User talk:Defiant Elements/Archive 1: Difference between revisions

From SmashWiki, the Super Smash Bros. wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
No edit summary
Line 4: Line 4:
:A coupla things.  Not to bandy semantics with you, but I wasn't based my critique on my position as a Bureaucrat, I was basing it on personal experience from the perspective of an outsider.  On a related note, I purposefully made it clear that my post was made on the basis of what an "outsider" would see, and that context is vitally important to understanding my post; I'm well aware that I don't have the full picture; instead, I'm presenting the picture that an ''outsider'' would see.  I don't doubt that many of the sysops are excellent, nor do I doubt they take a lot of abuse; heck, I've been threatened with a lawsuit for banning someone as a Sysop because the ban was supported by CheckUser.  And it's not an attempt to undermine them either, though I can see with little difficulty why it might come off as such.  As I said, I have no stake in the success of this community, but I felt obligated to post because I saw a problem that had not, as far as I could tell, been thoroughly addressed elsewhere in the hopes that some good might come of it.  My post may come off as strident or rabble-rousing -- indeed, I expected people might thing that -- but that was not my intention.  However, I presumed nothing.  Indeed, if you read my first post you'll see that I'm perfectly willing to entertain the notion that the bans themselves were justified, but the manner in which the sysops responded/handled themselves is at least as much, if not more of a problem than the bans.  In truth, I don't expect anything to come of my post, but I made the effort because I thought that perhaps it would give people something to think about.  [[User:Defiant Elements|Defiant Elements]] 18:13, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
:A coupla things.  Not to bandy semantics with you, but I wasn't based my critique on my position as a Bureaucrat, I was basing it on personal experience from the perspective of an outsider.  On a related note, I purposefully made it clear that my post was made on the basis of what an "outsider" would see, and that context is vitally important to understanding my post; I'm well aware that I don't have the full picture; instead, I'm presenting the picture that an ''outsider'' would see.  I don't doubt that many of the sysops are excellent, nor do I doubt they take a lot of abuse; heck, I've been threatened with a lawsuit for banning someone as a Sysop because the ban was supported by CheckUser.  And it's not an attempt to undermine them either, though I can see with little difficulty why it might come off as such.  As I said, I have no stake in the success of this community, but I felt obligated to post because I saw a problem that had not, as far as I could tell, been thoroughly addressed elsewhere in the hopes that some good might come of it.  My post may come off as strident or rabble-rousing -- indeed, I expected people might thing that -- but that was not my intention.  However, I presumed nothing.  Indeed, if you read my first post you'll see that I'm perfectly willing to entertain the notion that the bans themselves were justified, but the manner in which the sysops responded/handled themselves is at least as much, if not more of a problem than the bans.  In truth, I don't expect anything to come of my post, but I made the effort because I thought that perhaps it would give people something to think about.  [[User:Defiant Elements|Defiant Elements]] 18:13, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
::In that case I would suppose we are in agreement. [[User:Semicolon|Semicolon]] ([[User talk:Semicolon|talk]]) 19:07, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
::In that case I would suppose we are in agreement. [[User:Semicolon|Semicolon]] ([[User talk:Semicolon|talk]]) 19:07, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
:::Agreement about...?  &ndash; [[User:Defiant Elements|<font color="black">Defiant Elements</font>]] 19:10, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Revision as of 14:10, August 21, 2008

With all due respect...

With all due respect, I have a bit of a problem with you coming in here, reading up on what can only be a minute part of this entire controversy, and then criticizing the way it has been handled based on your position as a bureaucrat. Our sysops work tirelessly, through badgering, abuse, and personal attack, to keep this a clean, informative, and fun community. This particular controversy was admittedly not worked out as best as it could have, but you seem to be trying to undermine their competency, dedication, and ability by presuming that their 'victims' were not at fault sufficient to justify their punishment. The fact of the matter is, their initial infractions were not sufficient. It was the accompanying responses to the initial punishments that were despicable and deserving of the bans. Please refrain from vocal critique until you know and understand the entire picture. Semicolon (talk) 13:59, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

A coupla things. Not to bandy semantics with you, but I wasn't based my critique on my position as a Bureaucrat, I was basing it on personal experience from the perspective of an outsider. On a related note, I purposefully made it clear that my post was made on the basis of what an "outsider" would see, and that context is vitally important to understanding my post; I'm well aware that I don't have the full picture; instead, I'm presenting the picture that an outsider would see. I don't doubt that many of the sysops are excellent, nor do I doubt they take a lot of abuse; heck, I've been threatened with a lawsuit for banning someone as a Sysop because the ban was supported by CheckUser. And it's not an attempt to undermine them either, though I can see with little difficulty why it might come off as such. As I said, I have no stake in the success of this community, but I felt obligated to post because I saw a problem that had not, as far as I could tell, been thoroughly addressed elsewhere in the hopes that some good might come of it. My post may come off as strident or rabble-rousing -- indeed, I expected people might thing that -- but that was not my intention. However, I presumed nothing. Indeed, if you read my first post you'll see that I'm perfectly willing to entertain the notion that the bans themselves were justified, but the manner in which the sysops responded/handled themselves is at least as much, if not more of a problem than the bans. In truth, I don't expect anything to come of my post, but I made the effort because I thought that perhaps it would give people something to think about. Defiant Elements 18:13, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
In that case I would suppose we are in agreement. Semicolon (talk) 19:07, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Agreement about...? – Defiant Elements 19:10, 21 August 2008 (UTC)