How considerate should we be when we choose a screen name... and in general?

[jaws7777]

Funny thing about the skull...is everyone has one.

Get out !!! Ugh i hate myself... wait what if i have a hairline fracture somewhere !!!! Oh no !!

 

[krichardson]

Not sure about his activity. In post #1 here there is a link to his ID thread. Everyone of us clicked on the link to see his name, but of the hundreds of viewers, no one has taken the time to help him.

LOL!.....good observation.

 

[jaws7777]

Wonder if this offends people that are offended by my avatar

http://dailycaller.com/2016/10/03/a...dition-after-posting-blue-lives-matter-video/

 

[koltsixx]

koltsixx I'll try to cover the apparent disconnect, bro.

There is no disconnect that I'm aware of.

KS: As I stated before it is against the TOS to have an avatar, logo or screen name that is offensive. The same as it is with posts. However just as with posts everything is subject to those interpreting it.

TBTB: Agreed. I said the same thing, or so I think:

Not exactly, what you said is that MFK should treat such things as they do posts but you feel they don't.

KS: Now you have created a public thread where you polled the membership. And despite seeing that both religious and non religious members don't necessarily interpret the name in question or Logo the same as you. You still view the Logo and username as violating TOS and that MFK is hypocritical.

TBTB: Yes (in short, see below for clarification). Is it wrong to have an opinion that doesn't agree with the majority? I am not shoving my opinion down anyone's throat. Imposition was not my intent. My purpose was to gain clarity. Everyone can stay with their views and on their own mole hill

No, is it wrong for me to state mine? As each time we have addressed one another I have not seen or interpreted anything other then a exchange of opinions and reasoning behind said opinions. Do you see differently?

As for not intending an imposition I'm sorry but I see it differently. You made a report that was rejected by another Mod/Admin. Apparently not satisfied you created this thread which maybe seen as publicly challenging or discussing a staff decision. It's definitely discussing since you're also talking about MFK's choice in Logo. Violating the very TOS you are using to judge MFK. If you where on the other side how would you view those actions?

KS: So your stand is that if one person interprets anything posted as offensive and MFK doesn't delete and punish the poster then MFK is not following it's own rules.

TBTB: We can't lump the handle case and the logo case together here. In case of the logo, yes. In case of the handle, no I don't think MFK is not following its own rules. I just think MFK rules are too lax. It's my opinion that no one has to listen to. I am grateful I know yours.

Can I ask why not? I have shown the connections between the two and sited the view of those who responded here about the Logo. So for my enlightenment can you tell me what makes the two cases different that I've missed?

And I am grateful to know your opinion. I enjoy discussion and growing from hearing opposing view points to my own.

KS: I'm sorry but I don't find that fair. Not just because to expect a whole community to be subject to the whims of any one person at anytime is incongruous but also because it's fallacious to think that any rule is without exception or subject to interpretation.

TBTB: I agree with the entire paragraph. I'm rather unsure why you might have come to the conclusion that I am arguing: (i) that the MFK be at my whim and (ii) that there is no room for interpretation of a rule, logo, avatar, handle, and wordage.

I have come to that conclusion because in both instances only one person is interpreting the Logo or Avatar as offensive. And under those conditions you still state you believe MFK is being hypocritical and lax. How else can I interpret such statements and actions?

As for you personalizing it, I didn't say you believe MFK should be at your whim. I just drew the logical conclusion about your views based on what you stated. It was my impression that you felt that was fair regardless of who the one was.

As for you being open to being rules and avatars, etc being open to interpretation other then your own. How could you be open to that but still say MFK is hypocritical and lax? Doesn't the two statements contradict each other? You're saying MFK is free to it's interpretation but if it differs from yours MFK is being hypocritical. Again to be hypocritical:characterized by behavior that contradicts what one claims to believe or feel. If MFK is free to their interpretation how can they contradict what it claims to believe when there is no claim to begin with and it's rules are subject to interpretation?

