See you, space cowboy

[Gambet]

Originally Posted by HoudiniMan

Leave it to Gambet and Lance to poison your goodbye thread.

They're your reasons and their priorities and opinions mean nothing.

Best of luck my friend.

Leave it to Lance and myself to poison his goodbye thread? For crying out loud the man is weeping and complaining over horrible reasons. All of my points are valid, and just because I'm not kissing up to him, then I guess that makes me the bad guy? Sorry pal, but I don't think so.

[GoZelda]

Originally Posted by Gambet

For crying out loud the man is weeping and complaining over horrible reasons. All of my points are valid, and just because I'm not kissing up to him, then I guess that makes me the bad guy? Sorry pal, but I don't think so.

Those reasons probably are very valid to him. But hey, I bet you would rather have Graal over a girlfriend right?

[Gambet]

Originally Posted by GoZelda

Those reasons probably are very valid to him. But hey, I bet you would rather have Graal over a girlfriend right?

I believe his girlfriend is the only valid reason he had. Other then college, of course. But all of his complaining and reasoning about Graal, well, they were not very good reasons.

[Nappa]

Originally Posted by GoZelda

Those reasons probably are very valid to him. But hey, I bet you would rather have Graal over a girlfriend right?

I don't understand why you can't have both.

[Shiftk03-]

Silly people. I've gone through countless girlfriends during my time playing Graal. I'm currently with one now and my playing or working on Graal has never affected our relationship, nor my avid social life. The problem is with you, not the game.

[GoZelda]

Originally Posted by Nappa

I don't understand why you can't have both.

Probably depends on your girlfriend and the time you spend on Graal.

Originally Posted by Gambet

I believe his girlfriend is the only valid reason he had. Other then college, of course. But all of his complaining and reasoning about Graal, well, they were not very good reasons.

So you're restracting your statement about the horrible reasons?

[Gambet]

Horrible Reasons as in the reasons he stated about Graal. I could careless about his personal life, since it's not my business to know about it.

[Nappa]

Originally Posted by GoZelda

Probably depends on your girlfriend and the time you spend on Graal.

If you can't spend time with a girlfriend and find time for a game, then you are sad. I had a girlfriend while playing ffxi, and I spend ~8 hours a day on ffxi. Now if I can do this, and pay 15 bucks a month for a game and not be "too broke to buy my girl a cake", then so can he.

[Nappa]

Originally Posted by GoZelda

Yeah, and I can reach to the cookie jar without a chair and so my baby brother should be able to too?

Comparing a baby to VT is not a valid comparison.

Then again..

[Velox Cruentus]

Originally Posted by Shiftk03-

gone through countless girlfriends during my time playing Graal

Maybe if you stopped playing graal, you could finally KEEP your girlfriends instead of getting a new one 'countless' amount of times.

[Velox Cruentus]

... O,o! Time Travel!

[GoZelda]

Originally Posted by Nappa

If you can't spend time with a girlfriend and find time for a game, then you are sad. I had a girlfriend while playing ffxi, and I spend ~8 hours a day on ffxi. Now if I can do this, and pay 15 bucks a month for a game and not be "too broke to buy my girl a cake", then so can he.

Yeah, and I can reach to the cookie jar without a chair and so my baby brother should be able to too?

[Nappa]

Originally Posted by Velox Cruentus

Maybe if you stopped playing graal, you could finally KEEP your girlfriends instead of getting a new one 'countless' amount of times.

Maybe he was the one who dropped them ?

[davidpsy]

Originally Posted by Kaimetsu

How is that relevant to the fairness of his ban?

Basicially what I'm saying is, that I don't blame him for remaking his thread 10 times if his topic that he created in the first place was perfectly valid. Yes he broke a rule, and yes he was banned. But considering the circumstances I would give him a break. Now if you want to look at this in black and white, thats your choice.

[Kaimetsu]

Originally Posted by davidpsy

Basicially what I'm saying is, that I don't blame him for remaking his thread 10 times

I don't care. I asked you a question: How was his ban unfair?

Now if you want to look at this in black and white, thats your choice.

Stop repeating yourself. This isn't about the chromacity of the entire situation - it's about the applicability of a single adjective.

