didyouknow
Active Member
Cheese, I think we just found our next 'volunteer'. 
-
OK, it's on.
Dwags--an INFP/INFJ.
- Thread starter inquiringF
- Start date
cheese
Prolific Member
dyk, I think you may be right. 
- wipes flesh off grater -
Find some snowcones and get juicing, dyk!
- QSR wakes to find himself strapped to a chopping board -
- QSR sees his toes decorating a snowcone -
- wipes flesh off grater -
Find some snowcones and get juicing, dyk!
- QSR wakes to find himself strapped to a chopping board -
- QSR sees his toes decorating a snowcone -
FacetiousPersona
Banned
Oh, Dwags. His Fi is high. Definite INFP or ENFP.
cheese
Prolific Member
Dwags is "well-adjusted".
To the chopping board.
To the chopping board.
FacetiousPersona
Banned
Yes, 'adjusted' to the extent of having an INFP's cognitive processes in the appropriate order.
cheese
Prolific Member
Yes. Adjusted also in a physical sense.
- tightens the ropes -
- tightens the ropes -
dwags222
Active Member
- Local time
- Today 12:15 PM
- Joined
- Feb 27, 2009
- Messages
- 239
writing and speaking properly in a social context is to give that context a formal tone. but why would you want the sociality of the message board to be formal?
J. you are a J. a P would never want their common social places to be formal.
didyouknow
Active Member
This, my lilly-livered friend (I've always wanted to say that), is a matter of opinion. The way I write is not for formality, but for the full comprehension of the reader. You want to make sure that you use full sentences and punctuation so that the reader does not have to strain themselves to read it.
No matter, you'll be chopped liver soon.
*Grates*
cheese
Prolific Member
I have to agree. Dwags, it isn't just about formality - it's about an appreciation of the language, which is invariably butchered with chatspeak. Restricting informality to a made-up language is........lame (see, it can be done!)
I agree with the other bit too Note to dyk: Give the grater a wash, it's looking a bit human at the moment 
I agree with the other bit too
Note to dyk: Give the grater a wash, it's looking a bit human at the moment FacetiousPersona
Banned
You'll need to find something very high...
cheese
Prolific Member
^Not if I chop him into smaller pieces first
FacetiousPersona
Banned
Stick him in a room with me for one day and he will leave depressed.
didyouknow
Active Member
I'm back with the snowcones! Let's get grating.
cheese
Prolific Member
Thanks everyone; I've taken all your suggestions into consideration and I've decided - why not combine the lot!
Weli - I have tied him down to a board 2 feet too short.
dyk - You will grate him while
Face - commences psychological torment
I will stand by and watch with my blow-up doll! Er.
Weli - I have tied him down to a board 2 feet too short.
dyk - You will grate him while
Face - commences psychological torment
I will stand by and watch with my blow-up doll! Er.
FacetiousPersona
Banned
Dwags, if people think you're F and you are posting regularly, people will intentionally target you with their insults due to they will expect you to become offended easily. You should prepare to be tormented.
didyouknow
Active Member
@Face: You say that like it hasn't happened already. 
@Cryptonia: I don't think he's INFP either, but I think I already said that...
Don't listen to Dwags, he was laughing like he'd had a dose of Nitrous Oxide on the IRC.
@Cryptonia: I don't think he's INFP either, but I think I already said that...
Don't listen to Dwags, he was laughing like he'd had a dose of Nitrous Oxide on the IRC.
echoplex
Happen.
- Local time
- Today 2:15 PM
- Joined
- Jan 28, 2009
- Messages
- 1,609
- Location
- From a dangerously safe distance
I imagine most of us have our INFP moments. Fi is probably my 4th strongest function, even though it's supposed to be the 8th (depending on source).
Also, it's possible he's an ESFP, because I love random speculation. And I could secretly be a cat, as well.
Also, it's possible he's an ESFP, because I love random speculation. And I could secretly be a cat, as well.
cheese
Prolific Member
Dwags is right - I've never met a bigger lol-Nazi. Or a bigger liar, either.
FacetiousPersona
Banned
Let's transform this into an 'insult Dwags' thread officially.
cheese
Prolific Member
Let's not
.........let's. But in the Arena?
.........let's. But in the Arena?
FacetiousPersona
Banned
The reason for this thread has been destroyed. Therefore, it has no purpose and it is our responsibility to define a new purpose relating to the original one. We should proclaim this as a thread to express our contempt of INFPs.
cheese
Prolific Member
No, it is our responsibility to carry any newly-created purpose of a derogotary nature to the Arena. Also, this new purpose of yours is only very loosely related to the original and thus has no need to be continued on this thread.
