Jump to content

Shuruia

Team Leader
  • Posts

    1,042
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    59
  • SteamID

    76561198007064082

Posts posted by Shuruia

  1. Is it wise to make assumptions of the company's internal culture simply from the interview process alone? I know that first impressions are important, but still...

     

    If he still has time, he could ask for a tour of the work areas (if these particular companies allow for it; I know that some do for applicants they're willing to accept) to get a better feel for the internal culture. I realise that this is probably unlikely since he only has a couple of days left.

     

    If I were in this situation, I think I would choose the second company. Even if he wants to move away from that company later, the higher pay that they are offering gives him a larger safety net to fall back on. There is something to be said for the comfort that financial security can bring you.

  2. Just now, -q- said:

    I recently watched it. I set my expectations too high and was disappointed. It was good, but not as good as people say it is. 

    Well, let me know what you think of the first F/SN Heaven's Feel movie when you get the chance. I'm going to watch it as soon as I can.

  3. My last dog died on the same day that I was demoted a few months ago. I can't answer the second question of the poll without stretching the truth a tad on the first question. Sorry about that.

    qEJuA7t.jpg

     

    Cats have their appeal, but I'll always prefer dogs.

  4. Let's see how far I can expand the subject.

     

    21 hours ago, Benroy said:

    You forgot to notice that God gave us free will. 

    Given that Yahweh is the judge, jury and executioner for any and all sins (many of which could be considered as "sins" for entirely arbitrary and nonsensical reasons), it presents a rather damning problem. Granting humans free will is all well and good, and it's even better if humans use this free will to do good for their fellow man. Now, what if humans set out to do good in a manner in which Yahweh would disagree? They could make the choice to do what they feel is the right thing, but they have faith that an omnipotent force is breathing down their neck to damn them for all eternity, just because this omnipotent force told its followers to write down some incredibly arbitrary rules that would be obsolete within a millennium or two. Is that free will? Yes, but it's a very twisted form of free will. It's the equivalent of having someone hold you at gunpoint and telling you what to do; you could make the choice to not do what the gunman commands, but a smart person (especially in the presence of a danger that is vastly more obvious than a fairy tale figure) would naturally be inclined to avoid those bullet wounds. That's no longer free will at that point, but rather survival instinct. In other words, people have faith because they're afraid of the consequences of what will happen to them if their faith begins to falter for whatever reason.

     

    I used to fear your God as well. My fear was strong, and I was strongly Catholic as a result. I constantly had to do checks and balances in my head, but for all the wrong reasons. Instead of thinking "Is this the right thing to do? Will I harm others for doing this?", I instead had to think "Will God punish me for this? Will I go to Hell for this?". Luckily, I learned to stop fearing gods since I figured out that religion is an ethnic construct. Religion for the vast majority of people is decided for them based on their nation of origin, as most people don't actively make the decision to follow a particular religion because they prefer it over the other; they only adhere to the religion that they've been brought up with since it's convenient.

     

    I've also heard the argument that the fundamental statutes a deity sets for you are for the purpose of "persuading" humans to do good (or what Yahweh thinks is good in this case) through rule of fear. The ends justify the means, in other words. Well, that's a lot of hoops to jump through just to minimise the damage of free will, isn't it? It would mean that religion and all of the rules that come with it are essentially a soft leash on humanity's whims. So we still have free will, but there's a cap on how much free will we can have before certain dangerous thoughts are had. I don't like that. In fact, I find the very notion insulting to the human race. We can grow and be good to each other without some old dusty book.

     

    I suppose I should give biblical free will some credit, though. After all, it can allow the best Christians to cherry-pick which rules from the Bible are relevant to modern society, which rules are obsolete to modern society, and which rules are the ones that you shout at the worst Christians for "misinterpreting".

     

    21 hours ago, Benroy said:

    First, God usually lets things go naturally, and that it's not "a test from God" when bad things happen every single time.

    "usually"

     

    If God is omnipotent, then one can logically assume that he is tireless. In other words, God will never tire (physically or otherwise) of his methods or handiwork, as to suggest otherwise would mean that he is not omnipotent.

     

    If God is omnibenevolent, then one can logically assume that he is a perpetual force for good. In other words, God will always have his best intentions and our best interests at heart, as to suggest otherwise would mean that he is not omnibenevolent.

     

    So if God "usually" lets things go naturally, what are the exceptions? Why does he, in his apparent infinite power and kindness, allow these certain exceptions? That's a rhetorical question; I already know that you can't accurately answer that question due to you already being rooted in the belief that we cannot hope to understand how such a higher being operates. This is a higher being that we cannot understand, as we have been created by said higher being to assume a form that cannot readily comprehend the higher being or its ideals. Why is that? Why would we not be born with the knowledge so that we can make the choice whether or not to adhere to these ideals that we'd already have knowledge of? The concept of free will would still be there, but with a lot less messy cases of something being "lost in translation" in scripture or teachings.

     

    To pose an alternative question, I want to ask why you would put so much faith and love into a being that you admit to being beyond our comprehension. If this being is vastly beyond our comprehension, isn't it somewhat arrogant to simply assume that this being has our best interests at heart? Let's assume that a higher being (not necessarily Yahweh) does exist. It could be good, it could be evil, or it simply could be completely indifferent to our existence. How do you figure out which one it is? Is it because it can seemingly communicate incredibly specific ideals to people to transcribe into a holy book, hence making the deity an arbitrary secret keeper? Or is it because you feel as though you should "love" this being out of fear of what you think it's going to do to you if you don't?

