[OOC] Myriad Reality

[Balance]

<Snipped quote by Mammalia>

So the entirety of revelations should be thrown out then. For all we know, this particular reading was done with yhvh directly influencing the results. He works in mysterious ways after all, and it's pretty clear he has no ill feelings about using things considered bad for christians to get his plan.
If you want to look at it from a single theological view, fine, go ahead, but I'm going to give another view civilly while you give yours civilly. The worldly view is that they haven't been shown to produce results any better than a totally random selection, just like psychic card tests (forget the name atm) and the cross-theological view is that in order to get an accurate reading that actually warranted your reaction level, he'd have had to somehow come across someone in person who set things up that are incredibly unlikely to have been set up. :/ I get you're coming from the bible, but I'm trying to go from other places. Obviously I'm a bit more abrasive due to my personality, but ignore that :L

@The World

David most likely knows the theological details about the difference between fortune telling and God's prophets better than I do, so if there'll be any debate at all, it'll be on his part.

[Unhinged]

<Snipped quote by Unhinged>

What part of that was sarcasm? Perhaps I missed it...

@souleaterfan320

<Snipped quote by Galaxy Raider>

>and I just want to tell you that without all the long rants or stern tones of voice.<

@The World

Because I said the same thing in the post he replied to.

[The World]

<Snipped quote by The World>

I'm really trying to be kind here by only saying my piece and being kind, but thanks for the sarcasm. I appreciate it. I'm not up for ill-willed argument masquerading as debate right now, so meh.

@Unhinged

I didn't intend it as sarcasm. I meant it as "you said it perfectly, so I'll use your wording."

[souleaterfan320]

Alright, guys, I want to write a nice, detailed proposition here. to agree with it, simply like the post. Do NOT reply.

Alright, here goes nothing:

I suggest that we limit our religious beliefs on the OOC. In fact, strictly prohibit it. I say that religious matters are strictly personal, and should be handled via PMs.

It also goes for any situation that becomes heated. Once the conversation raise above normal parameters, it should then immediately be taken to PMs.

Any who do not comply with these rules will be subject to a PM warning from the GM. If the issue escalates, drastic measure may be taken. The GM is also subject to said rules, and if 2/3's of our total group votes, then there will be a PM council headed by the next most prominent member of the group. Once a majority vote (4 out of 5) is achieved, then the council will decide in favor for or against the accused.

[The World]

<Snipped quote by The World>

I'm really trying to be kind here by only saying my piece and being kind, but thanks for the sarcasm. I appreciate it. I'm not up for ill-willed argument masquerading as debate right now, so meh.

@Unhinged

I didn't intend it as sarcasm. I meant it as "you said it perfectly, so I'll use your wording."

<Snipped quote by The World>

I don't know, I never really took your side much, and was too quick to judge you. I think you're actually a cool person. Although, I've learned (for the most part) not to bring religion up on here regardless, as things turn into a giant clustercrap. (Censored it for those who don't like curse words). It's not just you, but everyone here in general. I hate doing it, because it becomes this long debate, and leads to arguments, and I just want us all to get along.

@souleaterfan320

Lol, nobody takes my side much, if at all. Momentai. Besides, someone's feelings towards me should have no impact on my feelings towards a situation or topic.
And IDK, I like talking religion. I actively try to keep civil and kind but my personality and speech patterns work against that. I can see why you and spirit and sven think it's arguments, and the negative connotation that comes with that word, but I just see it as friendly debate or discussion. Or even friendly arguing, as long as we're careful around the touchy stuff, which we usually are at this point.
I do take offense to your censorship though lol. But it's yours to censor so whatever.

[Unhinged]

<Snipped quote by Unhinged>

I didn't intend it as sarcasm. I meant it as "you said it perfectly, so I'll use your wording."

@The World

Well, sorry then. I took it as repeating what I said in a mocking way. My bad.

[The World]

<Snipped quote by The World>

David most likely knows the theological details about the difference between fortune telling and God's prophets better than I do, so if there'll be any debate at all, it'll be on his part.