[Velox Cruentus]

Originally Posted by Nappa

Maybe he was the one who dropped them ?

Yea... I guess not enough time on Graal was his motivation.

Heya babe... I have leave you... You see, there's this online game that costs me less to play unlimited amount of hours. You only let me play with you for half an hour each week! It's unfair, and well... I already have Graal, I don't see why I need you too!

-- For actually being seriouds... I don't care about his situation. Just that the way I read it, the girls would leave him because he plays too much games. Now, if the situation was he left the girls because he plays games, the prior paragraph is how I visualize the situation. I don't see either way being dignified.

[Nappa]

Originally Posted by Velox Cruentus

Yea... I guess not enough time on Graal was his motivation.

Heya babe... I have leave you... You see, there's this online game that costs me less to play unlimited amount of hours. You only let me play with you for half an hour each week! It's unfair, and well... I already have Graal, I don't see why I need you too!

-- For actually being seriouds... I don't care about his situation. Just that the way I read it, the girls would leave him because he plays too much games. Now, if the situation was he left the girls because he plays games, the prior paragraph is how I visualize the situation. I don't see either way being dignified.

Their is enough time in the day to have a girlfriend and play graal. Just because you or VT can't find it, doesn't mean it's not there.

As for dropping girls, Rabid is a man of many mysteries. People dump people over many different reasons all the time. Just because he plays graal and dumps a girl doesn't mean he did it because he plays graal.

[davidpsy]

Originally Posted by Kaimetsu

I don't care. I asked you a question: How was his ban unfair?

Well first off, it was unfair that his thread was deleted, assuming that it was a valid topic. Now if you want to look at this in black and white, yeah it was a fair ban, he broke the rules, he got punished. However, I personally would give the guy a break, his thread was valid, yet it was deleted. I can understand him getting angry and recreating his thread 10 times like he did, and I don't blame him for doing so, and I wouldn't punish him for it, nor would I have deleted his thread in the first place. It's really my opinion that it was unfair, looking at the circumstances. If you want to look at this in black and white, yes it was fair, he broke the rules, and payed the price. However, if you look at the specifics, I personally, would question weather or not it was really fair to have banned him, considering if the fact was that his thread was valid in the first place. Now if his topic was unless spam or just invalid, and he kept recreating it, I would think it right to ban him, and would do so. If not, I could understand his anger, and frustration, and would cut him some slack.

[Gambet]

Originally Posted by davidpsy

Blah Blah Blah

Ok, just stop this. You are saying that his thread had valid reasoning behind it, then you're saying that "if" his thread had valid reasoning behind it, and quite frankly, you're just going to end up confusing anyone.

You're speaking blindly right now. You're taking his side, yet you don't have any facts. You're taking his side because of the "what ifs", but you don't bother to evaluate what's infront of you. I HIGHLY doubt that a mod would go about deleted someones thread ten (10) times if it was a valid thread, ESPECIALLY to someone who works for the company they play for.

[Amagius]

Originally Posted by Nappa

If you can't spend time with a girlfriend and find time for a game, then you are sad. I had a girlfriend while playing ffxi, and I spend ~8 hours a day on ffxi. Now if I can do this, and pay 15 bucks a month for a game and not be "too broke to buy my girl a cake", then so can he.

A.) You don't act as a PWA.
B.) From the sounds of things, you have a quite ****ty relationship.

P.S. Keyword is "had".

[davidpsy]

Originally Posted by Gambet

Ok, just stop this. You are saying that his thread had valid reasoning behind it, then you're saying that "if" his thread had valid reasoning behind it, and quite frankly, you're just going to end up confusing anyone.

You're speaking blindly right now. You're taking his side, yet you don't have any facts. You're taking his side because of the "what ifs", but you don't bother to evaluate what's infront of you. I HIGHLY doubt that a mod would go about deleted someones thread ten (10) times if it was a valid thread, ESPECIALLY to someone who works for the company they play for.

Actually if you had bothered to read some of my other posts, you would have read this "I don't really think we know enough of the specifics, so we really can't judge weather or not what he did was right or wrong." I am not taking his side, I am mearly explaining why I might consider his banning to be fair or unfair under hypothetical circumstances. Apperently, you're the one whos confused.

