ignore this topic, do not reply

[billy bob]

I see only the answer to my first question: Do you agree or not? Your answer is: No

But I don't see why you don't agree.

If I think it is OK to break the rules and post several messages all saying the one word "pencil" then that is not OK.

I agree. But that's quite different then the posts I wrote. If I made several posts with nothing but the word "pencil" then you would think: "Marinus is going to be crazy" right?

Yes, but to be against a rule and think it is OK then the only difference is this one is more believable that you think that it is OK instead of doing it for some other reason.

But I'm trying to have an interesting conversation with my good friend Billy Bob. That's quite different then posting nonsense like: pencil pencil pencil.

it's you thinking that it is OK to post off-topic messages as long as no one is posting about the real reason this topic exists.

Quite right! So, what's your problem with that? (And then, not about rules, but about your very own opinion!)

Because the rule says not to be off-topic. The rule doesn't say not to be off-topic unless the real meaning of the topic has stopped.

No. I just can't leave a post unanswered.

Let's see. This is the post you were answering:

You already are - offtopicing.

I see no question. As far as I know, someone can only answer, if someone else asked a question before. So why can't you leave a post unanswered, if nobody asks a question to be answered?

He or she said something that was supposed to be given an explanation from me.

I think, what ^_^ meant is: When there are things which are not logical, but funny, weird, silly, or how you call it, such as a talk-like-a-pirate-day, you use to ask serious questions about them, while it's actually no serious matter.

But MS doesn't like these topics. That's why Playing with the quote bubbles got locked.

Nope, that was actually a forum game I would consider.

But MS doesn't.

The quote bubbles topic was a forum game. This is more of a silly discussion topic that's not meant to be taken seriously.

What MS doesn't want is topics that really don't have any purpose to them, discussion or otherwise.

But this topic's purpose is just to talk random sentences, just in pirate talk. That is the same as Playing with the quote bubbles; that topic's purpose was to talk random sentences, just in quotes.

I think all quotes that are posted were all unrelated then.

That doesn't make a difference; the purpose still is to talk random sentences (just in pirate talk).

You haven't replied to the post above.

[Marinus]

Never thought that pirate language would be so interesting.

Yes, but to be against a rule and think it is OK then the only difference is this one is more believable that you think that it is OK instead of doing it for some other reason.

Sounds like a German soldier to me. It doesn't matter what's the reason for a rule. It doesn't matter if someone has a good reason to break a rule. Rules must be kept, dead or or alive.

I still don't have a clear answer to my question. I did not ask you what the rule says, and not at all what you think the rule says. The only thing I really would like to know is, what you think what's the reason for that rule.

And the reason that a rule exists can not be the rule itself, because that would be a vicious circle or an eternal loop.

Because the rule says not to be off-topic. The rule doesn't say not to be off-topic unless the real meaning of the topic has stopped.

Again, I'm absolutely not interested in what you think the rule says, but I'm very interested in your own opinion about being off-topic, no matter what the rules say.

So again, would you please tell me what's your problem with being off-topic, without using the word rules or something like that?

He or she said something that was supposed to be given an explanation from me.

If I say something that is true but which makes no sense to say, because everyone knows, and everyone knows that everyone knows, for example: "If there are no clouds, the sky is blue" or "If you walk in the rain without a raincoat or umbrella, you are going to be wet.", such silly things, are you expected to give an explanation then. I would just think that I was expected to give an explanation, why I only said things which everyone already knows.

You haven't replied to the post above.

Did you ask a question to Tyteen or to me, or who? And what was actually the question?

[billy bob]

Yes, but to be against a rule and think it is OK then the only difference is this one is more believable that you think that it is OK instead of doing it for some other reason.

Sounds like a German soldier to me. It doesn't matter what's the reason for a rule. It doesn't matter if someone has a good reason to break a rule. Rules must be kept, dead or or alive.

What? I'm not a soldier and I don't know what "German" means.

I still don't have a clear answer to my question. I did not ask you what the rule says, and not at all what you think the rule says. The only thing I really would like to know is, what you think what's the reason for that rule.

