Offtopic Anvil Discussion

[Guest Mr. X]

OK, so I realize this is pretty much a trolling post, but hey, that's why CamDawg created the thread in the first place, right?

Not really, no.

I apologize. I should have said it was one of the (implied but not stated) reasons.

 

How pathetic. Instead of coming here and taking his e-beating like a man, "Brave Sir Robin" ... tucked tail and ran back to BWL so he could start barking from a safe distance. Whats even worse, like you said, he closes the topic before anyone gets a chance to reply just so he could get the last word.

 

Well, to be fair, Baronious was responding to a post by berlinde in the BWL forums. So he didn't exactly "tuck tail and run back to BWL".

 

Believe it or not, my point here wasn't to insult Baronious; he's made a number of good (along with not-so-good) comments in this whole, um, "discussion". Instead, the whole intent of my post was meant to be a very tongue-in-cheek comment on the ironies that:

1. An apparent lie (or at least misconception) was posted by a BWL admin in a BWL thread about "disgusting lies", and

2. That same BWL admin re-opened a thread with the partial objective of posting said lie/misconception, and then re-closed the thread. Which does lend some credibility to the allegations made against the BWL forums vis-a-vis closing/deleting threads.

 

One of my (many) problems is that I tend to poke fun when I think things are being taken more seriously than they really should be. Unfortunately, this often just ends up making thigs worse. (You'd think I would know better at my age.) And this confession would probably make more sense if folks knew who I really was. And on that note...

 

After reading some of the more recent posts in this thread, it occurs to me that I have never come clean about my “true identity†(or more accurately, my true fake identity). So without further adu, for those of you familiar with SP, you might know me better as…

.

.

.

Splunge

.

.

.

*crickets*

 

Well, wasn’t that anti-climatic.

[CamDawg]

One of my (many) problems is that I tend to poke fun when I think things are being taken more seriously than they really should be.

Nonsense. Nobody* cares about these topics, really, and it really does make us all look like squabbling fourth graders (and lest anyone think otherwise, I am definitely including me). We should all be reminded of this repeatedly and often. If mockery speeds the process, then let there be mockery.

 

* Nobody meaning the players, who want us all to STFU and GBTM.

[Caedwyr]

4th graders=9-10 years old. Are you sure that's an appropriate age range?

[cmorgan]

I teach 'em. Yup.

[Garza]

Maybe it's just me, but I don't get from this that Spambot is claiming to be the bigg

Damn my english! It's miserable, i know I should go to courses

Baronius, sorry for disappointing you, but i am definitely not The Bigg

[Baronius]

I've been informed that this "discussion" has become active again. Unbelievable.

 

This has been there all the time:

Nonetheless, even this can't be proved (that it was TheBigg), but it's indifferent.

The point of that post is tried to be misrepresented, again. The point is, berelinde stated that some of the users who "indulged in any of the swearing" were from BWL: "Some of them were even from here!" Without offering any proof. No matter if it was thebigg or not. Berelinde states something, especially in such a style, which is a pure assumption. Show me one any *swearing* post which author seems to be from BWL.

[CamDawg]

Folks, Baronius is correct again. We should focus on what's really offensive in this topic, which is not the condescension, arrogance, belittlement, rabble-rousing, ad hominem, dismissals, straw men, or misdirection, but the curse words.

[berelinde]

I've been informed that this "discussion" has become active again. Unbelievable.

 

This has been there all the time:

Nonetheless, even this can't be proved (that it was TheBigg), but it's indifferent.

The point of that post is tried to be misrepresented, again. The point is, berelinde stated that some of the users who "indulged in any of the swearing" were from BWL: "Some of them were even from here!" Without offering any proof. No matter if it was thebigg or not. Berelinde states something, especially in such a style, which is a pure assumption. Show me one any *swearing* post which author seems to be from BWL.

In this thread, swearing has been limited to temujin, whom I don't remember seeing anywhere, and Gabrielle, who does what she pleases where she pleases.