@Balance

Again, "mysterious ways" and all that. I feel that if you can claim that a human elected government is backed by and in power due to god, then I can claim that he can use fortune telling to give messages or signs to someone.

[souleaterfan320]

<Snipped quote by Unhinged>

I didn't intend it as sarcasm. I meant it as "you said it perfectly, so I'll use your wording."

<Snipped quote by souleaterfan320>

Lol, nobody takes my side much, if at all. Momentai. Besides, someone's feelings towards me should have no impact on my feelings towards a situation or topic.
And IDK, I like talking religion. I actively try to keep civil and kind but my personality and speech patterns work against that. I can see why you and spirit and sven think it's arguments, and the negative connotation that comes with that word, but I just see it as friendly debate or discussion. Or even friendly arguing, as long as we're careful around the touchy stuff, which we usually are at this point.
I do take offense to your censorship though lol. But it's yours to censor so whatever.

@The World

I only censored for the benefit of the others. Had this response had been in the private messages, I wouldn't have censored it XD

[The World]

Alright, guys, I want to write a nice, detailed proposition here. to agree with it, simply like the post. Do NOT reply.

Alright, here goes nothing:

I suggest that we limit our religious beliefs on the OOC. In fact, strictly prohibit it. I say that religious matters are strictly personal, and should be handled via PMs.

It also goes for any situation that becomes heated. Once the conversation raise above normal parameters, it should then immediately be taken to PMs.

Any who do not comply with these rules will be subject to a PM warning from the GM. If the issue escalates, drastic measure may be taken. The GM is also subject to said rules, and if 2/3's of our total group votes, then there will be a PM council headed by the next most prominent member of the group. Once a majority vote (4 out of 5) is achieved, then the council will decide in favor for or against the accused.

@souleaterfan320

The problem with that is that democracy sucks. Also that it's a stacked deck. You're basically suggesting, not intentionally of course, that it should just be "Dark shut up."
Plus, like david so vehemently put it a year ago, religion is a huge part in the lives of most members here. I get where you're coming from, but with religious stuff I just don't agree it should be banned, and with heated stuff, the non-involved often help cool things to some degree.
Idk I guess. I just don't think it's a great change.

[souleaterfan320]

Did my post about my proposition go through? It's not pulling up on my screen...

[The World]

<Snipped quote by The World>

Well, sorry then. I took it as repeating what I said in a mocking way. My bad.

@Unhinged

nah. The way you interpreted it fits with my personality, so it's in no way your fault. I should've cleared it up as I did it.

[souleaterfan320]

<Snipped quote by souleaterfan320>

The problem with that is that democracy sucks. Also that it's a stacked deck. You're basically suggesting, not intentionally of course, that it should just be "Dark shut up."
Plus, like david so vehemently put it a year ago, religion is a huge part in the lives of most members here. I get where you're coming from, but with religious stuff I just don't agree it should be banned, and with heated stuff, the non-involved often help cool things to some degree.
Idk I guess. I just don't think it's a great change.

@The World

Yep, it went through.

Anyways. It's not directed towards just you. Heck, its mainly put in place so you, I, and anyone else who may join are protected under it.

Although, it does give beneficial help to the others as well. A bit of a double-edged sword. However, it is fair and just, and I believe it covers all bases.

[souleaterfan320]

Also, anyone gonna reply to Hekrom?

[The World]

Btw whizz you can look at that spoiler now. If you can figure out what it meant you can basically solve the whole thing ic atm.

[souleaterfan320]

<Snipped quote by souleaterfan320>

The problem with that is that democracy sucks. Also that it's a stacked deck. You're basically suggesting, not intentionally of course, that it should just be "Dark shut up."
Plus, like david so vehemently put it a year ago, religion is a huge part in the lives of most members here. I get where you're coming from, but with religious stuff I just don't agree it should be banned, and with heated stuff, the non-involved often help cool things to some degree.
Idk I guess. I just don't think it's a great change.

@The World

How about not banned, but regulated?

