• Welcome to Smashboards, the world's largest Super Smash Brothers community! Over 250,000 Smash Bros. fans from around the world have come to discuss these great games in over 19 million posts!

    You are currently viewing our boards as a visitor. Click here to sign up right now and start on your path in the Smash community!

The Debate Hall Social Thread

RDK

Smash Hero
Joined
Jan 3, 2006
Messages
6,390
And that's supposed to excuse your conduct is it?

Besides, I've read debates from the archives that relate to my interests (you can work out which ones those are) and I found most of them to be pretty dissappointing, so I don't see why this place is a 'joke', unless you're referring to the fact it's a joke that you didn't get the moderator role.

Also, calling this place a joke and being offensive and condescending suggests to me that you consider yourself a superior debater to the newer crop of debaters here. It would be foolish on your behalf to think that; I've debated nearly every currently active member here and you are in no way so superior to the majority of the debaters here. I'm not hesitant to be blunt about it because you're arrogant and condescending in nearly every thread I've seen you in.

The only thing that's a 'joke' here is that Werekill got kicked out for that post, then you tell people to go f*** themselves and suck your balls and you don't get kicked out. Now that is a joke.
If you honestly think any of the new members in this Debate Hall are on par with me when it comes to debating then you're sadly mistaken and beyond help at this point.

You have no right to criticize anybody, let alone me, on their debating skills. You hide behind your thinly-veiled religious philosophy because you refuse to educate yourself about the world around us, and then have the balls to tell me I'm not a good debater because I get tired of having to rehash the same speil over and over again to people who are too stubborn to pick up a god **** textbook?

Get over yourself.
 

Dre89

Smash Hero
Joined
Oct 29, 2009
Messages
6,158
Location
Australia
NNID
Dre4789
If you honestly think any of the new members in this Debate Hall are on par with me when it comes to debating then you're sadly mistaken and beyond help at this point.

You have no right to criticize anybody, let alone me, on their debating skills. You hide behind your thinly-veiled religious philosophy because you refuse to educate yourself about the world around us, and then have the balls to tell me I'm not a good debater because I get tired of having to rehash the same speil over and over again to people who are too stubborn to pick up a god **** textbook?

Get over yourself.
Firstly, my philosophy isn't religious. Virtually the entire reason I am no longer a practicing Catholic is because I'm critical of divine revelation and theology, so you couldn't be more wrong. Stop straw-manning my argument to suit your needs.

Secondly, I never said you were a bad debater, I never even said you were the worst debater here. I just said that you are not in a superior league to these debaters, and you're definitely not superior enough to condescend the debaters here (not that anyone should have that right, regardless of their debating superiority).

I also like how you say I need to inform myself of what's going around in the world, when in fact several of my arguments originate from empirical truths, being based off the observation of nature.

Can I just ask, if you consider yourself so superior to most debaters here, and you think that this place is a joke, why do you bother come here and post? What do you have to gain from coming here?

If you consider yourself superior, then you're obviously not here to learn and engage in productive civil discourse, you're just here condescend and bash those who differ in opinion to you. I'm sorry, but that alone speaks volumes of your character.
 

Lore

Infinite Gravity
BRoomer
Joined
Mar 5, 2008
Messages
14,135
Location
Formerly 'Werekill' and 'NeoTermina'
The only thing that's a 'joke' here is that Werekill got kicked out for that post, then you tell people to go f*** themselves and suck your balls and you don't get kicked out. Now that is a joke.
Well, I'm actually glad that I got kicked out. I was a terrible debater and poster, and it forced me to improve.

I don't like RDK's general attitude either, but it really isn't my place to call him out on it.
 

Dre89

Smash Hero
Joined
Oct 29, 2009
Messages
6,158
Location
Australia
NNID
Dre4789
Please stop acting like children both you.

-blazed
I understand this is the wrong kind of argument to be having in a debate hall, but are you suggesting that we ignore it when someone is being arrogant and condescending? He doesn't even seem to be trying to deny it either.

