172 replies to this topic

[SConrad]

SConrad has a voice yes? Why has he not said anything on here instead of letting his little minions do the talking.

Oh, yes, I have a voice. I rarely use it when communicating over the internet (apart from a microphone conversations now and then, that is), though. Fortunately, I have hands to type with, if that's what you're suggesting I don't do.

In any case, I also have a job and spend around 12-15 hours away from home every day. If there is any issues concerning whether I'm online at the right time to answer allegations and dealing with stuff like this, I suggest you call my boss about it.

I just re-read his post there, and it really seemed to be a perfect job of Not Saying Anything At All Really.  I could--and would like to--respond to it, but I imagine if I copied it here this thread'd be locked, as well.

I'd be delighted if you did respond, mr. Fain.

However, since this thread really is kindof 'occupied' with this ongoing argument concerning "How much SConrad and SHS sucks", I suggest that having that debate in PM would be best. You might disagree, however, since I just have a hunch you might consider the discussion 'in the best interest of the community' or somesuch.

Actually, it was the eight of you declining to overrule the blanket warning that all of my posts would be deleted, and SC admitting when pressed that he didn't really know what had been said to her, which clued me in that perhaps... nothing, in fact, was being done. (Except Seifer editing out the bit about me being made of slime, yes, that was very thoughtful of you, Seifer.)

People run boards different ways, Jason, and I've chosen to have people around me helping me out. It might sound alien to your "Evil Overlord" state of mind, but that's just the way it is. If one of the Administrators here tell me that he's about to speak to Dorotea about a certain issue, then that's enough for me. I don't really need to know word-by-word what's been said.

There is the unanswered question, why that something is not made known.

I don't have an obligation to share information with anyone who craves it. I didn't post my response to JC's complaint out in the open either - it was he who decided to make a public affair out of this.

If anyone doesn't like me not telling everyone all there is to know about everything, then frankly, that's their problem. Not mine.

[Ghreyfain]

Deleting someone's post because you hate them isn't draconian?

A hosted modder is a member of staff?

Semantics, eh? You're a funny guy. What would you call someone who has the power to delete/edit posts, then? Whatever your definition is, replace the word 'staff' from where I used it, and answer the question.

I'm not understanding this bit, I think.  When there are no rules, there's unjust banning (for the record: yes, yes, that was under the former Neilish site).  When there are rules, and one follows them, one... gets his posts deleted for not breaking any rules.

Wait... are you saying Jason has never broken any SHS rules, or just that he hasn't broken any rules in this particular instance?

If Jason has broken the rules in the past then by all means, sure, apply your rules to him. I ask that you apply those rules to everyone equally.

I wouldn't exactly consider posting in the forum of a mod you don't like, run by a person who hates you, to be the best example of using your common sense when conversing with other people.

It's not the best example, no. I'd say it's adequate. (Ha, you thought you were the only one who could be a semantician.)

"Try to keep on topic; please make sure that your post is contributing to the discussion."

As I recall, the topic was "who's manlier?" How is stating that the assorted Bruces are manlier not on topic?

Yes there were other off-topic posts in the same forum, but just because one person does something wrong and gets away with it, doesn't mean it is acceptable for everyone else to do the same thing.  If that were true, modern society would soon crumble into anarchic chaos.

Agreed. So let the staff (see above for alternate definition) say "Yo, be on topic, please." There's no need for using techniques from the middle ages (I bet Galileo was pissed when the church deleted all his posts about astronomy).

And yes, dorotea may well have herself broken the rules, but then the world isn't black & white, rather it has countless shades of grey.  In some instances, both sides can be in the wrong (though of course the degree of how wrong each person was can greatly differ).

She may very well have done so, yes.

And the person who broke the rules (is there a rule about that?) doesn't seem to suffer any consequences.

Having there be any consequences would be in complete contrast to pretty much every complaint you, Jason and Sim have ever made about SHS policy.