Also, it has happened many times in the past, that mods have closed threads or deleted threads that were perfectly valid, so it is not as if that is something that isn't likely to have happened.

[Gambet]

I am not confused at all. I made that post based upon the post I quoted. The point is that there is not enough information to say that his banning was unjust, or let alone that the deletion of his thread was unjust.

[davidpsy]

Originally Posted by Gambet

I am not confused at all. I made that post based upon the post I quoted. The point is that there is not enough information to say that his banning was unjust, or let alone that the deletion of his thread was unjust.

Do you not understand "hypothetical circumstances"? Also, if you read back, that is basically what I said.

[Kaimetsu]

Originally Posted by davidpsy

Well first off, it was unfair that his thread was deleted, assuming that it was a valid topic

Do you even know what 'fair' means?

And we're not talking about the thread deletion. We're talking about the ban.

If you want to look at this in black and white, yes it was fair, he broke the rules

Again: Not about chromacity. It's about the applicability of a single word. That I'm focusing on a subset of the topic doesn't mean I'm "look[ing] at this in black and white".

[Nappa]

Originally Posted by Amagius

A.) You don't act as a PWA.
B.) From the sounds of things, you have a quite ****ty relationship.

P.S. Keyword is "had".

I don't see the keyword up top.

And we had a great relationship. On the phone alot, we saw eachother alot. However, things in her life got too bad for me to deal with and we just stopped talking.. Things happen, people move up.

[davidpsy]

Originally Posted by Kaimetsu

Do you even know what 'fair' means?

And we're not talking about the thread deletion. We're talking about the ban.



Again: Not about chromacity. It's about the applicability of a single word. That I'm focusing on a subset of the topic doesn't mean I'm "look[ing] at this in black and white".

If you can't see how the big picture applys to weather or not it was fair for him to be banned, then I can't help you. I already said, he broke the rules, he was banned, yes in black and white terms, his banning was fair. However if you look at the circumstances and the circumstances were that his thread was a valid topic, it is my opinion that he probably shouldn't have been banned. I'm tired of repeating things to you, I'm done with this unless you have more to say, and yes I know what fair means.

[Kaimetsu]

Originally Posted by davidpsy

If you can't see how the big picture applys to weather or not it was fair for him to be banned, then I can't help you

...

Donald, you're accusing me of monochromacity because I'm focusing on one element of the discussion: the fairness of the ban. I haven't refused to consider the "big picture", I've simply insisted that you stick to the relevant issue.

I already said, he broke the rules, he was banned, yes in black and white terms, his banning was fair

You've also said "It's really my opinion that it was unfair".

I'm not responsible for your failures to maintain consistency. I'm not being "black and white" just because I ask that you don't contradict yourself.

yes I know what fair means

The evidence suggests otherwise. What was unfair about the thread deletion?

[Kaimetsu]

Originally Posted by davidpsy

You know as well and I do that you're cutting out peices of my post, and twisting them around to make it look like I'm saying something else

Ugh. The old "I'M RIGHT AND YOU KNOW IT" argument.

It doesn't hold water, dawg. Hell, it's not even a real argument. It's just a weak, unsupported assertion.

When I said "It's really my opinion that it was unfair" I mean't that assuming that his thread was valid and was deleted unjustly.

The full sentence was this: "It's really my opinion that it was unfair, looking at the circumstances".

Looking at the circumstances. You were making a statement based on what you'd perceived. You explicitly said so.

And even if we assume that his threads were "valid", so what? How would it make his treatment unfair?

[davidpsy]

Originally Posted by Kaimetsu

...

Donald, you're accusing me of monochromacity because I'm focusing on one element of the discussion: the fairness of the ban. I haven't refused to consider the "big picture", I've simply insisted that you stick to the relevant issue.

In my opinion, weather or not his thread was valid is relevant to the issue.

Originally Posted by Kaimetsu

You've also said "It's really my opinion that it was unfair".

I'm not responsible for your failures to maintain consistency. I'm not being "black and white" just because I ask that you don't contradict yourself.

I mean't that its my opinion that his banning was infair assuming the hypothetical circumstances which I stated as such.

Originally Posted by Kaimetsu

The evidence suggests otherwise. What was unfair about the thread deletion?