The reason for the rule is probably so users will not talk about something when the other users will talk about something else. However, the rule did not say that we could talk off-topic as long as the real reason this topic exists stopped, the rule said no off-topic. Therefore, we have to obey that otherwise we want to get banned.

Because the rule says not to be off-topic. The rule doesn't say not to be off-topic unless the real meaning of the topic has stopped.

Again, I'm absolutely not interested in what you think the rule says, but I'm very interested in your own opinion about being off-topic, no matter what the rules say.

What I think the rule says is clearly what the rule says.

So again, would you please tell me what's your problem with being off-topic, without using the word rules or something like that?

I have no problem. But Patrick does otherwise he or she wouldn't have created that rule.

He or she said something that was supposed to be given an explanation from me.

If I say something that is true but which makes no sense to say, because everyone knows, and everyone knows that everyone knows, for example: "If there are no clouds, the sky is blue" or "If you walk in the rain without a raincoat or umbrella, you are going to be wet.", such silly things, are you expected to give an explanation then. I would just think that I was expected to give an explanation, why I only said things which everyone already knows.

No - he or she was replying to my previous post. And that statement was questioning it. If I didn't say that and he or she said that, then I would have ignored it.

You haven't replied to the post above.

Did you ask a question to Tyteen4a03 or to me, or who? And what was actually the question?

It's not a question. I questioned what Tyteen4a03 said but he or she didn't answer.

[Marinus]

What? I'm not a soldier and I don't know what "German" means.

If I see some of your levels which I hardly can solve, or not solve at all, you must have a very high IQ. But you don't know where you live, and you don't know what German means. If you are visiting someone, or go to school or where-ever, how do you find your home back then? And didn't you learn geography at school, the names of the countries and continents in the world?

Actually I was refering to the example I mentioned earlier, about the 2nd world war. Never heard of it? Well, about 70 years ago there was a man called Adolf Hitler, he was the boss of a country called Germany, and he found that people with blond hair and blue eyes are better then people with dark eyes, hair or skin. He hated dark people, especially Jews, so he made a rule that all Jews must be killed. (which was of course one of the most terrible crimes in history) And lots of those German soldiers said: well the rule says we must kill those people,

Therefore, we have to obey that otherwise we want to get banned.

Please understand me well: I'm not comparing anyone with Hitler, and I'm not saying that you would kill anyone if the rules say that you should. I'm only trying to say that you find the rules much more important then they actually are. I think that people who find rules the most important things in life, are people who, like we say in Dutch, people who are not looking further then the length of their noses.

so users will not talk about something when the other users will talk about something else.

Then we agree at that point.

However, the rule did not say ......

I tried to make you clear that it's not possible to make a rule which says everything, which is suitable for every situation. You can try to do so, but there will be situations that the rule doesn't make sense. Also, if everyone on this forum was just like you, there would be so many rules needed, that we didn't have time to play Wonderland anymore.

What I think the rule says is clearly what the rule says.

I told you that I don't agree with that, and also why, (such as: it is important in most sections .... off-topic is for silly and socialize) but if you keep stating your opinion as being a fact, I think we'd better not discuss that more.

I have no problem.

Great!

But Patrick does otherwise he or she wouldn't have created that rule.

Patrick is a human being, who can't look into the future. If he would have known years ago that you and I would have this discussion, he probably would have said: If there are 2 (or more) different discussions in the same thread, please move 1 (or more) of them to a separate thread.
Besides, I noticed, that he just locked 2 nonsense topics, but he didn't lock this one. So I think we can say that talking nonsense bothers him more then have a good serious off-topic talking about off-topic stuff, in a thread which is actually not in use anymore. Maybe he would not agree for 100% with you or with me, but I think either, he finds you and I have a pretty interesting discussion here, no matter if it's a bit off-topic, or he doesn't give himself the time, to read all of it.

Also, pirates are people who use to steal things from other people, and don't care about rules. So if I say that I don't find rules very important, I'm actually talking like a pirate, which means that I'm still on-topic.

But seriously: Did Patrick ask you to keep an eye on people who break a rule? Did he ask you to point out that rule for those people? And did he give you permission to break a rule yourself, in such situation?

