Blake Posted November 7, 2010 Report Share Posted November 7, 2010 [quote name='Flame Dragon' timestamp='1289105046' post='4767806'] When did I ever do that? I only ever addressed like two of his posts about this before you came in. [/quote] I think, but I am not sure, that part was more about Icy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ice. Posted November 7, 2010 Report Share Posted November 7, 2010 [quote name='Dark' timestamp='1289100710' post='4767624'] [b]Well, you continue to have your discussion on the side (or as the main discussion, although main is subjective to who is in the discussion), and I'd like to continue to discuss unicorns. And I will have it be known that my topic is completely on-topic and not spamming. It was a free-flowing discussion, and I am entitled to discuss it.[/b] If you allow me to freely discuss it without any reprimands, I will not say a single word about Flame Dragon's proposition anymore. I promise. And Fading, where in the hell did you get religious trolling from? I already went over the definition of trolling, and the hell/heaven thing was just an excuse- I mean a free-flowing conversation so I could discuss unicorns. Robot unicorns are okay, but they are a bit too... shiny. Eh, I still prefer invisible pink ones, although I spotted a few green ones outside of my house today. [/quote] HOLD IT! [insert obligatory phoenix write sprite here] That's not how it goes, Dark. That, is spam. Yet, it still doesn't conflict with my free-flowing discussion argument. In Clubs, if somebody wants to change the topic, and is a lot of people agree, then the topic is changed. Good shot, but you missed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dark Posted November 7, 2010 Report Share Posted November 7, 2010 Excuse me, Ice, but I would like to ask why people need to agree? I have logic to back up my jump to this unicorn topic, and it was part of a free-flowing conversation. If you don't let me discuss it, you are butting into my lives, and are being very tyrannical, and are the worst mod ever. Or, you get what I'm saying (worst club semi-leader ever). I don't understand how it bothers you, I really don't. You don't need to talk about unicorns, you can go talk about your whatever club YCM potato fish thing. Ammy and Nevert have already somewhat talked about unicorns, as well as many people who mentioned robot unicorns (including FD), so I have enough people to constitute a topic. You just seem to want to get [i]back on topic[/i], whatever the hell that means. Now, I think we were talking about NASCAR, this select group of ours. I feel that NASCAR is fun to watch, especially when people crash. Which leads me to another question: how far should they go to ensure the drivers' security and safety? Shouldn't it be the drivers' responsibility to take care of themselves? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ice. Posted November 7, 2010 Report Share Posted November 7, 2010 [quote name='Dark' timestamp='1289144640' post='4768558'] Excuse me, Ice, but I would like to ask why people need to agree? I have logic to back up my jump to this unicorn topic, and it was part of a free-flowing conversation. If you don't let me discuss it, you are butting into my lives, and are being very tyrannical, and are the worst mod ever. Or, you get what I'm saying (worst club semi-leader ever). I don't understand how it bothers you, I really don't. You don't need to talk about unicorns, you can go talk about your whatever club YCM potato fish thing. Ammy and Nevert have already somewhat talked about unicorns, as well as many people who mentioned robot unicorns (including FD), so I have enough people to constitute a topic. You just seem to want to get [i]back on topic[/i], whatever the hell that means. Now, I think we were talking about NASCAR, this select group of ours. I feel that NASCAR is fun to watch, especially when people crash. Which leads me to another question: how far should they go to ensure the drivers' security and safety? Shouldn't it be the drivers' responsibility to take care of themselves? [/quote] Nononono. I did discuss Unicorns. I just wanted to point out that flaw in your logic. It's a set of Club-Leader guidelines, if you may. Because following that logic, you're being the tyrannical person. Drivers should take care of themselves, IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dad Posted November 7, 2010 Report Share Posted November 7, 2010 I like the cars, I dislike the idea of driving in a circle for like, two hours. As far as the drivers go, they should have life insurance right? You're driving a vehicle who's speeds exceed 150mph. You got not insurance, you got no chance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dark Posted November 7, 2010 Report Share Posted November 7, 2010 [quote name='Ice' timestamp='1289145528' post='4768591'] Nononono. I did discuss Unicorns. I just wanted to point out that flaw in your logic. It's a set of Club-Leader guidelines, if you may. Because