TBTB: (i) I am not petitioning MFK to do something about its logo. We are just talking and clarifying our positions. I expressed mine. You expressed yours. There is nothing official or judicial in my critique of the MFK logo. There is no ultimatum. No black mail. No cursing. No intrigue. No coup planned It is but a personal take. We could be unhappy and grumpy about our difference or we can choose to be happy and grateful we have each other to talk to. Let's choose the latter. (ii) Have you not already convinced me and have I not agreed that the handle in question is within the MFK TOS? Furthermore, have I not even offered to change my handle if the MFK staff or community deems it as not following the MFK TOS? Both of these manifest most clearly that I bow to the power of interpretation. No? Why is this still a question?

This is the first time I'm aware of you conceding to the handle but I will fully admit maybe I missed or misinterpreted a previous post of yours. And again I have no taken it any way other then us having a discussion and exchange of interpretations. No grump about it. lol Perhaps my mood is misread by my approach which maybe different then I have approached other threads. The only reason behind that is that I handle each response according to my interpretation of the situation and those involved. Due to your intelligence and my respect for you I addressed what I believed to be a concern of yours with a more straight forward demeanor to reflect said respect.

TBTB: But none of these abolish my right to have my own interpretation and opinion just like we all have our own. That is all it is. If you still see anything bad or at fault with me, by all means, let's continue talking it out. I welcome being helped.

Again I'm not trying to abolish your right, I am trying to understand where you're coming from. I see things my way and because I respect you am asking you to help clarify your reasoning so I might see things differently. I am not faulting you I just feel that your judgement of MFK is unfair at least in these instances. MFK has dropped the ball on other occasions but even then I don't see MFK as hypocritical just simply subject to human error. IMHO to be hypocritical one has to act that way purposely and consistently. Hypocrisy IMO is an intended ugly act done for one's or a group's ego.

 

[Grinch]

Wonder if this offends people that are offended by my avatar

http://dailycaller.com/2016/10/03/a...dition-after-posting-blue-lives-matter-video/

I can't speak for everyone that might be offended by your avatar, and maybe I'm not a good person to poll in this case since I'm not particularly offended by your avatar, but yes, I'm upset by the treatment of this teen... no one deserves that kind of beating, or any beating for that matter.

This demonstrates my point, that some find the message you are sending with your avatar so offensive as to feel it warranted to physically assault another person. I think you are right to question the motives in this case though... is it offensive because it is perceived as racist, because of a general anti-police attitude that some have, or something else? And there-in lies the difficultly the mods face in trying to police (pun intended) this issue on a fish forum.

 

[thebiggerthebetter]

koltsixx

KS: There is no disconnect that I'm aware of.

TBTB: Between you and I.

*****************************************

KS: Not exactly, what you said is that MFK should treat such things as they do posts but you feel they don't.

... In sum, when people break these rules with their words, their posts and threads get deleted. A similar approach should be applied to logos, avatars, and screen names.

I failed to convey what I was saying. "Should" was not an imperative addressed to MFK but to anyone. That is in general, forums police all member statements in any shape or form. My high level sum was so high it came down to being trivial and just stating the obvious. Unfortunately a lot of the post where this excerpt was the last paragraph was stating the obvious. Hence, the empty-sounding "sum". Perhaps bad choice of words because I see how it can be taken as a critique, if taken out of the context of the entire post.

************************************************

KS: No, is it wrong for me to state mine? As each time we have addressed one another I have not seen or interpreted anything other then a exchange of opinions and reasoning behind said opinions. Do you see differently?

TBTB: It appeared to me as if you were saying that I should have changed my personal opinion on either subject after many peers disagreed with me.

************************************************

KS: As for not intending an imposition I'm sorry but I see it differently. You made a report that was rejected by another Mod/Admin. Apparently not satisfied you created this thread which maybe seen as publicly challenging or discussing a staff decision. It's definitely discussing since you're also talking about MFK's choice in Logo. Violating the very TOS you are using to judge MFK. If you where on the other side how would you view those actions?

