Turambar's forum posts

#1 Posted by Turambar (6949 posts) -

@joshwent said:

@turambar said:

My arguments are not for affirmative action. They are against the notion of "the equality of merit" as it exists today, emphasis on quotation marks.

Then I apologize if I misconstrued your points, but this thread itself is about intentionally including/not including and hiring/not hiring people based first on their genes, which is affirmative action.

As I hopefully made clear in my previous post, I agree that the "equality of merit" is a flawed concept. I'm just saying that the suggestions made by the OP are similarly flawed, and do nothing to address the problem we're both discussing.

Oh, this topic is entirely tangential to the OP, I'm well aware.

#2 Edited by Turambar (6949 posts) -

@joshwent: @notlikelytocare: My arguments are not for affirmative action. They are against the notion of "the equality of merit" as it exists today, emphasis on quotation marks.

#3 Posted by Turambar (6949 posts) -

@erickmartins said:

You guys realize that "they should just hire the best person for the job" is exactly the main argument against affirmative action and so on and so forth, right? Right?

Do people actually support affirmative action? To be honest, it always sounded a bit hamfisted to me . Your race, sexual preferences, and beliefs have very little to do with your ability to do a job, your experience, determination, and hard work do. That's why people say "Best person for the job", because that could be a pansexual chilean woman, a gay black man, or a straight white dude. Hiring should be based on merit, not how different you are.

1. Someone's race, gender, economic background, etc, heavily influences how an employer views the potential hireree's merits.

2. The argument of merit implies everyone starts from the same place, a notion that is patently false.

3. History has taught us that long term inequality is guaranteed to lead to strife. If nothing else, you can selfishly view steps toward increasing diversity as reinforcing social stability.

#4 Edited by Turambar (6949 posts) -

@hurricaneivan29 said:


My opinion is I just don't want the boards filled with everyone's complaints, because that's not what I come here to see. The Mods are here just for that, to respond to the complaints. It's like somebody making a ruckus at a party because theres nuts in food without warning, but instead of doing it off to the side to the people that should hear it, he starts yelling to everyone who's just there to enjoy themselves.

Hence why as I've said, I'm well aware of why that policy exists. However, I am also aware that its existence inevitably causes a certain degree of response from any community. As a result, when one of the mods bemoan some of the negativity directed towards mods, I pointed out that it unfortunately comes with the territory.

#5 Posted by Turambar (6949 posts) -

@turambar: i think you're just paranoid, duder.

Or, you know, I've had the same experience as the mods, on an even more personal level, and thus understand where some of it is coming from.

#6 Posted by Turambar (6949 posts) -

@hurricaneivan29 said:

@turambar: what? Contacting them by PM is a way to keep the site clear so that users can come on and just see what they came to see. Leave all complaints between the parties involved.

Any perceived secrecy is going to cause doubt, especially when only one side is seen getting a word in publicly.

@turambar: Sure, I realize that some people are going to have that sort of reaction against any sort of perceived authority, but a lot of what I've seen seems to go beyond that. It's nothing that stops us from continuing to try to equitably and fairly enforce the community rules, but it is just a little depressing to be seen that way.

Part of that probably have to do with how invested people get with the site. When someone starts seeing this as not just a public forum but "their place", its easy to take things increasingly personally.

#7 Edited by Turambar (6949 posts) -

@chaser324 said:

@renegademike said:

We need a place that is a free and safe place for likeminded people to talk freely and exchange ideas without the threat of trolls or punishment from moderators.

I personally feel pretty insulted when I see stuff like this. I really wish I knew what us moderators had done to gain this reputation. It's an opinion that quite a few people seem to have, but I've never seen anyone offer an actual explanation about (or at least not an honest one that isn't fueled purely by anger or spite). Please, feel free to contact the mods or Rorie if you feel that there is a genuine problem.

I'd wager this sort of reputation arises any time a group makes it known that public questioning of their authority / decision making will be frowned upon. Anytime the phrase "contact us via a PM" or something of the sort, it gives a sense of what feels like unnecessary secrecy that simply fosters further negative opinions, deserved or otherwise.

I know why this policy is necessary. (Transparency can sometimes be a teacher's biggest nightmare.) The reactions simply come with the territory.

#8 Posted by Turambar (6949 posts) -

Giantbomb, the place where it's safe to criticize anything, as long as its not the site itself.

#9 Posted by Turambar (6949 posts) -

@sweep said:

I'd like to remind everyone that


He's not doing anything illegal and just because you don't like it doesn't vindicate any hostility or aggression. Keep it clean please, folks.

As the initial post was one bemoaning hostile ebay messages, discussion of the subject becomes rather difficult if agreement with the sentiments of the messages are disallowed.

#10 Posted by Turambar (6949 posts) -

@mbradley1992: I'm honestly not looking for reassurance, I'm saying that people should stop being crazy when they don't get what they want. The new 3DS will come again in more inventory, other than birthdays or anniversaries, I can't think of a situation in which you really need to have the newest tech the day of the release.

Your practices are dependent on people having this need. Without it, scalping would not exist. This entire statement is quite disingenuous.