Mike1984

I hope y'all get eaten by Nrvnsqr's poodles. Showin' up when I'm makin' for bed.

Standard poodles, then.

Originally Posted by Trevelyan

Darples, seriously, I could get to like you. Last time I name-checked Bill Hicks, the fucking entire forum I was on went:

"Huh? Who?"

Fucking kids nowadays, man.

FIRE HIM. and no, I dont mean he should lose his job, I mean take him out back and SET HIM ON FIRE

You know what? I feel like being great.

You know how I'm going to try to be great?

Apply to become a Mod.

as I told Lantzblades

just pointing this out that it's Lantz, people should just call me Lantz.

two points on this though, mike is right to complain to some degree, I doubt he's lying about how got the warning so he does have the right to take issue, mind you i likely won't be acknowledged as valid.

Originally Posted by Dark Pulse

The point is you still got angry and insulting to Hymn once he said this. A decision isn't "set in stone" once we act; I know I've overturned a few of my own decisions and revoked the punishment.

Well, yes, perhaps, but nevertheless that doesn't change the fact that you initially handed out a warning.

Also, from that thread, he had already given both of you an informal "knock it off," so in that case, the warning was justified - and you were both warned for persisting after that. He did his job right, in my opinion.

Erm, no, he hadn't. He gave us an informal "knock it off", and we did. I did post an angry comment in that thread later, true, but that was after the warning had been confirmed (and I deleted it anyway).

His exact wording, with some context added by me in brackets: "If you can't come up with anything [to why you called Trev an asshole and implied he's a dick], or have nothing else to say for yourself, I am going to have to assign a warning." Your reply... well, I won't publish that here, but I will say that your reply to that, in and of itself, probably justified the warning.

He made it damn clear that the reasons I gave were never going to be enough, despite other people getting away with much the same.

...The problem is, almost all of the time that you think they come in, you think they're being unfair. I'll again refer you to the PM conversation you had with Hymn over this. You could have taken the more tactful, conciliatory way, and instead the anger got a hold of you, you lashed out, and you made the whole situation way worse than it was.

Well, I agree that I did lash out, but I'm pretty sure I would have gotten a warning anyway. Hymn never once said he was giving me a warning because of what I said in the PM.

We try to be as fair as possible. Is every decision going to be equally fair to everybody? No, but we try not to screw anyone. You both got warned, and Trev took his with grace, but you chose to fight it. As a result, Trev's will end before yours will.

Actually, at that point, Trev had not been warned, and he never was warned for that particular thread. He got warned for other stuff he did, but only after I went through all his posts and pointed out where he'd called me an "asshole".

If you think something is seriously wrong, bring it up tactfully. Telling a mod the things you told Hymn isn't the tactful way - that's the way that tells us "it's going to be a bigger problem, so we need to punish further." Again, I'm not going to publish and air your dirty laundry here, but the reply you gave after the above-quoted line from Hymn contains what I'm looking at, specifically at the end of the second paragraph. ("...since you seem...")

Sure, but that doesn't change the fact that the initial warning was unfair.

Where do you think Hymn continued the argument?

I'm thinking of a different situation (which we resolved between us).

That still doesn't justify it though. Stop means stop. If you make a post and a mod posted in the meantime, delete your post. Or at the very least, edit it and say something like "Edit, sorry, so-and-so posted that while I was typing this, I will stop now."

And, once again, you go for the "screw you, we're always right, just do what I say" approach....

Which we did notice and were glad you had that level of self control.

But unfortunately, if a mod tells you stop, it's not optional - it's mandatory. If you don't stop, you get punished. It's a pretty simple concept. If you'd like to ask why you want us to stop, and can do so calmly, we're perfectly happy to discuss it with you, because really we'd like to make the forums better for all - including you. Blatantly ignoring what we ask of you, and then complaining when you get warned, or worse, aggravating it further, isn't going to do anything but give you additional headaches and trouble, whereas listening is sure to give you less, and usually we only ask for stuff to stop for very good reasons.