Remember that, if you say someone is off-topic, means that you are also off-topic yourself in most situations. Unless you say it in the topic: "Here a topic, there a topic, everywhere a topic topic"

And that statement was questioning it.

No, it was stating sort of a fact. He/she said that you and I were talking off-topic, which was actually well-known information. I think in some situations when there's not really a question asked, it may be a good idea to ignore it. If the other one finds it really important that you reply, he/she would probably say/ask again. Because, for example, you did your very best in the "Ok sorry" topic to keep everything according to the rules, but apparently it didn't help much, because in the meantime the topic is locked.

It probably will take centuries before everyone realizes that you are right.

[^_^]

I agree with Marinus.
In every part of this post^

[Marinus]

Well, it surprised me a little bit that you said that, I'm glad you did. Thanks. At least one person who agrees with me.

[Qloof234]

What?
You first.

That's because I hoped that everyone would realize that I was right and would stop the entire topic instead of lots of arguing to occur.

Here's the thing, though - as Marinus has proved several times, once again, it's based on opinion. I've already gone over how "opinions =/= fact", so I shouldn't need to explain how this works again.

[billy bob]

What? I'm not a soldier and I don't know what "German" means.

If I see some of your levels which I hardly can solve, or not solve at all, you must have a very high IQ. But you don't know where you live, and you don't know what German means. If you are visiting someone, or go to school or where-ever, how do you find your home back then? And didn't you learn geography at school, the names of the countries and continents in the world?

I don't go to school... If I was told something like that then I just immediately forgot. If I try to remember four numbers then in an hour I will have forgotten.

What?
You first.

That's because I hoped that everyone would realize that I was right and would stop the entire topic instead of lots of arguing to occur.

Here's the thing, though - as Marinus has proved several times, once again, it's based on opinion. I've already gone over how "opinions =/= fact", so I shouldn't need to explain how this works again.

Opinions = fact? So if in my opinion it is OK to throw a mug at someone then it is a fact that it is OK?

Actually I was referring to the example I mentioned earlier, about the 2nd world war. Never heard of it? Well, about 70 years ago there was a man called Adolf Hitler, he was the boss of a country called Germany, and he found that people with blond hair and blue eyes are better then people with dark eyes, hair or skin. He hated dark people, especially Jews, so he made a rule that all Jews must be killed. (which was of course one of the most terrible crimes in history) And lots of those German soldiers said: well the rule says we must kill those people,

Therefore, we have to obey that otherwise we want to get banned.

Please understand me well: I'm not comparing anyone with Hitler, and I'm not saying that you would kill anyone if the rules say that you should. I'm only trying to say that you find the rules much more important then they actually are. I think that people who find rules the most important things in life, are people who, like we say in Dutch, people who are not looking further then the length of their noses.

About the "2nd world war", I've never heard of it. Sounds nasty though. Anyway, that's very different than on this forum. Very different. On this forum you are allowed to go to a place but if you do something you are not aloud to do then you are not aloud to come back again (unless you pretend to be someone else). It's completely different.

[Marinus]

I don't go to school... If I was told something like that then I just immediately forgot. If I try to remember four numbers then in an hour I will have forgotten.

I'm sorry about that, and I hope you still can be happy in life.

I think Qloof means the opposite: If in your opinion something is true, does not mean that it in fact is true.

[another little word-joke]As a matter of fact, there are no facts. [/]
At least nothing we can state as being a fact.
Except: I think; therefore I exist. But I'm not able to prove that to other people who don't exist.

Edit:

About the "2nd world war", I've never heard of it. Sounds nasty though.

Yes, it was nasty. And I hope I didn't make you feel sad by telling you that. Actually I thought everyone knows.

And indeed, there are lots of differences between that situation and the situation on this forum. But I guess you understand that I'm not talking about the differences, but about the things which are the same. And then I mean, that some people find the rules too important. And in some situations that can be dangerous.

[billy bob]

However, the rule did not say ......