All I did was point out to Werekill the massive injustice, and RDK tried to excuse his behaviour by labelling this place a joke, which is essentially an insult to most people here. I basically just pointed out that the DH is not a joke and it is wrong of him to be so arrogant as to consider himself vastly superior as a debater to most here.

Just so I know for future reference, what else did you expect me to say? Nothing at all? Should we just let people misbehave here without punishment? What are you suggesting?

If Goldshadow were to act against me for my comments, then all that would serve to do is strengthen my argument of the massive injustices/double standards going on.

Blazed if you think I shouldn't say anything, then I apologise for trying to make this hall a better place.
 

thegreatkazoo

Smash Master
Joined
May 31, 2009
Messages
3,128
Location
Atlanta, GA
I understand this is the wrong kind of argument to be having in a debate hall, but are you suggesting that we ignore it when someone is being arrogant and condescending? He doesn't even seem to be trying to deny it either.

All I did was point out to Werekill the massive injustice, and RDK tried to excuse his behaviour by labelling this place a joke, which is essentially an insult to most people here. I basically just pointed out that the DH is not a joke and it is wrong of him to be so arrogant as to consider himself vastly superior as a debater to most here.

Just so I know for future reference, what else did you expect me to say? Nothing at all? Should we just let people misbehave here without punishment? What are you suggesting?

If Goldshadow were to act against me for my comments, then all that would serve to do is strengthen my argument of the massive injustices/double standards going on.

Blazed if you think I shouldn't say anything, then I apologise for trying to make this hall a better place.
Regardless of whatever you think of RDK posts, there is a simple way to handle this without GoldShadow turning the car around (because I wanna get to Disneyland, obv. :012:): By using the report button or forum support.

You shouldn't question Goldshadow's abilities like that homes. Just report and everything will work itself out. :cool:
 

RDK

Smash Hero
Joined
Jan 3, 2006
Messages
6,390
Firstly, my philosophy isn't religious. Virtually the entire reason I am no longer a practicing Catholic is because I'm critical of divine revelation and theology, so you couldn't be more wrong. Stop straw-manning my argument to suit your needs.
Every single argument you make is straight out of the creo handbook. I can and will go back and quote you, comparing your arguments to quotes from creationists and intelligent design advocates just to prove a point if you want me to. You're not fooling anybody by playing the "concerned neutral" card; I've debated with more people just like you than I care to think about.

Secondly, I never said you were a bad debater, I never even said you were the worst debater here. I just said that you are not in a superior league to these debaters, and you're definitely not superior enough to condescend the debaters here (not that anyone should have that right, regardless of their debating superiority).
The sad fact is that yes, yes I am. When I first started posting here I was a terrible debater, but like everyone else who joined up and stayed for as long as I did, I learned from other people in the DH and eventually was able to think critically for myself.

The new crop of debaters seems incapable of doing this. They either become a Dre, a Werekill, or a GOD! and stubbornly refuse to think of things in new and exciting ways, or they become a clone, reposting other people's arguments to make them look hip or knowledgeable. You have no idea how many times I've lurked threads in the DH recently and found people repeating arguments I had made in the past almost verbatim.


I also like how you say I need to inform myself of what's going around in the world, when in fact several of my arguments originate from empirical truths, being based off the observation of nature.
Some of your arguments start from empirical truth, but then are followed by an absurd non sequitur that has nothing to do or is not in any way related with the first premise.

You make wild statements and claim that your observations are from nature but this is hogwash and both you and I know it because you've already demonstrated you know nothing of nature.


If you consider yourself superior, then you're obviously not here to learn and engage in productive civil discourse, you're just here condescend and bash those who differ in opinion to you. I'm sorry, but that alone speaks volumes of your character.
At one point I only posted in here to try and help people in the Proving Grounds out, but that ship has sailed and it got me nothing in return. Now I just do it because it amuses me.
 

