A New Decade

[Wokky]

To finish my thought from a page ago, the mod hasn't been released because the team members would lose their stake in the project, thereby losing a percentage of the ego boost when the thing is finished by someone else. Instead of everyone pouring over the team with compliments and praise, all their works will be spread far and wide and the ones to finally zip everything up will look like saviours to a good chunk of the community. The team doesn't want that because it is far more important to them to finish the thing themselves and get sole credit. If they can't finish it they'd rather cast it into oblivion than let someone else steal their thunder. It's an emotionally driven, selfish cause and they've got all of us by the balls....which is just fine and dandy to them, whether they care to admit it or not.

Of course, it all makes sense now!

[Hashi]

He took the word's out of Wokky's mouth

[chris the cynic]

You were nitpicking a bit there Chris, even though I agree with you. However, I guess this is a symptom of your way of reasoning, which is far superior to the reasoning of most people (including me ofc).

If you're talking about the thing regarding the word liable, it actually really, seriously wasn't nitpicking*.

Liable is a fairly well defined term. Like kumquat. If I use kumquat in a way that meets none of the definitions for kumquat (i.e., "The HDTP team is kumquat to keep the fanbase apprised of all developments, or lack there of, on a biweekly basis,") no one is going to have a clue what I am saying. Someone asking me to explain what I mean wouldn't be nitpicking, they'd be perfectly justified.

Now that Garlic has explained what was meant it is clear that it wasn't something that even resembles any of the definitions of liable (in any dictionary I can locate), which explains why the sentence didn't make sense. Until Garlic did that, I really didn't know. I could (and did) make guesses but acting on those guesses would have required me to put words into Garlic's mouth. That's not polite and often times it doesn't help. When someone is saying something that that doesn't parse, the reasonable thing to do is to ask.

I don't know that there is a word that really matches what Garlic was trying to say. Certainly there aren't words for everything** and it is possible that this is such a case. Nothing that means, "Obligated to do something such that if one doesn't the appropriateness of certain intangible negative repercussions is beyond challenge," springs to my mind. I did try to guess what Garlic meant by liable, I didn't guess that. I wouldn't have known that was what Garlic was trying to say if not for Garlic's most recent post.

-

That thing about superior reasoning is a very nice thing to say. Thank you for it.

-

* Unless you were talking about the "your phrasing would indicate that maintaining an interest and proactively supporting their fanbase would be the violation rather than the ideal" bit and the associated footnote, because that was entirely nitpicking.

** Douglas Adams coauthored two books*** that were entirely dedicated by giving words to meanings that should have associated words but didn't. These books were by no means exhaustive and it is likely that many, many word worthy meanings go wordless to this day.

*** The Meaning of Liff and The Deeper Meaning of Liff.

[gamer0004]

I understood what he was trying to say, and I think everybody did, so it wasn't a problem really, even though he might have been mistaken.

[chris the cynic]

I understood what he was trying to say, and I think everybody did, so it wasn't a problem really, even though he might have been mistaken.

Really? Could you explain how you pulled that off?*

Because I'm serious, the world liable means nothing like what Garlic was saying. If it isn't talking about suing, fining and/or arresting it means likely. That's all it means. That's all it's ever meant. (Liability, on the other hand, has more meanings, such as disadvantage, but they don't apply either.) I'd really like to know how you can go from reading a word that means, "If you do X you will be thrown in jail or lose your money (or both)," to understanding, "If you don't do X you're not allowed to object to resentment."

I can see how you can look at what was written and say, "Well it clearly doesn't mean likely," I did that myself. I can see how you can reach the conclusion, "It can't mean liable for doing these things, so it must mean liable for not doing these things," I did that as well. I have a harder time seeing how you can get from "Vulnerability to being sued, fined or thrown in jail" to a combination of, "Inability to challenge anger, frustration, impatience and resentment on grounds of being inappropriate," and, "loss of interest, respect and credit from others."

If there's some strong link between those things that makes the jump easy to make, I don't see it. I do not read a word that means, "Can be sued due to X," and immediately assume it must mean, "Can't object to forum posts due to X." Perhaps that's a deficiency on my part. I guess I'll just have to kumquat in the future.

