Total Posts:14|Showing Posts:1-14
Jump to topic:

Ways to counter Juggle?

greatkitteh
Posts: 394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/3/2015 4:08:57 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Let`s think for a momment, That despite efforts, Juggle remains un-productive. Let`s say, that our best efforts of DDO wasn`t enough. Juggle becomes less and less productive, Uses DDO for interests, and users are forced to counter Juggle. How would The users Counter a corporate dictator?

This post is not meant to demonize anyone or say that The president will be Unsucessful. All the runners are exteremely smart and productive to the site.

I also am not encouraging a flamewar or hate content, but just want an interesting post

How will it be done?

1. Transfer of Ownership
Effectiveness :uncertain
peacefullnes: fairly peacful
Possiblility : Not much

Juggle is out for money, And what more money than a company buying DDO? What could happen would be a turnover from Juggle to a different company. The good things are simple
1: Different ownership
2: Increased Productivity
while the cons are
1: The company might be worse
2: We might be heading into a worse DDO.

2. Total boycott of all ads
peacefullness: peaceful
effectiveness: moderate
possiblity: Pretty high

It`s a simple way of going against Juggle. What would happen is two things
a) Everyone installs adblock or boycotts ads
b) The link to Adblock download is publicly posted to decisive locations like the ends of debates, Forums, and poll descriptions.
Juggle, after the popularity of adblock, will have to cut back on ads to get repututain and money. Adblock Links can even be sent directly to juggle.

3. Anoynomus takeover
peacefullness :virtually none
effectiveness :Very high
Possiblility : Low

Anoynomus is more than likely to back DDO against juggle, considering Juggle is a prime example of what they don`t want. Many users on the internet may be, or may know someone, with links to Anon. Anon then can hack Juggle and damage them, Causing Juggle to be forced to it`s knees, or hsck the site away from juggle. This is effective in use, But a very forcefull way. Most members would recommend this be used as last resort,

4. Peaceful Persuasion
Peacfullness: Peaceful
Effectiveness: next to none.
Possiblility: low.

This method is always the first use in anything. Only problem is that Juggle might not care.

5. Forcefull threat
peacefullness: Low
Effectiveness: Loe
Possiblility: high

Juggle might give up via enough threatening, But this may be foolish. Juggle may backlash, It might be considered cyber-crime, Or it`s just ineffective.

6. Consistant annoyance


Peacfullness: Moderate
Effectiveness: Moderate
Possiblility: Very high

The idea is simple, We spam Juggle and request so much that they give in. The Idea is that Juggle will become fursterated and do some updates, Or Be angered into doing something In-exuseable on DDO, in which we can report Juggle and ban it.

7. Report them
Peacefullness : fairly low
Effectiveness : very high
Possibility : Very high

Simply report Juggle, and be done!

Now, None of these should be used untill it is a absolute nessesity. The *presidents* of DDO all want it in common, And are more than willing to guide us though the juggle crisis. Do not be hasty and call in anon to hack Juggle, but belive in the presidents first.

I`m only causing some things in the forum sections, Hipefully not a flamewar. Feel free to critizise me in a resonable manner, And add on. Thank you for your time. Good Luck to all running.
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,079
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/3/2015 12:50:21 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
2 and 7 sound good to me.
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
Geogeer
Posts: 4,296
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/3/2015 1:28:51 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/3/2015 4:08:57 AM, greatkitteh wrote:

2. Total boycott of all ads
peacefullness: peaceful
effectiveness: moderate
possiblity: Pretty high

I don't run adblock and I don't get ads right now. Juggle has pretty much turned DDO into a non-profit.
airmax1227
Posts: 13,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/3/2015 10:47:38 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/3/2015 4:08:57 AM, greatkitteh wrote:

I'd like to preface the following by saying that I'm going to give the thread poster the benefit of the doubt. He's only 14, only been around for a short time and very likely didn't mean any of the above to the extent that deserves the following criticism that I'm about to mete out. I'm not saying this to entirely be directed at the OP, but I do believe it must be said.

This thread makes it official, this is the point that the discussion in any way pertaining to Juggle has finally jumped the shark. If you aren't familiar with that expression, put another way, this thread is where the discussion devolved into outright absurdity at best, and at worst suggests things that are outright perverse and beyond condemnable. Indeed, I hold the mere suggestion, beyond contempt.

