View Full Version : My criticism to Serebii and forums/chat.

18th December 2007, 2:14 PM
Personally there are many reasons why a regular user should get to decide 'certain' things in channels they do not run. The rationality of the op staff usually impacts their intelligence and their response to fairness

You want it both ways and you can't have it both ways. If you want an op staff where good cause is required for you to resign your status, you have to accept a negotiation where there are penalties for quitting without cause. Most ops really do want an at-will status agreement. That means they can make any demands on their founder for any reason and quit if they're not met. But it also means their founder can make any demands on them for any reason and demote them if they're not met.

You certainly can negotiate an agreement where certain reasons are not sufficient justification for being banned, but you had better expect that certain reasons are not going to be sufficient justification for quitting.

And then the channel lacks justice - justice for both staff and non-staff.

Justice is the virtue of evaluating people's conduct and character accurately and objectively and rendering to each person what he deserves, what he has earned. Justice is rationality in one's affairs involving others - adherence to reality in the sphere of interpersonal relationships.

Pragmatism is not ethical for #SPP.
Pragmatism is the doctrine that ops should do whatever works. The problem with this doctrine is that we cannot determine what works and what does not until we have a standard of value for comparing them. Once we have a standard of value their is no further question of what we 'should' do. Thus pragmatism is not a system of ethics because it does not tell us what to value and that is the role of ethics.

The problems with Serebii.

I think there are numerous "personality" elements that make up a person like Serebii in general, but here's a start.

Probably my number 1 favorite is..

His reaction to something unfortunate.


Usually 2 things can happen when something unfortunate happens.

They became mad.

Or sad.

I like sad and probably prefer people that become sad than mad.

Suppose people find out that a fire has burned down their house like the vast majority of people I knew from San Diego. It does people less good to know or see they are mad, as opposed to if they were sad. On the contrary, no feeling is another benefit than being mad.

This category is pretty much another word for "response to stress."

Or, people who get ****** off easily, and, people who don't get ****** off easily. And Serebii, unfortunately, responds strongly to the anger.


People who:

1.Give the benefit of the doubt than the disadvantage of the doubt.
2.Do n/a than to give the disadvantage of the doubt.
3.Give the benefit of the doubt than n/a.

This is probably something you want to see in judges, police officers, and bosses.


And this quite simply is, his response to fairness.


Well I guess the most common and basic category is how "nice" someone is.

And Serebii does not pass this.


If you were a fully-grown adult and can walk and etc., and you saw young children fighting in the streets, and 1 was getting beat up, would you step in and try to defend the kid? Or break the fight up?

If you were still young, and you saw an old person with maybe grocery bags stuck in the middle of an intersection waiting in on green lights, would you step in and help out?

If you were passing someone and something dropped out of their bag, and you heard the thump, would you announce "hey you dropped something."?

Examples of something you prepare for.

Going out on a hot day, around areas like beaches and parks, bringing in extra bottles of water exclusively to those when you see someone looking dehydrated or thirsty.

Suppose you are a car owner, and out on a rainy day, you pack a bunch of umbrellas, ready to throw them out to people you see in need of them without umbrellas. (And purposely don't expect them back as that's what they're there for - to give them out.) Or suppose you hang around the window of your house on a rainy day, ready to pass out umbrellas to those without 1 as they pass your window.

Or when you are an expert at your location, and you see tourists looking at a map of your city/town, and you ask them if they're lost and need directions to somewhere.

Defend the underdog.

So I suppose it's good to know how to perform CPR and the Heimlich-maneuver, like the Secret Service does when they had to perform the latter on the President.

I suppose the only basic measure of how nice is your ability to be useful. This is for cases of people you never met before. Especially when they ask you the time and you never want to get stuck without wearing a watch.

I suppose in this reality we all can contribute by watching the America's Most Wanted every week/check their site and check on the most wanted for the police website of your city.

1.When sitting on the train or bus and someone asks me the time, I tell them. But maybe if they get off 10 minutes later, I update to them the time before the exit. This means "I actually have a memory." Or if I get off before them some 15 minutes later, I'll try to update them the time anyways. ;p

2.When I see, for example, in a park or cafeteria, people throwing trash into a garbage can, and it misses, and they don't pick it up, I go up there myself and pick it up and throw it in.

Heck if there's garbage in a long-enough dwelling area of me, I'll spend the time to pick 'em up anyways.

3.This has not happened, but suppose you see someone looking like they're assaulting someone, or beating them up, take a photo of the victim/incident, before calling 911 or anything. Then if the victim ends up snatching a purse or something, make your 911 call as well as confronting the individual that you took a photo of the criminal.

If by chance you see law enforcement beating up someone, get out your camera and video tape the incident, then after it's over confront the person if necessary asking for some contact information so you can send them the video. I mean come on, the Rodney King story wouldn't be possible if it weren't for video recorders.

4.This hasn't happened either, but suppose I was at a large carnival or outdoor fair, and I saw little children that seem lost. I could ask them if they are lost and if so, do they know if their parents have a cell phone on them, and if so, if they know how to call them (because if the children did have their own cell phone they wouldn't be lost anyways). And if all answer yes I would let them call their parent with my phone. Now of course the down side is you collect their number but on the contrary you weigh the fact that a panicked parent could be glad to find their lost child.


I suppose 1 measure of "nice"ness is the level of forgiving.


I suppose 1 quality measure of niceness is restraining the need to insult someone when in conflict with someone.

Niceness: another start.

The problem with niceness is that it depends highly on productivity. In order to be nice, 1 has to be useful. If not for those 2, the value of niceness is almost 0. Or simply 0.

