want this affliction first?
Also, "stop doing things like this"? Are you referring to asking people for opinions on things that will affect them instead of forcing your beliefs on them in ways that almost certainly make them uncomfortable?
Notice the subtle allusions to your removing administrator privileges to punish me for swapping some tags, and your posting personal information online without the consent of the people in question.
I just stumbled upon a simple and rational argument! It is almost as compelling as the xkcd comic you showed me.
Okay, so: According to your beliefs, personal information should be posted, then objected to. According to my beliefs, personal information should be approved of, then posted.
Both gain the same net result: The personal information people want to be on here goes on here. Except in the cases of people not knowing that their personal information is on the Internet for all to see, and for the people who don't read this blog, but would hypothetically want their names to be associated with it if they actually cared. But they're aside the point.
The point is, the added benefit to my solution is that those who only read the blag weekly won't be traumatized upon learning that their personal information has been available for a week. The added benefit to your solution is additional speed in providing useless information (We know our names) to people who already read it anyway (It's, what, the second post?). Unless you can name another added benefit. And it can't be freedom of speech; you already banned the ChronicIer once for using his.
Also! I just remembered Matthias telling me how he felt he was too harsh to Othernick upon learning that Othernick posted his name online repeatedly. That's three to one.
Since I last replied, some responses.
Maraj: Dude the swearing is a bit too much. I know I told you this in person, but I like to be thorough.
Kessler x1: Afflictionbah! Bah. Baaah. That is "poisoning the well!"
Most fallacious.
Kessler x2: False duality and premises in one. Names are not personal information; I removed admin priviledges because you guys were swappin' things around like crazy without rhyme or reason, as I said at the time. Note that I restored them as soon as I figured out a way to keep things orderly.
Kessler x3: Huh, I'm not quite certain what you're trying to say here. So I'll respond to what I think I understand.
Again (this is the sixth time?): NAMES ARE NOT PERSONAL INFORMATION.
When dudes come to a blag, they sometimes read from beginning to end, as one would a novel - especially a frequently fiction-based blag, such as ours. Further, we could put it up on the sidebar - links to useful posts for a new reader - which class I see no reason that we should fear. (New readers. That came out awkward.)
I celebrate freedom of speech; if David wants to say the p-word, he may do so as many times as he likes. However, public obscenity is a different issue, and should be opposed. It is the difference between a dude runnin' around naked in his own house & out in the street. I love freedom of speech. And Jesus. Well, no, just freedom of speech, I guess.
Matthias's secondhand (thirdhand?) comment does not really sound like a condemnation to me.
I guess that's everything. In conclusion: Dude I am hella not impressed by your "simple and rational argument", names are not personal information, I like people.
For the curious, the xkcd comic in question: xkcd.com/c137.html
I am a neutral party.
lol
Third opinion!
Um, dude, #1 isn't really poisoning the well, and #2 isn't really a false premise or a false duality.
And, NAMES ARE PERSONAL INFORMATION, if they are in context, which they are here (you list where we reside and the teachers at our school). And yes, I side with Kesler in that I feel extremely uncomfortable with this information being public.
This is why we should just privatise the blog so that only members can see it. Honestly, what do we lose? If we want someone we know, say new members of the League to see this, we could just invite them. That way, we always know who can see our personal information.
You people continue to confound me.
You want to make the blog private? Then what is it? There's really no point to it if no one else can see it; only you will know it even exists, regardless, and you can simply speak to each other in person.
Um, on names...um, I see no locations.
Also, I don't count? You promote democracy, yet stifle my voice? I sense hypocrisy, and it isn't coming from me.
Nick's last two comments, but without real names:
calvacadeofcats said...
I think Maraj covered the latter half of your comment well, Jeltharo. As for the former half:
From the wiki!
#1: In general usage, poisoning the well is the provision of any information that may produce a biased result. For example, if a woman tells her friend "I think I might buy this beautiful dress." then asks how it looks, she has "poisoned the well", as her previous comment could affect her friend's response.
Similarly, in written work, an inappropriate heading to a section or chapter can create pre-bias. As an example:
The so-called "Theory" of Relativity
We now examine the theory of relativity...
which has already "poisoned the well" to a balanced argument.
In this manner, the Qesler called using real names an 'affliction' - something that rather tends to support one bias over another (mine).
#2: Qesler posed 'asking people for opinions on things that will affect them' as an alternative to 'forcing your beliefs on them in ways that almost certainly make them uncomfortable'. In two ways is this incorrect: firstly, it is a false duality, as I am forcing my beliefs on no-one, and it is unclear how doing so - in this case - is almost certain to make those affected uncomfortable. Secondly, it is not 'asking people for opinions' that I object to - as I had planned to regardless on Monday - but doing so and then making decisions, according to his own bias, if people don't offer opinions. It's not a matter of whether people get to choose or not - it's a matter of the default. And after a 1.5 hour running argument - which I won - (though it has, in a sense, continued since then), King Kessler arbitrarily set a default based on his own bias.