I tried to make you clear that it's not possible to make a rule which says everything, which is suitable for every situation. You can try to do so, but there will be situations that the rule doesn't make sense. Also, if everyone on this forum was just like you, there would be so many rules needed, that we didn't have time to play Wonderland anymore.

What? No - only an alteration of the off-topic rule would be required.

What I think the rule says is clearly what the rule says.

I told you that I don't agree with that, and also why, (such as: it is important in most sections .... off-topic is for silly and socialize) but if you keep stating your opinion as being a fact, I think we'd better not discuss that more.

You can't disagree with an obvious fact. All you have to do is look at the rule, study the words, then you fully understand that it says not to be off-topic. It clearly doesn't say not to be off-topic unless the real reason this topic exists has stopped.

But Patrick does otherwise he or she wouldn't have created that rule.

Patrick is a human being, who can't look into the future. If he would have known years ago that you and I would have this discussion, he probably would have said: If there are 2 (or more) different discussions in the same thread, please move 1 (or more) of them to a separate thread.

That's your opinion. In my opinion, I'm not sure if if Patrick could see the future then he or she would change the rule.

...I noticed, that he just locked 2 nonsense topics, but he didn't lock this one. So I think we can say that talking nonsense bothers him more then have a good serious off-topic talking about off-topic stuff, in a thread which is actually not in use anymore. Maybe he would not agree for 100% with you or with me, but I think either, he finds you and I have a pretty interesting discussion here, no matter if it's a bit off-topic, or he doesn't give himself the time, to read all of it.

I'd like it if Patrick could say what he or she thinks.

But seriously: Did Patrick ask you to keep an eye on people who break a rule? Did he ask you to not point out that rule for those people? And did he give you permission to break a rule yourself, in such situation?

Did Patrick ask me to not keep an eye on people who break a rule? Did he ask me to not point out that rule for those people?

Remember that, if you say someone is off-topic, means that you are also off-topic yourself in most situations.

But I can't leave this unanswered because I want to finish this argument.

And that statement was questioning it.

No, it was stating sort of a fact. He/she said that you and I were talking off-topic, which was actually well-known information. I think in some situations when there's not really a question asked, it may be a good idea to ignore it. If the other one finds it really important that you reply, he/she would probably say/ask again. Because, for example, you did your very best in the "Ok sorry" topic to keep everything according to the rules, but apparently it didn't help much, because in the meantime the topic is locked.

A fact, that was questioning what I said. But then I gave an explanation.

I don't go to school... If I was told something like that then I just immediately forgot. If I try to remember four numbers then in an hour I will have forgotten.

I'm sorry about that, and I hope you still can be happy in life.

I wouldn't be able to live a happy life if I did go to school. Although I doubt I'll be able to live a happy life no matter what (but if I would be in school now it would be worse).

[Marinus]

You can't disagree with an obvious fact.

What's the difference between your (and then I mean your (Billy Bob's) not mine) opinion, and an obvious fact?

[billy bob]

You can't disagree with an obvious fact.

What's the difference between your (and then I mean your (Billy Bob's) not mine) opinion, and an obvious fact?

This isn't about my opinion, it's a fact that that rule says not to be off-topic with no exceptions added.

[Marinus]

It's a fact that you didn't answer my question.

[billy bob]

It's a fact that you didn't answer my question.

There are many differences, but I can't define them.

[Marinus]

Thanks. In that case, can we please have an agreement, that you don't call things an "obvious fact", while I think it's not an "obvious fact"?

(Because if you're not able to explain or define that difference, then I'm not able to see that difference)

[billy bob]

Thanks. In that case, can we please have an agreement, that you don't call things an "obvious fact", while I think it's not an "obvious fact"?

OK. So, does that mean one of us misunderstands the rule?

[Marinus]

Thanks.

Well, I'm not quite sure. When you ask that question it seems to me, that you think the rule is also absolute, or a fact.

But I think that rule is also an opinion: Patrick's. And actually his opinion a few years ago. Since it's possible that people change their opinion (in my opinion ) it is also possible that the rule would have been a bit different if he had written it today.

Trying to answer you question: I think it's always possible that someone misunderstand a rule, or the meaning of a rule. I think we're al human beings, and we all can make mistakes.