To reiterate, I'm going to cut some slack to a young individual who probably wasn't thinking this through. But the fact that this is the third time I've heard such a suggestion without condemnation, and that this thread has been up for several hours with five posts without any criticism of it, compells me to be both critical of this philosophically, and to vent about what I feel is an outrageous suggestion that needs to stop right now.

The suggestions of boycott, or peaceful protest, or even finding a way to purchase DDO in an effort to improve it are all fine and good and if that's where this thread ended I would not have felt the need to opine. If that's where it stopped, this thread would have been fine.

But it didn't. Instead it suggested things that I find personally insulting, and so morally reprehensible, that I am going to spend the next 20 minutes of time I barely have, simply to criticize it.

3. Anoynomus takeover
peacefullness :virtually none
effectiveness :Very high
Possiblility : Low

Anoynomus is more than likely to back DDO against juggle, considering Juggle is a prime example of what they don`t want. Many users on the internet may be, or may know someone, with links to Anon. Anon then can hack Juggle and damage them, Causing Juggle to be forced to it`s knees, or hsck the site away from juggle. This is effective in use, But a very forcefull way. Most members would recommend this be used as last resort,

The mere suggestion of this is to me, so beyond inappropriate, and so overt in its lack of consideration for decency, that I can't believe that it isn't seen as so ridiculous to be bordering on satirical and beyond being believed as an actual suggestion. That I realize it is, and that others too would take this under consideration as something potentially worthwhile and even possible, is disheartening, depressing, and quite frankly, something that makes me feel sick (in the literal sense that I feel nauseated seeing this).

What is being suggested here is that the company that provides a website that we love, that they provide for free for our entertainment, isn't meeting our demands quickly enough (or at worst ever, or at all), and therefore we must harm that company and by extension the people that work for it.

This isn't some corporation that is hurting the environment or innocent people by poor business practices. This isn't some government group that is withholding truth we are entitled to. This isn't some group of lawless thugs harming our standard of living or potentially causing us direct personal harm.

This is a company that provies us a free means of entertainment, and is at worst ignoring our demands to improve our entertainment experience. The suggestion of harming that company and the people that work for it, isn't merely a suggestion that a means to an ends is justified in improving a circumstance, but that ones personal desires outweigh any consequences in their persuit of them - in this case, our personal entertainment is important enough that there is no line in which we should consider as going too far. Certainly murder wasn't suggested here (it doesn't take much thought to know that is wrong), but the rationalization of bringing real harm to others in pursuit of our own selfish desires is no less perverse and condemnable.

The OP says: "Most members would recommend this be used as last resort"

I really hope that this is wrong. Not that I don't hope that at the very worst, most would consider this as a last resort, but rather, that I would hope that most members would consider this idea to be so ridiculous and morally viod, that it's not just relegated to a last resort, but that it's not even on the table. In other words if plan one thrugh 10 fail, we aren't going to suddenly consider private property damage to suddenly be a reasonable alternative. Accepting failure would, as unfortunate as it may be, then be the preferred alternative to any reasonable person.

The official word on this shouldn't be "last resort", but instead, we are decent enough people that it's never going to be considered, we aren't about to take a route that will harm people because we want to improve the quality of our entertainment.

At the risk of suggesting something I probably shouldn't, to take this further into admittedly ludicrous but no less reasonable territory based on the standard described, should I be worried that I could be used as leverage against Juggle? Should I be worried that my well-being, privacy, and personal safety might all come at risk because a threat to me could very well cause Juggle to acquiesce to whatever demand is made of them? I have no doubt that such a threat to me would make Juggle concede to whatever is being demanded of them, simply because they are decent people. Should members consider harming me physically or financially, simply because it would be a means to the desired ends?

I understand that this is taking the suggestion a bit far, but when a real face is put in place of a faceless corporation, I think it makes it that much more real and drives home why I believe the mere suggestion is such a problem.

The OP concludes: "Do not be hasty and call in anon to hack Juggle..."

While I can appreciate not wanting to go this route too hastily, again, the mere suggestion of it is too hasty. This is not something reasonable and any reasonable person should consider this as something that will not be done under any circumstances, and the mere consideration of it is again, going too far.

