New Restrictions

New Restrictions [+ favourites]

Added a few forum restrictions for various reasons:

1. Post older than a week can no longer be edited by users. Administrators can still edit them so if you have a good reason to have them edited let an administrator know.

2. All users are limited to the number of posts per day. The number is pretty high so you don't really have to worry about it. This can be increased and will be for certain users in special circumstances. This mechanism has been added and will be used in conjunction with warning to users to provide a middle ground between them bloating threads and being banned from the site.

"Hating everyone protects me from elitism."
[  Edited by Decius at   ]

how will this be regulated? is the user automatically locked out of posting beyond ten? or is it the job of admins to keep a count?

this does not affect PMs, correct?

"I am Akba-Atatdia"

Sorry, I was going to add more info. thanks for the questions.

The system automatically regulates it. It will prevent you from seeing the post page so don't worry... if you are able to see the form then you are permitted to post.

This does not affect pms and actually is meant to encourage using PMs for casual conversations.

"Hating everyone protects me from elitism."

I have decided that in the spirit of keeping discussion going without roadblocks, any members that use difinitively improbable premises repeatedly to form conclusions will have their post number restricted.

The definition of these premises is, in essence, any statement that does not encapsulate probability in their formation.

Be sure to remember that this does not apply to you if you do not form conclusions using these premises in an effort to diss-prove probable conclusions that oppose your beliefs.

If you believe in ghosts (which may be an improbable truth), there is no problem whatsoever with that and you may explain and defend your right to believe in ghosts. However, this does not permit you to argue those who would claim that ghosts do not exist, because your belief is an improbable one.

In essence, you have the right to believe what you wish. However, in a discussion you may only bring to the table things you can prove using one form of logic or another.

If you choose not to, you will be limited from retarding threads.

"Hating everyone protects me from elitism."

are personal past experences allowed?

could you just give me an example please?

"Wht cry for those that often cry? Instead, help them smile, and smile for those that smile."

Personal past experiences serve as a defense for your beliefs, but they do not serve as proof to diss-prove another's theory, because your experience is limited to your observation skills.

Again, if I believe in ghosts because I have seen a ghost, then I have a reason to believe in ghosts, and I can state this.

However, if someone brings up all the statistical evidence and psychological research that points to the probable outcome that ghost sightings are all the result of human hallucination, my seeing a ghost can not be used to prove his theory incorrect.

This is because observation in specific circumstances serves only as a counter-example to an umbrella theory, but cannot diss-prove a theory that is not all-encompassing. If someone were to say all ghost experiences are definitely fake, then you have the right to interject that that is illogical because that person is then asserting their beliefs unto everyone, difinitively.

I hope that makes sense. There is a difference between a passive belief and an umbrella belief. A passive belief serves as proof for the exception to the rule... an umbrella belief imposes its ideas on all examples of the topic.

Hence, personal experience and beliefs not based on a backbone of probability can never be used as umbrella beliefs, only passive beliefs. Primarily because passive beliefs can never be proven or dissproven, and far too much resides on the reliability of the author of that passive belief.

"Hating everyone protects me from elitism."

im in the military i already face enough micro management
i come here for a release i not sure this is what u meant by restricting people
however there are a lot more important things than logic in this world

"choose to be happy today"

quote:

---

in a discussion you may only bring to the table things you can prove using one form of logic or another

---

"The summit is just a halfway point"

Summit: Just because a subject has a shortage in logical premises as compared to another, that does not make it illogical. That makes it more difficult to approach with reasoning... and far more fun.

"Hating everyone protects me from elitism."

Decius: As we are already aware of, and there is no point denying this, that there are many threads that have no logical foundation at all. For instance, short comments that have no reasoning nor justification, let alone any logical basis (such as what awakend made reference to in the above post). Another obvious area where this is practiced is in many of the religious threads (especially regarding subjects of a 'god'. By no means am I protesting that this is feebleminded and should not be allowed....I am just curious why there are existing threads that have the inclusion of replies that:
a.) have extremly poor justifcation/reasoning
b.) have strong emphasis on a topic that in its very nature is rather illogical
Yes, it may appear fun to others, but to some, having a reply that represents either a.) or b.) should be questioned.
Again, I ask (out of curiousity) why this exists considering you stated 'that in a discussion you may only bring to the table things you can prove using one form of logic or another'.

"The summit is just a halfway point"

have you chosen to ignore the word "new" in this thread title, summit?

"I am Akba-Atatdia"

I have realised the 'new'. That is why my example (which awakend pointed out) is a new post, that has slightly neglected these restrictions. Considering these restrictions are new, it is also interesting that the religious thread section still exists.

"The summit is just a halfway point"

Summit: I'm not certain what is unclear. All premises used for an imposing argument must be probable. Please think about that and everything else I've said and I'm quite certain it is clearly explained. Probable != Scientifically Proveable

"Hating everyone protects me from elitism."

Regarding The Post Limit

can you give us a counter of how many time we have posted that day some how. just so that we know what we are trading off.

"Wht cry for those that often cry? Instead, help them smile, and smile for those that smile."

hmm . . . I wonder if summit has such a hard time with the religion section? But consider that the level of education &/ or the ability to reason varies & not restrict those of less ability to develope those functions. to me an important aspect is as a learning experience as well as exchange of ideas, thoughts & perceptions.

"Terrorist or tyrant, few may come to the Truth that both are poor choice."