Why the hell should I just do what you tell me without you giving an explanation?

You can argue Hymn's conduct in the warning, for example, though based upon the fact he had said once to cool it, and both you and Trev continued, I feel his punishment was acceptable.

But we didn't....

[quote]All the arguing and yelling you did then served to do nothing but extend your own punishment, as opposed to Trev, who took his warning with grace, cooled his jets, and is going to be back to zero sooner than you will.[/quore]

Perhaps, but that doesn't mean you're being in any way fair.

I know this probably isn't the sorts of things you like to hear, but yes, it is better to work with the mods than against them.

Yes, but not when they're being totally unreasonable.

After all, it's not like Hymn's request was ridiculous or made no sense, and you two did both ignore it before he said "It's warning time."

Again, no, we did not. Go look at the thread....

The only people who've gotten tempbans since we instituted the new rule system are you once for your 3-day outburst over the April Fool's stuff (and a few other people got warnings over that), Frantic Author for passive-aggressive stuff (which as far as I can tell he's since backed off on), and Kyte got a couple of one-days. Everyone else seems to be able to take a warning at face value and change their behavior, so this argument doesn't hold much weight. We've never had to perm anyone, and the only one-week we gave is for a guy who admitted sockpuppeting/trolling.

That doesn't change the fact that the warnings can still add up to a ban if you keep handing them out for nothing much.

Is it ideal? Probably not, but an ideal system doesn't exist because it's impossible. I can't please everyone, and I will never try to (for the same reason - it's impossible), but I will try to please as many people as I can. People who can't jive with the rule system tend to be the exception, not the rule, and I've seen several people say that our rules are some of the most laid-back rules they've seen in years of foruming.

Ah, yes, what a surprise, your usual approach of "screw Mike, the majority is happy"....

The argument isn't the problem - it's usually the aggressiveness. If the argument can continue without it getting personal, that's perfectly fine. That's why I said "reformulate the argument" earlier. If you're resorting to name-calling, that's what we want to stop, not the argument per se. If you can stop the name-calling, we let the argument continue, because then it's resumed being civil.

Sure, but it's not always easy to tell what is "acceptable". If the mods point out that I'm getting angry and calling names, I will probably stop, but I don't always know where the boundaries lie, since mine are rather different from yours.

Well, now you know why: Because we don't want personal attacks. If you can't do an argument without calling someone something or insulting them, don't argue. If you won't stop when we ask you to, we will do what it takes to stop it.

That's not always true, though. And, you give me warnings before even giving me the chance to stop.

It really should be a no brainer. This isn't a "how high?" sort of situation; there's no mysterious criteria to the warnings. If we're asking people to stop, most of the time it's either for flaming or for passive-aggressiveness. You tend to be very poorly in control of your anger, so when it gets a hold of you, the assholes and accusations of bullshit start, and that's when it crosses the line, sir.

And, again, try actually explaining things rather than just stating what you want to happen and expecting people to blindly obey you.

Sure you can - but do it in a more controlled manner. There's a difference of "Why do you want to warn me?" versus "That's just bollocks, you have no right to warn me."

Well, of course, but that's not what you're saying. You're saying that, if the mods tell me to stop, then I should immediately stop, even to the point of deleting posts I've made (and, I hate doing that, so I won't).

If we can't see the hostility or it doesn't go through the forums, that's all that matters. If people want to go to an IRC channel and spout off all sorts of bullshit, they're free to, but if it uses this site, it's under our jurisdiction. We're not going to tell people "Like this person who you really can't stand!" but we ARE going to expect them to be at least outwardly civil to the person, or to simply ignore them; if they don't, we will deal with the situation as appropriate.

But they're not "civil", the hatred just simmers under the surface instead.

You don't need to know what the mods' business is; you're also hardly the only person they deal with. We have whole topics devoted to other people.

Yeah and, again, they have not proven themselves at all trustworthy.

Believe me, if they just wanted you gone, they would be way more out for blood. And they probably wouldn't be mods anymore, because I'm not going to tolerate any of them who are out solely to get you banned. We rejected a number of candidates for that very reason.