Dammit, Face, stop sucking me into arguing with you here!
Dammit, Face, stop sucking me into arguing with you here!
FacetiousPersona
Banned
It is forbidden for any purposes of a derogotary nature to be within this section? Plus, if Dwags is an INFP and we've decided to insult INFPs in this thread, I think it's certainly related. I would regard it as a reasonable progression, but perhaps not reasonable to moral standards. I hope we are not obligated to consider morals much with each post on this forum.
cheese
Prolific Member
The Arena was created for posts of that nature. I can find the relevant announcement by lor if you wish.
I consider it a loose relation because the only point of contact is INFPness. Moving from mistyping to insulting a specific type seems like moving from Australia to England. This is unrelated to morals.
Using your connection methods, I could post about dwags' dietary habits here, dwags being the sole point of contact. Again, mistyping is far removed from this.
I consider it a loose relation because the only point of contact is INFPness. Moving from mistyping to insulting a specific type seems like moving from Australia to England. This is unrelated to morals.
Using your connection methods, I could post about dwags' dietary habits here, dwags being the sole point of contact. Again, mistyping is far removed from this.
QSR
Active Member
dwags mother was a hamster and his father smelled of elderberries.
FacetiousPersona
Banned
I would welcome this. There should be limitations to someone's connection method? Perhaps there would be an extent or type which is unreasonable, but I did not think of mine as such.
The subject was Dwags and the mistyping of him personally. The thread specifically addressed him, indicating that the topic precisely involves him. There is a thread for general mistyping, which should mainly revolve around this concept, not specific people such as Dwags. Considering this thread solely targeted Dwags, why not progress onto a discussion involving him?
cheese
Prolific Member
Dwags eats hamster shit.
(dwags, take this as evidence of your popularity!)
*edit
Face, you edited your post, you monster.
Yes, it specifically addresses him. What you are suggesting however is not a discussion on him - which would be more strongly related to this thread - but an attack on INFPs. Again, my reluctance is morally unrelated.
Just had another read - here's what you said:
We should proclaim this as a thread to express our contempt of INFPs.
Let's transform this into an 'insult Dwags' officially thread.
Perhaps I was confused by your unclear intent. Under the first statement my argument stands (I think). Under the second yours does (I think).
(dwags, take this as evidence of your popularity!)
*edit
Face, you edited your post, you monster.
Yes, it specifically addresses him. What you are suggesting however is not a discussion on him - which would be more strongly related to this thread - but an attack on INFPs. Again, my reluctance is morally unrelated.
Just had another read - here's what you said:
We should proclaim this as a thread to express our contempt of INFPs.
Let's transform this into an 'insult Dwags' officially thread.
Perhaps I was confused by your unclear intent. Under the first statement my argument stands (I think). Under the second yours does (I think).
FacetiousPersona
Banned
My belief is that Dwags is an INFP. I was subtly implying that it would be a thread promoting attacks on him, not INFPs. It would focus on him as an INFP and his type. The concentration of it overall would truly be on him.
I wish that threads of this nature would occasionally be permitted in this section. The thread has already been rendered into one of arena-like quality and the moderators have not moved it, which suggests they are fine with it or very apathetic. When the rules are not being adequately enforced, should we abide to them? Not everyone will, I am afraid. What would happen in America without the police, military and people at the courts? The aspects of the system in place would change through the people. Let us see this all evolve now. Melkor, attack!
cheese
Prolific Member
*shocked that Face has enslaved Melkor as well*
Inadequate enforcement of rules is not sufficient reason to abandon them. Motivation should come from both the carrot and the stick. Understanding the purpose behind the rules should help increase incentive to follow. The purpose behind this rule is to maintain clarity and easy navigation of threads.
The aspects of the system in place would change through the people.
Yes, if change happens at all. If so, presumably the rules would be beneficial and acceptable to the majority. The same applies here. Rules that are not enforced and not beneficial to the majority will be changed. Confusion/change of topic on threads is not acceptable to the majority of forum members, hence the "rule" against it exists and will likely persist.
RE insults however - I have seen these carry on for several pages on other threads and not seen a move to the Arena. Also, perhaps this is actually a legitimate progression from the original topic.
Inadequate enforcement of rules is not sufficient reason to abandon them. Motivation should come from both the carrot and the stick. Understanding the purpose behind the rules should help increase incentive to follow. The purpose behind this rule is to maintain clarity and easy navigation of threads.