following that logic, you're being the tyrannical person. Drivers should take care of themselves, IMO. [/quote] What flaw? Are you implying I should not be allowed to discuss unicorns? My logic, restated, is that unicorns were a topic part of a free-flowing conversation. I fail to see why multiple people need to accept it as a legitimate topic before it is discussed. [quote name='Mystic Keeper' timestamp='1289145923' post='4768607'] I like the cars, I dislike the idea of driving in a circle for like, two hours. As far as the drivers go, they should have life insurance right? You're driving a vehicle who's speeds exceed 150mph. You got not insurance, you got no chance. [/quote] It isn't just a matter of insurance. As in, the safety and security of drivers. If one gets into an accident and dies, who should be blamed: the driver or NASCAR? Should NASCAR run extensive security checks on drivers' cars? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ice. Posted November 7, 2010 Report Share Posted November 7, 2010 [quote name='Dark' timestamp='1289146552' post='4768635'] What flaw? Are you implying I should not be allowed to discuss unicorns. My logic, restated, is that unicorns were a topic part of a free-flowing conversation. I fail to see why multiple people need to accept it as a legitimate topic before it is discussed. [/quote] Oh no. The flaw was you saying that we can have a side discussion. If somebody wants to change the topic, we can change the topic. Nobody said multiple people need to accept it as a legitimate topic. Let's say I say let's discuss Pokemon. Then Member A replies to my topic instead of yours. B does the same, and so on. Oh look, it's the new topic. The Driver and his Pit Crew, btw. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dark Posted November 7, 2010 Report Share Posted November 7, 2010 How is this fair? You were originally discussing, err... C&O. Or whatever, I'm out of that debate. Then me and a few members logically started discussing unicorns, but I fully understand that many people would like to continue talking about C&O. And in the same vein, many people would like to continue talking about unicorns. If me and you and Ammy and Nevert hold a topic about unicorns, why can it not be simultaneous with everyone elses conversation about C&O? The second question still has not been answered: should NASCAR run extensive checks of vehicles? If so, to what extent should they run these checks before saying "do the rest yourself, I could care less if you die"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Twig Posted November 7, 2010 Report Share Posted November 7, 2010 [quote name='Ice' timestamp='1289140610' post='4768368'] That's not how it goes, Dark. That, is spam. Yet, it still doesn't conflict with my free-flowing discussion argument. In Clubs, if somebody wants to change the topic, and is a lot of people agree, then the topic is changed. [/quote] [quote name='Ice' timestamp='1289146846' post='4768646'] If somebody wants to change the topic, we can change the topic. Nobody said multiple people need to accept it as a legitimate topic. [/quote] I don't get what Ice is saying... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ice. Posted November 7, 2010 Report Share Posted November 7, 2010 Twig, I never said that people have to examine the idea and go "IT'S A LEGITIMATE TOPIC LET'S DISCUSS." Read the example. [quote name='Dark' timestamp='1289147015' post='4768652'] How is this fair? You were originally discussing, err... C&O. Or whatever, I'm out of that debate. Then me and a few members logically started discussing unicorns, but I fully understand that many people would like to continue talking about C&O. And in the same vein, many people would like to continue talking about unicorns. If me and you and Ammy and Nevert hold a topic about unicorns, why can it not be simultaneous with everyone elses conversation about C&O? The second question still has not been answered: should NASCAR run extensive checks of vehicles? If so, to what extent should they run these checks before saying "do the rest yourself, I could care less if you die"? [/quote] Because it's apparently spam. It doesn't matter. Once the topic is over, we can bring this one back. They probably sign a contract that makes NASCAR irresponsible for their issues. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dark Posted November 7, 2010 Report Share Posted November 7, 2010 Why are you telling me that we cannot have two simulatenous topics when it is in the better interest of the club? Because half of the people don't want to discuss unicorns, and half of the people don't want to discuss C&O. And we've already established that my topic was part of a free-flowing conversation and shall not be considered spam. Ice, you do realize I've dropped the debate completely, right? You are trying too hard to fight for your side which I am not longer fighting against, and by doing that you are giving yourself logical fallacies and you have already posted a few "off" remarks (did not say stupid because I don't feel you are stupid). If people would like to discuss C&O again, I don't see how that is a problem. But I will continue discussing unicorns. Is that a problem? I just mean safety checks. NASCAR can sign a contract saying they aren't liable for anything, but the absolute moral thing to do is to at least check the cars to make sure the engineers weren't retards. But SHOULD they check the cars, and if so, to what extent? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CinnamonStar Posted November 8, 2010 Report Share Posted November 8, 2010 On the topic about club spam, I just want to say that if you want to make a general club where you can have some general talking and make friends, then make a club that's described like that. But if you start something that's supposed to work on a project or something like that, then why would you start talking about a flying monkey if it has nothing to do with what you started. It's easy to figure out what's spam/trolling and what isn't, really. Though I don't know if I'd feel comfortable to say that every club MUST have some clearly defined, accepted purpose, it should be a fun place after all, but on the other side spam talks can as well go to Games.=/ And shutting down post count was also an idea but I don't like it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dark Posted November 8, 2010 Report Share Posted November 8, 2010 If a club is titled "Smogonites Unite", how can they justify talking about Yugioh? Because it is part of a free-flowing conversation, that's how. If a club is titled "Meet your favorite YCM friends here!", that's fine, but how does that compute to a valid C&O topic? It's not really a club, just a place to chat with no actual aim or topic. I'd prefer that be in Games or somewhere, because it really isn't a club. It's an after-school fountain that people hang out at. I don't want a defined purpose that is too restricting. I'd be pissed as hell if someone told me I could only talk about Mario games and Mario games alone in The Mushroom Kingdom. I'd be a bit happier if they allowed me to talk about any video game in general, personally. Just because something is part of a free-flowing conversation doesn't mean it's on-topic and not spam. But apparently people disagree. But now I sound argumentative when I said I wouldn't debate my point any further. I am quite happy that you have agreed to let me talk about unicorns and NASCAR, and that is all I wanted from this club. Due to the niceness of this club's leaders, I will happily remove the first portion of my post if need be. So, unicorns taking part in NASCAR? It seems a bit unfair, but I don't see why we should discriminate against unicorns. :/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Icy Posted November 8, 2010 Report Share Posted November 8, 2010 [quote name='Dark' timestamp='1289180580' post='4770599'] So, unicorns taking part in NASCAR? It seems a bit unfair, but I don't see why we should discriminate against unicorns. :/ [/quote] If Unicorns take part in NASCAR, they actually break the rules. NASCAR's are all built to the same specifications, same speed, same everything except for outside design. Including Fuel In-take. In fact, the entire strategy behind NASCAR is fuel consumption and Pit Crew Coordination. And with Unicorns, they don't need to pitstop at all, removing all strategy from the game, allowing every car to go at Top Speed. Ergo: Unicorns being Magical and Refueling/Repairing Cars as they're driving is cheating. Unicorns cannot be allowed in NASCAR because it's cheating. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amethyst Phoenix Posted November 8, 2010 Report Share Posted November 8, 2010 What about the Kentucky Derby? Can Unicorns compete in that, or are you going to be a RAAAAACIST about that subject too?! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dark Posted November 8, 2010 Report Share Posted November 8, 2010 You could always put a restriction against unicorns, saying that they may not use magic to refuel or repair their vehicle, nor can they have other unicorns on the pit crew. Just because someone is [i]capable[/i] of cheating does not mean they should be banned. That just means more restrictions need to be placed against them. [i]What about the Kentucky Derby? Can Unicorns compete in that, or are you going to be a RAAAAACIST about that subject too?![/i] Horse racing is only for horses, while NASCAR racing doesn't ever mention that only humans may take part. