Wez vs Eddo - Thread Split

[wez]

When you report a post, a post is made in the admin area and it links right to the offending post: so to the admins- it is all in the open. They can see exactly what the offended party is referring to, and can then make up their own minds.

 

You have never liked situations with you being handled publicly, or at least that is how you came off. You get angry, bitter, and take the "fight" all over the board- thus resolving nothing.

 

I, too, would rather things be held in the open, but it isn't working here.

 

 

Nothing concerning me at the Jungle was ever held in the open.. Manipulators are the only ones that like closed doors..

 

For example... a complaint was made against me.. sure, I was a smartass and the admins can see the post and decide.. but did the complainant include the killer comments from themselves naming me in this post before I ever replied to it in their case file? I highly doubt it..

 

 

Here's where it becomes.. "squeaky wheel gets the grease".. I aint no squeaky wheel and don't plan on becoming one..

[eddo]

Nothing concerning me at the Jungle was ever held in the open.. Manipulators are the only ones that like closed doors..

 

Completely untrue.

 

Off the top of my head I can think of a post I made for you, and how to better get along with people there (because the pm'ing wasn't working. I thought maybe an open shot for people to explain to you the things they were telling me would help you- it didn't.)

 

All that did was upset you, you started chasing people around then, making snide comments whenever they disagreed with you on other topics, and eventually led to your banning. Doing that in the open did nothing to help the situation.

 

 

Heck, Feckless even made the vote to bring you back a public vote. You were most certainly handled publicly, and when that failed to work, it went private. All handling things publicly did was give you more ammo as to who was not happy with you.

[eddo]

but did the complainant include the killer comments from themselves naming me in this post before I ever replied to it in their case file? I highly doubt it..

 

Did you notice that the one who made the original "killer" comment on this thread was doing so as an example of how it was bad to do such a thing?

[wez]

Did you notice that the one who made the original "killer" comment on this thread was doing so as an example of how it was bad to do such a thing?

 

 

Yes, it was quite slick, and naming me with the statement "because he killed his child" was quite appropriate..

 

 

Did I say something to TJ worse than that as "a personal attack"?

[wez]

I know that I personally and I believe that Cloaked and Bender, follow the link to the offending post. I then go through the series of events that led up to the reported post.

 

Like I said if there is signs that flaming or bickering was going on by both persons, that isn't conductive to civil debate or the topic at hand, and one of the parties involved uses reporting another as a tactic to get back at another, it could result in both/all offending members receiving discipline or censure. If it is deemed to be one sided, action will be directed at the member that is determined to be the offending party.

 

 

So the killer quote was appropiate, mine weren't? I don't see where TJ got a demerit.. I hadn't even replied to this thread at that point..

[ImWithStupid]

So the killer quote was appropiate, mine weren't? I don't see where TJ got a demerit.. I hadn't even replied to this thread at that point..

 

I can't respond to this, as I wasn't the one who made the decision, but I would say that, it went back to the staff members assessment of the intent.

[eddo]

So the killer quote was appropiate, mine weren't? I don't see where TJ got a demerit..

 

Why do you have to see it?

 

I had this same convo with an opponent of yours the other day wez- Just because you don't see everything doesn't mean it isn't happening. It may or may not be, but the truth of it isn't dependent on your viewing of it.

[wez]

I can't respond to this, as I wasn't the one who made the decision, but I would say that, it went back to the staff members assessment of the intent.

 

 

 

Hahahahaha.. and the intent of calling wez a killer because he killed his child was? I think you can take a wild guess...

[wez]

Why do you have to see it?

 

I had this same convo with an opponent of yours the other day wez- Just because you don't see everything doesn't mean it isn't happening. It may or may not be, but the truth of it isn't dependent on your viewing of it.

 

I have to see it because it's on my profile on the side.. that's why. Can't you see it?

 

Now TJ calling me a killer is justified and validated for him while he's immune to my shots.. cool. What's new?

[eddo]

I have to see it because it's on my profile on the side.. that's why. Can't you see it?

 

See what? I don't see anything out of the ordinary.

[eddo]

Join Date: Sep 2007

Location: Wherever I'm not banned from

Posts: 1,249

Infractions: 1/0 (0)

Rep Power: 2

 

Nope, I cannot see that on your info. Not the infraction part anyway.

 

 

edit: whoa, we got split... lol

[wez]

Nope, I cannot see that on your info. Not the infraction part anyway.

 

 

edit: whoa, we got split... lol

 

 

Hahahahahaha

[DaMan]

Carry on gents.

[wez]

Carry on gents.

 

Do I present a valid point, chief?

 

 

Do I present a valid point eddo? Anyone? Too good a point perhaps?

 

 

I know the last thing you guys would ever want is me whining to you.. trust me.

 

Right, eddo?

 

 

Permission to call eddo a dumbass, sir? Hahahahahahahaha

[eddo]

Do I present a valid point, chief?

 

 

Do I present a valid point eddo? Anyone? Too good a point perhaps?

 

I dunno. I do think "intent" is a very hard thing to prove online, and that is going to be a hard concept for many of us to get behind. Like when you called TJ a liberal. I know your style, so I knew right away that it was a slam. Others, that don't know you as well, thought it was just a typo.

 

I don't think TJ meant it as an attack when he referred to you being called a "killer," but it did make his point that even in context, it shouldn't be allowed.

 

 

Did you catch that I can't see your infraction level? So maybe then you can't see other's infraction levels?

[wez]

I dunno. I do think "intent" is a very hard thing to prove online, and that is going to be a hard concept for many of us to get behind.

 

I don't think TJ meant it as a slam when he referred to you being called a "killer," but it did make his point that even in context, it shouldn't be allowed.

 

 

Did you catch that I can't see your infraction level? So maybe then you can't see other's infraction levels?

 

Sure seems easy to prove when it's me... and you're objective.. not biased in any way.. even though you have a yearly pass on the TJ express.. Hahahahahaha

 

 

Yeah, I caught that eddo... no prob. My goal is to be in the idiot box within the week..

 

 

By merely telling the truth.. quite annoyingly mind you..

[eddo]

My goal is to be in the idiot box within the week..

 

 

By merely telling the truth.. quite annoyingly mind you..

 

That is quite the goal...

[wez]

That is quite the goal...

 

 

I'm not quite as cool as you..

 

What about that point? Poor answer... not accepted.

[ImWithStupid]

SYeah, I caught that eddo... no prob. My goal is to be in the idiot box within the week..

 

I truly hope you said this in jest.

[Feckless Wench]

Oh God, not again..... sigh

[wez]

I truly hope you said this in jest.

 

 

I let my instincts guide me..

 

 

Do I make a valid point IWS?

[wez]

Oh God, not again..... sigh

 

 

I've learned a few things since the last time fecky

[Feckless Wench]

I've learned a few things since the last time fecky

 

I hope so wez.....

[wez]

Do I make a valid point or not? That's all I have to say....

[snafu]

Oh God, not again..... sigh

 

My sentiments exactly!