The aspects of the system in place would change through the people.
Yes, if change happens at all. If so, presumably the rules would be beneficial and acceptable to the majority. The same applies here. Rules that are not enforced and not beneficial to the majority will be changed. Confusion/change of topic on threads is not acceptable to the majority of forum members, hence the "rule" against it exists and will likely persist.
RE insults however - I have seen these carry on for several pages on other threads and not seen a move to the Arena. Also, perhaps this is actually a legitimate progression from the original topic.
FacetiousPersona
Banned
What if these rules limit potential of posts instead of organizing them all? One cannot be certain that the rules will have the desired advantages entirely and produce no consequences. There could be various combinations of rules that have lower and higher benefits. What is to say that this evolution will not yield superior results?
It is your opinion that we should not abandon rules when they are not being enforced. Rules are there as options. It is our choice whether we follow them or not. It is common for people to neglect boundaries for selfish advantages; disregarding the pain it may cause others or the environment. When there is nothing concrete preventing us, our independence of thought has higher freedom.
Many regulars participated in this thread when it had the nature which I mentioned. I merely suggested that it becomes 'official'. This would indicate that a high number of regulars are not opposed to the topic changing under certain circumstances, thus bringing the rule of 'no topic changing' up to dependence on circumstance.
QSR
Active Member
face has to make this thread about insulting dwags into a thread about himself already. You piece of shit.
cheese
Prolific Member
I have come up with a new insult: "Face You". Indicative of so much more than the original F-word!
Face:
You are bringing in possibilities that of course should be considered. However I do not see them as relevant to my point, which was merely whether or not inadequate enforcement of rules should lead necessarily to abandoment of them. When the majority considers rules unnecessary, as you believe is so in this case, that is additional reason to discard them, but I think it still isn't enough. Rules embody principles that are (believed to be) beneficial for people, and are put in place in order that these principles remain active even in adverse circumstances - ie when a person wishes to ignore boundaries for selfish benefit, as you mentioned. This crossing of boundaries could lead to a much greater negative impact on the majority than is forseeable. Since a large system is made up of much smaller individual components, it is dependent in some degree to each of these components. A fault in one could lead to a ripple effect throughout the rest of the system. This is like pollution - each person thinks his waste will not have a significant impact on the environment. 6 billion thoughts later the world is a mess. It is therefore beneficial that everyone attempt to stick to rules unless he sees significant reason not to.
Face you.
*edit
I had a look round the thread again - who are these regulars you are speaking of? The only ones I saw were dyk and myself. *guilty*
'Rules set in place by the majority are beneficial for the majority' - this is an assumption I am no longer sure I agree with, just in general. The masses are usually rather unenlightened.
Face:
You are bringing in possibilities that of course should be considered. However I do not see them as relevant to my point, which was merely whether or not inadequate enforcement of rules should lead necessarily to abandoment of them. When the majority considers rules unnecessary, as you believe is so in this case, that is additional reason to discard them, but I think it still isn't enough. Rules embody principles that are (believed to be) beneficial for people, and are put in place in order that these principles remain active even in adverse circumstances - ie when a person wishes to ignore boundaries for selfish benefit, as you mentioned. This crossing of boundaries could lead to a much greater negative impact on the majority than is forseeable. Since a large system is made up of much smaller individual components, it is dependent in some degree to each of these components. A fault in one could lead to a ripple effect throughout the rest of the system. This is like pollution - each person thinks his waste will not have a significant impact on the environment. 6 billion thoughts later the world is a mess. It is therefore beneficial that everyone attempt to stick to rules unless he sees significant reason not to.
Face you.
*edit
I had a look round the thread again - who are these regulars you are speaking of? The only ones I saw were dyk and myself. *guilty*
'Rules set in place by the majority are beneficial for the majority' - this is an assumption I am no longer sure I agree with, just in general. The masses are usually rather unenlightened.
FacetiousPersona
Banned
There are instances of rules being breached for advantages to be achieved. If people entirely complied to a person's rules or a system's, we may have problems, but this also applies to the opposite. An example would be an insurgency oppossing a current government and successfully overthrowing it or Germany in World War 2 dictating their rules to everyone. It is possible for revolutions against current rules to bring a new system of rules which is superior. Not everyone approves of rules, and the rules are not neccessarily effective.I have come up with a new insult: "Face You". Indicative of so much more than the original F-word!