It may have been fair, and it may have not been fair. We do not know the specifics, and my hypothetical circumstances seem to be confusing everyone, so I'll just say this.

We don't know the specifics, we can't judge weather it was right or wrong.

He broke the rules, he got banned, in black and white terms, thats fair.

Originally Posted by Kaimetsu

Ugh. The old "I'M RIGHT AND YOU KNOW IT" argument.

It doesn't hold water, dawg. Hell, it's not even a real argument. It's just a weak, unsupported assertion.

That is why I rewrote my post.

Originally Posted by Kaimetsu

And even if we assume that his threads were "valid", so what? How would it make his treatment unfair?

Not nessarily unfair, however I think you could understand him getting angry and recreating his thread 10 times because a corrupted mod kept deleting it. I personally wouldn't ban him for it, if that were the case, you might do other wise.

[Kaimetsu]

Originally Posted by davidpsy

In my opinion, weather or not his thread was valid is relevant to the issue

Yeah? Demonstrate the relevance.

I mean't that its my opinion that his banning was infair assuming the hypothetical circumstances which I stated as such

See my reply above.

Also, what do you hope to achieve by arguing under contrived and unjustified assumptions?

It may have been fair, and it may have not been fair

Do you have any reason to believe that it was unfair? Can you give any circumstances in which deleting an illegal thread or banning a person for breaking the rules is unfair?

We don't know the specifics

You don't know the specifics. Do not project your ignorance onto everybody else.

[davidpsy]

Originally Posted by Kaimetsu

Yeah? Demonstrate the relevance.

Assuming that the thread was valid in the first place, it shouldn't have been deleted. If it was valid, and was deleted, I believe I could understand why he broke the rules, and there for weather or not his banning was fair.

That is how its relevent.

Originally Posted by Kaimetsu

Also, what do you hope to achieve by arguing under contrived and unjustified assumptions?

All I'm saying is, under certain circumstances, I could see why what he did probably wasn't so bad.

Originally Posted by Kaimetsu

Do you have any reason to believe that it was unfair?

Many threads have been deleted in the past, that probably shouldn't have been deleted, if that is this case here, his thread shouldn't have been deleted in the first place, and I don't blame him for remaking his thread as many times as he did.

Originally Posted by Kaimetsu

Can you give any circumstances in which deleting an illegal thread or banning a person for breaking the rules is unfair?

Like I said in a different post, if the thread was illegal, and he continued to remake it, then he should have been banned and rightfully so.

Originally Posted by Kaimetsu

You don't know the specifics. Do not project your ignorance onto everybody else.

If you know the specifics, then tell us, other wise do not give off the image that you know more about the specifics than I do.

[Kaimetsu]

Originally Posted by davidpsy

Assuming that the thread was valid in the first place, it shouldn't have been deleted

Define "valid". His thread was most definitely illegal. While I don't necessarily agree with the rules, there is nothing unfair about enforcing them.

If it was valid, and was deleted, I believe I could understand why he broke the rules, and there for weather or not his banning was fair

Assuming his threads were "valid", how was his ban unfair?

All I'm saying is, under certain circumstances, I could see why what he did probably wasn't so bad

Yeah, great. But unless you can show that those circumstances are realistic, why should your arguments influence our opinions?

Many threads have been deleted in the past, that probably shouldn't have been deleted

Yes. But I specifically asked you about fairness.

Again I express doubt about your understanding of the word.

Like I said in a different post, if the thread was illegal, and he continued to remake it, then he should have been banned and rightfully so

It unequivocally is illegal to remake deleted threads. He remade deleted threads. My question remains: How could it possibly be unfair to ban him?

If you know the specifics, then tell us

What would you like to know?

[davidpsy]

Originally Posted by Kaimetsu

Define "valid". His thread was most definitely illegal. While I don't necessarily agree with the rules, there is nothing unfair about enforcing them.

Valid, meaning legal, not against the rules.

If his thread was illegal, then yes, his banning was fair, I agree, end of story.

Originally Posted by Kaimetsu

Yeah, great. But unless you can show that those circumstances are realistic, why should your arguments influence our opinions?

I never said that it should influence your opinions.

Originally Posted by Kaimetsu

Yes. But I specifically asked you about fairness.