TBTB: IDK I 'd have to walk lots of miles in your shoes first but anyway, as I said I think I understand your angle. You describe it well. This understanding doesn't have to change my angle. Anyhow... back to the essence. Yes I reported my dissatisfaction as my first negative and emotional reaction. In retrospect, I should not have. I was not made aware that my report was rejected. Neither did I expect anything. I guess by default, mod silence = rejection. If so, fine, I learned. This thread was created in no way, shape or form to challenge the staff. In fact, until you just said it, it never even crossed my mind. I created this thread to see if I should correct my thinking and you all kindly chipped in and helped me do just that.

******************************************************

KS: Can I ask why not? I have shown the connections between the two and sited the view of those who responded here about the Logo. So for my enlightenment can you tell me what makes the two cases different that I've missed?

TBTB: The handle I conceded that it looks like it may well be within the TOS (thank you all). The logo, I have not.

********************************************

KS: I have come to that conclusion because in both instances only one person is interpreting the Logo or Avatar as offensive. And under those conditions you still state you believe MFK is being hypocritical and lax. How else can I interpret such statements and actions?

TBTB: If I spoke better, you'd need not to interpret. Once again, the handle was objectionable to me and I thought it was breaking the TOS at first. You all showed to me that it may not necessarily be so. While I am still put off by the handle, I reversed my opinion on the handle breaking the TOS. I still wish such handles than CAN be interpreted as against the TOS be not allowed. Hence, my lax comment. It's my personal and worthless opinion. Let's forget about it and move on. In my view, there is nothing left to say on the handle side of the thread. No?

TBTB: The logo we can continue talking about, albeit at this point it seems rather pointless to me because we mostly keep repeating ourselves. But I am game if you wish

****************************************************************

KS: As for you personalizing it, I didn't say you believe MFK should be at your whim. I just drew the logical conclusion about your views based on what you stated. It was my impression that you felt that was fair regardless of who the one was.

TBTB: I guess that speaks to the quality of my statements. I never wanted to say anything so ridiculous that MFK should please everyone on their whim. Myself being the last member.

****************************************************

KS: As for you being open to being rules and avatars, etc being open to interpretation other then your own. How could you be open to that but still say MFK is hypocritical and lax? Doesn't the two statements contradict each other?

TBTB: I guess I see openness and agreement as different things. In that paragraph you cited, I spoke generally. Perhaps here openness to me means the ability to listen to and understand other interpretations and respect them. It doesn't necessarily entail changing one's opinion. It may or may not happen.

KS: You're saying MFK is free to it's interpretation but if it differs from yours MFK is being hypocritical.

TBTB: Yes. MFK is free and I am free. So yes, by definition. If our opinions differ, MFK holds me wrong and vice versa.

KS: Again to be hypocritical:characterized by behavior that contradicts what one claims to believe or feel.

TBTB: Yes. MFK bans religious statements and references a religious figure in its logo.

KS: If MFK is free to their interpretation how can they contradict what it claims to believe when there is no claim to begin with and it's rules are subject to interpretation?

TBTB: MFK is not in contradiction with itself in its opinion. It is in contradiction with itself in my opinion. MFK can totally disregard my opinion Even I do. As I said a few times already I am not hung up on it.

**************************************************************

KS: This is the first time I'm aware of you conceding to the handle but I will fully admit maybe I missed or misinterpreted a previous post of yours. And again I have no taken it any way other then us having a discussion and exchange of interpretations. No grump about it. lol Perhaps my mood is misread by my approach which maybe different then I have approached other threads. The only reason behind that is that I handle each response according to my interpretation of the situation and those involved. Due to your intelligence and my respect for you I addressed what I believed to be a concern of yours with a more straight forward demeanor to reflect said respect.