Not sure why you accepted some of the ones who got in, then....

And therein is the problem: We're not going to adjust any rules just because "they do not work on you." We make the rules apply to everyone, so we expect you to abide by them while you use these forums. If you don't, you are punished according to them. You may not like it, but that is the only way to be fair to everyone - after all, should we not warn people and just tempban them instead? That's too extreme.

Except that you just admitted that you have done exactly that, by handing me warnings where others would just get an informal talking-to.

If we ask you to stop, it's for a reason, usually because things are getting too personal and inflammatory. It's not because we don't like what you say, or we want to silence you, or whatever - it's because you're beginning to call people names, in your particular case. When you begin saying "You're an idiot" that's the line being crossed, Mike. If you can't disagree without resorting to personifying the argument, then it's probably best that you rethink it until you can.

The problem is that you have an absurdly low tolerance for people actually being people.

That is the issue we have. Not with people thinking for themselves - but people thinking they can call people names and that we're supposed to just turn a blind eye "because that's how I am." It either has to be acceptable from everyone or acceptable from no one - so we are going to punish you if we see you doing it.

Except that you're not punishing the others, as the post linked to in this blog proves.

...But again, then we have to allow everyone "one post." That's not how things work. We do realize some people just have poor judgment now and again (which is why the ultimate decision was not to do anything but an informal warning to Tech, even though - ironically - Hymn was one of the ones who thought he should be warned over it) but if one has a consistent, repeating pattern of this, and it does not change, then informal warnings will not work.

But informal warnings do work on me. Not necessarily always, true but, then again, it's not like Lyco or Tech stopped after Beam told them to do so....

The point I'm making is that informal warnings work just as well as formal ones, if not better. I generally appreciate you being polite and asking me to stop, rather than ordering me around, and I certainly do not appreciate being given totally unjust warnings on the basis that you don't think an informal warning will stop me.

If an informal warning will not, then a formal warning will not either. The reason I stopped in that thread was because of the informal statement Hymn made, not because of the formal warning you gave me.

As for Hymn, the fact that he wanted a warning for Tech is not surprising, and I do wonder if a large part of this is the fact that Beam is actually a nice person....

Hell, you just admitted above that sometimes even formal private warnings don't work.

The problem here is that you're making false assumptions about me. A more severe warning is not going to calm me down and make me stop any better than a less severe one, because if I'm not in the mood to listen, I'm not going to listen no matter how hard you are hitting me. Indeed, a more severe warning will often make me more inclined to argue back, not less.

What else are we supposed to do, just roll over and go "oh, okay" while you lash out?

No, do what Altima does and actually calm me down or talk to me, rather than slapping me with a warning the first chance you get.

That's what got Altima seriously, seriously stressed to the point he wanted to quit these forums. I'm not going to lose any admins (and I would lose all three of them) over you, I'm sorry.

Well, if that's your reasoning, then you're going about it seriously the wrong way.

You've admitted that your logic behind the warnings was "well, if we give Mike a formal warning, he'll direct his anger at us and not express it in the thread". Equally, you've stated before that any communication in the forum (even PMs) is bound by the forum rules, which means that, if I express my anger to the mods on here, I will get in further trouble. So, my only option is to complain outside the forum. And, guess who the only mod who I have MSN details for is....

Every time you give me a warning like this, Altima has to put up with several hours minimum of angry vitrol spewed at him, together with requests for reviewing the warning (and further anger if he refuses to overturn it) and so on. Now, I accept that that's not really a good way for me to handle it, but you don't give me much of an option because I have no other outlet and, further, you have outright stated that as a tactic.

Furthermore, that would wind up bad for you, because if Altima quits, RB and Elf have said they are leaving with him, which would lead to me being the only admin here besides Evospace, and I doubt you would like it when I am the only person who is seeking new admins because you seem to be convinced I'm out to ruin your day.

I an well aware of that (and I am also well aware that Altima was considering leaving).