I'm all for consequences. If someone's a flaming idiot, then I say let it be known to the world that they're a flaming idiot. I'm not a fan of all this private stuff, which is why deleting a post really irritates me. If someone acts like a fool, then I feel that a random passer-by should be able to come along, see how things transpired, and make their own judgments based on that. Sure, they might think Jason's a jerk, or they might think dorotea is. Having the SHS staff, a decidedly biased group (I'm not denying I have no bias, so don't even try it), decide what the world gets to see and what they don't is just not decent.

If, at the end of the day, the regulars at Studios think Jason's a loud-mouth, then that's absolutely okay by me. If those same people think that simply because you (or whoever) say so, then argh.

Hyopthetical scenario (meaning the chances of it happening are unimportant[...]

Ah, but the chances of it happening are important. Anyone who walked by to see the post (because, y'see, it wouldn't be deleted) could reach their own conclusion--or not--that Person X was a doink, without the PPG people having to say so at all.

That is not to say that we never delete posts at PPG, nor am I inviting people to come there and act like jackasses. We've got a hidden Spam Bin to move posts to just like everyone else, for occasions when, yeah, there are 50 copies of "u sux" all over the place.

Okay, and upon giving myself a bit of time before hitting the post button, I've decided that this thread (provided it doesn't get deleted or locked), *is* in fact a fairly good example of free speech. I'm assuming people who read the thread will get the gist of what happened, how it happened, and can then make their own judgment (assuming they even care about something so very, very trifling) as to who's a sterling, upstanding member of the community, and who's a... the opposite of that.

[Zyraen]

Zyraen :
There is the unanswered question, why that something is not made known.
SConrad :
I don't have an obligation to share information with anyone who craves it. I didn't post my response to JC's complaint out in the open either - it was he who decided to make a public affair out of this.
If anyone doesn't like me not telling everyone all there is to know about everything, then frankly, that's their problem. Not mine.

As mentioned in my earlier note, there is the Praise in Public, Punish in Private note that I agree with as much as well. Although there might be those who actually want the details out, I'm not really one of them, though I don't mind knowing out of curiosity. Just leave out graphic details, if any.

Shed :
Every individual staff stance has been much the same, though, which leads me to wonder what it is that you hope to get from another statement of staff position ?

That's the interesting bit. Perhaps I'm just too much into semantics, but so far *no one* on staff (I doubt JC, Sim and Ghrey are considered) has come out definitively and said that

"Deleting posts for no other reasons other than that the one who deleted it hates the poster is wrong." (or some other definitive variant)

Maybe it was told to JC in PM, but since this thread was opened, there have only been allusions and evasive pointers in that general direction that actually stop short of making it a definitive disapproval of such actions. As I mentioned previously about Nightmare's and Hlidskiaf's posts, the implication is that what Dorotea did was incorrect, but all of the posts stops short of *actually* censuring the act of deleting posts for no other reasons other than that the one who deleted it hates the poster.

In fact, it seems to read that "In most other cases we'd consider it wrong, but in this particular case (maybe because of the victim being who he is, a trouble maker and a previously banned person, and who clearly lacks any semblance of common sense, despite being able to make on-topic, relevant, non-personal-attacking posts), it is at most a relatively minor offence, or various shades of white/grey, and so we are relatively Ok with it, though perhaps not entirely."

Then again, as mentioned earlier, it could just be my poor grasp of English and all. It is, after all, my second language, and simple sentences like "Jane runs." could well be my only forte.

I'm sure there are shades of black, white, grey, even rainbow, in this particular case and what with JC possibly having regularly kicking dirt up in her forum (of course, this is just a shot in the dark, since it assumes that she has a reason to hate him, and there is very probably, no proof, for certain familiar reasons...), but making a collective, definitive stand on such a statement does not necessarily have anything to do with dorotea and JC, more a general note on how Studios views such matters, so that all of us know that the eminent Studios Staff and us are all on the same page (and JC and co can be left more or less alone in their "Coddle Me until I Forget my Posts have been Deleted" endeavours)

Or maybe it is simply not Studios' policy to make definitive policy stances public?