1:00 h; Good night. See you tomorrow.

[billy bob]

Well, I'm not quite sure. When you ask that question it seems to me, that you think the rule is also absolute, or a fact.

It might be or it might not. If it is then I am correct, if it isn't then you are correct.

But I think that rule is also an opinion: Patrick's. And actually his opinion a few years ago. Since it's possible that people change their opinion (in my opinion) it is also possible that the rule would have been a bit different if he had written it today.

He should edit it if it does need editing.

[Marinus]

What? No - only an alteration of the off-topic rule would be required.

If you're talking about this situation, yes. But there may happen more of such situations.

It clearly doesn't say not to be off-topic unless the real reason this topic exists has stopped.

Right, but it clearly doesn't say the opposite either. It also clearly doesn't say clearly what's exactly the definition of talking off-topic. If a topic is about apples, may you also talk about apple-juice? And about the glass, you drink it out? And about the friend who gave it to you on your birthday party? What's the difference between on-topic and a little bit off-topic? And between a little bit, and a little bit more? And who is supposed to make those decisions? You perhaps?
(BTW, please feel free to answer all those questions or not. )

I think "most sections" means something different then "all sections"

That's your opinion.

Of course. As long as I don't have enough information about real facts, it stays an opinion.

I'd like it if Patrick could say what he or she thinks.

Me too, but he probably doesn't have the time for that, or he doesn't give himself that time.

Did Patrick ask me to not keep an eye on people who break a rule? Did he ask me to not point out that rule for those people?

Aha. You try to answer my questions by asking questions back. Shouldn't be a big problem, except that you forgot one. I asked you 3 and you asked me only 2.

But I can't leave this unanswered because I want to finish this argument.

Do you mean, finish an argument, or do you want the entire world to realize that you are right?

The fastest way to finish an argument, is to close your mouth. But actually I wasn't talking about this conversation here.

Generally I meant this:

If you see someone breaks a rule, --- (which is in my opinion, that it's in your opinion breaking a rule, but perhaps not the other people's opinion)
in a topic which is not really interesting --- (in your and/or my opinion)
so it's absolutely not your concern because you've no reason to read that topic at all, --- (in my opinion, maybe also in some other people's opinion, but perhaps not in your opinion)
[Edit: forgot a few words] it = pointing out the rules to him/her[/] is annoying --- (in some people's opinion)
because it isn't correct --- (in my opinion)
if people "play boss" over other people, unless it's necessary. --- (in most people's opinion)
(Can you still follow me, or are too many opinions involved? )

But a bit more specific: If you say someone is off-topic, usually that person didn't ask a question,(and certainly not a question if he/she is off-topic)) so it's not a matter of leaving something unanswered. And besides, when you say someone is off-topic, usually that is off-topic too, which brings us to that 3rd question I mentioned before.

A fact, that was questioning what I said.

And what was the question that the fact asked you?

It might be or it might not. If it is then I am correct, if it isn't then you are correct.

To be or not to be, that's the question. I guess you're right. Neither of us can say which is absolute, or which is a fact. Communication between people depends mostly on opinions and their explanations.

He should edit it if it does need editing.

And if it does need editing depends on us. As long as we have a good conversation about it, without looking angry at each other, I see no need to.

[billy bob]

What? No - only an alteration of the off-topic rule would be required.

If you're talking about this situation, yes. But there may happen more of such situations.

Really? I can only find a few ones.

It clearly doesn't say not to be off-topic unless the real reason this topic exists has stopped.

Right, but it clearly doesn't say the opposite either. It also clearly doesn't say clearly what's exactly the definition of talking off-topic. If a topic is about apples, may you also talk about apple-juice? And about the glass, you drink it out? And about the friend who gave it to you on your birthday party? What's the difference between on-topic and a little bit off-topic? And between a little bit, and a little bit more? And who is supposed to make those decisions? You perhaps?

No, but this topic isn't connected to pirate speaking at all. If they were related slightly then I wouldn't say "Back on topic or abandon topic." (we'd continue arguing if this topic is Spam or not).