I've got bigger problems to worry about, Mike. If I wanted you gone, I'd just ban you and be done with it. It would be much easier on me to do that... but it would also be extremely, extremely wrong. I don't want to be the asshole; ideally I'd like to be liked if I can be. I've helped this place out by not only donating my license, but by paying my own money so that you could make a blog entry like this, I'm considering putting up even more of my money so we can have a wiki... if anything, I'm entitled, almost, to have my ass kissed.

Well, I very much doubt the other admins would allow it....

I believe in earning people's trust and respect. Am I going to earn everyone's trust and respect? No, of course not. People should like you because you're a likeable person, you work hard at what you do, and you're good at it.

Well, I agree entirely with that statement, but it doesn't seem to really gel very well with your attitude throughout the rest of this discussion, which is "do as I say, or else!".

Not everyone can take the pressure of having to run a board, or of having to keep track of all the problems that go on in it. Can you? Sometimes it helps to try to put yourself in the admin's shoes, as we damn well have to try to place ourselves in yours every time a situation comes up where you're involved.

I dunno, honestly. I would be a very lax mod, almost certainly, but I don't know if that would make the board worse. It depends on your viewpoint....

Sometimes we say "Alright, Mike lashed out at this guy because he disagreed" but sometimes we also see "Mike lashed out because this guy baited him into it." The latter isn't totally exonerary, however, because you still lashed out - that's what we're trying to correct.

The problem is that you don't seem to be doing that. You just hit me with a punishment for no obvious reason.

I think you're the only one who's really worried about the mods. The only reason you seem to be more worried about them, though, is because you find it difficult to keep the outbursts back, and we're not going to make exceptions just because it's you; the rules have to apply to everyone.

If you can control the outbursts better, I will guarantee you'll get less warnings.

Again, Tech didn't get punished (though some called for it; the general consensus was not to) because he doesn't always post stuff like that, it was a single, isolated incident, and in the end, he was receptive to us saying "Please don't do that again."

And, again, that is just unfair. Just because I am more prone to those sort of angry outbursts than most, that doesn't mean I should be treated more harshly.

Then we have someone who doesn't get the hint, who kept doing a behavior after we asked him to stop doing that, and who later admitted they were wrong.

Who was that person? That's right, Frantic Author.

I'm sure you thought I was talking about you there, but this just proves a point - we're not out to make an example of you, and we apply the rules to everyone.

Of course you do, but that doesn't mean your actions are automatically fair....

Frantic got Three-Dayed back in early May (after he got a One-Day less than a week earlier) because he would not stop, would not listen, and would not heed to our requests. Since then? He's knocked it off, because he knows we will come down on him for it. And as you can see, he's had no issues with us since.

Well, Frantic was trolling, I am not a troll....

To be dead honest, I don't give a rat's ass about you questioning my authority - after all, if I really didn't want you to do that, I'd have just wiped out this blog in its entirety. At the same time, I feel I'm making what we expect pretty clear, and illustrating that "if you can't follow these simple rules, you're going to get punished by them." I can't control what you do through any other means, so it goes basically as far as you push us to make it go. What you see as "How high should I jump?" we see as you saying "I'm not going to listen because you have no right to tell me what I can and can't do" which is the exact wrong way to take it.

But, yet, you expect me to do what you tell me to do and not argue....

If we really didn't want you here, you'd be gone, Mike. You would've been gone a long, long time ago, from admins who aren't patient at all and would've just said "He's more trouble than he's worth, let's ban him." Some people who read this blog no doubt would love to have you gone... but we're not going to cater to their whims either, because banning people is the last resort and it means we've failed, in a way.

Well, perhaps, but that doesn't make the warnings any more justified.

Would I like to see you gone? Honestly, no. When you're not consumed by the need to press your point, you can bring up some interesting discussion. The problem is that once you lose control, you lose a great deal of it - and so we constantly have to correct you; if words and warnings don't work, then we have to break out the tempbans. None of us like doing that (even if you think we do), but if that's what it ultimately takes to stop someone who is argumentative, won't listen, and won't respect the rights of us or the forum, we have the right to remove them from our forum.