Edited by Zyraen, 26 September 2005 - 06:37 PM.

[Plasmocat]

Although what I wrote wasn't strictly intended as a response to you, Zyraen, the following is also applicable to you comment, ?The implicit assumption that most of readers would grasp from these words, is that the Staff appears to agree that dorotea's actions were not considered to be acceptable. Of course, JC doesn't seem assured at all, as he states below. Nor in fact, is it explicitly stated that it is certainly an offence, and if it were one, it does seem to be only "relatively minor".)

We've had members of the staff say that if Dorotea removed the posts arbitrarily that it wasn't cool. Are you upset that they aren't stating unequivocally that the deletions were arbitrary? Maybe that's because we no longer have evidence of the problem in question and aren't considering her guilty by virtue of accusation? Wouldn't that be just another variation on the Draconian theme? You were answered in the fullest measure that could be answered under the circumstances.

But, to sort of review some of the more pertinent remarks of staff members:

By Seifer (Admin):

QUOTE(Ghreyfain @ Sep 22 2005, 05:13 PM)
You've impressed me, Seanas.  Hopefully something actually happens to rectify this, yeah?

Just because we've not plastered things over the board in various threads or polls of little point, that doesn't mean anything hasn't been done.

By Sir Kalthorine (Global Mod)

Apologies to you and others for the apparent repetition of issues, but in any deletion or locking of threads - at least until Board Guidelines are breached - we would be setting a bad precedent in over-moderation in a public forum like this (as opposed to mod forums where moderators are freer to interpret what they see as inappropriate... provided in doing so they are not in flagrant breach of those Guidelines themselves).

By hlidskialf (Admin)

Something has been done. Visible or not.

[Note: While some read this to mean that the something that was done was not any sort of correction of the matter, the way I figure it--why would one need to do anything about something one doesn't consider a problem? Sort of in the way that a found object is "always in the last place you look" because theoretically you wouldn't keep looking for something you'd already found. I don't know hlidskialf well at all, but the implication to me was that it was being treated as a problem that was resolved quietly and that the private conversations that ensued were considered private enough that publishing them would be inappropriate.

But then, I'm not looking for diagrams, color charts, and videotaped interviews. --That's intended to be taken as dry, maybe ironic, humor without any ill intent directed at anyone. ]


Shed (Admin)

[note: On why JC?s complaint was handled the way it was, privately.]

JC received a response to his eight individual complaints. Those who had received the complaint disagreed with JC that his case was valid.

[note: On how the staff intends to moderate the board.]

QUOTE(Zyraen @ Sep 26 2005, 04:27 PM)
?"Whenever we can prevent it from happening, we will. And we will tell our hosted modders to try not to do so."

This certainly sounds reasonable to me.

......

So, ok nobody repeated after you or after JC, but you did get agreement to the sentiment.

If this is the kind of thing that needs to be written into the forum guidelines, that's something a little different than asking that someone reiterate what's been said in several different ways already. If that's what you mean, then your request takes on a slightly different direction.

Is that what you think should happen?

[jcompton]

Is that what you think should happen?

Sadly, I have been asked to withhold any and all advice I might give about the operation of this forum, so I cannot in good conscience answer your question.

Edited by jcompton, 26 September 2005 - 09:09 PM.

[hlidskialf]

Is that what you think should happen?

Sadly, I have been asked to withhold any and all advice I might give about the operation of this forum, so I cannot in good conscience answer your question.

Thank you for respecting our wishes.

[Plasmocat]

That's cool, however my question was actually directed at Zyraen. And it wasn't meant in the sense of asking his advice as much as it was a request for clarification of his comments.

