Rules on provocative uncap engagement?

gamophyte said:
So, it has come to my attention, through repeated and highly consistent, one might even say 'predictable', instances, that your preferred method of engaging with any form of communication that extends beyond, shall we say, a fleeting glance, is to simply issue forth the well-known, indeed, universally recognized, acronym: 'tldr'. This is, of course, a fascinating linguistic phenomenon, particularly when applied indiscriminately, as it so often appears to be, across the spectrum of textual transmissions, irrespective of their actual, quantifiable length, or indeed, the specific context in which they are presented.

Now, one might be tempted to ponder the very essence of this 'tldr' declaration. If, hypothetically speaking, one were to assert that a particular communique was, by its very nature and structural composition, exceedingly 'too long to read', then the subsequent, and indeed, rather swift, application of said acronym to a response of considerably diminished textual volume—or perhaps even, dare I suggest, a series of such numerically abbreviated, yet conceptually identical, missives—would logically, and quite inevitably, lead to a rather profound logical inconsistency. Would it not? Because, you see, in the grand tapestry of intellectual discourse, if the original premise for invoking 'tldr'—namely, the excessive length of the communication—is no longer present in the subsequent, shorter interactions that nevertheless elicit the exact same 'tldr' response, then the initial justification, by the very definition of the term 'negate', has been, for all intents and purposes, 'rendered entirely null and void.'

This, in turn, compels a discerning observer to arrive at the rather inescapable conclusion that the true motivation behind the 'tldr' utterance is not, in fact, a genuine inability or unwillingness to process extended prose due to its sheer textual mass, but rather, a more fundamental, perhaps even ingrained, 'disinclination towards any form of substantive engagement whatsoever.' A disinclination that, quite conveniently, also serves as a subtle, yet palpable, means to socially signal alignment with a particular narrative or authority, perhaps to avoid drawing any unwanted scrutiny to oneself.

It's truly quite a performance, really. The dedication to this particular communicative strategy. Because to consistently expend the minimal, yet still discernible, effort required to type out those four familiar characters, 't', 'l', 'd', 'r', in response to every single attempted point, irrespective of its brevity, undeniably requires a certain, shall we say, 'commitment to non-engagement.'

This, then, leads us to the rather compelling, if somewhat amusing, inference that you are not, in point of fact, suffering from any particular aversion to textual consumption, but rather, you possess a keen, almost artistic, predilection for what one might term 'self-owning'. To consistently present oneself as intellectually disengaged while simultaneously providing irrefutable, empirical evidence of one's direct interaction with the content, merely to avoid genuine dialogue, is a truly remarkable feat of logical contortion. It signals, quite profoundly, that you are, perhaps unwittingly, but demonstrably, engaging with the very substance you claim to bypass, purely for the ephemeral satisfaction of, shall we say, a 'tactical retreat into communicative nihilism.'

So, yes. Do continue with your 'tldr's. For those of us who actually engage with the content, and indeed, possess the capacity for critical observation, your every succinct, acronym-laden pronouncement serves merely as yet another fascinating, and rather 'self-incriminating', data point in the ongoing study of forum dynamics, generously provided for the collective amusement and intellectual edification of the 'discerning readership.'
Click to expand...
99% AI detection. https://app.gptzero.me/
 
Yeah, im not an admin (not even a member), but given the history of @gamophyte's previous reports, I would just recommend the "H" key be used in game, rather than the forums report section.

To summarize the previous talking points:
-BZ admins have clear rules for the server, and those who violate them are punished. Video/ picture proof is required for the violation to have any lasting effect.
-shooting into uncap is punishable when unprovoked. Aiming into uncap is not a punishable offense, but rather a gray area that is enforced on a case by case basis if the shooting into uncap rule was broken.
-As with any rule set, there are gray areas, and the video is what allows for the admin to enforce it as they see fit. To this point, the vast majority of issues can be cleared up with a simple conversation, warning, or a punish point. Those rules that incorporate text limitations, such as political and bad words, are things that can be interpreted on a case by case basis. If i mistakenly type "Nib" instead of "Nub" (nubtank's abbreviated name), which is one keystroke wrong, I can be punished for the incident. Its the admin who can see if this was an attempt at skirting the filter, or was a simple mistype.
Now, it also isnt against the rules for people to discuss kanye's most recent (and bangin) tracks, but it would be against the rules to continually type the name of the 3rd reich's Fuhrer. I can assume that @gamophyte can see the difference. Instead of trying to police the chat on every minor thing, the "H" key is a brilliant way to NOT SHOW the random chats, and can allow for your peace of mind.

most, if not all, people on these fair servers seem to get along enough to play video games with minimal issues. chat police are made fun of (usually called what they are: faggots hehe), and those with actual grievances (with proof) are able to be helped by the admin. @gamophyte happens to be in the vocal minority at this point, and resorts to Ai rants on a little forum at the edge of the internet. its the forums for a almost 13 year old game. lets just get back to playing? lol
 
SrOrgasmus said:
Yeah, im not an admin (not even a member), but given the history of @gamophyte's previous reports, I would just recommend the "H" key be used in game, rather than the forums report section.