 

My comment was posted at IA, and was related to an incident that happend on IA's very own forum. In IA's forum itself, which I will not visit again even to harvest a link, one of the more rabid IA cultists told someone with a valid beef about IA to piss off. I stepped to the defense of that individual, politely stating that the use of profanity was not justified even in defense of one's favorite mod. My post was deleted, although the "piss off" post remained, or perhaps it did until it could be quietly edited at a later time. I was also temporarily banned for my trouble. This happened in March of this year.

 

Make of that what you will.

 

Baronius, please, by all means, feel free to continue to abuse me on BWL. I am sure that your credibility is completely uncompromised, and that your gallantry is as irreproachable as always.

[Baronius]

(Bold added by me)

Acutally, SimDingO has a point in the thread above. G3 modders have generally stayed out of the discussion once the original poster's questions were answered, and have certainly not indulged in any of the swearing. Those were folks from elsewhere. Some of them were even from here! Anyway, CD closed the sandbox until the kids can play nice.

 

In this thread, swearing has been limited to temujin, whom I don't remember seeing anywhere, and Gabrielle, who does what she pleases where she pleases.

"CD closed the sandbox" clearly reflects that you were talking about this thread (i.e. before it was splitted, "What is the general opinion of IA"). And "some of them were even from here!" -- you write this in the same BWL post. Then now, you write that only temujin and Gabrielle are those who were swearing.

 

My comment was posted at IA, and was related to an incident that happend on IA's very own forum. In IA's forum itself, which I will not visit again even to harvest a link, one of the more rabid IA cultists told someone with a valid beef about IA to piss off. I stepped to the defense of that individual, politely stating that the use of profanity was not justified even in defense of one's favorite mod. My post was deleted, although the "piss off" post remained, or perhaps it did until it could be quietly edited at a later time. I was also temporarily banned for my trouble. This happened in March of this year.

Oh, I remember now. Your account was blocked because you refused to stop, you opened new topics after your post had been deleted, and complained that there is no freedom of speech, everything is deleted which is disliked by adminstrators etc. You knew it very well that all that violates the Terms of Use, and I drawn your attention to it in a PM too. The account was blocked for a few hours. As for why your post was deleted, it had its reasons. It wasn't fully on-topic, and you had been asked several times beforehand to follow the ToU. Yet you kept raising issues about administration and moderation policies publicly, which isn't allowed at BWL.

 

As for the user's post you had problems with, he was contacted in PM (in the same way as you), and kindly asked to follow the ToU and not repeat the same again. It's not our problem that many users just don't want to accept the Terms of Use. Feel free to discuss it in 5 PPG and 3 G3 threads how antidemocratic, authoritative and malevolent the BWL ToU is. Just keep it when you're at BWL.

[berelinde]

I am ignoring you. If you have not yet deleted my BWL account, as requested, please consider this another request.

[dizzyorange]

Yet you kept raising issues about administration and moderation policies publicly, which isn't allowed at BWL.

 

I have to admit that statement made me laugh a bit. Reminded me of some experiences during my youth in China.

 

But it's your forum and your right to make the rules, no doubt about that.

[Guest Mr. X (a.k.a. Splunge)]

@ Baronious:

 

I've been informed that this "discussion" has become active again. Unbelievable.

Don’t you think that’s being a bit dishonest? You stirred the pot again with your post in IA. I “reactivated†this discussion by pointing out what I thought were a couple of rather comical ironies relating to part of that post.

 

With respect to your “unbelievable†comment, here is another irony:

 

What you said in the “Disgusting Lies†thread:

It can't be proved, and the author of the disgusting provoking against Gabrielle (if I remember correctly -- I don't care to check that thread, of course) was apparently TheBigg under a different name (a Spambot post contained "special for theBigg" at the end). Nonetheless, even this can't be proved (that it was TheBigg)

You said it can’t be proven and presented it as a possibility rather than fact.