[Zyraen]

Plasmocat :
If this is the kind of thing that needs to be written into the forum guidelines, that's something a little different than asking that someone reiterate what's been said in several different ways already. If that's what you mean, then your request takes on a slightly different direction.
Is that what you think should happen?

Plasmocat :
That's cool, however my question was actually directed at Zyraen. And it wasn't meant in the sense of asking his advice as much as it was a request for clarification of his comments.

As mentioned already, there have been plenty of allusions all in agreement, none of which seem direct enough, but this could be due to my poor grasp of the language.

Zyraen :
Perhaps I'm just too much into semantics, but so far *no one* on staff (I doubt JC, Sim and Ghrey are considered) has come out definitively and said that
"Deleting posts for no other reasons other than that the one who deleted it hates the poster is wrong."

Plasmocat :
said in several different ways already

Out of all these several different ways, I am not sure if there is even a SINGLE line that says explicitly, in no uncertain terms, that the Staff as a whole (and not just say, Shed as an individual. besides, just because a stand is reasonable doesn't actually mean that it is a stand that a person has committed to) finding either Dorotea's actions disagreeable, NOR condemning such actions (which would be a non-person-specific, non-case-specific stance, not directly related to Dorotea and JC).

In ALL of the lines, it seems, but it could just be me, that Staff stop SHORT of actually saying that such behaviour is not acceptable in the least (but I could simply be the draconian one here). "Relatively Minor Offence," "Dealt with" (leniently? harshly? to overlook is a form of dealing with things as well), the persistent refusal to condemn such actions (not the person, but the actions! let us be objective here...) allude to a possible tolerance of such behaviour, rather than what has been acknowledged to be reasonable (by Shed) "Whenever we can prevent it from happening, we will. And we will tell our hosted modders to try not to do so." which is a very definite, intolerance towards such actions. ( hmm I am wrong again it seems. it should be more intolerantly, dropping the "try", to be "modders to not do so." )

Shed :
Those who had received the complaint disagreed with JC that his case was valid.

Furthermore, assuming that "the relatively minor offence" "has been dealt with", why was this not reflected earlier to JC, so that this thread would have NEVER been made public? Instead, I understand from earlier postings in this thread that ALL 8 MODERATORS have told JC that his complaint was INVALID. If the complaint was Invalid, then there should never have been a "relatively minor offence" to be "dealt with." Which of course brings up the unspoken question - if this thread had never been created, would anything have been "dealt with" ? ( Oh but I forgot the part about shades of Grey... I've known myself to defend an offender in front of another person while privately telling the offender to not do that again... it's a neater way of dealing with things, yes?)

Still, it is probably, given the track record and all, that his complaint was INDEED invalid, but the point about considering "deleting posts for no other reasons other than that the one who deletes them hates the poster" as unacceptable behaviour stands. In that case, there is still no issue in condemning such behaviour - it only shows that the Studios Staff definitely do not tolerate such behaviour, but in this particular case, because JC's complaint was truly Invalid (after all, few of us have the details, and there is no proof), little/no action will be taken.

Perhaps I am the only one finding it disturbing that despite attempts to draw a non-person/case-specific, definite, explicit, collective stand on condemning the act of "deleting posts for no other reasons other than that the one who deletes them hates the poster", it has not yet materialised (that's my perspective). I may have missed it though, if it has already been made, so just feel free to quote one and set my heart at ease.

I would love to Conclude with a big
"WHAT is there to LOSE in condemning the deleting posts for no other reasons other than that the one who deletes them hates the poster?"
BUT... I understand the IE Community has a lot of stuff going on in the background (rumours say politicking is still an active pastime for some), so while it may *appear* to me that there is NO Reason why the Staff can't come straight out and say "Such actions are unacceptable", that might not ACTUALLY be the Case.

In any case, this will be a last, reasonable attempt to look forward to seeing an entirely reasonable statement put forward by an entirely reasonable staff condemning such unreasonable actions. Assuming that such a statement is not forthcoming, I can just assume that there IS something to Lose by making such a statement, that the Staff has difficulties and interests that we mortals are unaware of, and so are unable to commit as a whole to such a statement.