Yeah, I won't argue with the fact that I lose control, but your approach to dealing with it has not helped one bit. You give me a warning instantly without even so much as a "cool down" message (Hymn posted one in the thread, but we stopped after that), and then punished me further for being rightfully upset about it.

After all, you don't pay a cent to be here, whereas Tobias and Koto put up $60 and $40 respectively, I've put up $100 for this very blog upgrade, and I might be dropping another further $70 on the wiki.

I don't really see what money has to do with it (especially since I doubt you'd treat Koto any differently if she were constantly trolling...). The forum belongs to everyone, not just to you.

I don't want to lose ANYONE, but if someone is trouble and I can't get them to listen in any other way, then a forcible parting is the only way to keep the forums good for the rest of the community.

I do not cause that many problems. Occasionally I do explode, true, but not that often, and I have been getting a bit better at controlling it.

I'm sure you and I will completely disagree on this, but again, c'est la vie.

More like "If you follow the rules we've laid out, you won't have any problems with us." But that's how you view it, I suppose.

You certainly seem to be putting a lot of emphasis on doing what you're told....

Unfortunately, that's not the way the world works. There are always going to be people who have some level of authority over you; the only place where you have general free reign is within your domicile (and even then, that's somewhat shaky, but only in very rare exceptions). Unfortunately, we're not going to relax the rules for you just because you're anti-authoritarian - as I've said, the rules apply to everyone who signs up. This includes you. You're free to argue if they're good or not until you're blue in the face, but you're not going to be exempt from them, because nobody else is either.

Well, fuck the way the world works. The current system is broken beyond repair, and the only people who don't accept that are the people in power and the rich assholes who buy their support. I'm not stupid, but I will not bow down to authority unless they bloody well force me to.

If you feel this way, why do you feel we're unfairly singling you out? We crack down on anyone who's aggressive or inflammatory. Ask Frantic or Kyte, who've both also been banned for similar reasons.

Because you admitted it, that's why....

The problem is that you take a request to stop as some form of persecution, or as the authority out to get you. If we're telling you to stop, it means generally you're being insulting or rude. It doesn't matter if you're doing it due to someone else or not; rude is rude. It is taken into consideration who is the aggressor (and often they get a stiffer punishment) but the simple fact is that just because someone is rude to you, it doesn't mean you can be rude right back to them and expect to get off scot-free. That's not the way reality works. If a guy clips your car, does that give you the right to go key his?

No, that's not always true. I take an order to stop as "persecution". If the mod is reasonable about it and actually explains themselves, or if it's obvious that the argument is going nowhere, I will stop. However, if I've spent the last 30 minutes writing a post, I'm not going to stop doing so just because a mod said I should....

There are multiple ways one can settle a disagreement. There's the civil argument, where both members remain calm and discuss their different views, trying to be persuasive with what they feel justifies it. There is a request for mod intercession, in which one party goes to a mod and says "We can't resolve this, can you help?" Then there's involuntary mod intercession, where someone's beginning to call names and be hostile, and that's when we have to step in and tell both people to stop, because if the argument continued, it would get worse.

With you, unfortunately, things tend to be in the third case on quite a few issues, especially Sakura. We don't mind you discussing your views or stating why you disagree with someone, but when you begin going "You're an idiot" or "That's just complete bullshit" that's crossing the line, sir. Why resort to those, when "I disagree, here's why..." works just as well, isn't insulting, isn't confrontational, and lets you say your view?

See, this is the problem. You're telling me that, not only can't I use even minor insults, but I can't even state that their argument is bullshit when it actually is....

OK, it's not a great way of arguing, but I don't think it's fair of you to tell me that I can't use swear words in an argument, particularly when it's only one line with a long explanation of why it's bullshit following....