[Unhinged]

<Snipped quote by Unhinged>

nah. The way you interpreted it fits with my personality, so it's in no way your fault. I should've cleared it up as I did it.

@The World

Well, I still take partial blame for being so easily irritated.

What is MM? My memory with a lot of the Trigger stuff is jeobkenxisbj.

[The World]

<Snipped quote by The World>

Yep, it went through.

Anyways. It's not directed towards just you. Heck, its mainly put in place so you, I, and anyone else who may join are protected under it.

Although, it does give beneficial help to the others as well. A bit of a double-edged sword. However, it is fair and just, and I believe it covers all bases.

@souleaterfan320

Again, I know it wasn't intended to be against me, but let's just pull up some stats quick.

Religious discussion: likelihood of involvement
David - 60/100
Whizz - 60/100
Sven - 30/100
Spirit - 10/100
Soul - 5/100
Dark - 70/100
Tox - 1/100

Heated discussion: likelihood of involvement
David - 70/100
Whizz - 40/100
Sven - 10/100
Spirit - 10/100
Soul - 5/100
Dark - 90/100
Tox - 5/100

Members who are almost identical in views: 3
Members with opposing views: 1
Members who are in between: 3
Members in between most likely to side with the three: 2

Likelihood of instigating religious discussion on any level:
David - 70/100
Whizz - 80/100
Sven - 40/100
Spirit - 5/100
Soul - 20/100
Dark - 75/100
Tox - 5/100

See what I mean about the stacked deck? We've already got a case study for what you're proposing, and it led to me being gone for a year. David, the "next in charge but actually the one in charge by any measurement despite us saying nobody is in charge" decided no more religious talk, didn't follow it, and the 4/5 decided it's fine for that but not for opposing talk (see members viewpoints) and "action was taken," in that I left because I clearly wasn't wanted. I'd rather avoid similar setups, even though it's our natural state.

[The World]

<Snipped quote by The World>

Well, I still take partial blame for being so easily irritated.

What is MM? My memory with a lotnof the Trigger stuff is jeobkenxisbj.

@Unhinged

Mammon machine. Yamder's name for the original generate class.

<Snipped quote by The World>

How about not banned, but regulated?

@souleaterfan320

I personally feel we are regulating it, but idk.

[Unhinged]

<Snipped quote by souleaterfan320>

Again, I know it wasn't intended to be against me, but let's just pull up some stats quick.

Religious discussion: likelihood of involvement
David - 60/100
Whizz - 60/100
Sven - 30/100
Spirit - 10/100
Soul - 5/100
Dark - 70/100
Tox - 1/100

Heated discussion: likelihood of involvement
David - 70/100
Whizz - 40/100
Sven - 10/100
Spirit - 10/100
Soul - 5/100
Dark - 90/100
Tox - 5/100

Members who are almost identical in views: 3
Members with opposing views: 1
Members who are in between: 3
Members in between most likely to side with the three: 2

Likelihood of instigating religious discussion on any level:
David - 70/100
Whizz - 80/100
Sven - 40/100
Spirit - 5/100
Soul - 20/100
Dark - 75/100
Tox - 5/100

See what I mean about the stacked deck? We've already got a case study for what you're proposing, and it led to me being gone for a year. David, the "next in charge but actually the one in charge by any measurement despite us saying nobody is in charge" decided no more religious talk, didn't follow it, and the 4/5 decided it's fine for that but not for opposing talk (see members viewpoints) and "action was taken," in that I left because I clearly wasn't wanted. I'd rather avoid similar setups, even though it's our natural state.

@The World

i'm just going to comment how I think it's funny that i'm more likely to instigate a religious discussion than to be involved in one

<Snipped quote by Unhinged>

Mammon machine. Yamder's name for the original generate class.

<Snipped quote by souleaterfan320>

I personally feel we are regulating it, but idk.

@The World

Gotcha.

[souleaterfan320]

<Snipped quote by The World>

i'm just going to comment how I think it's funny that i'm more likely to instigate a religious discussion than to be involved in one

<Snipped quote by The World>

Gotcha.

@Unhinged

Hey, I'm right there with ya XD