i thought i2 was a free speech website ?

[eris]

aw so i see schleed has joined ppk and al following me aroud being assholes. great fuckin website ya got here. four days

[Frolic_Fun]

You're acting like the arsehole here. Facist.

[odeon]

aw so i see schleed has joined ppk and al following me aroud being assholes. great fuckin website ya got here. four days

Would you prefer a moderated one?

[eris]

yes. i would prefer it to have written rules over unwritten expectations

[Al Swearegen]

I don't think any of this is about S2 or i2 or even individuals here.

This is about how eris is feeling. I never really understood emotional dialogue all that well. Perhaps I am misreading this.

Eris feels upset, frightened, beset upon, and frustrated. More than a little angry too.

So she is venting. She has a right to feeling shitty about things and feeling what she feels. She is lashing out at things in a want of some control in a forum she feels controlled by Pig. Stalking is shit like that. You can not stop it, minimise it, time it, or let it do anything but undermine you. So why would she not feel angry or try to put this anger where there is some effect, rather than on Pig?

Any disagreement or questioning what she is saying will be to her like denouncing her feelings and not about the subject at hand. She therfore reacts strongly.

That is my reading and i may have it completely wrong.

As for me? I see why Eris is upset and it makes sense. A lot more than the fascism, moral superiority, arseholes having tea parties, s2 - troll haven or whatever. All I really wanted to know. It makes sense. I would help her if I could too. As it is I don't know how , so instead i will watch her vent and see her go and feel shittier for it.

[Al Swearegen]

...even though personally I think Les and PPK are complete arse-lickers.

Wow, I always thought highly of you though Shleed. 

[odeon]

yes. i would prefer it to have written rules over unwritten expectations

Not sure what the expectations are, in this case.

I don't think any of this is about S2 or i2 or even individuals here.

This is about how eris is feeling. I never really understood emotional dialogue all that well. Perhaps I am misreading this.

Eris feels upset, frightened, beset upon, and frustrated. More than a little angry too.

So she is venting. She has a right to feeling shitty about things and feeling what she feels. She is lashing out at things in a want of some control in a forum she feels controlled by Pig. Stalking is shit like that. You can not stop it, minimise it, time it, or let it do anything but undermine you. So why would she not feel angry or try to put this anger where there is some effect, rather than on Pig?

Any disagreement or questioning what she is saying will be to her like denouncing her feelings and not about the subject at hand. She therfore reacts strongly.

That is my reading and i may have it completely wrong.

As for me? I see why Eris is upset and it makes sense. A lot more than the fascism, moral superiority, arseholes having tea parties, s2 - troll haven or whatever. All I really wanted to know. It makes sense. I would help her if I could too. As it is I don't know how , so instead i will watch her vent and see her go and feel shittier for it.

I would very much like to help her, too, but I don't know how or even if she wants my help. I'm sort of confused because I get mixed signals. Or maybe it's just me being a spazz.

I would much prefer her to stay. I understand her leaving has something to do with Pig and quite possibly others but don't know what to do. Or if I'm expected to do something and don't.

What I don't want to do is to turn this into a moderated forum.

[Pyraxis]

We can acknowledge the expectations without turning it into a moderated forum. The expectations change all the time anyway, fluid the way social dynamics change. To attempt to codify them into written rules would be to chase after reality always one step behind, as we argued and debated on how the rules actually ought to be written down. By the time they were codified they would be out of date.

But we're still aspers and we still like to know what's expected.

The other thing is that everyone has a different set of rules of behavior that work for them. My personal rules are drastically different from, say, Odeon's. The ability to make them work in tandem, rather than perpetually being at each other's throats, has been a very long time coming. And that multiplies exponentially as you consider the number of people here and the number of potential pairings or groupings. The old refrain "you're a clique!" is true, but only in the vaguest most general sense. Even in a clique, the rules always change, members join and drop out and get kicked out according to a constantly shifting game. That's what makes it so hard to define "the clique is Odeon and Callaway and Les" or "the clique is Butterflies and Squiddy" or "the clique is who the hell knows today". Patterns come to light over time, but they're not set in stone.