What good is it if you have a watch and you refuse to tell people the time? Or have a cell phone and refuse to let people use it? Or have extra water bottles but refuse to give it to thirsty people?

If you cannot have the ability to be useful, then you cannot have the option to be nice. So this is sort of the trade back for being nice and have 0 use or productivity.

Take, for example, a homeless bum, who could be the nicest person ever. But it won't matter if he's nice. Because he has 0 productivity. Now suppose a rich CEO finds him and decides to give him a job "because the homeless is so nice." Not only would the CEO have to provide the homeless with shelter, but then a place to shower and have good hygiene, and clothes and food and money. If, anything, the CEO is being nice to the homeless, as the CEO is productive and is being useful to the homeless. And this is mixed in with the fact that the CEO is nice.

Otherwise, having 0 productivity and 0 usefulness pretty much N/A's on the fact if you can be nice.

So if I am nice it won't make a thing if I can't be productive or useful. So if I know mIRC scripting, I can help in #mIRC. If you know #C++, you can help in #C++. If I know chemistry, I can help in #chemistry. And that's where my niceness can kick in, as opposed to a useful and productive programmer/scientist that isn't nice and isn't willing to provide help.

Otherwise... I can be nice and provide umbrellas to people in the rain. Or I can also not have umbrellas, then I wouldn't be able to express my niceness in the rain anyways.

Or in other words, niceness can be 1 of the least important element, as it requires such basic factors. It is massively affected by the basic biological laws of natural selection and survival of the fittest. The homeless man is initially useless. But once he got a job and can become productive, all thanks to the nice and useful CEO, he is no longer a homeless now. And this can measure his productivity.

If you don't like the homeless example - take the old people example. A really old person in a retirement home will have to rely on the caretaker to be nice, since the caretaker is almost everything useful to the old person. But the old person is almost 0 useful to the caretaker, so it won't matter much if the old person is neutral or says a lot of thank you. Unless, of course, the old person is rude to the not-so-nice caretaker so that the caretaker could refuse to help the old person anymore.

And how does this relate to natural selection? Say you help an old lady walk across the street carrying her grocery bags. And she goes "Oh thank you so much, let me dig into my purse and give you 50 cents." And then you go "Oh wow! 50 cents!"

But then, what if you came to the attention of an incredibly rich old person. Like, really rich. More survival of the fittest.


This is probably another sub-category of rationality, but an example where, everything someone wanted to express to you, they do. Such that you don't have to go around trying to figure out what the other person is thinking/reacting, they would tell you exactly. So if anyone ever started disliking you, they should approach to you and tell you exactly why, rather than acting differently in a way you have to backtrack to why they are acting that way, as that would just be too logical.


An example where, everything they say is their point, or isn't. For some people, it isn't the case. They can jabber off. Or in other words - they're incapable of staying on topic. You want to bring a controversial case with them and they change the subject. Usually for me, everything I say is my point, so I express my thoughts using the least amount of words necessary.


Domination of conversation. Usually when someone asks me a question I let them take control of the conversation. If I were to bring something up I would wait until they're done. If they're completely done, then, it would be me starting an entirely new conversation. An example is where when someone p.m.s me, I talk about whatever they want to talk about.

Most of you probably don't do this - but suppose I wanted to call someone on the phone, especially a cell phone.

Cell phone usage can:

-Take up a person's minutes.
-Take up their time.
-Increase their bills.

So the 1st thing I do is phone someone is ask if they're busy and if they have a numerical figure amount of time. I absolutely hate it if I can't remember what else I had to say.

So if I had 3 questions for them, I would write it down on paper, then at the start of the phone conversation, after asking them if they have time/busy or not, I tell them I have 3 questions. When I'm done asking my questions, I'll let them know that that's all the questions I had, and so it's up to them if they want to continue the phone conversation. That means the line is now theirs. Or they can say ok and and hang up, as I've acknowledge the end of my part of the conversation.

This is, of course, a method to take into consideration when and why you're calling someone, and to not let them decide what they could talk to you about just because you phoned them.


So 1 way to discriminate against people is on what they discriminate against. Or in other words, people should give everyone the equal opportunity.

Some examples of what not to discriminate people against:


So homosexuals and left-handed people are in the minority.

Some examples of what people discriminate against:


Or in other words, discriminate against things that people chose to do (such as religion or being a vegetarian), yet no 1 could control what gender or race or sexuality or handedness they were born into.

However, I wouldn't recommend discriminating someone initially on their religion and etc., since that could fall under the giving them the disadvantage of the doubt. But of course, as I said earlier discriminating someone by their religion would almost always (like 99%) be discriminating them on their rationality.

And then, of course, there can be exceptions, such that someone has bad grammar due to a physical genetic disability, or have bad hygiene because they are at an economical disadvantage (less than 50%).

And then there are even rarer exceptions. Someone could be a vegetarian because someone put a gun to their head and told them to. You don't know that but you assume it wasn't the reason of course.

And then, people who discriminate by gender is almost always a pet peeve of mine. I had this lunatic teacher who was certainly this case. He wouldn't let guys sit on his couch, but if you were a girl, you could. And then you could easily piss him off if you were a guy of course.

And then of course. Serebii discriminates against newbs. Or people he do not know.


People who keep up to their word or not. Or if they can't they let you know ahead of time or an apology is can be.

"You didn't do my __?"
"Why not?"
"I just forgot about it."

As opposed to.

"Hey I can't make it to the thing Friday night like I said because of blah blah blah. Sorry."

As opposed to.

Saturday: "Hey come you didn't show up last night."
"Oh something less important came up."

I guess Serebii's particular problem is selective answering.


Erik Destler
18th December 2007, 10:41 PM


want to be nice?
stop evading bans.