Super Mario Bros. X Forums

I have made it perfectly clear you were not intended to be included in my mentioning of friends. The fact that you insist you were when the author himself is saying you were not is straight up insane.

If anyone hasn't read Ignoritus's post (before this last one) yet, please do that.

For what it's worth, the first part of my original response post wasn't ever intended to be mean "pity me because I want more recognition for doing things for this forum". I don't mind at all doing things for this community and not getting much from you guys in return, don't get me wrong. I just get tired of some of the attitudes people have here. Also -

Joey wrote:we should lock less topics but if the topic is a dumb argument that isn't going anywhere then let's lock it

Joey wrote:we should lock less topics but if the topic is a dumb argument that isn't going anywhere then let's lock it

Will you discuss with the staff, then? Might as well do it publicly

I've already been talking with the staff about how we should lock less topics and just let dead threads die. Especially with help/support threads, where it's entirely possible that someone could encounter the same issue.

Good. I really hope that's so.

I liked the way GhostHawk addressed the issue more. He was kind and conceded when needed. Joey's posts were ambiguous questions that made him seem blunt and prejudiced against people.

Yet the same people that dislikes Michel's sarcastic OP had no problem with Joey's posts. I'm not questioning the validity of your argument, but try making your points in a more refined way.

Raster wrote:I liked the way GhostHawk addressed the issue more. He was kind and conceded when needed. Joey's posts were ambiguous questions that made him seem blunt and prejudiced against people.

Yet the same people that dislikes Michel's sarcastic OP had no problem with Joey's posts. I'm not questioning the validity of your argument, but try making your points in a more refined way.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that part of the argument has actually ended now and Michel and Joey have actually somewhat reached a half compromise. No need to spark up an argument that doesn't need to be brought up. The past is over and done with.

"Y'all need to stop being assholes", while not being conducive to a peaceful discussion, probably comes from somebody whose had a lot of poorly-made assumptions thrown at him.

Just to be clear, my post aims to defend both Joey and michel and break down their reasonings from what I can understand.

Just because michel and Pixels were the primary subject of Joey's reaction post does not mean they were the only subject. Realizing that is a matter of reading the post. And if michel was someone who actually browsed and visited these forums, he might have also noticed that Joey has already said shit about this issue. To me, this raises the question: why does he apparently care about something he doesn't actually know what he's talking about? And when Joey asked that question, in a more polite way, he didn't get an answer. That, and the stuff about gang-repping that I didn't even know about, is what prompted his reaction to the thread.
It's a strange assumption to make, though, that someone who doesn't take a particular thread seriously because of its OP doesn't care about the actual subject of the thread.

And really, let's make this more general. Why do a lot of us default to the worst possible conclusions we can make about X staff member when it's not specifically something they've said or done, ever?

On the other side, some people (or well, at least one person I recall but there may have been others) were saying michel's post was sarcastic. It wasn't sarcastic, it was satire. Not all satire is rude or intended to convey contempt. I've seen michel be sarcastic and he really lays it on like a wise ass, and even then it's usually at least funny and enjoyable especially if I agree with it. Michel might actually have felt that he had legitimate reasons for making the thread. Maybe his appearance was prompted by complaints in the IRC, for all I know. Maybe those complaints came from people he really felt he wanted to stand up for.
"In that case why didn't he just answer the question?"
Perhaps he felt that keeping to the subject at hand would be more likely to help him make his point. I dunno.

Nonetheless I kind of see how two people refusing to have the same conversation end up in an argument this big.

If I were in Joey's position, I think I would have taken the subject seriously enough not for michel's sake, but for the other people reading it. However I think it's pretty damn ironic that people accuse him of having a personal vendetta against michel. That's just as much of a logical fallacy as saying that michel's history discredits his argument—it doesn't. Furthermore, his appearance here, and the gang-repping, don't have to be interpreted as any kind of a coordinated attack. It could have just resulted from natural human behaviour. Sometimes when I talk to my friends about something that bothers me on the internet, and show them what I'm talking about, they join in with me even when I don't tell them to. This could easily be very similar to that.

Can someone summarize everything since Joey's post that the topic was locked on for me? Everything's everywhere and I don't quite get it.

Blueoak wrote:Can someone summarize everything since Joey's post that the topic was locked on for me? Everything's everywhere and I don't quite get it.

Joey said he has little tolerance for the shit he's been getting from users and apparently he has a busy schedule but he's still checking on this forum making sure everything runs smoothly. Might look like an appeal to pity but it really isn't, considering the very inflammatory comments some users have made about him. He said he didn't reply to this thread like he would if someone other than Michel and Pixels posted it, because according to him they've lost their credibility and were given second chances. Michel and Joey seemed to have come to an agreement, which I'm thankful for, so let's hope things stay this way.

Magician wrote: On the other side, some people (or well, at least one person I recall but there may have been others) were saying michel's post was sarcastic. It wasn't sarcastic, it was satire. Not all satire is rude or intended to convey contempt. I've seen michel be sarcastic and he really lays it on like a wise ass, and even then it's usually at least funny and enjoyable especially if I agree with it. Michel might actually have felt that he had legitimate reasons for making the thread. Maybe his appearance was prompted by complaints in the IRC, for all I know. Maybe those complaints came from people he really felt he wanted to stand up for.
"In that case why didn't he just answer the question?"
Perhaps he felt that keeping to the subject at hand would be more likely to help him make his point. I dunno.

