Public Service Announcement: A Dictionary Is Not An Authoritative Source On The Set Meanings Of Words,

Public service announcement: A dictionary is not an authoritative source on the set meanings of words, but rather a report on how words are used by people. No, seriously. Words change meaning over time, and definitions aren't set in stone; dictionaries adapt to reflect this.

Look at it. Five "Challenger Approaching" boxes. This is the greatest thing.

*about 3pm yesterday*

WillWare: I'm going to stream tomorrow! I'm so excited! I've been planning and working up bad puns and getting people hyped and readying myself! Tomorrow's gonna be AWESOME!

*next morning*

WillWare: Ugh, I have a horrible stomachache... it's like barbed wire and lightning strikes... I don't think I can stream today...

*reluctantly eats something*

WillWare: I feel a little better, so I guess I'll go have lunch.

*after lunch*

WillWare: My stomach is mostly better, but I've got zero energy. I don't know if I'll be able to stream...

*lightbulb appears*

WillWare: I know! I'll walk over to Sonic and get a watermelon tea. That'll restore my energy!

*NOTE: Sonic is a ten minute walk away.*

WillWare: *gasp* Finally made it, but my stomach's feeling weird again. I'll get my tea, since I'm here, but I'll try not to drink too much.

*on the walk back*

WillWare: Holy stomach acid, I feel like I'm gonna throw up... right into the grass, I don't even care anymore... and if I do I'm gonna collapse on the sidewalk...

*Despite nearly doing so three times, I made it back without incident.*

WillWare: That was counterproductive... now my stomach is bad again AND I'm all out of energy... how am I gonna stream like this...

*went to the bathroom, feel better again*

WillWare: I am still out of energy, and even finishing off my tea didn't help. Now it's kind of late to stream, and I'm tired so the commentary would be a mess, but I want to stream so badly...

*realization*

WillWare: I've been sort of muttering to myself all day. Last time I did that was before the last time I streamed, and it turned out great! I bet if I just raise my voice, I'll be able to stream just fine!

*practice*

WillWare: Hello everyone! This is WillWare of ChannelWW, comin' LIVE at you, and today I'll --*voice cracks*

*further practice shows repetitive silence and lack of things to say*

WillWare: *sigh* This just won't work. I guess I'll stream tomorrow or something... except I have some big tests soon... and this is probably my last chance for a little while... *sob*

Took fourth place in this week's GameXplain tournament. I had first at one point! Then the other players beat me out. Oh well, I'll take it. Congrats to everyone involved!

Mediation

When two people are arguing and a third person comes in to mediate/bring in a different viewpoint/whatever, I see a few different methods of handling it. I do this a lot myself, actually, and having watched a couple of methods, I have one that I chose as my favorite; however, I get a few bad remarks when I use it, so I wanted to lay out my logic here in the hopes that things are a bit clearer.

As an example: one kid took candy from another kid, claiming that he was owed that candy. A mediator of some kind, be it a parent, a teacher, or another kid, sees the situation and acts on it to bring some resolve. There's three main methods that I see people use in some variation.

Subjective - The mediator chooses a side from the start that they'll support. Perhaps it's not entirely blatant, as it could be an emotional bias that sways their judgement, or some sort of intuition; but whatever it is, it's not entirely logical. Sometimes this is based on good intentions (my friend/son/star student wouldn't do that!!).

Outcome: The favored kid receives retribution from the unfavored kid.

Pros: Usually an emotional bias tends to be for good reason; the kid had to get that reputation somehow. It places less stress on the mediator, with a high chance of being correct, and brings judgement to the situation. The mediator also has a sense of satisfaction for helping.

Cons: It could be a bribe, or the parents could have too much faith in their kids, or it could otherwise be wrong. In fact, it might require a second mediator to determine whether this is true or not. In any case, the mediator can be accused of taking sides.

Most used by: Friends, parents

Objective - The mediator listens to both sides equally and searches for facts and morals. When both kids have had their say, the mediator chooses who is right based on as much logic and evidence as possible. Justice is then dealt out based on the situation.

Outcome: The kid who is deemed the victim receives retribution from the kid who is deemed the offender

Pros: The correct justice is often laid out...

Cons: It is nearly IMPOSSIBLE to be objective! Almost all of the time, there is some sort of emotional bias - even if the mediator has never met these kids before. Any use of fallacies completely destroys the mediation as a whole, and even moral "absolutes" vary from person to person. Also, since one kid is told that they're wrong, the mediator can be accused of taking sides.

Most used by: Judges

Impartial - The mediator listens to both sides, attempting to calm the nerves of both kids where necessary. The mediator then tries to get them to forgive each other, without choosing sides or dealing out punishment.

Outcome: Both kids get candy from the office.

Pros: The tension is removed, and the mediator distances him/herself from the situation as much as possible.

Cons: Whoever should have gotten punished did not. In fact, they get away scot-free, and the kid who was wronged receives nothing!

Most used by: Teachers, counselors

Could you tell from my vocabulary which one I like best? I try to be objective, which doesn't always work out for me. But I've been accused by three people now of taking sides when I do this, so I just wanted to make one thing clear:

That's the freaking point!

I hate impartiality! It just promotes further tension between the two parties, because the situation is never fully resolved (so both think they're still right). And it also promotes that the bad guys get to do whatever they want, because the victim does not get any sort of solace, and the offender is never told that what they did was wrong... except by the other party, who they're not listening to anyway.

So yes, I choose sides - after I hear what's going on. Because I'm not going to sit by and watch someone be a jerk to someone else. Even if it means I get into the fight myself and have a chance of being wrong.

Why is it that negativity gets more attention than positivity?

Whenever someone says that they like something, most people just talk about it for a couple minutes (if that), brush it off, and move on to the next topic. But whenever someone says something wrong, everyone in the conversation has to tell that person that they're wrong, over and over again. I don't get it... heck, I'm kind of doing that right now, even! Shouldn't attention be directly proportional to positivity, not inversely? It just doesn't make sense to me. Then again, people would rather watch drama than peaceful times...

Perhaps it has something to do with the fact that it's not "normal." Even though people do stuff wrong all the time, the expectation is that they will not, so it seems absurd when they don't, and it attracts attention. For some reason. I still don't get it.