Dre89

Smash Hero
Joined
Oct 29, 2009
Messages
6,158
Location
Australia
NNID
Dre4789
Every single argument you make is straight out of the creo handbook. I can and will go back and quote you, comparing your arguments to quotes from creationists and intelligent design advocates just to prove a point if you want me to. You're not fooling anybody by playing the "concerned neutral" card; I've debated with more people just like you than I care to think about.
No what I'm saying sounds like its from the theist/deist handbook. I've never argued that the world is only 6000 years old, so my arguments have nothing to do with creationism. Stop trying to pidgeon hole my arguments to make them easier for you to attack.

If you're not going to a respect a prominent thiestic argument such as the cosmological argument, then you shouldn't be in a debate hall because clearly you're just here to condescend and not have a mature open-minded debate.

I respect atheistic arguments, I've even put some across myself. I don't see why the curtousy can't be returned.

The sad fact is that yes, yes I am. When I first started posting here I was a terrible debater, but like everyone else who joined up and stayed for as long as I did, I learned from other people in the DH and eventually was able to think critically for myself.

The new crop of debaters seems incapable of doing this. They either become a Dre, a Werekill, or a GOD! and stubbornly refuse to think of things in new and exciting ways, or they become a clone, reposting other people's arguments to make them look hip or knowledgeable. You have no idea how many times I've lurked threads in the DH recently and found people repeating arguments I had made in the past almost verbatim.
In other words, if someone argues for God, or argues from a field of knowledge that you're unfamiliar with, they're bad debaters.

Basically, if a non-secular debater doesn't change his mind after debating a secular, he's apparently narrow-minded.

You say I stubbornly refuse to think of things in new ways, yet people in the homosexuality thread know that I deciede to reconsider my position after hard evidence was presented against my argument. So again another accusation by you founded on no grounds whatsoever.

Some of your arguments start from empirical truth, but then are followed by an absurd non sequitur that has nothing to do or is not in any way related with the first premise.

You make wild statements and claim that your observations are from nature but this is hogwash and both you and I know it because you've already demonstrated you know nothing of nature.
Instead of making broad statements such as 'you know nothing about nature' actually tell me what it is about nature I've gotten wrong. If you're saying I know nothing about nature, then you should know what my arguments from nature are, and subsequently you should be able to refute them with ease, so go ahea dand do so.

At one point I only posted in here to try and help people in the Proving Grounds out, but that ship has sailed and it got me nothing in return. Now I just do it because it amuses me.
For someone who comes here merely for amusement, you took it very seriously when you didn't get the moderator role.

Rvkevin- Na I 1v1 debate would be bad, he'll just keep accusing me of being a creationist so he can try to avoid having to refute my specific arguments.
 

Dre89

Smash Hero
Joined
Oct 29, 2009
Messages
6,158
Location
Australia
NNID
Dre4789
There is more than one way to skin a cat.

It's not what your intentions are so much as the method you chose to enable them...

And just to point out, I'm not only accusing you...

-blazed
Are you referring to how I complained about the Werekill injustice, or how I responded to RDK after he provided his excuse for his aggressive behaviour?
 

RDK

Smash Hero
Joined
Jan 3, 2006
Messages
6,390
No what I'm saying sounds like its from the theist/deist handbook. I've never argued that the world is only 6000 years old, so my arguments have nothing to do with creationism. Stop trying to pidgeon hole my arguments to make them easier for you to attack.
Believing that the world is 6,000 years old has nothing to do with it. It's the way you argue that draws similarities between yourself and creationists.

I don't know if you're just straight-up stubborn, or what kind of mental gymnastics you have to employ in order to believe the things you post, because some are just plain silly. A lot of times you come off as underhanded, and playing the concerned third party who's in between an atheist and a theist doesn't help your case much, especially if you're in between for the reasons you've stated.

I'm telling you this because I was like you at some point and it was actually embarrassing when I realized how stupid I sounded when I used arguments not unlike the ones you use.


If you're not going to a respect a prominent thiestic argument such as the cosmological argument, then you shouldn't be in a debate hall because clearly you're just here to condescend and not have a mature open-minded debate.

I respect atheistic arguments, I've even put some across myself. I don't see why the curtousy can't be returned.