I'd like to reiterate that this criticism should not be viewed as entirely directed at the OP. I apologize to the OP for the harshness of what I said here. I hope you realize that this isn't personal, and I'm sure you are a fine young man. I think you simply spoke here without giving the suggestion enough thought, and whom this would effect if this was ever carried out. I am criticizing here to more broadly make a point that I believe needs to be made, and I apologize that this will feel like I am being unnecessarily harsh towards you.

The very idea to "hack Juggle and damage them, Causing Juggle to be forced to it`s knees, or hsck the site away from juggle" isn't a reasonable suggestion. This is a site that many of us love and are dedicated to for often inexplicable reasons. I think many of us would go quite far to see it improved, and many of us do work hard for that effort. But I very deeply hope that there are very few of us that would ever consider, for even a moment, harming anyone in any way, to see that happen.
Debate.org Moderator
daytonanerd
Posts: 6,769
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/3/2015 10:54:03 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/3/2015 10:47:38 PM, airmax1227 wrote:
At 6/3/2015 4:08:57 AM, greatkitteh wrote:

I'd like to preface the following by saying that I'm going to give the thread poster the benefit of the doubt. He's only 14, only been around for a short time and very likely didn't mean any of the above to the extent that deserves the following criticism that I'm about to mete out. I'm not saying this to entirely be directed at the OP, but I do believe it must be said.

This thread makes it official, this is the point that the discussion in any way pertaining to Juggle has finally jumped the shark. If you aren't familiar with that expression, put another way, this thread is where the discussion devolved into outright absurdity at best, and at worst suggests things that are outright perverse and beyond condemnable. Indeed, I hold the mere suggestion, beyond contempt.

To reiterate, I'm going to cut some slack to a young individual who probably wasn't thinking this through. But the fact that this is the third time I've heard such a suggestion without condemnation, and that this thread has been up for several hours with five posts without any criticism of it, compells me to be both critical of this philosophically, and to vent about what I feel is an outrageous suggestion that needs to stop right now.

The suggestions of boycott, or peaceful protest, or even finding a way to purchase DDO in an effort to improve it are all fine and good and if that's where this thread ended I would not have felt the need to opine. If that's where it stopped, this thread would have been fine.

But it didn't. Instead it suggested things that I find personally insulting, and so morally reprehensible, that I am going to spend the next 20 minutes of time I barely have, simply to criticize it.

3. Anoynomus takeover
peacefullness :virtually none
effectiveness :Very high
Possiblility : Low

Anoynomus is more than likely to back DDO against juggle, considering Juggle is a prime example of what they don`t want. Many users on the internet may be, or may know someone, with links to Anon. Anon then can hack Juggle and damage them, Causing Juggle to be forced to it`s knees, or hsck the site away from juggle. This is effective in use, But a very forcefull way. Most members would recommend this be used as last resort,

The mere suggestion of this is to me, so beyond inappropriate, and so overt in its lack of consideration for decency, that I can't believe that it isn't seen as so ridiculous to be bordering on satirical and beyond being believed as an actual suggestion. That I realize it is, and that others too would take this under consideration as something potentially worthwhile and even possible, is disheartening, depressing, and quite frankly, something that makes me feel sick (in the literal sense that I feel nauseated seeing this).

What is being suggested here is that the company that provides a website that we love, that they provide for free for our entertainment, isn't meeting our demands quickly enough (or at worst ever, or at all), and therefore we must harm that company and by extension the people that work for it.

This isn't some corporation that is hurting the environment or innocent people by poor business practices. This isn't some government group that is withholding truth we are entitled to. This isn't some group of lawless thugs harming our standard of living or potentially causing us direct personal harm.

This is a company that provies us a free means of entertainment, and is at worst ignoring our demands to improve our entertainment experience. The suggestion of harming that company and the people that work for it, isn't merely a suggestion that a means to an ends is justified in improving a circumstance, but that ones personal desires outweigh any consequences in their persuit of them - in this case, our personal entertainment is important enough that there is no line in which we should consider as going too far. Certainly murder wasn't suggested here (it doesn't take much thought to know that is wrong), but the rationalization of bringing real harm to others in pursuit of our own selfish desires is no less perverse and condemnable.

