http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?p=19185817#post19185817
The posts are post 62 and post 63
They are as follows:
post 62
RUMPLESTIX;19185817 wrote:
Of course, Spellwyrm's later posts strongly imply that #63 was directed at you, bizarre though that seems.
CS's refusal to discuss the issue any further seems to imply that they realised they'd screwed up. If I were you, I'd be inclined to let the matter drop for now, but keep the relevant posts saved somewhere in case something like this happens again. If that occurs, be prepared to take the matter higher.
ETA: I notice (post #64) ORC_Ryath didn't edit out the accusation you made that Spellwyrn was harassing you. Maybe CS sees an accusation of 'trolling' as a more severe insult than an accusation of 'harassing'? This all seems very odd.
Thank you for the response.
However, I should note that my post #64 immeditely after Spellwyrm's post 63 was edited by ORC Ryath for "baiting". There was originally a stronger (with expletives) response than " I do not appreciate unfounded accusations."
I do not think that was a difference maker in the following posts and that the finger was already pointing at me but believe it is important to point out since you appear to be basing judgment a lot upon those subsequent posts.
At no point in that post did he accuse you of harassment or trolling. He accuses you of using bad argumentative techniques.
You are right to voice your opinion on the matter, and I encourage you to do so. All I ask is that you stick with your opinion without being a ****-head.
Now, do you feel insulted?
At no point in that post did he accuse you of harassment or trolling. He accuses you of using bad argumentative techniques.
What is this?
All I ask is that you stick with your opinion without harassing other posters on theirs.
Why tell me specifically to not harass others if I am not being accused of harassing others? The word "harass" is actually used but it is not being "used"?
I believe there is a problem, and a minor change to some simple text could help alleviate this. If you feel differently, then that is your decision. Do not, however, attempt to make my statement (or anyone Else's) less then nothing simply because you do not feel the same way. Please and thank you.**
Which is not harassment as it applies to the board, but rather an obnoxious, yet popular technique people use when arguing.
Context. He uses 'harass' but then clearly defines it as:
Which is not harassment as it applies to the board, but rather an obnoxious, yet popular technique people use when arguing.
That logic in no way makes it any different than what any troll does. That is exactly what I was being accused of.
I am being accused of this:
Do not harass, bully, threaten, harm or cause discomfort for other persons, including any other members.
I am being accused of causing discomfort.
Further, there is nothing I see that leads the first paragraph to mean anything in the second and to not mean harass. In fact, that is one form of harass as would apply to the CoC.
It would do well if you guys consider my take on it...
Some people will be offended by anything. Indeed, some people will go out of their way to find ways to be offended... some people need to be a victim of something in order to feel as a part of something. Some are even professional in the way they do it.
I would love to cite examples and explain further, but that will invariably lead to politics, and we all know that is taboo....
Now excuse me while I wrap duct tape around my head... to keep my ears and eyes from bleeding all over my keyboard...
This.
At no point in that post did he accuse you of harassment or trolling. He accuses you of using bad argumentative techniques.
Exactly. While those comments may apply to RUMP, they also apply to any and all who use such bad discussion techniques as a whole. I added on my later statement as a directed plea to all members of the board to maintain a level of sophistication while posting, and to remain calm and polite in the face of differing opinions.
And I will leave this matter at this, since there is nothing else to explain or justify.
What he meant in his post is pretty clear.
Now the question is, are you offended and why?
From the OP
In specific I am wondering if posters think it is referring only in the general the whole time or first specific toward me and then in general.
That is the question of the OP. This thread is not a personal discussion about me.
Personally, I believe it meant "harass". That bothers the hell out of me because I was doing no such thing. But continuing on is a discussion of me and other posters. Improper.
Exactly. While those comments may apply to RUMP, they also apply to any and all who uses such bad discussion techniques as a whole. I added on my later statement as a directed plea to all members of the board to maintain a level of sophistication while posting, and to remain calm and polite in the face of differing opinions.
And I will leave this matter at this, since there is nothing else to explain or justify.
It's not an opinion; he stated an objective fact, dude. If there are no cases of Off-Limit Topics accidentally happening 90% of the time, then there is no problem. You responding that people should act in X or Y manner is a crappy argument technique; why don't you provide some examples of how your argument is correct in any way, rather than tossing a, "Everyone be nice now," Strawman to take the hit for you and drive the discussion Off-Topic?
UGH. I hate hypocrisy. My sympathies, Rump. :S
It's not an opinion; he stated an objective fact, dude. If there are no cases of Off-Limit Topics accidentally happening 90% of the time, then there is no problem.
This is not objective fact, it is simply an opinion based on the merits of how often the poster visits the OTT, and thus how often he sees (or does not see) "accidental posting". There is no fact behind such a statement, and so presents an opinionated fallacy. A fallacy enforced by the belief that one's opinion is more correct then another, simply because Poster Y cannot respond to Poster X because they cannot counter an opinionated fallacy without rending their own argument without merit.
