1) The thread was perfectly fine; there was no bias in the topic, poll, or poll answers. You say that the thread was perfectly fine, and that there was no bias in the topic, or poll answers. Let me start by saying, that any time a person expresses an opinion, it is bias, because it is their opinion, and opinions are just that bias, especially when you are involved in the situation. The only way to create a completely unbiased thread with poll topics pertaining to staff, would be to have a completely outside source, not known by either parties, and having no affiliation with the site what so ever, create it. That being said, I will more then happily point out the obvious and perhaps the not so obvious, bias remarks in the intial poll questions/thread. The poll questions themselves where biased, because the hold discontent from you, towards the staff. Even in the answers, if someone had said yes the staff execute justice in terms of what is due, with the way you worded it, it would still be left saying that not all the staff do, because you worded it in such a manner where it says majority, rather then simply just all. You cant honestly tell me, that question one of your poll was created, on that, without thinking specifically of certain staff members, in regards to the options you created on that question. However, I have a feeling you will say that I am wrong, but I will stand by my opinion (call it bias if you will), that I am correct in that line of thinking. Now if you wished for it to be unbias, it would have been just a simple word change, dropping the majority out of that particular answer, and allowing it to encompass all staff, much like you did in the option to vote no. See the biased yet? Lets move on to question number two of your poll questions. Again, when voting no that the staff are no corrupt, you slip in the, for the most part. Again with the wording, to where even if a person votes that the staff are not corrupt, you leave it open to where it is still to some extent, saying that there are corrupt staff. Thus once again, making it impossible for it to be unbiased. If you wanted them to have the option to say all of the staff, or some of the staff, etc. You should have created more possible answers in each question, rather then wording it in such a way that no matter what a person votes, it still says that staff is corrupt. Do you see the biased now? Now moving to the last question in that poll. Which mod/admin is the most injust? This isn't so much biased, as an outright attack on the staff. I understand you where looking for opinions on the staff members, but rather then specifically calling out names and saying okay, now who is the worst staff member. There was another means of going about it. You could have asked what things staff do the most, that people feel are injust? Why make it to where you have to single out one particular person of being worse then anyone else? Its like kids in high school singling out the mentally handicapped kid and picking on him. Its the same analogy. And to address the further biased input in that thread, lets discuss the main body of your inital post containing the poll. The links you offered up to use as reference for the basis of their opinions, and for the discussion itself, all involve specific threads in which you where adamantly involved and passionate about. You even went as far as to direct them to certain pages of those threads. Now if you really wanted to be able to provide people with an unbiased view and allow them to form an ubiased opinion, wouldn't it be the proper thing, to not link to items in which you where so adamantly passionate about, but to suggest they instead go to each staff members posts/threads and allow them to review what each individual staff member has posted in various threads through out the forums, rather then pin pointing three specific ones? Also as a side note to the biased opinion you subjected them to. Does the fact that you refferenced three threads where you where so passionately adamantly against the staffs decision, not in some way show that perhaps your poll/thread was created out of anger and distaste for the staff, rather then a genuine curiosity and desire to have a truely open, and unbiased discussion about the current staff. Thus further proving the obvious biased tone to your thread. And of course, to put the icing on the cake of biased tone to this thread, at the very end, you end it with..."You must understand first that the staff has given me every reason in the world to be pissed off. I will support that "pissed off" nature by this thread." Which pretty much just admits you only created the thread because you where pissed off and did not like the decisions that the staff had made. Thus making the entire thread, based completely upon your biased opinion of your distaste for the staff. 2) Calling someone stupid or insulting their intelligence is no attack; its on the same level as you telling me that I got my butt hurt over the internet. Don't take it seriously if you don't want to. Calling someone stupid, or insulting their intelligence, regardless of how you may choose to put it, is an attack. There is no way you can say otherwise. When you INSULT someone, which you clearly just admitted that it is insulting, it is an attack, albeit a minor one, it is still an attack none the less. 3) That being said, I have only attacked a staff member once, and that was not without good reason. I'd like you to show me all of my vicious but sly attacks on the staff please. If you need me to point out your sly attacks, or innuendos as they may be called in some case, I will gladly grab a few and quote them, so here they are. Quoted directly from your thread where the poll in question was created: Another one, taken from a thread where I took the time to read through every post, even the mindless ones, and made the decision that it wasnt something the staff was going to do, and you didnt like the result, and said... Those are just two examples, and quite frankly, after taking the time to go through four pages of your post, it honestly bores me to think about looking through more, but I provided some examples none the less, rather then providing a defenseless argument. [/b] 4) "Then I got involved in the rip case" has nothing to do with this thread. Though, that being said, I had a very good right to do "diddly something." It was I who brought the rip to the attention of CI; it was I who Failen could have gotten the PSD from; it was I who Failen came running up to when the thread was created with his bull explanations (which I posted and explained why he was lieing), and it was I who got him banned in the end. You had no right to post anything in the rippers thread. If you clearly