But when a person is in crisis or having strong emotions then the brain loses the ability to interpret complex patterns. That's how wars (and politics  ) get polarized so easily. It's easier to look for a simple rule like "we're the good guys and they're the bad guys" or "free speech FTW! down with all authority!" or "all free speech is a lie!"

I see Eris looking for rules and structure, and getting confused when it seems to change every time someone says something else. Isn't that the classic asper thing though? We've all been there. This is an environment where you can explore making your own rules and acting on them and seeing how well it works. It can be hard to stick around, I know I've left at times, there was that period where I was gone for two years or so because I had to experiment with a more structured and moderated environment. So I'll be sad to see Eris go but I understand it and I hope we'll see her back some day.

[El]

You have found INTENSITY², the autistic spectrum site everyone loves to hate.

We stand for freedom of expression, combative debate, and the generation of ideas. There are no boundaries here over what may be said, save for one rule - be prepared to back up your words. Or face the wrath of the community.

Seems pretty well-explained already to me.

This isn't about logic, though.  I doubt its even about us.  This is about eris having a meltdown, and not being in logic-mode.  I don't know what's actually happening with her, but she's done some rough stuff to herself in the semi-recent past and may be doing so again.  I wonder this based not just on her behavior- which I think pretty clearly shows her as not being rational right now- but also because she's posting from mobile a lot right now.  (Unless I'm imagining that?)

[Adam]

Yeah she's posting from her mobile atm but there's a reason for that - I can't remember what's up with her computer but I remember her posting saying she was stuck just using her phone for a while

I am a bit worried about eris right now tho tbh. I don't know if there is anything I can do.

I don't want you to leave either eris, but maybe you should take a break from this place starting from now. As being around the people here just seems to be making you feel much worse.

[El]

I'm going to post a reply in the "main event" thread eris has, because I don't think my reply should be viewable publically.  I know eris will still be able to read it, she still has her account.

http://www.intensitysquared.com/index.php/topic,19367.msg869305.html#msg869305

[odeon]

Yeah she's posting from her mobile atm but there's a reason for that - I can't remember what's up with her computer but I remember her posting saying she was stuck just using her phone for a while

I am a bit worried about eris right now tho tbh. I don't know if there is anything I can do.

I am, too. I don't know what to do or if I should do anything, but I am worried.

I don't want you to leave either eris, but maybe you should take a break from this place starting from now. As being around the people here just seems to be making you feel much worse.

I hope she'll come back. I think we need the positive energy from her (me trying to put into words what I can't, you know what I mean).

['andersom']

We can acknowledge the expectations without turning it into a moderated forum. The expectations change all the time anyway, fluid the way social dynamics change. To attempt to codify them into written rules would be to chase after reality always one step behind, as we argued and debated on how the rules actually ought to be written down. By the time they were codified they would be out of date.

But we're still aspers and we still like to know what's expected.

The other thing is that everyone has a different set of rules of behavior that work for them. My personal rules are drastically different from, say, Odeon's. The ability to make them work in tandem, rather than perpetually being at each other's throats, has been a very long time coming. And that multiplies exponentially as you consider the number of people here and the number of potential pairings or groupings. The old refrain "you're a clique!" is true, but only in the vaguest most general sense. Even in a clique, the rules always change, members join and drop out and get kicked out according to a constantly shifting game. That's what makes it so hard to define "the clique is Odeon and Callaway and Les" or "the clique is Butterflies and Squiddy" or "the clique is who the hell knows today". Patterns come to light over time, but they're not set in stone.

But when a person is in crisis or having strong emotions then the brain loses the ability to interpret complex patterns. That's how wars (and politics  ) get polarized so easily. It's easier to look for a simple rule like "we're the good guys and they're the bad guys" or "free speech FTW! down with all authority!" or "all free speech is a lie!"