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sploda Posted November 8, 2010 Report Share Posted November 8, 2010 [quote name='Dark' timestamp='1289184360' post='4770783'] You could always put a restriction against unicorns, saying that they may not use magic to refuel or repair their vehicle, nor can they have other unicorns on the pit crew. Just because someone is [i]capable[/i] of cheating does not mean they should be banned. That just means more restrictions need to be placed against them. [/quote] More than likely though the Unicorns wouldn't listen and they could use their magic to get out of trouble as well. No banning them is definably better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amethyst Phoenix Posted November 8, 2010 Report Share Posted November 8, 2010 [quote name='Dark' timestamp='1289184360' post='4770783'] Horse racing is only for horses, while NASCAR racing doesn't ever mention that only humans may take part. [/quote] Are you implying unicorns aren't a variety of horse?! By that logic, blacks aren't a variety of people. Do you believe in that too? HUH?! DARK IS A BIGOT! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Icy Posted November 8, 2010 Report Share Posted November 8, 2010 [quote name='Dark' timestamp='1289184360' post='4770783'] You could always put a restriction against unicorns, saying that they may not use magic to refuel or repair their vehicle, nor can they have other unicorns on the pit crew. Just because someone is [i]capable[/i] of cheating does not mean they should be banned. That just means more restrictions need to be placed against them. [/quote] And how can you regulate an animal when they can magically change perception of reality as they're playing. They can be cheating and we don't even know it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dark Posted November 8, 2010 Report Share Posted November 8, 2010 [quote name='TheCreator94' timestamp='1289184430' post='4770787'] More than likely though the Unicorns wouldn't listen and they could use their magic to get out of trouble as well. No banning them is definably better. [/quote] You could monitor them more than other racers. It seems really to be too much work, but then we run the risk of unicorn attacks if we discriminate against them. [quote name='Revolver Amethyst' timestamp='1289184536' post='4770791'] Are you implying unicorns aren't a variety of horse?! By that logic, blacks aren't a variety of people. Do you believe in that too? HUH?! DARK IS A BIGOT! [/quote] You may not be spamming or trolling (yet), but you are being a moron. Unicorns and horses are of completely different classes, or maybe even phyla. I don't know their entire Domain-Kingdom-Phylum-et cetera set-up (forgot what the official term for it was), but they are not the same animals, nor are they even that close. Unicorns are [i]not[/i] horses, and only horses are allowed in the Kentucky Derby. So I'm not a bigot, and you are just being stupid. [quote name='JoshIcy' timestamp='1289184577' post='4770797'] And how can you regulate an animal when they can magically change perception of reality as they're playing. They can be cheating and we don't even know it! [/quote] ...this is true. Maybe if we AIM FOR THE HORN, unicorns won't be able to use their powers as well. It's kind of like taking a wand away from a wizard. :/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amethyst Phoenix Posted November 8, 2010 Report Share Posted November 8, 2010 Maybe unicorns ARE horses and they just manipulate you into thinking they don't exist. I'd make you think I don't exist as well if it meant not dealing with you too. Unfortunately, I'm not a unicorn. ....or [i]am[/i] I? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Icy Posted November 8, 2010 Report Share Posted November 8, 2010 [center][img]http://rlv.zcache.com/no_unicorns_highway_sign_poster-p228357185936489638t5wm_400.jpg[/img] NO UNICORNS FOR NASCAR![/center] And if we remove their horn, they're clinically disabled. We cannot harm them for Sport can we? The only sensible thing is to ban them from NASCAR so we do not have Crippled Unicorns while keeping the integrity of a 20 year sport. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dark Posted November 8, 2010 Report Share Posted November 8, 2010 Unicorns are not horses. Scientists have already proven that; learn to read fakescience.org. <___< I feel that Icy does have a point, but why discriminate against unicorns? I love unicorns. Which reminds me; how do you guys feel about double (and possibly triple) rainbows? I feel they are okay, but in excess, can be detrimental to society. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.Starrk Posted November 8, 2010 Report Share Posted November 8, 2010 [quote name='Dark' timestamp='1289185323' post='4770833'] Unicorns are not horses. Scientists have already proven that; learn to read fakescience.org. <___< I feel that Icy does have a point, but why discriminate against unicorns? I love unicorns. Which reminds me; how do you guys feel about double (and possibly triple) rainbows? I feel they are okay, but in excess, can be detrimental to society. [/quote] Meh, they do make me happy, as long as I'm on mushrooms. o_O Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dark Posted November 8, 2010 Report Share Posted November 8, 2010 Are you implying that one can only be happy with unicorns if they are high? D:< Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.