StarDestroyer.Net BBS

http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic. ... 421#573421

Regarding your performance so far as an admin, your trigger happy attitude doesn't mix well with your role. You're an admin. Think about that. You have complete control over this product. I have the root password to numerous systems at work, and I would be absolutely smashed by management if I abused those accounts.

You were wrong to title me, for the following reasons:

1. I had several people support me, so my opinion and points were not so stupid as the title Village Idiot would imply.
2. I had walked. [this means little, but it does show I can walk away when I know something is a lost cause].
3. I wasn't creating logical fallacies.

Otherwise, no complaints

BoredShirtless wrote:
Regarding your performance so far as an admin, your trigger happy attitude doesn't mix well with your role. You're an admin. Think about that. You have complete control over this product. I have the root password to numerous systems at work, and I would be absolutely smashed by management if I abused those accounts.

Hmmm I was referring to titling DPDP and AB, but anyways I see your point. I didn't title you without anyone else saying anything. Several of the mods had already posted about you in the Mod forum and I was getting pms from several of the members about your behavior. I probably should have posted a poll first, but even so you would have recieved a title, at least judging from the poll results in the HoS, and it would have stuck in that case.

BoredShirtless wrote: You were wrong to title me, for the following reasons:

1. I had several people support me, so my opinion and points were not so stupid as the title Village Idiot would imply.

You had several people who were also against banning Ted permanently, they were not supporting you. Once again you were not titled for defending Ted, it was for the manner in which you did so.

BoredShirtless wrote: 2. I had walked. [this means little, but it does show I can walk away when I know something is a lost cause].

After insulting nearly every person who even poked their head into that thread and said he should be banned. We generally do not punish people for flaming mods or other members, but we do not tolerate people flaming mods for doing their job, so long as they are doing their job well. Every one of those mods in that thread had had numerous run ins with Ted's bullshit over the last several months, and many had warned him in the past for he actions. Please remember that the next time you feel the desire to point out the "Search" button to one of the SMs.

BoredShirtless wrote: 3. I wasn't creating logical fallacies.

Never said you were.

Son of the Suns wrote:

BoredShirtless wrote:
Regarding your performance so far as an admin, your trigger happy attitude doesn't mix well with your role. You're an admin. Think about that. You have complete control over this product. I have the root password to numerous systems at work, and I would be absolutely smashed by management if I abused those accounts.

Hmmm I was referring to titling DPDP and AB, but anyways I see your point. I didn't title you without anyone else saying anything. Several of the mods had already posted about you in the Mod forum and I was getting pms from several of the members about your behavior.

When in a serious debate, I don't let asshole remarks [last sentance] or threats slide. I don't lose my cool [like the way I did here] in RL because I don't associate with people who in a serious situation, talk like tough guy wannabes. In a word: provoked.

Note that the thread was civil until people started getting antsy at my rational arguments.

Son of the Suns wrote: I probably should have posted a poll first,

You probably should have realised I was under attack and defending myself, chalk it up as a flame war, and walked away.

Son of the Suns wrote: but even so you would have recieved a title, at least judging from the poll results in the HoS, and it would have stuck in that case.

Does it matter the poll was illegitimate? I asked Ender for examples, he had none. Maybe I'm an idiot for taking this crap all too seriously, and if you would title me because of that I'd probably accept it. But not for Enders reasons, which were the negatives of:
1. I was very familiar with the situation.
2. I wasn't creating strawmen.
3. I wasn't arguing semantics.
4. I wasn't flamming everone who disagree with me, I just wasn't taking shit.

Son of the Suns wrote:

BoredShirtless wrote: You were wrong to title me, for the following reasons:

1. I had several people support me, so my opinion and points were not so stupid as the title Village Idiot would imply.

You had several people who were also against banning Ted permanently, they were not supporting you. Once again you were not titled for defending Ted, it was for the manner in which you did so.

I wonder. After reading my points above, if you're now willing to spread the blame?

Son of the Suns wrote:

BoredShirtless wrote: 2. I had walked. [this means little, but it does show I can walk away when I know something is a lost cause].

After insulting nearly every person who even poked their head into that thread and said he should be banned.

That's not true, see above.

Son of the Suns wrote: We generally do not punish people for flaming mods or other members, but we do not tolerate people flaming mods for doing their job, so long as they are doing their job well.

Please refresh my memory, when did I do this?

Son of the Suns wrote: Every one of those mods in that thread had had numerous run ins with Ted's bullshit over the last several months, and many had warned him in the past for he actions. Please remember that the next time you feel the desire to point out the "Search" button to one of the SMs.

*sigh* and please pass on the following to Pablo: you shouldn't have judged what I know on my joining date or post count. Lurking, the search function, people reminiscing, all these things allow me to speak with some authority on Ted.

Son of the Suns wrote:

BoredShirtless wrote: 3. I wasn't creating logical fallacies.

Never said you were.

Nice Avatar btw. Do you know the significance of your character looking up to the sky like that?
Hint: architecture of churches draw the eye *upwards*. Why?

Oi.......

Bored stop.

Literally you are providing them reason to scrutinize and observe you.

And you do what his avatar is and the JOKE behind said person looking up to the heavens(especially given the story behind it) ?

Ghost Rider wrote:Oi.......

Bored stop.