TBTB: No problem, bro. I figured that much but it is even better to be reassured. My concession page 39, post #382, item [2] https://www.monsterfishkeepers.com/...e-a-screen-name-and-in-general.685523/page-39

************************************************************

KS: Again I'm not trying to abolish your right, I am trying to understand where you're coming from. I see things my way and because I respect you am asking you to help clarify your reasoning so I might see things differently. I am not faulting you I just feel that your judgement of MFK is unfair at least in these instances.

TBTB: Thanks bro. Means a lot to me.

KS: MFK has dropped the ball on other occasions but even then I don't see MFK as hypocritical just simply subject to human error. IMHO to be hypocritical one has to act that way purposely and consistently. Hypocrisy IMO is an intended ugly act done for one's or a group's ego.

TBTB: Hypocrisy, as most or all things, can be realized for various reasons, perhaps with someone's ego being the primary one, I agree. Also it can come about consciously or unconsciously. Again, if you made me to parse it in light of ego (I'd not want to do it but for the sake of the argument...), then I'd say that yes making a rule and being above this rule has something to do with an ego. But that's also a king's prerogative. I am a hypocrite too. I see it everyday. Sometimes even every hour or minute. I think far, far, far higher of myself than who I am. I hurt people I claim to love. I criticize my favorite forum. I make people I respect and who I know for a fact have better things to do (read you) spend hours on end trying to address my stupid issues. Etc. You name it.

 

[darth pike]

So .... was I the only one that thought the MFK logo was a play on the Scorpio symbol, evoking a scorpion which when paired with Monster brought up the monstrous scorpions from the first Clash of the Titans movie?

 

[koltsixx]

Between you and I.

To me we are merely having an exchange of ideas to come to an understanding of each others point better.

I failed to convey what I was saying. "Should" was not an imperative addressed to MFK but to anyone. That is in general, forums police all member statements in any shape or form. My high level sum was so high it came down to being trivial and just stating the obvious. Unfortunately a lot of the post where this excerpt was the last paragraph was stating the obvious. Hence, the empty-sounding "sum". Perhaps bad choice of words because I see how it can be taken as a critique, if taken out of the context of the entire post.

All your points have referenced MFK and it's policies specifically not forums in general so I don't see how it was taken out of context. But if you say despite repeatedly referencing MFK and the policies specific to MFK you where generalizing then I take you at your word.

It appeared to me as if you were saying that I should have changed my personal opinion on either subject after many peers disagreed with me.

Not at all your interpretation of the symbol is yours and I would never try to take that way. What I disagree with is how the term hypocrisy is being used. In order for MFK to be hypocritical by definition MFK would have to believe that the symbol is a religious reference. You are the one interpreting the symbol so definitively and with no alternative meaning. As such only someone who shared your view and used MFK's terms of service as a rule for a forum would be a hypocrite. Since MFK makes no allusions to it's stand on religion or it's own interpretation of it's logo as a strictly religious symbol it cannot fit the definition of being hypocritical.

IDK I 'd have to walk lots of miles in your shoes first but anyway, as I said I think I understand your angle. You describe it well. This understanding doesn't have to change my angle. Anyhow... back to the essence. Yes I reported my dissatisfaction as my first negative and emotional reaction. In retrospect, I should not have. I was not made aware that my report was rejected. Neither did I expect anything. I guess by default, mod silence = rejection. If so, fine, I learned. This thread was created in no way, shape or form to challenge the staff. In fact, until you just said it, it never even crossed my mind. I created this thread to see if I should correct my thinking and you all kindly chipped in and helped me do just that.

I'm not stating that it should. I'm simply stating the fact that whether it was known to you or not discussing staff decisions or MFK TOS in a open forum is against TOS itself. You are holding MFK to a standard you yourself are not meeting and at the same time calling MFK hypocritical.