The OP says: "Most members would recommend this be used as last resort"

I really hope that this is wrong. Not that I don't hope that at the very worst, most would consider this as a last resort, but rather, that I would hope that most members would consider this idea to be so ridiculous and morally viod, that it's not just relegated to a last resort, but that it's not even on the table. In other words if plan one thrugh 10 fail, we aren't going to suddenly consider private property damage to suddenly be a reasonable alternative. Accepting failure would, as unfortunate as it may be, then be the preferred alternative to any reasonable person.

The official word on this shouldn't be "last resort", but instead, we are decent enough people that it's never going to be considered, we aren't about to take a route that will harm people because we want to improve the quality of our entertainment.

At the risk of suggesting something I probably shouldn't, to take this further into admittedly ludicrous but no less reasonable territory based on the standard described, should I be worried that I could be used as leverage against Juggle? Should I be worried that my well-being, privacy, and personal safety might all come at risk because a threat to me could very well cause Juggle to acquiesce to whatever demand is made of them? I have no doubt that such a threat to me would make Juggle concede to whatever is being demanded of them, simply because they are decent people. Should members consider harming me physically or financially, simply because it would be a means to the desired ends?

I understand that this is taking the suggestion a bit far, but when a real face is put in place of a faceless corporation, I think it makes it that much more real and drives home why I believe the mere suggestion is such a problem.

The OP concludes: "Do not be hasty and call in anon to hack Juggle..."

While I can appreciate not wanting to go this route too hastily, again, the mere suggestion of it is too hasty. This is not something reasonable and any reasonable person should consider this as something that will not be done under any circumstances, and the mere consideration of it is again, going too far.

I'd like to reiterate that this criticism should not be viewed as entirely directed at the OP. I apologize to the OP for the harshness of what I said here. I hope you realize that this isn't personal, and I'm sure you are a fine young man. I think you simply spoke here without giving the suggestion enough thought, and whom this would effect if this was ever carried out. I am criticizing here to more broadly make a point that I believe needs to be made, and I apologize that this will feel like I am being unnecessarily harsh towards you.

The very idea to "hack Juggle and damage them, Causing Juggle to be forced to it`s knees, or hsck the site away from juggle" isn't a reasonable suggestion. This is a site that many of us love and are dedicated to for often inexplicable reasons. I think many of us would go quite far to see it improved, and many of us do work hard for that effort. But I very deeply hope that there are very few of us that would ever consider, for even a moment, harming anyone in any way, to see that happen.

Just got Rip'd.
#FeeltheFreezerBern
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/3/2015 10:55:24 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
AIRMAX, you know some people could possibly read too much into your message. I'm sure that isn't your intent, but any person thinking that you're incapable of speaking freely could take that to mean you're suggesting they bring legitimate threats to you, to compel Juggle.

You may want to make it clear that you're speaking freely and in fact aren't secretly suggesting something. Otherwise the crazies could possibly think you're giving them orders
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,079
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/3/2015 10:55:28 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/3/2015 10:47:38 PM, airmax1227 wrote:
At 6/3/2015 4:08:57 AM, greatkitteh wrote:

I'd like to preface the following by saying that I'm going to give the thread poster the benefit of the doubt. He's only 14, only been around for a short time and very likely didn't mean any of the above to the extent that deserves the following criticism that I'm about to mete out. I'm not saying this to entirely be directed at the OP, but I do believe it must be said.

This thread makes it official, this is the point that the discussion in any way pertaining to Juggle has finally jumped the shark. If you aren't familiar with that expression, put another way, this thread is where the discussion devolved into outright absurdity at best, and at worst suggests things that are outright perverse and beyond condemnable. Indeed, I hold the mere suggestion, beyond contempt.

To reiterate, I'm going to cut some slack to a young individual who probably wasn't thinking this through. But the fact that this is the third time I've heard such a suggestion without condemnation, and that this thread has been up for several hours with five posts without any criticism of it, compells me to be both critical of this philosophically, and to vent about what I feel is an outrageous suggestion that needs to stop right now.

The suggestions of boycott, or peaceful protest, or even finding a way to purchase DDO in an effort to improve it are all fine and good and if that's where this thread ended I would not have felt the need to opine. If that's where it stopped, this thread would have been fine.