This is what we're trying to correct. We're not "out to get you," we're trying to stop you from wording things in such an aggressive, inflammatory manner. If that means we have to take the heat when we try to shape that behavior, well, fine, that's part of the poison. In my view, either we'll eventually get you to discuss the argument more civilly, or we'll fail, but ultimately my goal isn't to fail by having to ban you, because to me, that would be personal failure.

The thing is, to some extent, that's how I speak. Sure, I should tone it down, but I think you're expecting me to become a totally different person.

Further, it's easy for you to say "we'll take the heat" when the person doing so is usually Altima (even more so now angry PMs are not allowed either).

Success would be getting you to the point where you can argue these things without being derogatory and insulting, which would get more people to listen to what you say, which would mean you'd possibly sway more people to your viewpoint, and ultimately will make these forums much friendlier and nicer to you. While I doubt you'll ever fully rid yourself of the stigma (and even if you changed, no doubt some people would be trying to get the "old Mike" back), the only person who can correct how you're perceived - as I told Lantzblades earlier when he asked me - is you, yourself, and only you.

Well, yes, this is probably true to some extent. I do explode too much, although the way I get treated (and the way Sakura gets treated) does not exactly help matters in that respect.

So if that means having to take your heat until you slowly change your posting style, so be it. I'll suffer it as long as necessary, because I'm convinced you can be changed with time. It might be a damn long time, I don't know, but I won't know until I try.

Fair enough, but your approach to it is not really a good one. Handing out warnings for things you wouldn't warn others for and then getting Altima to absorb all the anger does not help.

I might succeed, I might fail, but I'll do what I feel is the best thing to do for you - even if you absolutely disagree with it - because I feel the end will justify the means if it succeeds... and if it fails, well, at least I tried, rather than taking the much quicker, simpler, easier, and less stressful route of clicking "Ban User."

Well, fair enough, you do at least seem to be trying, even if your approach is a bit silly....

Continuing the argument is fine. Continuing the name-calling is not. That is all we want. If you can continue the argument without making it personal, by all means, argue away, but if you can't, then that's when the warnings start, whether informal or formal.

As I said, Hymn asked both you and Trev to drop the argument. Neither of you stopped; both got warned, because we could tell you were about to make it go ugly (in your case) and because Trev was feeding you and "fanning the flames" as it were. Ergo, two warnings, have a nice day and don't forget to tip your waitress.

Again, no he didn't. The first time Hymn posted in that thread, the argument stopped. Then, I got a PM from Hymn immediately telling me I was going to get a warning.

And, nor did Trev get warned for that particular argument, for that matter. Hymn specifically said he had just had a talking-to. He was warned for flaming me in a different thread several days earlier (and consistently trolling me for a week or so prior to that).

Then in the end, I'll probably succeed, since my goal isn't even "ditch your anti-authoritarian attitude" but rather "just don't be so damn angry when someone disagrees." If you can do that, you'll automatically have less problems for us, because when we warn you, it's usually because you've blown your cool.

Well, yes, true. And, not exploding is definitely good for me in general....

However, you seem to be trying to do it by forcing me to obey anything you tell me, which is not a good way to do so. It works far better if you talk to me and treat me like an equal, rather than ordering me around and punishing me.

Also, regarding informal warnings: They're not part of the system. You'll note it doesn't begin with "informal warning" - it begins with "private warning." We do informal warnings as a manner of course for generally light stuff, or when we're trying to nip stuff in the bud before it gets worse. It isn't listed because, well, it's not a punishment per se, it's a mod just saying "knock it off."

Furthermore, we've always held that the system doesn't necessarily start at the bottom and can jump levels if the infraction is judged to be serious enough.

Of course. I don't disagree with either of these statements.

However, that doesn't change the fact that I got warned for something which other people wouldn't have.

And as I stated above, both Mike and Trev were told once to knock it off before Hymn handed out the official warnings. They're not blameless here either.

But we weren't, though. Go look at the thread....



Since this has come up quite a lot, I'd like to point out that Hymn had not given me (or Trev) any informal warning to stop before issuing me with the formal one, and nor was Trev warned for his actions in that thread (his warning was for something he had done a few days earlier and which the mods had not seen).