In other words, if someone argues for God, or argues from a field of knowledge that you're unfamiliar with, they're bad debaters.

Basically, if a non-secular debater doesn't change his mind after debating a secular, he's apparently narrow-minded.
You assume I'm not familiar with philosophical arguments for god. I was in private school from kindergarten up until I graduated 12th grade. All different types of arguments for god or a god-like entity were pounded into my malleable little brain for 13 years. Theistic philosophy took up an absurdly large portion of classes that didn't even have anything to do with religion. I think it's safe to say I know just as much, if not even more, than you about issues on either side of the fence.

You say I stubbornly refuse to think of things in new ways, yet people in the homosexuality thread know that I deciede to reconsider my position after hard evidence was presented against my argument. So again another accusation by you founded on no grounds whatsoever.
I wasn't present for said event. Every time I've engaged or watched you engage in a homosexuality topic with other people you've come up with silly arguments and refused, even after being shown evidence, to concede that you were just plain wrong.

Instead of making broad statements such as 'you know nothing about nature' actually tell me what it is about nature I've gotten wrong. If you're saying I know nothing about nature, then you should know what my arguments from nature are, and subsequently you should be able to refute them with ease, so go ahea dand do so.
I have multiple times before. A notable mention is the time when you tried to argue that humans were above animals because they can change their environment.

I'm a biology major. I know for a fact that you do not know sufficiently enough about nature to be making arguments for or against a great number of the topics you've debated on this board.


For someone who comes here merely for amusement, you took it very seriously when you didn't get the moderator role.
Learn to read. I started coming here for amusement after that.

The point is, Dre, that you have no room to be commenting on the quality of other debaters - especially me - when you continue to use the tactics that you do, even after being mentored nicely by both myself and others in the DH. If you don't believe me, you can ask any number of people who've been here just as long as I have.

The Cosmological Argument? Give me a break.
 

Dre89

Smash Hero
Joined
Oct 29, 2009
Messages
6,158
Location
Australia
NNID
Dre4789
Believing that the world is 6,000 years old has nothing to do with it. It's the way you argue that draws similarities between yourself and creationists.


Assuming there's a difference between philosophical theism anc creationism, there is no way my arguments are closer to creationism than philosophical theism.

I don't know if you're just straight-up stubborn, or what kind of mental gymnastics you have to employ in order to believe the things you post, because some are just plain silly. A lot of times you come off as underhanded, and playing the concerned third party who's in between an atheist and a theist doesn't help your case much, especially if you're in between for the reasons you've stated.

I'm telling you this because I was like you at some point and it was actually embarrassing when I realized how stupid I sounded when I used arguments not unlike the ones you use.
There's nothing really to gain for either of us in by me responding to this.

You assume I'm not familiar with philosophical arguments for god. I was in private school from kindergarten up until I graduated 12th grade. All different types of arguments for god or a god-like entity were pounded into my malleable little brain for 13 years. Theistic philosophy took up an absurdly large portion of classes that didn't even have anything to do with religion. I think it's safe to say I know just as much, if not even more, than you about issues on either side of the fence.
Then let me rephrase it; you bash any argument that conflicts with yours, or originates from a field you don't respect. I haven't seen you respect or compliment any argument that differs from yours.

I wasn't present for said event. Every time I've engaged or watched you engage in a homosexuality topic with other people you've come up with silly arguments and refused, even after being shown evidence, to concede that you were just plain wrong.
Can you give an example of when I've committed such an offence? The homsexuality thread is clearly ruled out because I said I would reconsider my position in the face of the hard evidence presented to me.

I have multiple times before. A notable mention is the time when you tried to argue that humans were above animals because they can change their environment.

I'm a biology major. I know for a fact that you do not know sufficiently enough about nature to be making arguments for or against a great number of the topics you've debated on this board.
It's not just that they can change their environment. Animals contribute to certain ecosystems and cannot escape this. They cannot alter what they contribute to unless manipulated by an external force (eg. humans). For example, a wilderbeast can't refuse to join the annual migration through the Serenghetti. They are bound by their ecosystems and the cyles they contribute to.

