Sure it was.
That's why you persisted and persisted and persisted, then demanded that Fraggle be the judge - which he did - and still today, in THIS VERY THREAD you said:
It certainly WAS a joke, but it wasn't intended to be.
Why am i getting warnings.
- Thread starter John99
- Start date
Sure it was.
That's why you persisted and persisted and persisted, then demanded that Fraggle be the judge - which he did - and still today, in THIS VERY THREAD you said:
It certainly WAS a joke, but it wasn't intended to be.
Come on, Enny.. you aren't helping the situation.. Three moderators + Gustav + One_raven vs John? You people don't feel a bit weird? :shrug:
String, how hard is it to do:
John: Why am i getting warnings?
Mod: Saying this or that is a personal attack, because [insert reasonable reason]
No need to get all emotional? You people don't have enough fight in high school?
Uh, I don't feel good criticizing you, String. How is the flu, do you feel alright now?
John, best is always to ask by PM first...
Edit: oh, now, plus Bells, too.. wth, people..?...?
Dead camel two-step
Is it possible ....
Now, just work with me here for a moment. Do you recall one of our fellows was dismissed once upon a time for suspending someone when it wasn't warranted? I've always joked—and even said publicly—that he was dismissed for suspending a member and citing the wrong post. Now, I'll go so far as to speculate that the boss probably doesn't appreciate that take on it, but it seemed to me that what happened there was that the moderator suspended the member and cited the end of a string of offenses. If he had picked another of several posts during that particular run by the member, he would have been in the clear.
Maybe.
Because, as I saw it, the member deserved a suspension, although there were certainly more apt and extreme examples to cite.
Anyway, my larger point is that sometimes people don't see things dynamically. You know, that bit of mine about viewing events as if they were in a vacuum?
Thus, is it possible that part of what John is overlooking here is the notion of a catalyst within a general trend?
If we start at #107 in that thread, the following is the sum of John's posts up to the yellow card:
You know, the proverbial straw that broke the camel's back, or something like that.
Some people watching this display in motion might be amazed. Others might simply shake their heads sadly and mutter something about John being at it again. But I'm not certain how many people are watching that performance and thinking, "What substance! What flair! What brilliance!"
Myself, I'm puzzled, but that's beside the point.
Most viewing this process would conclude after a while that there is something deliberate about it; indeed, that's my general inclination. But it is entirely possible—or so it seems to me—that John just doesn't get it.
At the beginning of that run, #107, he stuck his nose into Buffalo and PJ's war, which, while fun, isn't particularly wise given the amount of shit that flies when those two are digging in. At #118, he shifts his focus to Joe, obliquely criticizing me. At #128, his focus is squarely on me in response to my inquiry.
What I don't understand is what any of those posts have to do with anything related to the thread. The closest thing to relevance I found in them was a negative assertion that effectively closed off any inquiry as to what he found wrong with the post he was criticizing.
But that's me. And maybe it's other people, but none of us are John.
Thus, is it possible that he doesn't see his posts as problematic in any way?
I would propose he's not seeing the buildup to the breaking point. He's looking at the one post in a vacuum and thinking, "Wait a minute. That's not so bad. And Tiassa didn't even get pissed off. Why is String flagging me?"
Of course, I'm probably wrong about that. But it's a better option than, "He's fucking with us."
The third option, I suppose, is that we're supposed to be so goddamned anal about it that everyone will be posting one of these threads by this time tomorrow. How many more hands you think WE&P will need for that? (Maybe we should just flag everybody; it might be easier to unflag the innocent parties and posts one by one than hand out the yellow cards one at a time.)
Superstring01 said:
Is it possible ....
Now, just work with me here for a moment. Do you recall one of our fellows was dismissed once upon a time for suspending someone when it wasn't warranted? I've always joked—and even said publicly—that he was dismissed for suspending a member and citing the wrong post. Now, I'll go so far as to speculate that the boss probably doesn't appreciate that take on it, but it seemed to me that what happened there was that the moderator suspended the member and cited the end of a string of offenses. If he had picked another of several posts during that particular run by the member, he would have been in the clear.
Maybe.
Because, as I saw it, the member deserved a suspension, although there were certainly more apt and extreme examples to cite.
Anyway, my larger point is that sometimes people don't see things dynamically. You know, that bit of mine about viewing events as if they were in a vacuum?
Thus, is it possible that part of what John is overlooking here is the notion of a catalyst within a general trend?
If we start at #107 in that thread, the following is the sum of John's posts up to the yellow card:
John99 said:
You know, the proverbial straw that broke the camel's back, or something like that.
Some people watching this display in motion might be amazed. Others might simply shake their heads sadly and mutter something about John being at it again. But I'm not certain how many people are watching that performance and thinking, "What substance! What flair! What brilliance!"
Myself, I'm puzzled, but that's beside the point.
Most viewing this process would conclude after a while that there is something deliberate about it; indeed, that's my general inclination. But it is entirely possible—or so it seems to me—that John just doesn't get it.
At the beginning of that run, #107, he stuck his nose into Buffalo and PJ's war, which, while fun, isn't particularly wise given the amount of shit that flies when those two are digging in. At #118, he shifts his focus to Joe, obliquely criticizing me. At #128, his focus is squarely on me in response to my inquiry.