But it didn't. Instead it suggested things that I find personally insulting, and so morally reprehensible, that I am going to spend the next 20 minutes of time I barely have, simply to criticize it.

3. Anoynomus takeover
peacefullness :virtually none
effectiveness :Very high
Possiblility : Low

Anoynomus is more than likely to back DDO against juggle, considering Juggle is a prime example of what they don`t want. Many users on the internet may be, or may know someone, with links to Anon. Anon then can hack Juggle and damage them, Causing Juggle to be forced to it`s knees, or hsck the site away from juggle. This is effective in use, But a very forcefull way. Most members would recommend this be used as last resort,

The mere suggestion of this is to me, so beyond inappropriate, and so overt in its lack of consideration for decency, that I can't believe that it isn't seen as so ridiculous to be bordering on satirical and beyond being believed as an actual suggestion. That I realize it is, and that others too would take this under consideration as something potentially worthwhile and even possible, is disheartening, depressing, and quite frankly, something that makes me feel sick (in the literal sense that I feel nauseated seeing this).

What is being suggested here is that the company that provides a website that we love, that they provide for free for our entertainment, isn't meeting our demands quickly enough (or at worst ever, or at all), and therefore we must harm that company and by extension the people that work for it.

This isn't some corporation that is hurting the environment or innocent people by poor business practices. This isn't some government group that is withholding truth we are entitled to. This isn't some group of lawless thugs harming our standard of living or potentially causing us direct personal harm.

This is a company that provies us a free means of entertainment, and is at worst ignoring our demands to improve our entertainment experience. The suggestion of harming that company and the people that work for it, isn't merely a suggestion that a means to an ends is justified in improving a circumstance, but that ones personal desires outweigh any consequences in their persuit of them - in this case, our personal entertainment is important enough that there is no line in which we should consider as going too far. Certainly murder wasn't suggested here (it doesn't take much thought to know that is wrong), but the rationalization of bringing real harm to others in pursuit of our own selfish desires is no less perverse and condemnable.

The OP says: "Most members would recommend this be used as last resort"

I really hope that this is wrong. Not that I don't hope that at the very worst, most would consider this as a last resort, but rather, that I would hope that most members would consider this idea to be so ridiculous and morally viod, that it's not just relegated to a last resort, but that it's not even on the table. In other words if plan one thrugh 10 fail, we aren't going to suddenly consider private property damage to suddenly be a reasonable alternative. Accepting failure would, as unfortunate as it may be, then be the preferred alternative to any reasonable person.

The official word on this shouldn't be "last resort", but instead, we are decent enough people that it's never going to be considered, we aren't about to take a route that will harm people because we want to improve the quality of our entertainment.

At the risk of suggesting something I probably shouldn't, to take this further into admittedly ludicrous but no less reasonable territory based on the standard described, should I be worried that I could be used as leverage against Juggle? Should I be worried that my well-being, privacy, and personal safety might all come at risk because a threat to me could very well cause Juggle to acquiesce to whatever demand is made of them? I have no doubt that such a threat to me would make Juggle concede to whatever is being demanded of them, simply because they are decent people. Should members consider harming me physically or financially, simply because it would be a means to the desired ends?

I understand that this is taking the suggestion a bit far, but when a real face is put in place of a faceless corporation, I think it makes it that much more real and drives home why I believe the mere suggestion is such a problem.

The OP concludes: "Do not be hasty and call in anon to hack Juggle..."

While I can appreciate not wanting to go this route too hastily, again, the mere suggestion of it is too hasty. This is not something reasonable and any reasonable person should consider this as something that will not be done under any circumstances, and the mere consideration of it is again, going too far.

I'd like to reiterate that this criticism should not be viewed as entirely directed at the OP. I apologize to the OP for the harshness of what I said here. I hope you realize that this isn't personal, and I'm sure you are a fine young man. I think you simply spoke here without giving the suggestion enough thought, and whom this would effect if this was ever carried out. I am criticizing here to more broadly make a point that I believe needs to be made, and I apologize that this will feel like I am being unnecessarily harsh towards you.