read our rules and I will quote it, just so you are aware of what I am reffering to.... Where you either of those people? I think not, you may have brought the situation to light for CI, but that does not give you the right to be involved in it. And Failen probably came running up to you, because you baited him and taunted him with the fact that something was going to happen to him soon, before the post was made. You kept making comments about it in some of your other posts, which I came across while looking for defense for the previous rebuttal. However again, that does not give you the right to be involved. Technically I should go back and warn/fine all of you who posted in that thread that where not either CI or Failen, however to do so, would just make me spiteful, thus why I havent. I like how you take credit for his ban though, kudos to you on that one. Ive already checked the PMs regarding that incident as staff monitors PMs of such nature to make sure all is kosher so to speak. [/b] 1) It was constructive; I don't understand why it is so hard to comprehend its intent. The discussion topic had a variety of polls. The first two could be answered with a firm, "yes", "no", or a "maybe". Thus, the topic and thread was perfectly constructive, and not an attack. Now, I, like others who voted, had my own opinions. The whole point of the topic was to discuss. I discussed and advocated my opinions. How is that an attack? It seems you are actually attacking ME based on my thoughts. Hence, the thread was not an attack. Instead of getting all pissed off, which you have no reason to do so, just do nothing like you usually do. See my earlier rebuttals, the answers where not a firm yes or no, with the wording chosen by using such words as majority, and for the most part. That is not firm, that is flexible. As for the note on doing nothing, I will be sure to take that advice into mind next time you need something. Do nothing like I usually do eh? Shall we go back and take away all the work I did on installing the skin, getting us upgraded to a newer version of IPB. All the complaints I handle, the name changes I do, etc etc. To say I do nothing, shows complete and total ignorance on your part, and perhaps you might wish to rethink that if you plan to have a proper discussion as that is a statement that is easily negated by looking upon my history here at this site. 2) Yes, I did ask you not to post on the thread. Why? Because the community could defend you if they like, they had equal chance in their opinions. The questions didn't all have one answer, in case you didn't realize. I asked you not to interfere in anyway, as I had solely the purpose to recognize the communities' opinions. Of course you would defend yourselves; if you didn't, that would just be weird lol. But the community has the ability and position to attack, defend, or remain neutral to the staff. Thus, in prospect of a fair discussion, the staff could not be allowed to post. Some of you were nice enough to PM me, others were not. Staff is also part of this community. Where would the harm have been in us posting our opinions? Believe it or not, staff has on occasion discussed its own flaws in an open discussion, you would be suprised what we would have discussed with you had you not attempted to tell us what to do right off the bat, and then threaten with a neg rep, which by the way, would have been a clear violation of the rules, because you cant neg rep someone for deciding to post in a thread that you made on a PUBLIC forum, stating their opinion/defense as the case may be. 3) I've already explained this, but you're telling me that I can't demand you to do things? I had asked you not to reply; I can't force you to do anything. But if you did, I said I would rightfully give you a neg rep, as you would have been disrespectful and rude in not allowing a fair discussion to occur. As mentioned above, it is far from rightfully. Just because you did not wish to have them post in your thread, does not give you the right to neg rep them if they chose to do so. It is a public thread, and as long as they are not breaking the forum rules, in which case they wouldnt have been, you would have had no right in which to give a neg rep. Staff and members are free to post in any thread they so choose to do so, as long as it is within forum rules and on the topic at hand. Thus making any neg reps you would have given, unjust. Not to mention the fact that you openly encouraged others to give neg reps for the same thing, which if im not mistaking, is also against our forum rules. 4) There's no need to use that sort of language. I did nothing wrong, and you just do nothing but say no to all of my suggestions. No good reason, no allowance of warrant, or anything else. If anything, I should be flaming you. You should flame me because the staff decides they don't like your suggestions? If you take a close look, we dont reject all suggestions from everyone. We just happened to one of which you initially thought of, and another, which wasnt even initally thought of by you. It happens. It was nothing personal, just the staff deciding that your suggestion wasnt going to work for this site. Are you going to get upset every time an employeer doesnt like your suggestions? I would most certainly hope not. As for the language, it was the flame forum, I felt like it, so I used it. As you can see, I can just as easily reply without that type of language. [/b][/quote] I think that about sums up what I felt like replying to. You got lucky, I am procrastinating on writing my proposal for work, so chose to reply instead.
Seriously go cry elsewhere because someone made a "personal attack" towards you on some forum. Because frankly no one, including me, actually cares. Remember I said I didn't gave a **** and you should try it once too? I meant it, really did. Because getting as butt hurt as you get by every single post that has been made against you, makes you look sad. Just plain sad. I don't need to go to my "little staff forum" because if I think you deserve a suspension I just give you one. But I don't. I'm that nice.
I will respond to Logically in a while But its nice to see that its come down to title and power as to "win the war" as you called it. If that's what you have to "win" ... well I guess its self-explanatory.
Winning would be banning you like I should have a while ago. I am simply letting you squirm here in the flame forum until I go to sleep tonight.
This thread is fail. If people want to bitch about the forum, they should at least make a comprehensive list of steps they would like to see taken. That way mods could at least say that it was a noteworthy submission. But until then, there's always the banhammer.Or the suspend stick.