I see Eris looking for rules and structure, and getting confused when it seems to change every time someone says something else. Isn't that the classic asper thing though? We've all been there. This is an environment where you can explore making your own rules and acting on them and seeing how well it works. It can be hard to stick around, I know I've left at times, there was that period where I was gone for two years or so because I had to experiment with a more structured and moderated environment. So I'll be sad to see Eris go but I understand it and I hope we'll see her back some day.

Quoted, because it is worth repeating.

I love that brain of yours.

[Al Swearegen]

I have read and re-read this over...and I don't understand it. I am not trying to be derisive nor feign stupidity. I just don't get it. I will show you why. I am not trying to dump on it. This is just an attempt for me to get it.

We can acknowledge the expectations without turning it into a moderated forum. (OK what expectations? That members can say what they like but in saying what they like it can piss peopel off or have peopel agree? If they agree they may say so and if they don't they might not? Or that the forum is what we make it and if we are constantly spamming or bitching it makes the atmosphere shitty for all? taht kind of thing)The expectations change all the time anyway, fluid the way social dynamics change. (What expectations have changed or are changing?) To attempt to codify them into written rules would be to chase after reality always one step behind, as we argued and debated on how the rules actually ought to be written down. By the time they were codified they would be out of date. (I understand the theory and theoretically it makes sense and yes it would work against the forum and the forum to become a quagmire of outdated rules. That I get BUT I do not see what these every changing expectations are)

But we're still aspers and we still like to know what's expected. (Absolutely. Rigid Aspies? Yup)

The other thing is that everyone has a different set of rules of behavior that work for them. (Is this personal values and ethics and morality?) My personal rules are drastically different from, say, Odeon's. The ability to make them work in tandem, rather than perpetually being at each other's throats, has been a very long time coming. And that multiplies exponentially as you consider the number of people here and the number of potential pairings or groupings. (Is this saying that if you generally agree with what someone says that you are unlikely to pull them up on something you agree with? I would have thought that this is not grouping you with anyone else nor aligning yourself with anyone but merely you agreeing and I think this is the way it should be. It gives you the argue the claim not the person. I think this is good.)The old refrain "you're a clique!" is true, but only in the vaguest most general sense. (With what I said above, everyone is interacting not as a member of a clique but rather acting at behes of their own opinions whether they agree or not and if they do not they are at liberty to defend against a claim they do not believe in regardless of who said it. Cliques in this setting don't or ought not exist. It doesn't allow the member to back a member because they are favoured but rather means that they fight against what they don't believe in regardless of who holds that view and support a claim regardless of who holds that view) Even in a clique, the rules always change, members join and drop out and get kicked out according to a constantly shifting game. (Not if they are not suppporting a member but supporting views that fit with them. It allows them to defend against any views they do not agree with regardless of the person) That's what makes it so hard to define "the clique is Odeon and Callaway and Les" or "the clique is Butterflies and Squiddy" or "the clique is who the hell knows today". Patterns come to light over time, but they're not set in stone. (I think the difference is the willingness to defend the person not the claim. If a member makes a claim which is outageous or many claims that are outrageous and they are continually backed by mates regardless of the merits of the claim then a clique is rather easier to call than if the claims are sound and supported because they are sound and not because the members like each other. In the event that the claim maker (who may otherwise make rather sound claims) starts making outrageous ones then they OUGHT to be contested by friend and foe alike)