The very idea to "hack Juggle and damage them, Causing Juggle to be forced to it`s knees, or hsck the site away from juggle" isn't a reasonable suggestion. This is a site that many of us love and are dedicated to for often inexplicable reasons. I think many of us would go quite far to see it improved, and many of us do work hard for that effort. But I very deeply hope that there are very few of us that would ever consider, for even a moment, harming anyone in any way, to see that happen.

+1
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
1harderthanyouthink
Posts: 13,105
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/3/2015 10:57:06 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Don't have the hammer loom over you.
"It's awfully considerate of you to think of me here,
And I'm much obliged to you for making it clear - that I'm not here."

-Syd Barrett

DDO Risk King
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,287
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/3/2015 11:02:21 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/3/2015 10:47:38 PM, airmax1227 wrote:
At 6/3/2015 4:08:57 AM, greatkitteh wrote:

I'd like to preface the following by saying that I'm going to give the thread poster the benefit of the doubt. He's only 14, only been around for a short time and very likely didn't mean any of the above to the extent that deserves the following criticism that I'm about to mete out. I'm not saying this to entirely be directed at the OP, but I do believe it must be said.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
greatkitteh
Posts: 394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/3/2015 11:04:30 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/3/2015 10:47:38 PM, airmax1227 wrote:
At 6/3/2015 4:08:57 AM, greatkitteh wrote:

I'd like to preface the following by saying that I'm going to give the thread poster the benefit of the doubt. He's only 14, only been around for a short time and very likely didn't mean any of the above to the extent that deserves the following criticism that I'm about to mete out. I'm not saying this to entirely be directed at the OP, but I do believe it must be said.

This thread makes it official, this is the point that the discussion in any way pertaining to Juggle has finally jumped the shark. If you aren't familiar with that expression, put another way, this thread is where the discussion devolved into outright absurdity at best, and at worst suggests things that are outright perverse and beyond condemnable. Indeed, I hold the mere suggestion, beyond contempt.

To reiterate, I'm going to cut some slack to a young individual who probably wasn't thinking this through. But the fact that this is the third time I've heard such a suggestion without condemnation, and that this thread has been up for several hours with five posts without any criticism of it, compells me to be both critical of this philosophically, and to vent about what I feel is an outrageous suggestion that needs to stop right now.

The suggestions of boycott, or peaceful protest, or even finding a way to purchase DDO in an effort to improve it are all fine and good and if that's where this thread ended I would not have felt the need to opine. If that's where it stopped, this thread would have been fine.

But it didn't. Instead it suggested things that I find personally insulting, and so morally reprehensible, that I am going to spend the next 20 minutes of time I barely have, simply to criticize it.

3. Anoynomus takeover
peacefullness :virtually none
effectiveness :Very high
Possiblility : Low

Anoynomus is more than likely to back DDO against juggle, considering Juggle is a prime example of what they don`t want. Many users on the internet may be, or may know someone, with links to Anon. Anon then can hack Juggle and damage them, Causing Juggle to be forced to it`s knees, or hsck the site away from juggle. This is effective in use, But a very forcefull way. Most members would recommend this be used as last resort,

The mere suggestion of this is to me, so beyond inappropriate, and so overt in its lack of consideration for decency, that I can't believe that it isn't seen as so ridiculous to be bordering on satirical and beyond being believed as an actual suggestion. That I realize it is, and that others too would take this under consideration as something potentially worthwhile and even possible, is disheartening, depressing, and quite frankly, something that makes me feel sick (in the literal sense that I feel nauseated seeing this).

What is being suggested here is that the company that provides a website that we love, that they provide for free for our entertainment, isn't meeting our demands quickly enough (or at worst ever, or at all), and therefore we must harm that company and by extension the people that work for it.

This isn't some corporation that is hurting the environment or innocent people by poor business practices. This isn't some government group that is withholding truth we are entitled to. This isn't some group of lawless thugs harming our standard of living or potentially causing us direct personal harm.

This is a company that provies us a free means of entertainment, and is at worst ignoring our demands to improve our entertainment experience. The suggestion of harming that company and the people that work for it, isn't merely a suggestion that a means to an ends is justified in improving a circumstance, but that ones personal desires outweigh any consequences in their persuit of them - in this case, our personal entertainment is important enough that there is no line in which we should consider as going too far. Certainly murder wasn't suggested here (it doesn't take much thought to know that is wrong), but the rationalization of bringing real harm to others in pursuit of our own selfish desires is no less perverse and condemnable.