     

    21 hours ago, Benroy said:

    Second, bad events can often improve people, or develop them to do great things in future, which usually happens. 

    Yes, but I know you already understand that this cuts both ways. One bad day has equal potential to make someone learn a valuable lesson and turn over a new leaf, or to burn down the forest that leaf came from because they have nothing to lose anymore.

     

    I can see the benefit, though. If I were to pretend to be a god (I have to think like one when I write for certain characters in my literary project, after all), I would let a touch of chaos loose every now and then to remind humans how to be kind to each other in times of strife. Of course, I imagine I wouldn't make for the most benevolent god, so it'd only be to balance out some of the less savoury things that I'd do.

  5. Just now, nick027nd said:

    That makes sense, but then the trash bin would be severely cluttered with small things like with what I was trying to fix.

    Aye, that was (and remains) a problem. The alternative solution that I was going to implement before I was demoted was to write new guidelines for the CAs on which posts should simply be deleted, and which posts should be hidden/trash binned. It seemed as though CAs felt obliged to hide posts no matter what since deleting posts is taboo. That was just the culture that came to be accepted, so writing a hard rule on what to delete and what to hide seemed fair.

     

    Really though, it's just a lot more efficient to let people delete their own posts.

  6. 4 minutes ago, nick027nd said:

    Honestly, I think it's just easier to allow users the ability to remove a post. If there's something that someone doesn't want on the forums, why have it collect in a trash bin?

    Source material in case we need dirt on someone. I personally made extensive use of that, and was essentially the main reason why I initially disagreed with your proposal. I just happened to change my mind recently since it would appear that the pros of the notion outweigh the cons.

     

     

  7. I've mulled over this matter here and there in the past year since it does seem inherently strange for a form of social media to prevent individuals from removing their own content. I used to disagree with your proposal, but I've found myself more agreeable to it nowadays. Even if there are still doubts over it, it shouldn't hurt to implement it since no real damage or abuse can come out of this.

     

    Now, I'd love to consider making this change for you, mi amor, but I'm afraid my magic wand ran out of power a couple of months ago.

     

    Good luck on this.

  8. @Joshy

     

    No red post yet, so I'll weigh in on this subject.

     

    I truly appreciate your sentiment, but what you think about the "other guys" deserving basic powers is irrelevant for two reasons. The first reason is due to GFL's culture of trust; the second reason is due to the sake of raw efficiency and security.

     

    Whilst you are correct in identifying the nuance between basic permissions and not so basic permissions, it would be prudent to observe just how profoundly the .ru & SoJa incident has had an effect on GFL's culture of trust. More specifically, it has affected Roy on a personal level and has inevitably trickled down to the rest of GFL. Even more damning, this incident was only the second of its kind to affect Roy and consequently GFL; the EG incident with people such as Viper back in very early 2012 also gives ample reason as to why trust is more valuable than diamonds within this community. I don't have to make this inference by myself, since Roy has admitted this to multiple people at one time or another. 

     

    What I'm getting at is that this type of culture does not require a modicum of distrust to be warranted by anything concrete. Let us posit that you are a higher-up that happens to be excommunicated wearing a cloak of disgrace, one that you only bear for minor reasons after the fact. That is damning. Why? Well, we already know that it's not because you've damaged the community, nor can it be due to the higher-ups having reasonable grounds to suspect that you want to damage the community. No, it's because they dislike you. They dislike you because you've given them reason to dislike you. That's all they need to give you the short end. And to be fair, If they aren't absolutely sure that your retention of even BASIC powers would be purely to the benefit of GFL, then they have no practical obligation to lease said powers to you. As for the moral obligation, it was never there to begin with.

     

    I know this because a certain higher-up (whose name I shall omit) said the following to me in Discord:

    nypuRwT.png

     

    Now this was strange to me, given that I'm vastly overqualified to be a TS3 admin. I wanted to know what the reasons were, so I asked for them. No reply, but this person did say something in an earlier context that could also apply to the present situation:

    WsG8Yeu.png

     

    I won't go into too much detail about it, but on the day before I decided to put my dog down, someone that was close to Roy sent me a chat log of Roy saying something that gave me a reason to be rather peeved. And peeved I was! I took a knife to his ego because I knew he deserved it, but Roy and his circle naturally wouldn't see it that way.

     

    So I gave them a reason to dislike me, which certain people nowadays would covertly use to justify why I (or someone like me) would not receive something as basic as TS3 admin. I'm just one individual out of many that will pass through the higher-ups, so try to imagine what they must consider for every single person that ever passed through that group. The circumstances between each individual are likely to be different from the last. Even the four examples that you listed vary greatly in the circumstances that each individual has found themselves in. A case by case basis for such matters will probably remain the norm as long as it remains the most popular.

     

    This is the first reason.

     

    Speaking of a case by case basis...

     

    On 06/09/2017 at 1:43 AM, PB-n-J said:

    I'd more suggest it to be handled on a "case by case" basis.

    That would be a suggestion to maintain the status quo, which is the one that GFL has practically held since its inception. This is typically a good system to use when you consider the fact that leasing powers—even basic ones—to individuals simply by virtue of them being ex-higher-ups will inevitably cause problems down the line. Even without historical context, it is simply safe to assume that at least one ex-higher-up will think about abusing his/her powers. Why deal with the fallout when you can simply prevent it altogether?

     

    This is the second reason.

×
×
  • Create New...