Backstage - OOC Forums

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

Did you know:

That the higher levels of space stations are restricted to the elite, with capsuleers occupying the very top decks? (The Burning life p. 73)

Pages: 1 ... 6 7 [8]

Author Topic: Loosening the straps (ooooh).  (Read 13248 times)

Lyn Farel

  • Guest
Re: Loosening the straps (ooooh).
« Reply #105 on: 10 Aug 2012, 04:51 »

Because of what Tiberious just said.

Lyn, I have to ask: are you really reading what people say?

I was going to ask the same thing, but I guess that's a misunderstanding somewhere that I can't really find (yet).
Logged

Ava Starfire

  • Queen of Hashbrowns
  • Pod Captain
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 559
Re: Loosening the straps (ooooh).
« Reply #106 on: 10 Aug 2012, 12:45 »

Because of what Tiberious just said.

Lyn, I have to ask: are you really reading what people say?

I was going to ask the same thing, but I guess that's a misunderstanding somewhere that I can't really find (yet).

You argued about "Why no slaves in summit is unfair!" AFTER i said, in this same thread, that they're now permitted.

Pretty much confirming that no, you do not.
Logged

Casiella

  • Demigod
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3723
  • Creation is so precious, and greed so destructive.
Re: Loosening the straps (ooooh).
« Reply #107 on: 10 Aug 2012, 13:58 »

And "there should just be IC consequences!" when the whole tactic of punishing the owner for the slave's behavior is IC.

Lyn, remember that thing where some folks believe you're arguing just to argue? This is why.
Logged

Morwen Lagann

  • Pretty Chewtoy
  • The Mods
  • Demigod
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3399
    • Lagging Behind
Re: Loosening the straps (ooooh).
« Reply #108 on: 10 Aug 2012, 14:05 »

Because of what Tiberious just said.

Lyn, I have to ask: are you really reading what people say?

I was going to ask the same thing, but I guess that's a misunderstanding somewhere that I can't really find (yet).

You argued about "Why no slaves in summit is unfair!" AFTER i said, in this same thread, that they're now permitted.

Pretty much confirming that no, you do not.

He's basically not been reading a word people have said over the course of the entire thread. The first mention of "banning slaves" was in my original post, and was explicitly stated as an opinion, not a rule (emphasis added)...

Quote from: Morwen Lagann
* As an aside: my personal opinion is that slaves should just be banned from the channel wholesale both as background NPCs and as player characters.

... well after the point where I had also clearly stated the policy was that while slaves are allowed in the channel, any cockups on their part will result in their Holders being punished just as harshly.

Quote from: Morwen Lagann
"Holders will suffer the same consequences as their slaves, should the slaves cause trouble and earn the ire of the moderators on the Summit." This one's new, but also self-explanatory. I'm not going to go into my personal beliefs about 'capsuleer slaves', but if you're a Holder, you are responsible for your slaves' behavior. If a slave earns themself a mute or a ban, that punishment will be carried over to the Holder as well. Want to avoid it? If you're going to insist on having slave characters connecting to the Summit, make sure they stay on their best behavior and don't cause trouble.*

Now to actually respond to your post, piece by piece just to make sure we get through it:

We might not be speaking about the same things.

I think it's pretty clear that we aren't at this point: I and most of the other people posting in the thread are talking about reality, and you and a few people you managed to distract are off in la-la land because you didn't actually read my original post and went completely off the rocker over something I didn't actually write.

You are eluding my actual points while stating the obvious.

It is extremely difficult to elude something that you don't know is there. If I'm "eluding" your points, maybe you should try putting them on the surface of your posts instead of hiding them under ten meters of off-kilter tangential nonsense that's based on something I didn't say.
 
I do never argue for the sake of arguing, and I am sorry you think I do. I, for one, find that debate and constructive discussion is always a good thing as long as it remains constructive. I also do not see the point of playing the sophist either. Do not confuse me with my character.

I think Mal/Raze/Azdan's post here pretty clearly explains why people say you argue for the sake of arguing, and gives a pretty clear example of you not reading what was in the post you responded to - or, if I'm going to be generous and give you the benefit of the doubt there, a clear example of you reading what was in the post and then responding in a fashion that pretty blatantly implies you didn't. I would also note that while his post is attributed primarily to your character, I personally see extremely similar behavior in your own OOC posting.

I was not refering to people playing slaves, I was refering to the clear rule written on the summit motd, which is "NO PARADING OF SLAVES".