 

What the bigg said to start this whole “lies†controversy:

whereas this can't be proven unless I had access to the BWL database (to cross-check IPs), I strongly suspect that the fanbase is at least partially astroturfed.

He said it can’t be proven and presented it as a possibility rather than fact.

 

Seems like exactly the same thing to me. Why is it OK for Sikret to bring the bigg’s comment to everyone’s attention, but it’s not OK to do the same with yours? And then, unlike at PPG, you lock the thread down, thus preventing an opportunity for others to point out your error. (Actually, I see you’ve posted and re-locked twice now, which along with Sikret, makes three times and counting.)

 

Yet you kept raising issues about administration and moderation policies publicly, which isn't allowed at BWL.

 

Lol.

I’m not sure if you're agreeing with the policy or not, but used properly, that rule can actually be a pretty effective way to keeps things from degenerating into a “I don’t like your rules†shouting (err, typing in caps) match. It works pretty well at SP, anyway.

[Baronius]

dizzyorange: well, if someone thinks this and that sucks in it, he or she can just tell it to an admin in PM/email. NO, it won't have any negative consequences. (In fact, the ToU encourages it.) Just imagine that 20 people have 20 different opinions. What would become of a thread if everyone could tell it publicly? It would end in flaming, and would tempt more and more "temujins" too. And no people would be modding, because it would distract their attention, while making no improvement in the ToU.

 

Well, while many people refuse BWL policies, more and more individuals tend to understand it. So it's not a hopeless case to make people understand: this is "different" and "minority", but not necessarily "wrong". Dizzyorange, I advise you to get familiar with BWL on your own, not based on what you hear in threads such as this. If I had problems with a site, I couldn't give unbiased opinion even if I wanted to! So if you want, just come. What about a visit for a temporary time? If you have a mod to develop, or just need ftp space for it; say, 1 GB. Or if you don't mod, then, well, you can bring some life to our Gaming forums by making up some new topics. If it's more active, you could be a Moderator of it too.

 

P.S. (just noticed your edit): Many of the BWL members were born in countries that belonged to USSR. We know what you're talking about. None of us were servants of the system, in fact completely refused all of it. We believe in freedom of speech, but not ultimate freedom of speech. "Say something if you won't hurt someone with it". However, wondering why BWL doesn't work as a democracy, where rules are made based on the votes of its members? Many reasons. One example: a democracy has citizens. Citizens have both rights and obligations, and they can be identified, i.e. they aren't anonymous. On the other hand, a virtual community grants only rights to visitors, and *everyone* (you, myself, everyone) is anonymous. Nothing proves our identity. So there are democratic guidelines to administrate a virtual community, but not full, classic democracy.

[Baronius]

Splunge: I made no error there. The point about TheBigg or not TheBigg being the person is indifferent; berelinde made a very determined statement without offering any evidence to prove it. As for TheBigg writing those, he made that to imply that there are fake accounts, just to stir the pot. (Together with the other statements, such as Sikret "intentionally gives bad advice".) On the other hand, my assumption about TheBigg was indifferent, it wasn't to cause harm to anyone. The point was about berelinde telling BWL members posting swearing content. And no, she didn't include "it's possible", "I assume", etc. It was a firm statement.

 

Splunge, not sure you know, Sorcerer's Place has never been an argument in G3, PPG or other sites. I remember it being refused several times, though maybe it was SHS/PPG.

 

SP actually has a very restrictive policy, where the rule "Do not question admin decisions publicly" applies too! You will find NO person here at G3 (or PPG) who will agree with that, because they believe in ultimate freedom of speech.

 

I'm surprised you post here at all, Splunge. Most SP members usually avoid these sites.

[jcompton]

Sorcerer's Place

SP

Most SP members

 

Seriously, folks, I think we need to make Baronius some sort of trophy in recognition of superlative effort to deflect and swerve criticism.

 

I'll chip in a few bucks.