Humans are not. Not only are humans governed by no ecosystem, but they will imbalance any ecosystem they will interfere in. There is no ecosystem for humans, the world is just an oyster for us.

All this is virtually scientific fact. Even other opponent I've had here who I've presented this argument to hasn't denied this. Show me evidence that animals do have the self-awareness to traverse ecosystems they're not supposed to, on their own accord. Show me evidence a wilderbeast can refuse to participate in the annual migration across the Serenghetti.

Learn to read. I started coming here for amusement after that.

The point is, Dre, that you have no room to be commenting on the quality of other debaters - especially me - when you continue to use the tactics that you do, even after being mentored nicely by both myself and others in the DH. If you don't believe me, you can ask any number of people who've been here just as long as I have.


I never said I was a good debater.

These 'tactics' that I use have resulted in me getting very high marks off philosophy lecturers who even disagree with what I argue most of the time. Even at philosophy forums my 'tactics' don't come under such scrutiny.

Like that paragraph where I argue humans to superior to animals. That esay earned the fourth highest mark that lecturer has ever given in his career, and he disagreed withn what I said.

Does that automatically make my argument right? No it doesn't. But if it's getting such ridiculously high marks, it's obviously a lot more rational than you give it credit for.

I'm no genius but I'm certainly not as bad as you make me out to be.

No offence, but I'd rather take the opinions of educated philosophers than those of young undergraduates, most of whom are even less educated in philosophy than I am. To listen to you guys and believe that my arguments are drop-dead terrible, when I have far more qualified authorities telling me they are great would be illogical.

The Cosmological Argument? Give me a break.
See this is what I mean. If you're not going to respect the cosmological argument, one of the most prominent God arguments, you won't respect any God argument. You obviously didn't come here to learn or have a mature debate, you just came here to get your point across and bash anyone who disagrees with it.

Just tell me, what God argument would you consider acceptable as a good argument?
 

thegreatkazoo

Smash Master
Joined
May 31, 2009
Messages
3,128
Location
Atlanta, GA
Inorite? :rolleyes:

@Dre: You know, I'm jonesing for some hard empirical evidence on the existence of a God. That peer-reviewed, published in a respected journal kind that just stands on its own. After all, if a God left his mark on the world somewhere, wouldn't we be able to find it? I'm not recalcitrant about this either: If you (or anyone else) shows me evidence of this, I won't be an atheist anymore. Maybe RDK is looking for the same, maybe not. But that's one thing that can make this atheist's day.
 

KrazyGlue

Smash Champion
Joined
Feb 23, 2009
Messages
2,302
Location
Northern Virginia
Enough of this. I'm sick and tired of you two bickering. I don't care who's the best debater or who did what wrong, nor does any of the rest of the DH. You're both making yourselves look worse. We've already heard both of your points, now let GoldShadow do the moderating. Both of you are wasting your own time; if nothing else you both know the other person isn't suddenly going to say "oh yeah, your right, I give up".

I swear, I will turn this room around right now :mad:
Perhaps you should. Lock it for a while and open it later if they keep arguing. You know, this is part of the reason people were afraid of starting the social thread in the first place.
 

GoldShadow

Marsilea quadrifolia
BRoomer
Joined
Jun 6, 2003
Messages
14,463
Location
Location: Location
Yeah, I know that not everyone here likes each other, but let's keep things civil. If the arguments are limited to debates about relevant subjects and topics, that's fine, but if there are any insults, personal attacks, fights, etc. from here on out, infractions will be doled out.
 

Jam Stunna

Writer of Fortune
BRoomer
Joined
May 6, 2006
Messages
6,450
Location
Hartford, CT
3DS FC
0447-6552-1484
I was thinking about piracy and possible solutions. We can never stop piracy all together (and I don't think any of us really want that anyway). But what if ISPs and media companies began adding a surcharge to internet service fees? For an additional $20-$30 on top of your regular monthly bill, you can download whatever you want, as much as you want, no questions asked.