-

* I said that I did make guesses. The closest I came was thinking Garlic meant that they deserved the treatment they were getting due to violating some sort of trust. The idea that they can't challenge certain things on the grounds of being inappropriate seriously and truly did not come up. I didn't guess that, I don't think I ever would have guessed that. Liable definitely doesn't mean inability to challenge, in fact when people are liable for something they're basically expected to challenge it. It would probably be better if people who knew they were liable didn't, but the certainly can and they certainly do.

[gamer0004]

I interpreted as "being obliged" (or "owe something"). But that's probably because English isn't my native language.

[justanotherfan]

In the interest of reducing the quantity of new posts, the first fair definition I can find for "liable" is "Responsible by law". HDTP is in a grey legal area already (only in the United States), and it has no legal obligations, so the "by law" bit is wrong and dude admitted as much. I honestly read it as "responsible", over-reaching for a stronger word, right in concept but wrong in meaning. The phrase "HDTP is responsible for their promises, and thus the angry fans" is probably closer to the original intent. I think the "appropriateness" is part of a new argument that hasn't yet been explained, possibly about being responsible for how people feel in reaction. Note that I'm not yet arguing about responsibility, obligations, what is appropriate, if there were promises, or anything about that topic, only about semantics.

Chris prefers exacting meanings, probably so he can reply with an accurate straightforward conclusion (eg. HDTP is responsible to nobody for anything, or building unreasonable expectations was a mistake of little consequence, etc). Language is ambiguous. I like meeting people half-way to keep a conversation working and on-topic, but that's just a different style for a different purpose. I am putting words in other people's mouths, which is often rude, but I think it can help make meaning and a shared understanding despite the ambiguity of language.

Gahhhrrrlic, HDTP isn't a company. It doesn't have to meet expectations, and that results in angry fans, but others can still challenge that anger as unreasonable (as in, you shouldn't be angry). I like your points, I agree with some to varying degrees, and they help me understand the anger better. Still, talking to an organization like this on an internet forum is less feedback and more argument; some classes in English and its grammar could help you argue on a higher level. Also, little more respect to the people that gave you HDTP release 1 (ie. not selfish).The good news is that instead of your feedback going into a company's blackhole feedback-bin, people are taking notice and responding.

[chris the cynic]

This is entirely about semantics.

tl;dr version: trying to figure out what Garlic was saying without getting an explanation from Garlic wouldn't have worked in this case, as evidenced by the difference between what Garlic said was meant and what those who tried on their own said they read it as. There are certain things that the word responsible does not mean. Erroneous language should be corrected. Because I do not know Garlic's gender I have tried to avoid pronouns, it makes language awkward in the extreme.

In the interest of reducing the quantity of new posts, the first fair definition I can find for "liable" is "Responsible by law".

You are aware that I already said that, right? Not trying to make it all about me, but I feel like Inspector Clouseau, "Yes, that is what I've been saying!" (Think The Return of the Pink Panther.)

Anyway, when Garlic said that the intended definition was, sort of, the legal definition that's what I tried to go with. That said, it should probably be noted that it has a negative connotation. It's not, "You're liable for catching the criminal, here is your reward," it's always, "You're liable for such and such bad thing," often times bad thing is a crime, but it is sometimes something like a debt you have to pay off that was not the result of anything illegal.

HDTP is in a grey legal area already (only in the United States), and it has no legal obligations, so the "by law" bit is wrong and dude admitted as much. I honestly read it as "responsible", over-reaching for a stronger word, right in concept but wrong in meaning.

But here's the thing, when Garlic finally said what was meant, it wasn't "responsible" at all. When you're responsible for something that does not in any way imply that no expressions of anger, frustration, impatience and resentment towards you related to that thing can be challenged on grounds of being inappropriate. It never has, it never will. Regardless of how direct and strong the responsibility is, you can still challenge such things on the grounds that they are inappropriate.

Responsibility has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not you can challenge such things.

Yes, if I had to guess I too would have guessed it meant responsible, but I would have been wrong. Garlic's own words demonstrate that what was meant was not "responsible".

The phrase "HDTP is responsible for their promises, and thus the angry fans" is probably closer to the original intent.

I'd be wary of making your own claims as to the original intent when the original intent was clearly stated by the person who originally intended it two posts later. What you just said does not appear to agree with Garlic's stated intention.