I don't go to school... If I was told something like that then I just immediately forgot.

Actually, I didn't immediately forget, it just took approximately a week. The teachers used methods I didn't understand. And of course, the few I did understand I forgot. If I asked them to explain differently they just got annoyed and said I wasn't listening, then sometimes they'd explain the same method again instead of a different one (or in other cases they'd leave me alone and ignore me then get even more annoyed when I didn't to my work because I didn't understand it).

And did he give you permission to break a rule yourself, in such situation?

I don't understand this question.

The fastest way to finish an argument, is to close your mouth. But actually I wasn't talking about this conversation here.

But then no one will realize I am right and everyone will continue to be off-topic.

Do you mean, finish an argument, or do you want the entire world to realize that you are right?

Not the world, the forum.

If you see someone breaks a rule, --- (which is in my opinion, that it's in your opinion breaking a rule, but perhaps not the other people's opinion)
in a topic which is not really interesting --- (in your and/or my opinion)
so it's absolutely not your concern because you've no reason to read that topic at all, --- (in my opinion, maybe also in some other people's opinion, but perhaps not in your opinion)

Definitely not in my opinion. I saw what it was about, and it had/has a "Spammy" purpose. Therefore I argued.

[Edit: forgot a few words] it = pointing out the rules to him/her[/] is annoying --- (in some people's opinion)

But they have to listen to it otherwise they will keep doing the same thing. And that same thing, is against the rules.

If people "play boss" over other people, unless it's necessary. --- (in most people's opinion.)

I'm not "playing boss", Patrick is because he is the boss. Pointing out rules Patrick made doesn't make me "playing boss".

But a bit more specific: If you say someone is off-topic, usually that person didn't ask a question,(and certainly not a question if he/she is off-topic)) so it's not a matter of leaving something unanswered.

Not unanswered, not replied. If I leave it not replied then no one will realize I am right.

And besides, when you say someone is off-topic, usually that is off-topic too, which brings us to that 3rd question I mentioned before.

A fact, that was questioning what I said.

And what was the question that the fact asked you?

It asked "If that is true, then why are you being off-topic too?".

And besides, when you say someone is off-topic, usually that is off-topic too, which brings us to that 3rd question I mentioned before.

But if I don't say someone is off-topic then that person will continue to be off-topic. If I do say someone is off-topic then that person will stop.

[Qloof234]

No, but this topic isn't connected to pirate speaking at all. If they were related slightly then I wouldn't say "Back on topic or abandon topic." (we'd continue arguing if this topic is Spam or not).

It seems to depend on how you interpret it - Just from reading the first three posts, I can connect it to pirate speaking already. Considering that MS hasn't locked or deleted the topic yet and that he's cleaning up the Off-Topic section a bit in preparation for its overhauling, I think it's safe to say he can connect it to its title as well.

But then no one will realize I am right and everyone will continue to be off-topic.

Once again - the rules are subject to interpretation. The closest example I can think of is the Bible. You can read it, and say "I think Jesus meant this, I think Jode meant that" and someone else can reply with "oh no, it meant this" - Ergo, while you can see something as an obvious fact, someone else can see it as rather obscure or opinionated, and not a fact.

If there was a clear set of definitions associated with the rule, then that's what we'd have to go with. However, there isn't, so it is subject to user interpretation before MS steps in.

[Edit: forgot a few words] it = pointing out the rules to him/her[/] is annoying --- (in some people's opinion)

But they have to listen to it otherwise they will keep doing the same thing. And that same thing, is against the rules.

That's quite true, the rules have to be listened to. It is, however, annoying for some users if the rules are continuously pointed out to them by another user when - by their own interpretation - they aren't breaking any rules.

Not unanswered, not replied. If I leave it not replied then no one will realize I am right.

Once again - the reason behind no one realizing that you're "correct" is because of different interpretations. We all read the world and gather information in different ways, and come to different conclusions as a result through logic or otherwise.

Trying to show your own interpretations to others sometimes fails as a result, because they won't be able to catch onto the same logical route that you took to get to your conclusion.