Face:
You are bringing in possibilities that of course should be considered. However I do not see them as relevant to my point, which was merely whether or not inadequate enforcement of rules should lead necessarily to abandoment of them. When the majority considers rules unnecessary, as you believe is so in this case, that is additional reason to discard them, but I think it still isn't enough. Rules embody principles that are (believed to be) beneficial for people, and are put in place in order that these principles remain active even in adverse circumstances - ie when a person wishes to ignore boundaries for selfish benefit, as you mentioned. This crossing of boundaries could lead to a much greater negative impact on the majority than is forseeable. Since a large system is made up of much smaller individual components, it is dependent in some degree to each of these components. A fault in one could lead to a ripple effect throughout the rest of the system. This is like pollution - each person thinks his waste will not have a significant impact on the environment. 6 billion thoughts later the world is a mess. It is therefore beneficial that everyone attempt to stick to rules unless he sees significant reason not to.
Face you.
*edit
I had a look round the thread again - who are these regulars you are speaking of? The only ones I saw were dyk and myself. *guilty*
'Rules set in place by the majority are beneficial for the majority' - this is an assumption I am no longer sure I agree with, just in general. The masses are usually rather unenlightened.
As I stated before, we are less pressured to follow rules when they are not enforced. The law exists in civilized countries and there are police officers to enforce it, which is a major reason for people being reluctant to commit crimes for personal benefit. Their hesitance is due to a wish to avoid consequences. The law becomes closer to a sense of morals which is opitional when no one is enforcing it. Our conscience often enforces the boundaries for morals, but they are formed through subjectivity, in my opinion. The consequences for opposition to rules will not always be apparent, but this does not mean we should not dare opposing them.
In a location with no rules, people would create their own rules and hope others would follow them, but everyone will not always. Which person's rules are sperior is a matter for debate. This forum's system may or may not suffer significantly without us adhering to this specific rule. We cannot be certain. There have definitely been rules in history which were harmful and not beneficial as originally expected.
Personally, I do not think that this forum's system is very dependent on the rule, and it would be sustained through the users' morals instead of 'tangible rules'. Do they become a collective ethnic when the authority ceases to enforce them? I think that breaching the rules I have will not damage the forum much overall - even if everyone else was too. The forum would transform, though, but for the best or worst would be uncertain.
cheese
Prolific Member
Personally, I do not think that this forum's system is very dependent on the rule, and it would be sustained through the users' morals instead of 'tangible rules'.
Yes. In fact there aren't any 'tangible rules' on the forum, and the mods are trying to steer clear of that and go the conscience-route with the Invisible Boundaries thread.
I was simply pointing out where there wasn't sufficient reason to forget rules, not implying that we should always stick to them.
I have a tendency to go straight to the general principles. Of course you were arguing specifically about this thread, and using easy generalisations to support your case. I misread this as arguing from the specifics here to general principles. My bad.
dwags: lacking Pness?
*not good at insults*
*goes back to grating*
Yes. In fact there aren't any 'tangible rules' on the forum, and the mods are trying to steer clear of that and go the conscience-route with the Invisible Boundaries thread.
I was simply pointing out where there wasn't sufficient reason to forget rules, not implying that we should always stick to them.
I have a tendency to go straight to the general principles. Of course you were arguing specifically about this thread, and using easy generalisations to support your case. I misread this as arguing from the specifics here to general principles. My bad.
dwags: lacking Pness?
*not good at insults*
*goes back to grating*
FacetiousPersona
Banned
An Admin posted 'tangible rules' a long time ago, actually, but everyone neglected them or forgot about them. Therefore, they became obsolete maybe?
cheese
Prolific Member
Hmm, wasn't aware of that. Oops. Judging by lor's thread and posts they are obsolete, but live on in spirit.
FacetiousPersona
Banned
They are no longer ruels to me because they are not enforced and people do not acknowledge them. Let's turn this forum into an anarchy.
dwags222
Active Member
- Local time
- Today 12:15 PM
- Joined
- Feb 27, 2009
- Messages
- 239
this is the dumbest thing i've ever read. and it feels very odd that i might consider myself the center of attention, though i suspect i am really just being scopegated for somebody's bigger problem, whatever that problem might be.
echoplex
Happen.
- Local time
- Today 2:15 PM
- Joined
- Jan 28, 2009
- Messages
- 1,609
- Location
- From a dangerously safe distance
They have arbitrarily decided to focus their problems on INFPs. I've been hiding my fledgling Fi the whole time.
didyouknow
Active Member
Yozuki
Active Member
Based on your posts, it sounds like you just want to be heard.
I really wouldn't call that wanting attention.
didyouknow
Active Member
Wow, that actually made sense! You're improving.