After additional readings I think that what you said is much closer to what Garlic said than just using responsible, since by adding, "and thus the angry fans" it includes the claim that the HDTP are also responsible for the things Garlic says cannot be challenged, but it still isn't there. Even if they were responsible for the actions of the fans, that still doesn't get us to Garlic's intended meaning where "none of [the 'Expressions of anger, frustration, impatience and resentment'] can be challenged on grounds of being inappropriate."

People absolutely can and at times most definitely should challenge those things for which they are responsible. The, "Oh my god, what have I done?!" trope is built on that, and various bad things have been stopped because people correctly chose to challenge the very things for which they were responsible.

Responsible simply doesn't mean "can't challenge." If we twist the word until it does then it's not going to resemble the word we find in dictionaries or minds of people other than ourselves.

(I do wonder if there is a word for what Garlic meant. I know that there are certain parliamentary procedures where one cannot vote against something they had a hand in bringing to the floor. That's probably the closest we can come to the cannot challenge thing, but I don't know if there is a word for it.)

Language is ambiguous. I like meeting people half-way to keep a conversation working and on-topic, but that's just a different style for a different purpose. I am putting words in other people's mouths, which is often rude, but I think it can help make meaning and a shared understanding despite the ambiguity of language.

A couple of points.

The first is that Language is often ambiguous, but it isn't always. Sometimes it is very clear. Other times it is incredibly ambiguous*. Treating either one like the other isn't really a good idea. I think that you agree that treating ambigious things as if they were certain is bad, so I'm just going to talk about the inverse. If a word is clearly defined and can only mean certain things I don't think it's too being to presumptuous to read it as if it can only mean those things. If that reading leads to a dead end, there's something wrong.

If it had been a word I didn't know, if Garlic had said, "mesoble" instead of liable, I would have assumed Garlic meant responsible or obligated**. And I would have been wrong. That, to me, is an important point that I want to keep on hitting here. If I hadn't known what the word liable meant I would have assumed "responsible for" or "obligated to" given the context of what Garlic said, in either case I would have been wrong about what Garlic meant, and (especially in the second case) I would have been wrong about what the word liable meant.

What would that help? In the future I might use the word incorrectly, Garlic probably would, anyone else who didn't already know and read its use here would be at a higher risk of using it wrong than they were before. The word isn't ambiguous, but it would, or at least could, become that way for those who read it here. That's not a positive outcome, and, to return to my second point here, it wouldn't help right here right now either.

Which brings us back to the second point, which I already brought up when discussing the first. Asking got results that assuming didn't. When Garlic said what was meant it wasn't what you assumed and it wasn't either of the things that I guessed. Guessing didn't work, and if it had been left at guessing we wouldn't have known what was really being said.

An argument about responsibility would completely miss the thing about whether or not they can challenge expressions of [four things I'm getting sick of cutting and pasting]. I do think that the point about responsibility should be argued, but I think whether or not they can challenge those things is a more important point, and we wouldn't have known it had come up in the first place if Garlic hadn't explained what was meant.

Assuming that it means responsibility might well be meeting Garlic halfway. I can see an argument to be made that it is more or less precisely halfway, but it isn't what Garlic says was meant, and it seems to me that better than going halfway is going all the way and responding to what Garlic was actually trying to say. That, requires knowing what Garlic was trying to say. Your reading of it as "responsible" didn't do that.

That is the problem I see with just assuming you know what someone means when their words don't add up. Sometimes it works. Perhaps even most times. But it doesn't work all the time, and it didn't work this time.

-

I never did get around to responding to what Garlic said after it was finally explained. To prevent a massive unbroken wall of text I'm going to stick that into a separate post.

-

* Imagine discussing god with a hard atheist, a naturalistic pantheist, a mainline Abrahamic monotheist, a gnostic, a Hellenistic pagan, and a Hindu. Think of the various meanings that three letter word would take on.

** Well, I would have at one time, now that dictionaries are just a click away, I probably would have looked it up. If I had read it in a dictionaryless environment, I would have assumed it meant responsible for or obligated to.

[chris the cynic]

People have a right to their feelings. Everyone has every right to feel anger, frustration, impatience and resentment. Even if it doesn't make sense. Even if it isn't logical or reasonable or anything of that nature. No one will ever win an argument by saying that people don't have a right to their feelings. Sometimes those feelings are based on false premises ("it's not what it looks like" for example) and in that case those premises can be addressed, but in that case you're not actually talking about the feelings themselves or the right to have them.

