Thread: Armchair Intellectuals

Originally Posted by gwahir

well i mean think about it. there are titans of ai who are the smartest people ever like exodite and pansophist and nine castles was awesome in ai and so were you and many others

but flames has people who will say fuck the rules of debate i'm just going to argue my ass off without caring if i use naughty words or offend someone else and basically proved that, at least the greats of flames (of which there were more than there were greats of ai) were far, far better than the average stool water that the dregs of ai churned out, under protection from "no flaming" rules.

i mean if ai were more selective and had a greater number of really cool posters then it would've been amazing. but it allowed by its very nature an astonishing amount of ass gravy.

Perhaps a partial solution would be to allow moderate flaming, but only in the context of a logical argument.

Example:

42 USC 1983 says you can't do that because it's considered a violation of civil rights. You stupid cunt.

But to allow simple "retorts" of insults would just make it Flames with limitations on the topic of the OP but nothing after that.

Originally Posted by John Galt

Perhaps a partial solution would be to allow moderate flaming, but only in the context of a logical argument.

Example:

that's much worse than flames. flames is insults, arguments and jokes all "integrated". it's not just <argument> <insult> <joke>.

if someone can propose to me an ai that would work and have sustained activity i'll definitely implement it. i just don't see a need when we can have and are having debates in flames that are intelligent and entertaining. (yes, because it's flames, there's also some retardation and idiocy, but you take the good and you take the bad.)

Originally Posted by gwahir

(yes, because it's flames, there's also some retardation and idiocy, but you take the good and you take the bad.)

But really, you had that in AI too.