But if I don't say someone is off-topic then that person will continue to be off-topic. If I do say someone is off-topic then that person will stop.

This is where I'm going to have to politely agree to disagree based on my knowledge of human behavior - many people are rather rebellious, especially on the internet. Telling them to stop being offtopic can sometime backfire horrendously, and cause them to continue it for much longer.

Of course, this depends on that person's nature and their default response in that kind of situation.


EDIT: I'm bad at quote tags today

[billy bob]

No, but this topic isn't connected to pirate speaking at all. If they were related slightly then I wouldn't say "Back on topic or abandon topic." (we'd continue arguing if this topic is Spam or not).

It seems to depend on how you interpret it - Just from reading the first three posts, I can connect it to pirate speaking already. Considering that MS hasn't locked or deleted the topic yet and that he's cleaning up the Off-Topic section a bit in preparation for its overhauling, I think it's safe to say he can connect it to its title as well.

Yes. It probably is OK. But still, according to the forum rules, it isn't, so that means I wasn't wrong. Just Patrick hasn't updated them (which led to confusion).

But then no one will realize I am right and everyone will continue to be off-topic.

Once again - the rules are subject to interpretation. The closest example I can think of is the Bible. You can read it, and say "I think Jesus meant this, I think Jode meant that" and someone else can reply with "oh no, it meant this" - Ergo, while you can see something as an obvious fact, someone else can see it as rather obscure or opinionated, and not a fact.

OK, why do the people that think the rule means to be not off-topic unless the real reason this topic exists has stopped think the rule means to be not off-topic unless the real reason this topic exists has stopped?

[Edit: forgot a few words] it = pointing out the rules to him/her[/] is annoying --- (in some people's opinion)

But they have to listen to it otherwise they will keep doing the same thing. And that same thing, is against the rules.

That's quite true, the rules have to be listened to. It is, however, annoying for some users if the rules are continuously pointed out to them by another user when - by their own interpretation - they aren't breaking any rules.

But they are breaking rules. The rules say not to do things that they are doing.

Not unanswered, not replied. If I leave it not replied then no one will realize I am right.

Once again - the reason behind no one realizing that you're "correct" is because of different interpretations. We all read the world and gather information in different ways, and come to different conclusions as a result through logic or otherwise.

I guess there is no such thing as correct then. Which means none of us are correct. Which means anyone could do anything on this forum.

But if I don't say someone is off-topic then that person will continue to be off-topic. If I do say someone is off-topic then that person will stop.

This is where I'm going to have to politely agree to disagree based on my knowledge of human behavior - many people are rather rebellious, especially on the internet. Telling them to stop being offtopic can sometime backfire horrendously, and cause them to continue it for much longer.

Of course, this depends on that person's nature and their default response in that kind of situation.

Then what do we do to make them stop?

[Marinus]

Rules are only tools. Tools which can be used to fix a problem. When it's possible to fix that problem, without tools, you don't need to use them. And when there's no problem at all, those rules/tools are totally unnecessary.

I think, you're a good boy, and you don't cause problems, so please forget about those rules/tools. If you don't use those tools, you also don't have the chance to misuse them.

Please think about for about 3 or 4 days before replying.

[Qloof234]

No, but this topic isn't connected to pirate speaking at all. If they were related slightly then I wouldn't say "Back on topic or abandon topic." (we'd continue arguing if this topic is Spam or not).

It seems to depend on how you interpret it - Just from reading the first three posts, I can connect it to pirate speaking already. Considering that MS hasn't locked or deleted the topic yet and that he's cleaning up the Off-Topic section a bit in preparation for its overhauling, I think it's safe to say he can connect it to its title as well.

Yes. It probably is OK. But still, according to the forum rules, it isn't, so that means I wasn't wrong. Just Patrick hasn't updated them (which led to confusion).

That's probably true. The rules haven't been edited in a while and do need a serious overhaul. In the end, however, until the rules are firmly established with a proper list of what constitutes being for the rules or against them, it still all comes down to how you interpret and thus heed the rules.

But then no one will realize I am right and everyone will continue to be off-topic.