The OP says: "Most members would recommend this be used as last resort"

I really hope that this is wrong. Not that I don't hope that at the very worst, most would consider this as a last resort, but rather, that I would hope that most members would consider this idea to be so ridiculous and morally viod, that it's not just relegated to a last resort, but that it's not even on the table. In other words if plan one thrugh 10 fail, we aren't going to suddenly consider private property damage to suddenly be a reasonable alternative. Accepting failure would, as unfortunate as it may be, then be the preferred alternative to any reasonable person.

The official word on this shouldn't be "last resort", but instead, we are decent enough people that it's never going to be considered, we aren't about to take a route that will harm people because we want to improve the quality of our entertainment.

At the risk of suggesting something I probably shouldn't, to take this further into admittedly ludicrous but no less reasonable territory based on the standard described, should I be worried that I could be used as leverage against Juggle? Should I be worried that my well-being, privacy, and personal safety might all come at risk because a threat to me could very well cause Juggle to acquiesce to whatever demand is made of them? I have no doubt that such a threat to me would make Juggle concede to whatever is being demanded of them, simply because they are decent people. Should members consider harming me physically or financially, simply because it would be a means to the desired ends?

I understand that this is taking the suggestion a bit far, but when a real face is put in place of a faceless corporation, I think it makes it that much more real and drives home why I believe the mere suggestion is such a problem.

The OP concludes: "Do not be hasty and call in anon to hack Juggle..."

While I can appreciate not wanting to go this route too hastily, again, the mere suggestion of it is too hasty. This is not something reasonable and any reasonable person should consider this as something that will not be done under any circumstances, and the mere consideration of it is again, going too far.

I'd like to reiterate that this criticism should not be viewed as entirely directed at the OP. I apologize to the OP for the harshness of what I said here. I hope you realize that this isn't personal, and I'm sure you are a fine young man. I think you simply spoke here without giving the suggestion enough thought, and whom this would effect if this was ever carried out. I am criticizing here to more broadly make a point that I believe needs to be made, and I apologize that this will feel like I am being unnecessarily harsh towards you.

The very idea to "hack Juggle and damage them, Causing Juggle to be forced to it`s knees, or hsck the site away from juggle" isn't a reasonable suggestion. This is a site that many of us love and are dedicated to for often inexplicable reasons. I think many of us would go quite far to see it improved, and many of us do work hard for that effort. But I very deeply hope that there are very few of us that would ever consider, for even a moment, harming anyone in any way, to see that happen.

Thank you for taking your time to explain what I was wrong on.
RevNge
Posts: 13,835
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/3/2015 11:08:08 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/3/2015 10:47:38 PM, airmax1227 wrote:
At 6/3/2015 4:08:57 AM, greatkitteh wrote:

I'd like to preface the following by saying that I'm going to give the thread poster the benefit of the doubt. He's only 14, only been around for a short time and very likely didn't mean any of the above to the extent that deserves the following criticism that I'm about to mete out. I'm not saying this to entirely be directed at the OP, but I do believe it must be said.

This thread makes it official, this is the point that the discussion in any way pertaining to Juggle has finally jumped the shark. If you aren't familiar with that expression, put another way, this thread is where the discussion devolved into outright absurdity at best, and at worst suggests things that are outright perverse and beyond condemnable. Indeed, I hold the mere suggestion, beyond contempt.

To reiterate, I'm going to cut some slack to a young individual who probably wasn't thinking this through. But the fact that this is the third time I've heard such a suggestion without condemnation, and that this thread has been up for several hours with five posts without any criticism of it, compells me to be both critical of this philosophically, and to vent about what I feel is an outrageous suggestion that needs to stop right now.

The suggestions of boycott, or peaceful protest, or even finding a way to purchase DDO in an effort to improve it are all fine and good and if that's where this thread ended I would not have felt the need to opine. If that's where it stopped, this thread would have been fine.

But it didn't. Instead it suggested things that I find personally insulting, and so morally reprehensible, that I am going to spend the next 20 minutes of time I barely have, simply to criticize it.