This is a poor discussion technique which only encourages disarray and chaos. I would rather conduct myself in a manner beneficial to the productive means of an end, rather then engage in a shouting match of "He said, She said". In this respect, I made a plea to all members of the board to avoid such techniques when responding to one anothers posts.
You responding that people should act in X or Y manner is a crappy argument technique; why don't you provide some examples of how your argument is correct in any way, rather than tossing a, "Everyone be nice now," Strawman to take the hit for you and drive the discussion Off-Topic?
If Person X is acting in Format A, which causes direct unrest towards the productive end of a discussion, then Person X is being disruptive and creating more chaos. If Person X acted in Format B, then they would be adding their opinions without causing unrest and adding to the discussion in a positive and meaningful nature. I am well within my rights to make a plea that Person X maintain Format B while posting to avoid the disruption that Format A entails.
As pointed out, one cannot argue against an opinionated fallacy without rending their own merits worthless. No matter the argument or justification brought to the matter, Poster X can always counter Poster Y since the fallacy of Poster X prevents Poster Y from countering an opinion based solely on experience, rather then factual matter. The entire debate of the OTT is matter based more on opinion of what one perceives as "accidental posting", then the factual merit of what is "accidental posting".
If I say "I believe there is rampant accidental posting, based on this X, Y, Z.", then I am arguing an opinion on what I perceive. If someone counters with "This isn't true, because this A, B, C is what is really happening!", and is taken as a factual statement, when instead it is merely opinion, cannot be countered by a reasonable argument. I dislike this type of posting technique, and do my utmost to point it out, even if I must be a hypocrite to do so. This is nothing but disruptive behavior and and we should all do our best to avoid it when we can.
UGH. I hate hypocrisy. My sympathies, Rump. :S
I quite agree.
This is not objective fact, it is simply an opinion based on the merits of how often the poster visits the OTT, and thus how often he sees (or does not see) "accidental posting". There is no fact behind such a statement, and so presents an opinionated fallacy. A fallacy enforced by the belief that one's opinion is more correct then another, simply because Poster Y cannot respond to Poster X because they cannot counter an opinionated fallacy without rending their own argument without merit.
This is a poor discussion technique which only encourages disarray and chaos. I would rather conduct myself in a manner beneficial to the productive means of an end, rather then engage in a shouting match of "He said, She said". In this respect, I made a plea to all members of the board to avoid such techniques when responding to one anothers posts.
If Person X is acting in Format A, which causes direct unrest towards the productive end of a discussion, then Person X is being disruptive and creating more chaos. If Person X acted in Format B, then they would be adding their opinions without causing unrest and adding to the discussion in a positive and meaningful nature. I am well within my right to make a plea that Person X maintain Format B while posting to avoid the disruption that Format A entails.
I really don't care. Someone says, "There are 0 examples of this occurring." You either respond with, "I disagree," or, "I agree, I withdraw the argument," or, "You're incorrect, here are some examples you may have missed." You don't respond with, "People shouldn't post so disruptively!"
That's hypocritical, because in the middle of an On-Topic discussion, "Posting Disruptively" is exactly what you are doing when you start arguing about people "Posting Disruptively."
Hence, Hypocrisy.
And yes, I read the Thread; Z_B was the only person presenting a decent argument, and I agree with his conclusions.
This is not objective fact, it is simply an opinion based on the merits of how often the poster visits the OTT, and thus how often he sees (or does not see) "accidental posting". There is no fact behind such a statement, and so presents an opinionated fallacy. A fallacy enforced by the belief that one's opinion is more correct then another, simply because Poster Y cannot respond to Poster X because they cannot counter an opinionated fallacy without rending their own argument without merit.
This is a poor discussion technique which only encourages disarray and chaos. I would rather conduct myself in a manner beneficial to the productive means of an end, rather then engage in a shouting match of "He said, She said". In this respect, I made a plea to all members of the board to avoid such techniques when responding to one anothers posts.
If Person X is acting in Format A, which causes direct unrest towards the productive end of a discussion, then Person X is being disruptive and creating more chaos. If Person X acted in Format B, then they would be adding their opinions without causing unrest and adding to the discussion in a positive and meaningful nature. I am well within my right to make a plea that Person X maintain Format B while posting to avoid the disruption that Format A entails.
I quite agree.
I am there all the time and do not post a lot.
Plus, when threads do disappear when I am not present someone who is posts about in one of the "What do you want to talk about?" threads. They don't disappear without posters posting about it happening.
I was aware of all those threads that disappeared. They were asked to be removed in the VCL thread for being political except for maybe one or two that were yanked immediately for being very bad.
@ Crimson Lancer
Much appreciated
Hence, Hypocrisy.
You are quite right, and you are entitled to your opinions as I am mine. I have explained myself, quite thoroughly I believe, and have no further intentions with this thread. If others wish to misinterpret or mismanage my posts to be whatever they want them to be for the sake of their own argument or opinion, then I say let them be.
Adieu.
S'far as I'm concerned; RUMP, Spellwyrm - If you two got a problem, take it to the PM system, don't do it over the public forums. Geez, what a waste of space all this is.