What I don't understand is what any of those posts have to do with anything related to the thread. The closest thing to relevance I found in them was a negative assertion that effectively closed off any inquiry as to what he found wrong with the post he was criticizing.
But that's me. And maybe it's other people, but none of us are John.
Thus, is it possible that he doesn't see his posts as problematic in any way?
I would propose he's not seeing the buildup to the breaking point. He's looking at the one post in a vacuum and thinking, "Wait a minute. That's not so bad. And Tiassa didn't even get pissed off. Why is String flagging me?"
Of course, I'm probably wrong about that. But it's a better option than, "He's fucking with us."
The third option, I suppose, is that we're supposed to be so goddamned anal about it that everyone will be posting one of these threads by this time tomorrow. How many more hands you think WE&P will need for that? (Maybe we should just flag everybody; it might be easier to unflag the innocent parties and posts one by one than hand out the yellow cards one at a time.)
superstring01
Moderator
This would be valid if, IF, we were co-ordinating our efforts behind the scenes and IF somebody OTHER than John started the thread. As such, John obviously started the thread knowing what could happen and was obviously hoping more support would come his way.
There's saying: "Look before you leap."
Kira, that is precisely what I said in my first post. This is why I asked you to go back and read from the beginning:
No need to get all emotional? You people don't have enough fight in high school?
We're debating a point that we see as valid. I've been doing that from point one.
Sick. Getting better! Thanks, but you can criticize. I'm a big boy!
That, Kira, would have alleviated every issue in this thread and kept people from "ganging up" on him. Don't go to a public basketball court and ask people to let you win, or take it easy on you. Go, be prepared; or don't go at all.
~String
Bells
Staff member
Ermm that is exactly what happened. He was told why and what not. It was in the second post. How it could not have been clearer is beyond me.
I believe the only person who is emotional right now is John. The rest are just amused. I know I am.
superstring01
Moderator
I want to let you know that I just tried to issue you a mod warning for using too much formatting and investing too much time in the quality of your post. The system wouldn't let me. I swear you would have laughed your ass off if I could have pulled it off.
Damnit!
~String
John, were you bored...?
Mods, can we lock this thread, please..? No matter who is right or wrong, the way I see it I feel like watching 10 hungry tigers fighting over 1 lost deer. Very unpleasant :bugeye:
I am off now, I have to go to lab very early tomorrow. String, I wish you get well soon! FIGHT the flu!
Mods, can we lock this thread, please..? No matter who is right or wrong, the way I see it I feel like watching 10 hungry tigers fighting over 1 lost deer. Very unpleasant :bugeye:
I am off now, I have to go to lab very early tomorrow. String, I wish you get well soon! FIGHT the flu!
superstring01
Moderator
Well, I think John has come to some understanding anyway.
To your request, the thread can only be closed by Stryder, James or Plazma. We'll have to wait on them to arrive.
~String
superstring01
Moderator
Draq, leave the thread now, or you'll be leaving the forum for the next 24 hours. This doesn't involve you and YOU coming in here to troll and flame will only result in your loss of posting privileges until tomorrow.
~String
superstring01
Moderator
In draq's world, all things come back to him. Even this imaginary "war", which somehow involves John, who--AFAIK--has no relationship with draq.
~String
You are right kira, I was wrong. reply removed.
Superstring, sorry for being an ass to you.
superstring01
Moderator
When harassment is humor, or maybe not
You know, I think we should change the warning system, anyway, and replace the yellow cards with a diverse selection of emoticons. Like a hand flipping people off. And a "wanker" emoticon. And maybe a few others, like :bj:, and a pile of excrement. That way, instead of getting a penalty flag, they get a critical assessment.
Regardless, I'd love to see a :trollhump: emoticon. You know, ventral-dorsal, and maybe the troll's nose should stretch long with every thrust.
(You could have just done a mod hat, although maybe publicly wouldn't have been the best place for chewing my ... I mean, chewing me a new ... er ... y'know, never mind.)
Superstring01 said:
You know, I think we should change the warning system, anyway, and replace the yellow cards with a diverse selection of emoticons. Like a hand flipping people off. And a "wanker" emoticon. And maybe a few others, like :bj:, and a pile of excrement. That way, instead of getting a penalty flag, they get a critical assessment.
Regardless, I'd love to see a :trollhump: emoticon. You know, ventral-dorsal, and maybe the troll's nose should stretch long with every thrust.
(You could have just done a mod hat, although maybe publicly wouldn't have been the best place for chewing my ... I mean, chewing me a new ... er ... y'know, never mind.)
superstring01
Moderator
We can start with this one:
~String
~String
Yeah I mean for christ sake Tiassa cites using the MLA format. The same one you would use say if you were writing a doctoral thesis.
:wtf:
Why are you people ganging up on John...?.........?........?
John vs [Superstring + BenTheMan + One_raven + Enmos + Gustav]..=
cause he is acting like a twat.
superstring01
Moderator
A always get this feeling that Tiassa is storing his posts and will bundle them into a doctoral thesis one day.
~String