As such, anger, frustration, impatience and resentment should not themselves be challenged. Either the premises that led to them should be challenged, or (if the premises are accepted) they should be accepted as something that the person has every right to have. If Garlic had said that the anger, frustration, impatience and resentment themselves cannot be challenged, I'd probably agree.

Expressions of anger, frustration, impatience and resentment are an entirely different matter. To express these things crosses the line from feeling to action and people do not have a blanket right to their actions. Some actions are justified, some actions are not, and being based on a sincere feeling is not in itself a justification. People always have a right to challenge actions on the premise of being inappropriate. It doesn't matter who is responsible.

Expressions of these things can always be challenged for the simple fact that they are not always appropriate. Sometimes the challenge will be wrong. Sometimes someone will say that something isn't appropriate when it is in fact entirely appropriate. But sometimes the challenge will be right, and if no challenges the action in that case then wrong action is allowed to stand. That isn't right. That is why everyone's got a right to challenge actions.

It should be noted that to challenge something is to take an action, which means that it can be challenged just as much as expressions of emotion. Basically, when it comes to actions, nothing is beyond challenge. Nothing gets a blank check. When you preform an action, anyone can say that it was inappropriate. (And you can say they're wrong.)

-

The other things Garlic said are of course appropriate. Who one gives interest, respect and credit to is their own business. We can disagree with their premises for doing it, but it's entirely up to them. If by action, inaction, or things entirely unrelated to them the HDTP team loses these things that's simply the way things are. Unless someone expresses that loss of interest, credit or respect in an inappropriate way, I'm not going to object and I don't think anyone else should either.

[Gahhhrrrlic]

Of course, it all makes sense now!

Am I way off? If so, please enlighten me.

[Hashi]

Of course, it all makes sense now!

Am I way off? If so, please enlighten me.

He was being sarcastic bro. I thought even someone of your level of intelligence would be able to figure that out

[Gahhhrrrlic]

Bro....I did get it. Try reading the post again.

[Hashi]

He's being sarcastic. Did you actually read the paragraph he quoted you on? It so ridiculsouly dumb, that only a sarcastic response will do

[Gahhhrrrlic]

Holy shit Hashi, let's start at the beginning. Let's examine the scenario where he's being sarcastic and I DON'T get it, ok?

So in this case, I say something stupid (according to you) and he's sarcastic about it. In this case, he's pretending like I just revealed something he didn't know before and he's acting excited about it. In truth he's neither surprised, nor does he agree with me. This is where the sarcasm came from. Now, if the sarcasm went over my head (ie. if I didn't get that he was being sarcastic), the typical response you might expect from me would be something like, "Good, I'm glad you agree.", or, "I'm glad we're on the same page now."

Instead, because I DETECTED THE SARCASM, I realized that he was not impressed by my statement, even though he appeared to be, and invited him to offer a differing point of view.

Instead of calling me stupid and my posts stupid, maybe you ought to look at your own brain pan and think before you say something.....stupid.

[Hashi]

Holy shit Hashi, let's start at the beginning. Let's examine the scenario where he's being sarcastic and I DON'T get it, ok?

So in this case, I say something stupid (according to you) and he's sarcastic about it. In this case, he's pretending like I just revealed something he didn't know before and he's acting excited about it. In truth he's neither surprised, nor does he agree with me. This is where the sarcasm came from. Now, if the sarcasm went over my head (ie. if I didn't get that he was being sarcastic), the typical response you might expect from me would be something like, "Good, I'm glad you agree.", or, "I'm glad we're on the same page now."

Instead, because I DETECTED THE SARCASM, I realized that he was not impressed by my statement, even though he appeared to be, and invited him to offer a differing point of view.

Instead of calling me stupid and my posts stupid, maybe you ought to look at your own brain pan and think before you say something.....stupid.

But looking at your paragraph, why would he deign to justify it with a response? It's so inherently silly, no other response would do. What is the need for him saying anything or giving a different point of view to it, when its so unbelievably silly, makes no sense and has no reference to any truth in this world? I mean come on, give your paragrah some thought bro

I mean come on. They're being selfish by devoting their free time to a project? This is not paid work. Alright, so you really want it to come out, but calling them selfish..I mean that's so beyond dumb, that a new word needs to exist to properly justify the dumbness of the situation.