The post where Hymn warns us is here: http://forums.nrvnqsr.com/showthread...l=1#post773983

Note that, after that, Trev does not post at all, and my posts are all entirely on-topic. Further, I got the warning before I made any of them. (I did make one post in there complaining about Hymn's moderation, but that was after he had already handed me a warning, and I ended up deleting it and moving it to the blog instead...).

OMG DOUBLE POST

Well, my comment was too long to fit in one post, so I had to split it in two....

As a troll, I feel that I should be moderated more heavily than others because I am secretly afraid of Beam most definitely deserve it.

Look, I realize I haven't been here often, but I feel like saying it -- if someone is calm after getting a warning -- even if they disagree, as long as they're polite while disagreeing, it makes moderating far easier on both parties, and less likely to end like this. So how about we all just admit we could have done things better and move on?

Is this the kind of thread in which i can post something like "Posting in a thread"?

Edit: oh waow RR121 I have your avy as a poster on my wall...

Originally Posted by Erlkonig

OMG DOUBLE POST

SHUUUUUUUUUUUUUUN

Mike1984 is to verbosity what Gilgamesh is to treasure.

Originally Posted by RR121

Look, I realize I haven't been here often, but I feel like saying it -- if someone is calm after getting a warning -- even if they disagree, as long as they're polite while disagreeing, it makes moderating far easier on both parties, and less likely to end like this. So how about we all just admit we could have done things better and move on?

I'm not sure what you mean here.

The issue right now is not the previous warning (which I'm pretty sure will not be revoked no matter what I do or say), it's how such things will be handled in the future. The previous warning is just an example....

Originally Posted by Crying_Vegeta

Mike1984 is to verbosity what Gilgamesh is to treasure.

Well, to be fair, I did have quite a lot to reply to (and I'm not sure if DP can ignore post length limits, possibly even by default)....

Originally Posted by Lianru

SHUUUUUUUUUUUUUUN

I quadrupleposted in an RP once.

My internet was really spotty back then.

Originally Posted by Mike1984

Well, Frantic was trolling, I am not a troll....

Did anybody else immediately think of the black pot and kettle when they saw this?

Anyhow, after reading through all of this crap, I can basically say one thing. Darples, there's no way the Admin/Mod team can "fail" with Mike. When people have absolutely zero intention of listening to you, it's not your fault.

Wow. Seven hours of posting on a topic that a little politeness could have remedied over the course of a minutes. I'm disappointed. I thought the Beast's Lair was better than this.


1:59 of this video really sums up my view of this whole thing. Seriously, people. Chill the fuck out and go outside to enjoy the fresh air. I'm amazed at people's inability to just carry on with their lives and not get bent out of shape over what is - the the course of one's life- relatively minor things.

Originally Posted by Mike1984

I'm not sure what you mean here.

The issue right now is not the previous warning (which I'm pretty sure will not be revoked no matter what I do or say), it's how such things will be handled in the future. The previous warning is just an example....

What I'm saying is it takes two to tango. Yes, the mods should have sent you a warning, irregardless of whether or not they "knew" you would ignore it. The fact that in all probability you would ignore it is irrelevant in my opinion.

With that said, it takes two. You are needlessly combative in situations when honestly, it could get you out of a lot of nonsense. Take this situation. If instead of getting combative, you had politely made your point, and acknowledged your actions, while simultaneously acknowledging that you believed the punishment was somewhat out of proportion, you might have gotten somewhere.

At the end of the day, however, no matter who is "right" in this, there's only one person here with *anything* to lose, so I don't understand why you insist on being combative -- I'm not saying you have to agree with others -- you have a perfect right to disagree, and adamantly so, but its the small things that matter when conveying tone, and acting like you are making a polite but firm point, as opposed to coming off as demanding and whiny.

Of course, I highly doubt my not-so-inspirational speech will change anything here, but I like to pretend that someone cares what I think.

... Shit got interesting while I was asleep (after an 11 hour shift).