3. Anoynomus takeover
peacefullness :virtually none
effectiveness :Very high
Possiblility : Low

Anoynomus is more than likely to back DDO against juggle, considering Juggle is a prime example of what they don`t want. Many users on the internet may be, or may know someone, with links to Anon. Anon then can hack Juggle and damage them, Causing Juggle to be forced to it`s knees, or hsck the site away from juggle. This is effective in use, But a very forcefull way. Most members would recommend this be used as last resort,

The mere suggestion of this is to me, so beyond inappropriate, and so overt in its lack of consideration for decency, that I can't believe that it isn't seen as so ridiculous to be bordering on satirical and beyond being believed as an actual suggestion. That I realize it is, and that others too would take this under consideration as something potentially worthwhile and even possible, is disheartening, depressing, and quite frankly, something that makes me feel sick (in the literal sense that I feel nauseated seeing this).

What is being suggested here is that the company that provides a website that we love, that they provide for free for our entertainment, isn't meeting our demands quickly enough (or at worst ever, or at all), and therefore we must harm that company and by extension the people that work for it.

This isn't some corporation that is hurting the environment or innocent people by poor business practices. This isn't some government group that is withholding truth we are entitled to. This isn't some group of lawless thugs harming our standard of living or potentially causing us direct personal harm.

This is a company that provies us a free means of entertainment, and is at worst ignoring our demands to improve our entertainment experience. The suggestion of harming that company and the people that work for it, isn't merely a suggestion that a means to an ends is justified in improving a circumstance, but that ones personal desires outweigh any consequences in their persuit of them - in this case, our personal entertainment is important enough that there is no line in which we should consider as going too far. Certainly murder wasn't suggested here (it doesn't take much thought to know that is wrong), but the rationalization of bringing real harm to others in pursuit of our own selfish desires is no less perverse and condemnable.

The OP says: "Most members would recommend this be used as last resort"

I really hope that this is wrong. Not that I don't hope that at the very worst, most would consider this as a last resort, but rather, that I would hope that most members would consider this idea to be so ridiculous and morally viod, that it's not just relegated to a last resort, but that it's not even on the table. In other words if plan one thrugh 10 fail, we aren't going to suddenly consider private property damage to suddenly be a reasonable alternative. Accepting failure would, as unfortunate as it may be, then be the preferred alternative to any reasonable person.

The official word on this shouldn't be "last resort", but instead, we are decent enough people that it's never going to be considered, we aren't about to take a route that will harm people because we want to improve the quality of our entertainment.

At the risk of suggesting something I probably shouldn't, to take this further into admittedly ludicrous but no less reasonable territory based on the standard described, should I be worried that I could be used as leverage against Juggle? Should I be worried that my well-being, privacy, and personal safety might all come at risk because a threat to me could very well cause Juggle to acquiesce to whatever demand is made of them? I have no doubt that such a threat to me would make Juggle concede to whatever is being demanded of them, simply because they are decent people. Should members consider harming me physically or financially, simply because it would be a means to the desired ends?

I understand that this is taking the suggestion a bit far, but when a real face is put in place of a faceless corporation, I think it makes it that much more real and drives home why I believe the mere suggestion is such a problem.

The OP concludes: "Do not be hasty and call in anon to hack Juggle..."

While I can appreciate not wanting to go this route too hastily, again, the mere suggestion of it is too hasty. This is not something reasonable and any reasonable person should consider this as something that will not be done under any circumstances, and the mere consideration of it is again, going too far.

I'd like to reiterate that this criticism should not be viewed as entirely directed at the OP. I apologize to the OP for the harshness of what I said here. I hope you realize that this isn't personal, and I'm sure you are a fine young man. I think you simply spoke here without giving the suggestion enough thought, and whom this would effect if this was ever carried out. I am criticizing here to more broadly make a point that I believe needs to be made, and I apologize that this will feel like I am being unnecessarily harsh towards you.

The very idea to "hack Juggle and damage them, Causing Juggle to be forced to it`s knees, or hsck the site away from juggle" isn't a reasonable suggestion. This is a site that many of us love and are dedicated to for often inexplicable reasons. I think many of us would go quite far to see it improved, and many of us do work hard for that effort. But I very deeply hope that there are very few of us that would ever consider, for even a moment, harming anyone in any way, to see that happen.

How come senpai notices this kid and not me ;_;