As for the Mod/Admin silence I am sorry for that. We have the option to inform the reporter of our decision and reasoning behind it. Since I use both every time I figured the rest of the staff did as well. The Staff gets a notification when a report is made(when it's working correctly) and when a report is closed. I missed your report until I was notified it had been closed and assumed the steps taken when it was closed. My fault for assuming, so I apologize for assuming and any furthering of our misunderstanding it may have caused.

The handle I conceded that it looks like it may well be within the TOS (thank you all). The logo, I have not.

This is what perplexes me. I have pointed out how they are the same in my eyes and when I ask you to explain why you view them as so different you've yet to point out how. Or I've missed that as well. To me they are both statements meant to represent an individual or group and how we'd wish to be perceived.

If I spoke better, you'd need not to interpret. Once again, the handle was objectionable to me and I thought it was breaking the TOS at first. You all showed to me that it may not necessarily be so. While I am still put off by the handle, I reversed my opinion on the handle breaking the TOS. I still wish such handles than CAN be interpreted as against the TOS be not allowed. Hence, my lax comment. It's my personal and worthless opinion. Let's forget about it and move on. In my view, there is nothing left to say on the handle side of the thread. No?

The fault is not yours alone even among the best of communicators there will always be misunderstandings. We are all tainted by our own views and sometimes that gets in the way of us understanding someone else's. I know I'm at guilty of it plenty of times. And I wish you wouldn't refer to your opinion as worthless as I believe that everyone's opinion is invaluable as it is our diversity and the expression of our differences that helps humanity grow and hopefully reach ever broadening horizons. I only kept using the handle to refernce it similarities to MFK's logo. So I am fine with leaving discussing it.

The logo we can continue talking about, albeit at this point it seems rather pointless to me because we mostly keep repeating ourselves. But I am game if you wish

Lol, It maybe but I've expressed my opinion yet again in the above and if you're as stubborn as me you might feel the need to get the last word.

I guess that speaks to the quality of my statements. I never wanted to say anything so ridiculous that MFK should please everyone on their whim. Myself being the last member.

You didn't necessarily say it. As I said I concluded based on what was said. I couldn't and still fail to see how it isn't saying such since the interpretation is based on your view of the symbolism. If MFK doesn't feel it's symbol is a religious reference but instead a symbol for things Monster sized or large I don't see how that's contradictory or hypocritical to it's TOS. Again if MFK felt the symbol was a religious reference like you do and still tried to enofrce it's TOS then that would be different. In that case MFK would be hypocritical and contradictory.

I guess I see openness and agreement as different things. In that paragraph you cited, I spoke generally. Perhaps here openness to me means the ability to listen to and understand other interpretations and respect them. It doesn't necessarily entail changing one's opinion. It may or may not happen.

I can see why you feel the way you do in some respects but again it's the use of the word hypocrisy I'm hung up on. lol To me you're agreeing to it's definition but using it to refer to something it shouldn't. To me a difference of opinion is just that. It's where the disagreement is agreed upon because the facts of a situation are interpreted differently. In this case the symbol is interpreted differently and that I understand and accept and I agree to disagree. However the word hypocrisy definition is agreed upon but is being used to describe something that isn't hypocritical. Though I concede that even in that case opinions may not change and we'll simply have to agree to disagree. And I'm okay with that.

Yes. MFK is free and I am free. So yes, by definition. If our opinions differ, MFK holds me wrong and vice versa.

This I understand because of your view of the definitive meaning of the MFK logo. And I respect that regardless of how it's intended to you it could mean nothing else.

Yes. MFK bans religious statements and references a religious figure in its logo.

I this referenced earlier in this response but I'll try to do so here again in a concise way. You interpret the Logo as a religious figure. Since MFK doesn't necessarily and at very least hasn't alluded to it's interpretation in anyway, that means that to MFK it does not fit the criteria it puts forth in it's Terms of Service. As such it's not hypocritical as MFK would have to hold others to a higher standard it doesn't hold itself to.

MFK is not in contradiction with itself in its opinion. It is in contradiction with itself in my opinion. MFK can totally disregard my opinion Even I do. As I said a few times already I am not hung up on it.