Alternatively, the real issue is probably ME in thinking that such actions are unacceptable, when in reality they actually are, and that would make me.. GASP! Draconian! Oh man, what a bummer...

===========

That being said, my voice is only my own, and there is no need to be too concerned about what I say. I have no stakes here, except that making further posts in here would probably make me less popular with Studios staff, many of which I have no interests in angering (right, as if I haven't already stepped on some toes in here...). I must admit though, it's quite fun to call Ghreyfain and JC dissenters, especially the latter with a terrible track record It's something I won't get to do on PPG much, I suspect, hehe.

It is entirely likely that anyone else who reads this thread would find the Studios Staff perfectly unanimous in denouncing in such "tyrannical" behaviour, and I am the only one who doesn't seem to get the message.

Edited by Zyraen, 27 September 2005 - 02:32 AM.

[NiGHTMARE]

Semantics, eh?  You're a funny guy.  What would you call someone who has the power to delete/edit posts, then?  Whatever your definition is, replace the word 'staff' from where I used it, and answer the question.

Pointing out that a hosted modder isn't a member of staff is hardly a matter of semantics when the topic is whether staff policy is draconian or not. A hosted modder's actions reflect staff policy just as much as the actions of a typical user do - i.e. not at all. As Jason has pointed out, it's how those actions are dealt with by staff that reflects policy.

Edited by NiGHTMARE, 27 September 2005 - 02:56 AM.

[hlidskialf]

In any case, this will be a last, reasonable attempt to look forward to seeing an entirely reasonable statement put forward by an entirely reasonable staff condemning such unreasonable actions. Assuming that such a statement is not forthcoming, I can just assume that there IS something to Lose by making such a statement, that the Staff has difficulties and interests that we mortals are unaware of, and so are unable to commit as a whole to such a statement.

It'd be easy to make such a statement, however I seriously doubt that there's a need to make a flat-out policy on dealing with this type of situation for several reasons:

1) In all the time I've been staff at FW(S)/SHS, this is the only such case I can recall. If it's not unique, it's certainly rare enough not to require a hard and fast position.

2) What constitutes resonable provocation for deleting posts will be subjective to each and every situation. As in this one. The posts and resulting actions were highly spiced by past interactions between the two individuals. As such, we'd like to be able to season any such situations with common sense.

Hopefully that's acceptable. If not, well you can't please everybody all the time.

[Melkor]

And Ghreyfain, on this one I agree with you. Unregistered posts of this sort are cowardly.

That is true just like cowards registering under a different name.

[Melkor]

In any case, this will be a last, reasonable attempt to look forward to seeing an entirely reasonable statement put forward by an entirely reasonable staff condemning such unreasonable actions. Assuming that such a statement is not forthcoming, I can just assume that there IS something to Lose by making such a statement, that the Staff has difficulties and interests that we mortals are unaware of, and so are unable to commit as a whole to such a statement.

It'd be easy to make such a statement, however I seriously doubt that there's a need to make a flat-out policy on dealing with this type of situation for several reasons:

1) In all the time I've been staff at FW(S)/SHS, this is the only such case I can recall. If it's not unique, it's certainly rare enough not to require a hard and fast position.

2) What constitutes resonable provocation for deleting posts will be subjective to each and every situation. As in this one. The posts and resulting actions were highly spiced by past interactions between the two individuals. As such, we'd like to be able to season any such situations with common sense.

Hopefully that's acceptable. If not, well you can't please everybody all the time.

Well said.