Nonetheless I kind of see how two people refusing to have the same conversation end up in an argument this big.

If I were in Joey's position, I think I would have taken the subject seriously enough not for michel's sake, but for the other people reading it. However I think it's pretty damn ironic that people accuse him of having a personal vendetta against michel. That's just as much of a logical fallacy as saying that michel's history discredits his argument—it doesn't. Furthermore, his appearance here, and the gang-repping, don't have to be interpreted as any kind of a coordinated attack. It could have just resulted from natural human behaviour. Sometimes when I talk to my friends about something that bothers me on the internet, and show them what I'm talking about, they join in with me even when I don't tell them to. This could easily be very similar to that.

Thank you

Also I'm still waiting for someone from the staff to say that they've discussed this and that they're going to lock less topics

It's rare, but I occasionally get the feeling that staff members fail to take criticism into account as they want to prevent being the inferior in the end of a discussion or debate, because basically their rank in this community proves they are better. That's what some seem to think at least. This is one of those situations.

Really, Joey, the fact how much you're doing for this community as well as the structure of your social life doesn't affect this issue at all. So far I haven't noticed any regular user that agrees with you on this. You have to realize there is something wrong with the way your staff team moderates and change something, because being an administrator doesn't mean contributing to this community only, but also altering moderation in those aspects where the majority of the regular userbase thinks it's flawed.

Joey wrote:I've already been talking with the staff about how we should lock less topics and just let dead threads die. Especially with help/support threads, where it's entirely possible that someone could encounter the same issue.

This is pretty much all I've said on the issue, Kyo.

Alright, I only read the first eight pages and the last one to see how this discussion developed and it seemed like it was still ongoing.

Knux wrote:The bottom line fact is:

people are unhappy with the way you are administrating. It's not just me and MichelFP at this point.

Yeah.

Is it not that obvious?
Why do you think there's a High SMBX Council?

Knux wrote:The bottom line fact is:

people are unhappy with the way you are administrating. It's not just me and MichelFP at this point.

(I typed something in this post and it somehow disappeared, weird)

Anyway, boo fucking hoo. He's still doing a decent job and it's natural that he makes mistakes. You're overreacting.

What exactly is the problem with his administration? While I agree his act in this topic was quite inappropriate for a good administrator and especially for a founder, but he's doing his job well otherwise, at least from what I've observed. He does contribute a lot to this community and discusses his plans beforehand and doesn't push his actions through. He also has taken this issue into account, which proves his capability to realize if he and/or his staff team is doing something wrong. Everyone does mistakes and the amount of mistakes he does is in a quite acceptable condition if you ask me.

I'm offended by your posts. I shall take your speech.
Absolutely no deviation from the norm. If you attempt to step out of line, you shall be banned.
It is your fault that someone else with an IP you use spams on somewhere unrelated and you shall be banned for it.
Want to remain anonymous?

<GhostHawk> you
<GhostHawk> can
<GhostHawk> leave

Guilty until proven innocent.
We are running moderation perfectly and any attempts to say we are not will have you banned.
What's the problem guys? Nobody is complaining!
Those people who actually agree with you and jump in to agree do not count.
Because you and this other person are the main complainers, you and everyone else's complaints are invalid.

You have been kicked. (broke a nonexistent rule)

http://pastebin.com/JCRQNhkt

Pixels wrote:I'm offended by your posts. I shall take your speech.

Which I can do? You weren't offending me you were backseat moderating, and telling me who I should and shouldn't ban.

Pixels wrote:Absolutely no deviation from the norm. If you attempt to step out of line, you shall be banned.

Quit trying to be a victim please.

Pixels wrote:It is your fault that someone else with an IP you use spams on somewhere unrelated and you shall be banned for it.

Yes, it's better to have a legitimate user connection rather than take a gamble that "maybe this proxy user" won't spam like the last few dozen today.

Pixels wrote:Want to remain anonymous?

<GhostHawk> you
<GhostHawk> can
<GhostHawk> leave

You can, I'm not making you stay here. If you don't agree with how the staff are handling something and not everyone is supporting you, maybe leaving is a good idea instead of telling people what to do and complaining in a chat and now on a forum.

Pixels wrote:Guilty until proven innocent.

I forgot when we added the court system.

Pixels wrote:We are running moderation perfectly and any attempts to say we are not will have you banned.

You're still implying I banned you for simply disagreeing, when instead you continued to ignore what I said and just question my motives and backseat moderate as I mentioned before.

Pixels wrote:What's the problem guys? Nobody is complaining!

Except the same people every time, which is what I said in the chat.

Pixels wrote:Those people who actually agree with you and jump in to agree do not count.

Yes, especially when you're telling me who I should and shouldn't ban and why.

Pixels wrote:Because you and this other person are the main complainers, you and everyone else's complaints are invalid.

If you quit crying wolf every time you had a disagreement with the staff, then this wouldn't be the case.

Pixels wrote:You have been kicked. (broke a nonexistent rule)

http://pastebin.com/JCRQNhkt

Spoiler: show

I think you should have added this with your red squares:
<ErikMouse> Well, Sundowner (~webchat@149.210.131.21) <--> YourUsingAWebProxy (~webchat@149.210.131.21) does appear to be the exact same IP.

But then again that would contradict your defense of someone who just lied to staff about how they were connecting, and that they used this IP to create two accounts here.

GhostHawk wrote:

Pixels wrote:Guilty until proven innocent.

I forgot when we added the court system.

this is
um
what