I know there are tons of practical issues that would stand in the way of this, but in theory, would you support something like this?
 

rvkevin

Smash Lord
Joined
Apr 7, 2008
Messages
1,188
For an additional $20-$30 on top of your regular monthly bill, you can download whatever you want, as much as you want, no questions asked.
You mean something like Napster and/or Netflix? There is no reason for someone to buy the service if they can get it for free otherwise. The only way is to add that service to the internet subscription, but then you are charging part of the market who is not interested in using the service, and is probably illegal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tying_(commerce)#Tying_in_United_States_Law).
 

Jam Stunna

Writer of Fortune
BRoomer
Joined
May 6, 2006
Messages
6,450
Location
Hartford, CT
3DS FC
0447-6552-1484
Well like I said, there are practical issues, but in theory, would you agree to those terms?
 

Lore

Infinite Gravity
BRoomer
Joined
Mar 5, 2008
Messages
14,135
Location
Formerly 'Werekill' and 'NeoTermina'
I was thinking about piracy and possible solutions. We can never stop piracy all together (and I don't think any of us really want that anyway). But what if ISPs and media companies began adding a surcharge to internet service fees? For an additional $20-$30 on top of your regular monthly bill, you can download whatever you want, as much as you want, no questions asked.

I know there are tons of practical issues that would stand in the way of this, but in theory, would you support something like this?
An inexpensive, legal, convenient, and non-DRM-riddled alternative and a complete overhaul of copyright law would be the two best solutions.

Microsoft's Zune Pass thing is a step in the right direction. You can download as much as you want and keep (I'm guessing that you remove the DRM for this, but I'm not that familiar with it) 10 songs a month.

It's only 15 bucks a month, and it's really a great idea. It just needs expansion, less drm, and maybe a few more songs a month.

As to your original question, I would definitely sign up for something like an extra fee if all of the legal issues were smoothed out. If they didn't monitor what you do even if you don't pay extra, that would be great too.
 

thegreatkazoo

Smash Master
Joined
May 31, 2009
Messages
3,128
Location
Atlanta, GA
I was thinking about piracy and possible solutions. We can never stop piracy all together (and I don't think any of us really want that anyway). But what if ISPs and media companies began adding a surcharge to internet service fees? For an additional $20-$30 on top of your regular monthly bill, you can download whatever you want, as much as you want, no questions asked.

I know there are tons of practical issues that would stand in the way of this, but in theory, would you support something like this?
I'd have to say no to this.

ISPs are already (or @ least considering) putting speed restraints on certain websites they deem undesirable.

Net neutrality for the win.

*Waits for Alf-F4 to be summoned. This is something he would comment on*
 

RDK

Smash Hero
Joined
Jan 3, 2006
Messages
6,390
I was thinking about piracy and possible solutions. We can never stop piracy all together (and I don't think any of us really want that anyway). But what if ISPs and media companies began adding a surcharge to internet service fees? For an additional $20-$30 on top of your regular monthly bill, you can download whatever you want, as much as you want, no questions asked.

I know there are tons of practical issues that would stand in the way of this, but in theory, would you support something like this?
It's not a bad idea, but at the same time I could just say leave it the way it is because it's what basically everyone is doing right now.

How is money going to the internet service provider going to solve the problem of artists not getting money from the music they create? Isn't that what this is all about?
 

Jam Stunna

Writer of Fortune
BRoomer
Joined
May 6, 2006
Messages
6,450
Location
Hartford, CT
3DS FC
0447-6552-1484
The surcharge wouldn't go to ISPs; they would collect it on behalf of the various media companies. It would then be distributed to them.