[Zyraen]

Hlidskiaf :
It'd be easy to make such a statement, however I seriously doubt that there's a need to make a flat-out policy on dealing with this type of situation for several reasons:
1) In all the time I've been staff at FW(S)/SHS, this is the only such case I can recall. If it's not unique, it's certainly rare enough not to require a hard and fast position.
2) What constitutes resonable provocation for deleting posts will be subjective to each and every situation. As in this one. The posts and resulting actions were highly spiced by past interactions between the two individuals. As such, we'd like to be able to season any such situations with common sense.
Hopefully that's acceptable. If not, well you can't please everybody all the time.

Concur

[Tris]

...
If someone acts like a fool, then I feel that a random passer-by should be able to come along, see how things transpired, and make their own judgments based on that.
...

I'm essentially a 'random passer-by', and it seems to me that this jcompton has been trolling out a subforum to bait someone he doesn't get along with. Well done.

If I read correctly, he's already been banned once; what caused the ban to be lifted in the first place, and does it really mitigate such blatant trolling?! Ok, he's a well known modder, but he has his own forum, so why don't you just stick to it, jcompton? If you have issues with how controversial posts are handled by a certain person, these issues can be easily solved by not presenting the controversial posts in the first place.

P.S. Could an admin please change the topic title to: "Coddle me until I forget my posts have been deleted"?

[Plasmocat]

Hlidskiaf :
It'd be easy to make such a statement, however I seriously doubt that there's a need to make a flat-out policy on dealing with this type of situation for several reasons:
1) In all the time I've been staff at FW(S)/SHS, this is the only such case I can recall. If it's not unique, it's certainly rare enough not to require a hard and fast position.
2) What constitutes resonable provocation for deleting posts will be subjective to each and every situation. As in this one. The posts and resulting actions were highly spiced by past interactions between the two individuals. As such, we'd like to be able to season any such situations with common sense.
Hopefully that's acceptable. If not, well you can't please everybody all the time.

Concur

Well, I'm glad that's acceptable to you. I mean that with sincerity and not with any sense of irony (clarified because sometimes a reading can go different ways).

But the thing is, Shed told you the same thing in an earlier post:

QUOTE(Zyraen @ Sep 26 2005, 04:27 PM)
?"Whenever we can prevent it from happening, we will. And we will tell our hosted modders to try not to do so."

This certainly sounds reasonable to me.

The only difference is that Hlidskiaf's 3rd point restated what you said in your post with different words. I guess that the miscommunication was that we couldn't understand why you would need your own phrasing to be rephrased after you not only had an administrator agree with you but when you had other staff members reinforcing that general prinicple with their individual reactions.

And regarding a universal condemnation of Dorotea's actions:

Not all of us saw the deleted thread, nor were all of us privy to the private conversations between the mods/admins, Dorotea, and JC. While we could all agree that in general principle a bad thing (which we did, and I could at least quote SirK & myself on that but can't be arsed at the moment), making comments regarding a specific case is more problematic. Why problematic?

Because:

1) Innocent until proven guilty. Until we had verification from the involved staff members, those of us who had no idea the deletions even occurred had nothing but JC's accusation to go by.

Bearing in mind that the poster is going to be subjective in believing their post was entirely legitimate and being aware that the decision of the mod to delete a post might be a matter of his/her interpretation of how the board's guidelines should be applied to her/his forum, it would have been unfair and inappropriate to jump on the bandwagon and blindly shoot off some kind of negative remarks about Dorotea.

That has nothing to do with whether it's JC & Dorotea or anyone else. That's just a question of how a problem is initially approached. I think that happened was that a neutral reservation of judgement due to lack of information was confused with implicit approval. Which was not the case. Which is actually a sort of opposite of the case.

And really, if we'd condemned Dorotea just because she was the object of the accusation, it wouldn't have been an honest response from us. Saying what ppl want to hear in itself is a form of passive manipulation designed to get ppl to like you (generally speaking). That would have been easier on us, and it would have made you trust us more for the moment ... but it would have been the kind of reaction you *shouldn't* trust, and wouldn't even be aware you shouldn't trust because that's how well-delivered snow jobs work.