But when a person is in crisis or having strong emotions then the brain loses the ability to interpret complex patterns. That's how wars (and politics  ) get polarized so easily. It's easier to look for a simple rule like "we're the good guys and they're the bad guys" or "free speech FTW! down with all authority!" or "all free speech is a lie!" (I think this is what I was trying to say in a post further up...not sure?  )
I see Eris looking for rules and structure, and getting confused when it seems to change every time someone says something else. (I don't see the changes or the ever changing nature of this...at all) Isn't that the classic asper thing though? We've all been there. (I agree I really can not handle change. What change here though?) This is an environment where you can explore making your own rules and acting on them and seeing how well it works. (I had not even comptemplated this. I tend to post in the same way and with the same expectations and have for 5 years.) It can be hard to stick around, I know I've left at times, there was that period where I was gone for two years or so because I had to experiment with a more structured and moderated environment. So I'll be sad to see Eris go but I understand it and I hope we'll see her back some day. (This I agree with. I dislike seeing her go and if I could physically confront Pig I not only would but would enjoy the opportunity of doing so)

Yup don't get it and perhaps that is just me. 

[Pyraxis]

(OK what expectations? That members can say what they like but in saying what they like it can piss peopel off or have peopel agree? If they agree they may say so and if they don't they might not? Or that the forum is what we make it and if we are constantly spamming or bitching it makes the atmosphere shitty for all? taht kind of thing
Those are all examples, yeah. Or the specific ones like don't slag off people's kids unless you want to get stomped, sockpuppets are looked down on, don't quote things out of the Elders forum, don't quote PM's.

(What expectations have changed or are changing?)
The specific ones didn't used to exist. They generally don't get made until there's a big drama and then people decide going forward, maybe we shouldn't do X.

(Is this personal values and ethics and morality?)
Yes, but also morally neutral things like do you answer if someone says they had a shitty day? How often do you speak logically vs emotionally? Do you derail threads or try to keep them on topic?

(Is this saying that if you generally agree with what someone says that you are unlikely to pull them up on something you agree with? I would have thought that this is not grouping you with anyone else nor aligning yourself with anyone but merely you agreeing and I think this is the way it should be. It gives you the argue the claim not the person. I think this is good.)
I meant there's a lot of potential for different types of conflicts and disagreements. I'm not sure what you mean by if you agree with what someone says that you're unlikely to pull them up on something you agree with. Why would anyone argue with something they agreed with? Unless they were screwing around and playing devil's advocate I guess.

(With what I said above, everyone is interacting not as a member of a clique but rather acting at behes of their own opinions whether they agree or not and if they do not they are at liberty to defend against a claim they do not believe in regardless of who said it. Cliques in this setting don't or ought not exist. It doesn't allow the member to back a member because they are favoured but rather means that they fight against what they don't believe in regardless of who holds that view and support a claim regardless of who holds that view)
I think people who generally agree are often going to be seen as a clique, whether they want to be or not, and it's human nature to treat your friends better in subtle ways. This environment isn't enough to extinguish a behavior that instinctual. That said I do think it's generally a good principle to look at both sides of arguments rather than siding with your friends.

(Not if they are not suppporting a member but supporting views that fit with them. It allows them to defend against any views they do not agree with regardless of the person)
True.

(I think the difference is the willingness to defend the person not the claim. If a member makes a claim which is outageous or many claims that are outrageous and they are continually backed by mates regardless of the merits of the claim then a clique is rather easier to call than if the claims are sound and supported because they are sound and not because the members like each other. In the event that the claim maker (who may otherwise make rather sound claims) starts making outrageous ones then they OUGHT to be contested by friend and foe alike)
Sure.

(I think this is what I was trying to say in a post further up...not sure?  )
Yeah, it sounds similar.

(I don't see the changes or the ever changing nature of this...at all) (...) (I agree I really can not handle change. What change here though?)
Subtle things, like which members are posting the most, whether there's drama going on in a given moment, who's involved in it. Sometimes people say they're bored and want drama, and they're happy to bring the popcorn, and sometimes people have had enough and just get impatient with it.

(This I agree with. I dislike seeing her go and if I could physically confront Pig I not only would but would enjoy the opportunity of doing so)
I'd bring popcorn.  Though I doubt it would last long, he'd shit his pants and run for the hills.