An inexpensive, legal, convenient, and non-DRM-riddled alternative and a complete overhaul of copyright law would be the two best solutions.
This is my biggest problem with services like iTunes. I'm not opposed to paying for music or movies, but I am opposed to paying for it only to have it locked beyond all reason.
 

rvkevin

Smash Lord
Joined
Apr 7, 2008
Messages
1,188
Well like I said, there are practical issues, but in theory, would you agree to those terms?
I'm not sure what you mean by agreeing to those terms. As a consumer, I would probably agree to those terms due to the need/desire for an internet connection, but paying an extra 120+$/year on something I get for free over the radio, I would be considerably less than happy about it. However, I don't think it is the proper solution to the problem or that the problem should be fixed.

It is probably better to let the music and movie industry innovate. They can either make their products harder to be pirated, increase enforcement, focus on a different medium, change their business model, etc. If they are unable to profit from their product, then they will simply go away and some one who can will try their way. I think it is simply too "easy" to force people to buy their product as a solution. Sure, it will benefit the companies involved, but that shouldn't be the only goal.
 

thegreatkazoo

Smash Master
Joined
May 31, 2009
Messages
3,128
Location
Atlanta, GA
This is my biggest problem with services like iTunes. I'm not opposed to paying for music or movies, but I am opposed to paying for it only to have it locked beyond all reason.
Or how about some quality on the items you get?

Why would I buy an album on iTunes with 128K quality when I can spend $1-2 more on a copy on Half with the music in it's full integrity?

And why after all these years has Apple not had flac support?
 

blazedaces

Smash Lord
Joined
Feb 2, 2005
Messages
1,150
Location
philly, PA, aim: blazedaces, msg me and we'll play
Or how about some quality on the items you get?

Why would I buy an album on iTunes with 128K quality when I can spend $1-2 more on a copy on Half with the music in it's full integrity?

And why after all these years has Apple not had flac support?
Are you seriously asking why APPLE has not done something? This company has shown time and time again how horrible, non-caring, and arrogant they are when it comes to their customers.

-blazed
 

RDK

Smash Hero
Joined
Jan 3, 2006
Messages
6,390
The surcharge wouldn't go to ISPs; they would collect it on behalf of the various media companies. It would then be distributed to them.
I still don't think it's a good idea. This forces the person who uses the internet for things other than downloading intellectual property to pay a fee for downloading intellectual property.

The root of this is the business model these people use to sell their products. Selling a book or an album is not the same as selling a car. I can't download a car, but I can download a book or an album because the specific medium in which these things are produced allows for copying and sharing without taking up physical resources.

If I buy a physical book or album, the price of the paper used to print the words on or the CD used to transcribe the music onto is a justifiable reason for charging. And no, I don't believe that artists and authors shouldn't profit from their work. But making someone pay for intellectual property is analogous to saying I can't think a certain thought or even move my body in a certain way because someone else did it already and they're trying to make money off of it. A product is only worth what someone else will pay for it, and you can't put a price on art especially when said art is not a physical representation like a car.

Our world is evolving and the people who profit from these types of business models need to evolve with it or die out.
 

RDK

Smash Hero
Joined
Jan 3, 2006
Messages
6,390
Do you really think they ever will though? Honestly speaking...?

-blazed
Whether or not I think they will has no bearing on the morality of the situation; I was just stating what is most likely going to happen.

Personally I think the record labels and publishers are on their way out, which, even though is a plus, will **** everything up considerably, but there's no reason people shouldn't be able to continue profiting from their work.
 

thegreatkazoo

Smash Master
Joined
May 31, 2009
Messages
3,128
Location
Atlanta, GA
Are you seriously asking why APPLE has not done something? This company has shown time and time again how horrible, non-caring, and arrogant they are when it comes to their customers.

-blazed
This shows either two things.

  1. Other companies need to step their mp3 games up (seriously, there isn't a whole lot other than a Zune you can get that is half-decent), AND/OR
  2. Apple can market better than the other guys x1000.
I'm going with the latter.
 

thegreatkazoo

Smash Master
Joined
May 31, 2009
Messages
3,128
Location
Atlanta, GA
I loved that link, being a Computer Engineer.

I'm thinking of making a thread (a shock, Inorite?) about how fuel efficiency can be obtained if we lowered the number of cylinders in vehicles. Thoughts?
 