To summarize the previous talking points:
-BZ admins have clear rules for the server, and those who violate them are punished. Video/ picture proof is required for the violation to have any lasting effect.
-shooting into uncap is punishable when unprovoked. Aiming into uncap is not a punishable offense, but rather a gray area that is enforced on a case by case basis if the shooting into uncap rule was broken.
-As with any rule set, there are gray areas, and the video is what allows for the admin to enforce it as they see fit. To this point, the vast majority of issues can be cleared up with a simple conversation, warning, or a punish point. Those rules that incorporate text limitations, such as political and bad words, are things that can be interpreted on a case by case basis. If i mistakenly type "Nib" instead of "Nub" (nubtank's abbreviated name), which is one keystroke wrong, I can be punished for the incident. Its the admin who can see if this was an attempt at skirting the filter, or was a simple mistype.
Now, it also isnt against the rules for people to discuss kanye's most recent (and bangin) tracks, but it would be against the rules to continually type the name of the 3rd reich's Fuhrer. I can assume that @gamophyte can see the difference. Instead of trying to police the chat on every minor thing, the "H" key is a brilliant way to NOT SHOW the random chats, and can allow for your peace of mind.

most, if not all, people on these fair servers seem to get along enough to play video games with minimal issues. chat police are made fun of (usually called what they are: faggots hehe), and those with actual grievances (with proof) are able to be helped by the admin. @gamophyte happens to be in the vocal minority at this point, and resorts to Ai rants on a little forum at the edge of the internet. its the forums for a almost 13 year old game. lets just get back to playing? lol
Click to expand...
This is what a human response looks like lmao
 
Homies thought I was trying to pass off a thesis on "tldr" as my own words. This proves the caliber I'm working with for any appeal or criticism. There is no conflict resolution skills, just instant sensitive combative reaction to the slightest push back.

SrOrgasmus can't find a single instance where I'm just policing chat, so chooses to straw man me and change the narrative; oh it must be my sensitivity haha. I already resolved the issue; I said I'm no longer going to report anything. Without explanations to the random application of rules, I can't lean on earlier precedence.

But I bring you this dissertation I 100 percent wrote. It's about how important words are and reading to our founding of this great nation:

As the shadow of the Fourth of July falls upon us, my thoughts drift, as they sometimes do, not to fireworks alone, but to the profound power of carefully chosen words. It's a day, after all, born not from impulsive shouts, but from meticulously crafted arguments, deliberated in countless memos, painstaking drafts, and finally, officially signed documents.

Consider, if you will, the very Declaration of Independence itself (approximately 1,300 words). A document, some might deem "long," but each one weighed, debated, and finally etched into history. But its existence wasn't a sudden burst; it was preceded by foundational texts like Thomas Paine's fiery "Common Sense" (around 12,000 words), urging separation, and countless other appeals and philosophical treatises. Imagine the sheer volume of discourse—the dispatches, proposals, dissenting opinions, and counter-arguments—that built the intellectual foundation for that singular, pivotal text. Millions upon millions of words, penned in earnest, exchanged across oceans and continents, all read, all considered, all contributing to the very foundation of a nation.

These were not moments for abbreviation or dismissive acronyms. These were moments where every syllable mattered, where clarity, precision, and the full exposition of ideas were paramount. The very fabric of a new world was spun from the meticulous arrangement of language, understood and embraced by those who chose to read, to comprehend, to sign.

It serves as a gentle reminder, perhaps, that some communications, by their very nature and profound importance, demand more than a fleeting glance or a casual dismissal. They demand consideration, engagement, and the recognition that words, when wielded with purpose, can indeed be the very bedrock upon which nations, and even communities, are built. A thought, perhaps, for those who value the weight of every character.
 
gamophyte said:
Homies thought I was trying to pass off a thesis on "tldr" as my own words. This proves the caliber I'm working with for any appeal or criticism. There is no conflict resolution skills, just instant sensitive combative reaction to the slightest push back.

SrOrgasmus can't find a single instance where I'm just policing chat, so chooses to straw man me and change the narrative; oh it must be my sensitivity haha. I already resolved the issue; I said I'm no longer going to report anything. Without explanations to the random application of rules, I can't lean on earlier precedence.

But I bring you this dissertation I 100 percent wrote. It's about how important words are and reading to our founding of this great nation:

As the shadow of the Fourth of July falls upon us, my thoughts drift, as they sometimes do, not to fireworks alone, but to the profound power of carefully chosen words. It's a day, after all, born not from impulsive shouts, but from meticulously crafted arguments, deliberated in countless memos, painstaking drafts, and finally, officially signed documents.

Consider, if you will, the very Declaration of Independence itself (approximately 1,300 words). A document, some might deem "long," but each one weighed, debated, and finally etched into history. But its existence wasn't a sudden burst; it was preceded by foundational texts like Thomas Paine's fiery "Common Sense" (around 12,000 words), urging separation, and countless other appeals and philosophical treatises. Imagine the sheer volume of discourse—the dispatches, proposals, dissenting opinions, and counter-arguments—that built the intellectual foundation for that singular, pivotal text. Millions upon millions of words, penned in earnest, exchanged across oceans and continents, all read, all considered, all contributing to the very foundation of a nation.

These were not moments for abbreviation or dismissive acronyms. These were moments where every syllable mattered, where clarity, precision, and the full exposition of ideas were paramount. The very fabric of a new world was spun from the meticulous arrangement of language, understood and embraced by those who chose to read, to comprehend, to sign.

It serves as a gentle reminder, perhaps, that some communications, by their very nature and profound importance, demand more than a fleeting glance or a casual dismissal. They demand consideration, engagement, and the recognition that words, when wielded with purpose, can indeed be the very bedrock upon which nations, and even communities, are built. A thought, perhaps, for those who value the weight of every character.
Click to expand...
You are a fool and thank God no one listens to you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top