Literally you are providing them reason to scrutinize and observe you.

Grow up, he asked for feedback.

Ghost Rider wrote: And you do what his avatar is and the JOKE behind said person looking up to the heavens(especially given the story behind it) ?

There's another interpretation of looking to the heavens like that, which was what I was sort of driving at.

BoredShirtless wrote:*sigh* and please pass on the following to Pablo: you shouldn't have judged what I know on my joining date or post count. Lurking, the search function, people reminiscing, all these things allow me to speak with some authority on Ted.

A) Lurking gives an incomplete picture. Even if you were lurking when Ted was pissing around here, I doubt you focussed on him and read virtually every thread he pissed on. I did! It was my fucking job.
B) The search function, as I have said before, only goes through the top 100,000 posts. It's an incomplete picture, again.
C) People remiscing? You can't be serious. Apparently hearing something through the grapevine is as good as seeing it. Chain letter's must be hell on you.

Pablo Sanchez wrote:

BoredShirtless wrote:*sigh* and please pass on the following to Pablo: you shouldn't have judged what I know on my joining date or post count. Lurking, the search function, people reminiscing, all these things allow me to speak with some authority on Ted.

A) Lurking gives an incomplete picture. Even if you were lurking when Ted was pissing around here, I doubt you focussed on him and read virtually every thread he pissed on. I did! It was my fucking job.
B) The search function, as I have said before, only goes through the top 100,000 posts. It's an incomplete picture, again.
C) People remiscing? You can't be serious. Apparently hearing something through the grapevine is as good as seeing it. Chain letter's must be hell on you.

Point to were I say being there is as good as remiscing? Thought so.

Can you clue me in to the point you're making with A, B and C?

YAAAAAAAAAH! I CAN'T TAKE IT ANYMORE!

BoredShirtless, just...shut up. You don't have your derogotory title anymore, you've got nothing to complain about, just bow your head, thank the mod profusely for giving your Padawan Learner title back, and never...eeeever...mention this again.

Here, here. STFU. You're pissing everyone off.

Jesus christ! Move on with your life already! You acted rashly and got titled, wrongfully from your perspective, but perfectly justified in the opinions of others. Perhaps the admin was a bit quick on it and didn't go thru the usual procedures, but regardless of this your title was quickly removed when you cried enough about it. Enough already! Good god, what is your problem?!

[Charlie Brown] Oh, good grief [/Charlie Brown]

Fucking know when to stop for crying out loud. On and on and on and on, your like a fucking broken record. You got your way now STFU. Jesus tap dancing Christ.

jmac wrote:Jesus christ! Move on with your life already! You acted rashly and got titled, wrongfully from your perspective, but perfectly justified in the opinions of others. Perhaps the admin was a bit quick on it and didn't go thru the usual procedures, but regardless of this your title was quickly removed when you cried enough about it. Enough already! Good god, what is your problem?!

No problems, SotS asked for feedback, so I gave him some.

is there really a need for you to continue barking up the dead horse's ass?
your VI was removed. people moved on. you should too.

A recommendation for BS: Get over it. Nobody died, and it isn't all that big a deal...

BoredShirtless wrote:Point to were I say being there is as good as remiscing? Thought so.

What are you trying to say here? Did you mess up on your sentence construction or something? I'll switch it around and assume you meant that 'I never said remiscences were as good as being there,' because the alternative is that you believe that hearsay is better than sight (perhaps I'm being too charitable?).

In that case, you're playing a worthless semantic/nitpicking game in the tradition of dodgy flamebaiters everywhere. What a waste of time.

Can you clue me in to the point you're making with A, B and C?

You're beyond help, but I'll tell you this one. You said that

all these things allow me to speak with some authority on Ted.

I addressed the three 'things' which you named in turn and explained why they gave you no authority to speak on Ted whatsoever. It's not difficult to understand.

Col. Crackpot wrote:is there really a need for you to continue barking up the dead horse's ass?
your VI was removed. people moved on. you should too.

He wants to earn it back, obviously.

Pablo Sanchez wrote:

BoredShirtless wrote:Point to were I say being there is as good as remiscing? Thought so.

What are you trying to say here? Did you mess up on your sentence construction or something? I'll switch it around and assume you meant that 'I never said remiscences were as good as being there,' because the alternative is that you believe that hearsay is better than sight (perhaps I'm being too charitable?).

Two points:

1. I never said being there is as good as remiscing
2. I never said hearsay is better than sight

Pablo Sanchez wrote: In that case, you're playing a worthless semantic/nitpicking game in the tradition of dodgy flamebaiters everywhere. What a waste of time.

It isn't nitpicking if I ask to show where I said "being there is as good as remiscing".

Pablo Sanchez wrote:

Can you clue me in to the point you're making with A, B and C?

You're beyond help, but I'll tell you this one. You said that

all these things allow me to speak with some authority on Ted.

I addressed the three 'things' which you named in turn and explained why they gave you no authority to speak on Ted whatsoever. It's not difficult to understand.

You'd have a point if the debate was "who has more authority to speak about Ted?".

Sheesh
Some people don't know when to drop things and move on. Here is some advice for you, STFU before you get your title back

Ok ok, life is too short, this issue is DROPPED!

Good. Could someone lock this thread to ensure that the issue stays that way.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

The thread is locked and the matter considered dropped.