Poster: Aaergh at 4/24/2006 8:25:41 AM PDT
Subject: Poor horse |
| |
Let him die!
|
| | http://forums.worldofwarcraft.com/thread.aspx?fn=wow-general&t=8017882&p=#post8017882 |
| |
Poster: Tseric at 4/24/2006 8:33:29 AM PDT
Subject: Re: Poor horse |
| |
We don't beat dead horses, here. We flog the Baron's mount. The disputation of unresolved contention is of epic quality.
AMIRITE?!?!
What was that apostrophe doing there?[ post edited by Tseric ]
My other sig is a rejoinder
|
| | http://forums.worldofwarcraft.com/thread.aspx?fn=wow-general&t=8017882&p=#post8017985 |
Poster: Tseric at 4/24/2006 9:03:07 AM PDT
Subject: Re: Poor horse |
| |
Q u o t e:
LOL. It's raid-boy, the walking thesaurus. Perhaps you could lock this thread in the name of off-topic and try to be as consistent as you were with the Pale Abusing his powers and Butt Secks threads?
Oh, this one agrees with your opinion! Makes perfect sense, now...
No, Kraam. This one has an opportunity for people to agree and come together about an issue rather than being continually devisive towards one another. Do you have such a difficulty in following suit? Can you see the difference between a thread which is a personal attack on someone and a thread that people can possibly agree on a common ground?
Your comments lead me to think not.
P.S.- "raid boy"? What are you talking about?
My other sig is a rejoinder
|
| | http://forums.worldofwarcraft.com/thread.aspx?fn=wow-general&t=8017882&p=#post8018439 |
Poster: Tseric at 4/24/2006 9:29:27 AM PDT
Subject: Re: Poor horse |
| |
Q u o t e:
Wasn't it you that proposed that the majority of the playerbase was undetermined and as a result multiple thread exceeding 20 pages of non-raiding players posting their comments became locked/broken/deleted?
No. It was I who suggested that the issue wasn't as black and white as people were trying to portray it. The tired notion of us vs. them. It was I who thought hardcore/casual was a misnomer and said as much. I was putting forth the notion that "casual" was a broad term that people interpreted differently.
Q u o t e:
Perhaps the subjectiveness of how coarse comments from others (including MVPs and CMs here) seem is a concept that escapes you? Perhaps the layers of Hell you described earlier contains a certain department for those recalcitrant to assisting others without scorn?
The subjectivness does not escape me. But, you have to agree that selectivness takes place. When we are in a place full of people who cuss, fling insults, link pron and other such behavior, taking issue with Palehoof's attitude seems a tad disproportionate.
But, seriously, I am at a loss as to why you think my questioning of your "raid-boy" comment is ironic. You aren't familiar with my play style, so you aren't really speaking from an informed position, are you? How can you make the proper contrast that irony requires?
My other sig is a rejoinder
|
| | http://forums.worldofwarcraft.com/thread.aspx?fn=wow-general&t=8017882&p=#post8018741 |
Poster: Tseric at 4/24/2006 11:38:50 AM PDT
Subject: Re: Poor horse |
| |
Q u o t e:
Basically his lack of comment on the "thesaurus thing" was confirmation of his condescending attitude towards the average poster on these forums.
That is a serious stretch of logic, there. Also, sort of self-justifying. Like saying, "If you lock this thread you are just proving me right!". You have set things up so that any response from me is the wrong one. It has been a topic that several have commented on (my indulgence in vocabulary, that is) and it wasn't an issue to be acknowledged. You tried to bait me and now you are attributing an attitude to me by omission of acknowledgement? That is disingenuous to say the least.
I shared my opinion in the locked thread, but that doesn't mean the thread didn't violate the CoC. The proper channel for such feedback is through email. The thread in question was demanding someone be "fired", as so many have. The discussion was over before it began, all possibility of it being eliminated by the OPs stance. Perhaps that is just my opinion, but my experience on these forums lend credence to my stance.
From the Code of Conduct:
Q u o t e:
Other Categories
There are two other categories of harassment that are not necessarily related to the language used, these are listed below.
* Ongoing harassment
Harassment takes many forms, and is not necessarily limited to the type of language used, but the intent. Repeatedly targeting a specific player with harassment can lead to more severe action. The idea behind this is to prevent any one player from consistently being uncomfortable in the World of Warcraft forums.
Now, after continued reissue of the 'Palehoof=Bad' threads, tell me how my actions were the superceding of my opinion over the Code of Conduct.
You make some salient points, but on some things it seems you are just trying to convolute things.[ post edited by Tseric ]
My other sig is a rejoinder
|
| | http://forums.worldofwarcraft.com/thread.aspx?fn=wow-general&t=8017882&p=#post8020524 |