If all that was necessary was disapproval of a general prinicple, imo that was addressed several times.


2) Making quick, uninformed judgements would have involved 2nd guessing the actions and decisions of other staff members and/or our supervisors without having all the information we should have in order to make a fair response. Without more knowledge about the incident from both perspectives we'd be making a Monday-morning quarterback sort of call for no other reason than to say all the things you wanted to hear.

That would indicate disrespect for the judgements of other staff members, but it would also indicate a lack of respect for the membership as a whole--that we would assume the worst out of anyone simply because an accusation was put before us.

For my part, I support SC's point of view that it's not necessary for everyone to know all the details of everything going on behind the scenes. And I respect the fact that he trusts his fellow staff members enough not to need to read over the transcripts of every conversation just to be sure something gets done. To paraphrase what he said ... someone said they'd perform the task, and he figured that's what they were going to do.

That sounds fair enough to me.

I support both Shed's and hlidskialf's position regarding moderation, as well.

Why ... I'm so supportive of ppl I'm getting calls from Victoria's Secret, Playtex, and Fruit of the Loom even as we speak!

[discharger12]

Jason: Throughout Infinity Engine Modding History, I've noticed that things have changed drastically. Ever since you and Neil split up FWP, I've seen many threads bubble into debates. I don't have a direct answer as to what happened between you and Neil, but even if I did it would probably be construed with bias.

Even if your threads are undeservedly deleted, you have to make some sort of thread in reference to it that declares how unfair it is. From what I've seen in your opinion, things haven't changed, so why do you stay here? Logic would dictate that you remain in your own forum and ignore SHS. But because you don't, this means that you either a) refuse to give up for whatever reason or B) Want to make SHS seem like a big blubbering idiot. So, why DO you stay here? Justice?

Like Archmage Silver said, this all seems like a political mess. Just like Republican vs. Democrat.

And this isn't meant to anger you, I just want an answer. If you feel insulted, I apologize.

Edited by discharger12, 27 September 2005 - 09:58 AM.

[Nastian]

Misunderstanding --> Local Unnecessary Discussion --> Quarrel --> Global Useless Discussion --> War

[Gaias]

Is that what you think should happen?

Sadly, I have been asked to withhold any and all advice I might give about the operation of this forum, so I cannot in good conscience answer your question.

Thank you for respecting our wishes.

*drops his popcorn in disbelieve*

What?!? Your killing off the main character in SHS Drama, you bastard!

*sighs* Just when it was getting good...

*clicks to another forum*

Edited by Gaias, 27 September 2005 - 12:21 PM.

[Tris]

I wholeheartedly agree. I would like to paraphrase, if I may:

Jason: Throughout Infinity Engine Modding History, I've noticed that things have changed drastically. Ever since you and Neil split up FWP, I've seen many threads bubble into debates.

JCompton, you're bitter.

I don't have a direct answer as to what happened between you and Neil, but even if I did it would probably be construed with bias.

JCompton, you deliberately twist people's words.

Even if your threads are undeservedly deleted, you have to make some sort of thread in reference to it that declares how unfair it is.

JCompton, you love to be coddled.

From what I've seen in your opinion, things haven't changed, so why do you stay here? Logic would dictate that you remain in your own forum and ignore SHS.

JCompton, Get Back In Your Box.

But because you don't, this means that you either a) refuse to give up for whatever reason or B) Want to make SHS seem like a big blubbering idiot. So, why DO you stay here? Justice?

JCompton, [Shed: Edited to remove expletives]

Like Archmage Silver said, this all seems like a political mess. Just like Republican vs. Democrat.

JCompton, why don't you concentrate on the modding, not the politics? You produce some good stuff when you're not winding people up.

And this isn't meant to anger you, I just want an answer. If you feel insulted, I apologize.

Mine is meant to anger you, but I'm sure you're big enough to rise above it.

Edited by Shed, 27 September 2005 - 02:26 PM.