GoldShadow

Marsilea quadrifolia
BRoomer
Joined
Jun 6, 2003
Messages
14,463
Location
Location: Location
Just ran across this article, and since this thread hasn't been posted in recently...

What do you guys think of incentivizing school grades by throwing some cash into the mix?
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/10224/1079423-455.stm


Think you can get an A in Bio 101? Care to bet?

Alex Winter, 20, a student at the University of Pennsylvania, visits the Ultrinisc website.

Short on tuition money?

A new company is offering college students a chance to make a little cash on the side -- by betting on their own performances.

Undergraduate students at 36 universities around the country -- including the University of Pittsburgh and Penn State University -- can wager on their own grades though a New York-based company called Ultrinsic.

"What this does is that it encourages students to focus their energy on school," said company co-founder Jeremy Gelbart. "If they're as passionate about getting a grade in their class as they are about playing poker with their friends, I'm thrilled."

Of course, the 23-year-old Mr. Gelbart would also be thrilled if the company makes money for him and his co-founder, Steven Wolf.

The two formed the idea for the company several years ago, when Mr. Gelbart and Mr. Wolf were hanging out one Sunday afternoon. Then a student at the University of Pennsylvania, Mr. Gelbart told Mr. Wolf that he knew he could get an A on a test the next day but he didn't feel like studying.

To motivate Mr. Gelbart, Mr. Wolf told him that he'd give him $100 if he got an A on the test. If he didn't get an A, Mr. Gelbart would have to pay Mr. Wolf $20.

"I'm going to study," Mr. Gelbart told him. "We'll hang out after I take your money."

The two launched a pilot version of the company last year, taking bets from about 600 students at New York University and the University of Pennsylvania.

Representatives for Pitt and Penn State declined to comment on the idea of their students betting on their grades.

For the upcoming semester, Ultrinsic allows students to net a maximum of $50 per class. The company will determine how much a student would need to wager to win that $50, based on factors such as the student's grade point average, schedule and difficulty of the class.

"Pottery 101 or something like that" would be a tougher wager than organic chemistry, said Mr. Gelbart.

Students can also place multi-class bets and yearlong bets, said Mr. Gelbart, noting that the maximum that anybody could win in the upcoming school year is $2,500. Mr. Gelbart estimated that thousands of students had already signed up on the company's website, www.ultrinsic.com.

Students can also purchase "grade insurance" that would give them some money back in the event that they fail a class or receive a poor grade.

Though the concept sounds like gambling, Mr. Gelbart said that it is legal because students are staking money on something "all in their control -- it's not like rolling a die or playing the lottery."

Ultrinsic is promoting itself mainly through on-campus ambassadors, who generate word of mouth. Students who refer others receive 5 percent of their referred friend's winnings.

"It encourages friends to tell their friends to study," said Mr. Gelbart. "In a month from now, when they say, 'Let's hang out, let's go to the movies,' the friend says 'No no no, you have to study.' "

The company has been criticized both for introducing students to gambling and for replacing a pure love of learning with a love of cash.

Mr. Gelbart said that he preferred to think of the "incentives" as a little extra motivation.

"That's a great ideal -- that students like learning and they enjoy classes," said Mr. Gelbart. "But when you have to pull an all-nighter, it's more like work. That's what you need the incentive for."
 

Sieguest

Smash Master
Joined
Mar 14, 2009
Messages
3,448
Location
San Diego, CA
A money incentive for grades does sound like an effective way to get students more into their schooling, but I've always been a skeptic about grades. I mean it's easy to just memorize something just to make the grade and then forget it. You still get the grade but you haven't fulfilled the purpose of learning. I remember writing a paper about my objection to the grading system.
 

#HBC | Dark Horse

Mach-Hommy x Murakami
Joined
Jun 12, 2010
Messages
3,739
I saw something like this in an article of time a while ago. This usually works, as the article showed 4 examples and three of them were successful.

There are greedy kids in most classrooms. This could be their biggest motivation.

On the other hand, giving them money could seriously hurt the school's economy.
 
Top Bottom