Again I express doubt about your understanding of the word.

If it was the case that his thread was valid and was deleted, I would consider unfair to ban him for having remade his (assumeing) perfectly valid thread 10 times.

Originally Posted by Kaimetsu

It unequivocally is illegal to remake deleted threads. He remade deleted threads. My question remains: How could it possibly be unfair to ban him?

It depends on the circumstances. In black and white terms, its not.

Originally Posted by Kaimetsu

What would you like to know?

What was the thread he made about?

[Kaimetsu]

Originally Posted by davidpsy

I never said that it should influence your opinions

What is your purpose in posting here?

If it was the case that his thread was valid and was deleted, I would consider unfair to ban him

How would the ban be unfair? It was a result of the thread-recreation, which is plainly illegal.

It depends on the circumstances. In black and white terms, its not

Stop hiding behind this "black and white" thing. I asked for circumstances in which the ban would be unfair. You replied "It depends on the circumstances".

UH, YEAH. That's why I asked you for example circumstances.

What was the thread he made about?

2K1. Specifically his belief that Lance was managing it poorly.

Are you prepared to retract your "We don't know the specifics" claim yet?

[davidpsy]

Originally Posted by Kaimetsu

What is your purpose in posting here?

I believe it all started when I was explaining to Gambet why Protag was angry.

Originally Posted by Kaimetsu

How would the ban be unfair? It was a result of the thread-recreation, which is plainly illegal.

You're seeing it in black and white, and yes in black and white terms, it wouldn't be unfair.

I would consider it unfair, considering the fact that (in this hypothetical circumstance) it was the fault of the mod to begin with for having deleted a valid thread. The rules may say you cannot recreate threads that have been deleted by mod's, however I wouldn't hold it against him for having remade his thread if it was valid. It was the fault of the mod to begin with. This is why I would consider it unfair to ban him for having remade his thread. (in this hypothetical circumstance)

Originally Posted by Kaimetsu

Stop hiding behind this "black and white" thing. I asked for circumstances in which the ban would be unfair. You replied "It depends on the circumstances".

UH, YEAH. That's why I asked you for example circumstances.

If the circumstance was that his thread was valid and was deleted, I would consider it to be unfair to ban him for having remade his thread 10 times.

Originally Posted by Kaimetsu

2K1. Specifically his belief that Lance was managing it poorly.

Are you prepared to retract your "We don't know the specifics" claim yet?

Apperently you do, thanks for the information, apperently his banning was fair. I'm done unless you have more to say?

[Kaimetsu]

Originally Posted by davidpsy

I believe it all started when I was explaining to Gambet why Protag was angry

That doesn't answer my question.

You're seeing it in black and white

Good god, man. Either back it up or stop repeating it.

I would consider it unfair, considering the fact that (in this hypothetical circumstance) it was the fault of the mod to begin with

Ugh. It's like wading through tar. Demonstrate that these events would fit the definition of the word 'unfair'.

[Googi]

Didn't Kai quit for similar reasons once?

Well, minus the girlfriend.

Like with Kai though, these really just seem like reasons to quit your staff position, not Graal.

[Kaimetsu]

Originally Posted by Googi

Didn't Kai quit for similar reasons once?

I left the GST and stopped being supermod because my employers weren't letting me do my job. VT is doing it because he's indignant about not getting special treatment.

When I quit my staff positions, I predicted that I'd gradually stop posting - and I did. I never said that I was definitively leaving, nor that I'd be gone for good. My situation changed so I started posting again.

[Googi]

Originally Posted by Kaimetsu

I left the GST and stopped being supermod because my employers weren't letting me do my job. VT is doing it because he's indignant about not getting special treatment.

You said you did it because you weren't made an admin.

[Kaimetsu]

Originally Posted by Googi

You said you did it because you weren't made an admin.

Like I said, they weren't letting me do my job. Do you know what I had to do if somebody had an illegal signature? Or if their unban time had elapsed? Or if one of the stupidly-chosen moderators went berserk?

I didn't necessarily have to be an admin - it'd entail powers that I just didn't need. But I wanted to be able to do my job without running to somebody else every time, and without the higher-ups reversing my decisions despite knowing nothing about the situation.