That's what I was objecting to.
Wow, that was much longer than I expected.
April 8, 2007 2:51 PM
calvacadeofcats said...
Some thoughts on our names showing up in Google: I checked just now, and none of us show up in Google. Even the people whose names are still on the blag. Devin McGhie is an expert bicyclist, I'm a lawyer, David's a computer science professor, and Kessler and Matthias don't show up at all.
Maybe Google hasn't cached us yet (despite the fact that we're on Google Blogger). Still... food for thought.
Oh, yeah! Just searched for "League of Desmond". They have the old address cached - at a time when David has a vandalized p-word post up and the Hobo Chronicles were still running. Could there be a worse time?
April 8, 2007 3:09 PM
I will respond to stuff by quoting, since stuff is more organized that way.
"Names are not personal information;..."
That's a question of vocabulary, and as Jeltharo pointed out, context. The point is, if a person is uncomfortable with his name being put online, it should not be put online. If two people don't want their names being put online, it's a coincidence that they're both paranoid. If three people don't want their names being put online, maybe others are similarly paranoid, and maybe actions should be taken to accommodate this potential paranoia.
"I celebrate freedom of speech; if David wants to say the p-word, he may do so as many times as he likes. However, public obscenity is a different issue, and should be opposed. It is the difference between a dude runnin' around naked in his own house & out in the street."
But this is a private blog, intended for interaction between us, members of the League of Desmond. Hence why we don't want others to find it. So that they don't see Jeltharo going on penis extravaganzas. Did you intend for the blog to be public? If so, say so, so that I can remove my posts and either create a private blog myself in which to post stuff or create a blog formatted for public consumption. (Seriously, this blog violates pretty much all the public blogging guidelines.)
"Matthias's secondhand (thirdhand?) comment does not really sound like a condemnation to me."
A narrative in steps:
1. Othernick posts Matthias's name online repeatedly.
2. Matthias learns of this.
3. Matthias lashes out at Othernick.
4. Matthias confesses that he thinks he was being too harsh.
The relevant information is in step three, where we learn that Matthias is uncomfortable with somebody else putting his name online.
"You want to make the blog private? Then what is it? There's really no point to it if no one else can see it; only you will know it even exists, regardless, and you can simply speak to each other in person."
And we can have storytimes every lunch, where Jeltharo will read us another chapter of the Kronnikkles.
"Um, on names...um, I see no locations."
Again, you fail at looking before posting.
"Also, I don't count? You promote democracy, yet stifle my voice? I sense hypocrisy, and it isn't coming from me."
I offer the following quote in response:
"Cut that out, oh Kessler-y dude. No one but you, as far as I know, gives a damn. I don't think anything'd be wrong with having your name omitted, but no one else cares."
There was ample evidence at your time of posting that Jeltharo-y dude also "gave a damn". You don't seem to read the blog from anywhere other than above Nick's shoulder, as evidenced by your lack of knowledge relating to Mii Transfer X. Most of us only ever see you when there is a Gamecube running. Simply put, you're a stranger who doesn't know what he's talking about. Prove me wrong if you like.
"In this manner, the Qesler called using real names an 'affliction' - something that rather tends to support one bias over another (mine)."
"affliction |əˈflik sh ən| |əˌflɪkʃən| |əˌflɪkʃ(ə)n|
noun
something that causes pain or suffering"
Replace 'pain or suffering' with 'feelings of discomfort' and the point still stands. I'm sorry for using bad words.
"In two ways is this incorrect: firstly, it is a false duality, as I am forcing my beliefs on no-one, and it is unclear how doing so - in this case - is almost certain to make those affected uncomfortable."
Simply put, some of us (most of us, actually) tend to feel uncomfortable with having our names put online. You believe that this is a silly tendency, so you put our names online regardless.
"...it's a matter of the default."
If a majority is concerned with one option, it probably shouldn't be the default.
"...- which I won -..."
?
"...King Kessler arbitrarily set a default based on his own bias."
Mine, Jeltharo's, Matthias's, and that of three quarters of the Internet.
"Wow, that was much longer than I expected."
Think of how refined your next essay will be! Practice makes perfect.
I offer the following quote as rebuttal for the second post of yours that I censored:
"Maybe Google hasn't cached us yet (despite the fact that we're on Google Blogger)."
Post a Comment