Once again - the rules are subject to interpretation. The closest example I can think of is the Bible. You can read it, and say "I think Jesus meant this, I think Jode meant that" and someone else can reply with "oh no, it meant this" - Ergo, while you can see something as an obvious fact, someone else can see it as rather obscure or opinionated, and not a fact.

OK, why do the people that think the rule means to be not off-topic unless the real reason this topic exists has stopped think the rule means to be not off-topic unless the real reason this topic exists has stopped?

Different people have different ways of thinking, so their definition of off-topic could be entirely different to yours.

Not to say anyone's right or wrong because there really isn't a list of proper definitions for us to go by, just a list of somewhat vague rules, which are still subject to interpretation by the users.

[Edit: forgot a few words] it = pointing out the rules to him/her[/] is annoying --- (in some people's opinion)

But they have to listen to it otherwise they will keep doing the same thing. And that same thing, is against the rules.

That's quite true, the rules have to be listened to. It is, however, annoying for some users if the rules are continuously pointed out to them by another user when - by their own interpretation - they aren't breaking any rules.

But they are breaking rules. The rules say not to do things that they are doing.

Once again, there's no right or wrong answer until MS defines it. In your opinion, they're breaking the rules, which is fine, but in someone else's opinion, they aren't. For example, the rule about inappropriate material - one person could find something that they think is perfectly fine and post about it, but it ends up offending another user based on their views and conclusions.

A good example is the Higurashi no Naku Koro ni thread. In my opinion, it's appropriate because we don't post pictures or videos of what happens in the show (because if we did it would definitely be breaking the rules IMO), but just talk about it. In tyteen's opinion, since the show itself is definitely inappropriate, having a topic about it is too.

Not unanswered, not replied. If I leave it not replied then no one will realize I am right.

Once again - the reason behind no one realizing that you're "correct" is because of different interpretations. We all read the world and gather information in different ways, and come to different conclusions as a result through logic or otherwise.

I guess there is no such thing as correct then. Which means none of us are correct. Which means anyone could do anything on this forum.

But if I don't say someone is off-topic then that person will continue to be off-topic. If I do say someone is off-topic then that person will stop.

This is where I'm going to have to politely agree to disagree based on my knowledge of human behavior - many people are rather rebellious, especially on the internet. Telling them to stop being offtopic can sometime backfire horrendously, and cause them to continue it for much longer.

Of course, this depends on that person's nature and their default response in that kind of situation.

Then what do we do to make them stop?

Let MS know about it. MS is the one in charge here - if they don't listen to him about the rules, then they're out.

[billy bob]

(I will reply to the rest of your post some time later...)

Let MS know about it. MS is the one in charge here - if they don't listen to him about the rules, then they're out.

You mean, about every bit of Spam? How do I inform him?

[Qloof234]

Let MS know about it. MS is the one in charge here - if they don't listen to him about the rules, then they're out.

You mean, about every bit of Spam? How do I inform him?

No, I mean if someone continues to break the rules via spamming or otherwise after you ask them not to, then send a PM to MS.

[Marinus]

BB, All problems / mistakes / things that go wrong in the world or on this forum, are not your concern. Don't worry, be happy.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yv-Fk1PwVeU&feature=fvst

[billy bob]

Let MS know about it. MS is the one in charge here - if they don't listen to him about the rules, then they're out.

You mean, about every bit of Spam? How do I inform him?

No, I mean if someone continues to break the rules via spamming or otherwise after you ask them not to, then send a PM to MS.

There are so, so many users that do. I shall send them all to MS!

[Qloof234]

Let MS know about it. MS is the one in charge here - if they don't listen to him about the rules, then they're out.

You mean, about every bit of Spam? How do I inform him?

No, I mean if someone continues to break the rules via spamming or otherwise after you ask them not to, then send a PM to MS.

There are so, so many users that do. I shall send them all to MS!

I don't mean all of them, of course. I mean if it's recent and MS doesn't know about it.

[Marinus]

There are so, so many users that do. I shall send them all to MS!

I can't read Patricks mind either, but I think he's going to be very tired of you soon.

But, well, it's your decision, do what you (think you) have to do.