Lol, that's where I keep getting tripped up because we seem to agree on the definition of the the words contradictory and hypocrisy. Yet to you if you interpret something different from the intended purpose it some how makes them contradictory. When hypocrisy is based on one's own standards and holding other to a higher implied standard. Perhaps I'm getting lost in semantics.

No problem, bro. I figured that much but it is even better to be reassured. My concession page 39, post #382, item [2] https://www.monsterfishkeepers.com/...e-a-screen-name-and-in-general.685523/page-39

I stand corrected.

Thanks bro. Means a lot to me.

No problem, it is no more respect then you have given me in the same regard. So thank you.

Hypocrisy, as most or all things, can be realized for various reasons, perhaps with someone's ego being the primary one, I agree. Also it can come about consciously or unconsciously. Again, if you made me to parse it in light of ego (I'd not want to do it but for the sake of the argument...), then I'd say that yes making a rule and being above this rule has something to do with an ego. But that's also a king's prerogative. I am a hypocrite too. I see it everyday. Sometimes even every hour or minute. I think far, far, far higher of myself than who I am. I hurt people I claim to love. I criticize my favorite forum. I make people I respect and who I know for a fact have better things to do (read you) spend hours on end trying to address my stupid issues. Etc. You name it.

I do agree hypocrisy can be both conscious and subconscious but I believe it's always motivated by pride. Whether it be protecting one's pride or trying to feel superior. Lol Kings prerogative. I doubt Neo sees himself as a King. From what I know of him he built the community for like minded hobbyists so we'd all have a place to share and get connected, not for him to rule over. And the TOS was I believe meant to serve the purposes of helping to keep the peace within the community and to absolve Neo of any legal responsibility that one might try to twist the law against him for said community and rules.

As for pride, we all fall victim to it at times. I've yet to meet the perfect person. Though I do myself come incredibly close. lol And as for having better things to do, I consider having a intellectual exchange a judicious use of my time. So it was not wasted IMO.

 

[thebiggerthebetter]

Thanks for that koltsixx . I think I see better now the roots of our not being on the same page yet.

[1] The handle, as you and our peers showed me, can readily be interpreted as something other than the profanation I had seen. The logo on the other hand, in my view and with some support from the peers, is readily interpreted as referencing a ubiquitous, universal spiritual figure. Ask anybody what they see in that drawing, they will tell you with certainty, which we haven't found at all with respect to the handle. Herein lies the difference in my view that you said eludes you.

[2] Onto hypocrisy. While I agreed with the initial and short definition you had cited, which was sufficient for the initial arguments, I've never said it was complete or, in math terms or logic terms, both necessary and sufficient. It's not sufficient but just one common example of many. My view of hypocrisy is much wider than what you keep referring to. There is no prerequisite of awareness in hypocrisy. In fact, vast majority of hypocrites have no idea they are hypocrites but it doesn't change the truth that they are. Furthermore, hypocrites who are told they are hypocrites and who deny it, remain hypocrites.

MFK need not to be aware that what it's doing is hypocritical to act like one (in my humble view). Neither were the classic example - the Pharisees.

You can google the term and read more on it. Wiki has an article on it.

I guess in regard to the conscienciousness of commmitting an act of hypocrisy, I see at least three types of hypocrites -

- the one you cited, a "sincere" and willful hypocrite who knows what they are doing

- the ignorant hypocrite who knows not what they are doing

- the hypocrite in denial, who knows what others think of what they are doing because they told so but thinks the others are wrong.

None of these secondary circumstances change the essence of their act. They only carry a secondary effect, e.g., in the "court of law" the ignorance of the second hypocrite would be considered as an extenuating circumstance while the sincerity of the first hypocrite would be an aggravating circumstance.

 

[Grinch]

The motivation of the first hypocrite might also be taken into account though, since the hypocrite is acting purposely and for effect.