Kindly check your goddamn facts before claiming shit like that. This has never been in the MOTD. The only "policy" that is explicitly in the MOTD is "No shirt, no shoes, no service."

Sorry, I just disagree and will continue to strongly voice against that kind of things. If this is IC (and since it is written in the motd, it is), then I will voice against it IC.

Again, check your facts before claiming something that isn't true, is. It isn't in the MOTD and never has been. You are confusing "things moderators highly suggest not doing because it almost always eventually leads to moderator action" for actual hardcoded rules.

But since I know it also comes from OOC bleeding and misconceptions, I also disapprove OOCly. I do not care if you want to ban BDSM slaves or whatever comes here, and the slavers parading them. It does not make a lot of sense IC, but it certainly does OOCly. But when I see people like Leopold (or other slavers that actually are not playing the nice slavers like Esna, Nico, etc) with slaves in the background like you will find voluvals on Matari flesh, slavers that are directly targeted by this rule, I have to admit that it pisses me off.

If you still think that it doesn't make sense IC, then you're still not listening to a word anyone's said on the subject. The channel is moderated both IC and OOC, preferably IC when possible. There is more than enough IC justification for this particular "rule", and the people who are "directly targeted" by it are the people who shit up the channel with stupid drama with the behavior the policy is intended to curb. And as it clearly hasn't sunk into your head yet, many Amarrian RPers have voiced support for the policy in and out of character.

Yes, I think that channel has had a tendancy to fall into the politically correct syndrome recently, and yes, I spend at least a little time watching what happens here. I may not do it as much as yourself, but it does not mean that my opinion is irrelevant too. Yes, I still do think that this channel has lost its neutrality over the time, and has become somewhat segregationist in is principles. It is still tolerable de facto, but on paper, it is not to my eyes.

It is far better to be politically correct and throw the drama-llamas, attention-whores and other troublemakers out the airlock, than have all of the decent people constantly complaining about and fleeing the channel because of them.

You clearly don't spend enough time watching, or at the right times of day. And while that doesn't make your opinion irrelevant, your opinion is still based on a lot of false claims that make its relevance questionable at best.

You sound like you think that I think mods are not doing their job, when they actually do, and also, congrats for that, you have all my support. You will also note that most of my points in my previous posts where not specifically adressed to you, moderators, but to some of the previous posts with which I totally disagree with.

You very clearly managed to somehow delude yourself and a bunch of other people into thinking we were doing or saying things that we actually aren't, so it's not that much of a stretch.

And finally, on rules vs mod discretion : just tell them to gtfo, who care if they complain ? That is your channel, not theirs. I want draconian, but not draconian bureaucrat. Some guidelines are fine, and probably better, though.

It also goes the same way with me, if I bother you enough (and it is definitly not a big deal, unlike it may seem), same thing : tell me to stfu, it is your channel, your rules, your ethics.

I will openly admit that the temptation is there, and I guarantee I am not the only person who feels that way.


Sidenote : and yes, it has always amazed me how most of people tend to favor their (internet) friendship over ethics.

If this is the backhanded accusation of moderator bias that it reads as, my response to you, were I not inclined to give you the benefit of the doubt this time, would be something that would make a stereotypical Gallentean mother go dashing for her kid's ears.
Logged
Lagging Behind

Morwen's Law:
1) The number of capsuleer women who are bisexual is greater than the number who are lesbian.
2) Most of the former group appear lesbian due to a lack of suitable male partners to go around.
3) The lack of suitable male partners can be summed up in most cases thusly: interested, worth the air they breathe, available; pick two.

Lyn Farel

  • Guest
Re: Loosening the straps (ooooh).
« Reply #109 on: 10 Aug 2012, 14:59 »

Because of what Tiberious just said.

Lyn, I have to ask: are you really reading what people say?

I was going to ask the same thing, but I guess that's a misunderstanding somewhere that I can't really find (yet).

You argued about "Why no slaves in summit is unfair!" AFTER i said, in this same thread, that they're now permitted.

Pretty much confirming that no, you do not.

Are you kidding me ? Refering to your post saying that the rule has been overruled (your own words) on post #97, only after my last argument, so no, you told it after. Then I answered "\o/", post #98.

Lyn, remember that thing where some folks believe you're arguing just to argue? This is why.

I still don't see it. Thats nonsense.  :eek:
Logged

Casiella

  • Demigod
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3723
  • Creation is so precious, and greed so destructive.
Re: Loosening the straps (ooooh).
« Reply #110 on: 10 Aug 2012, 15:08 »

Then continued discussion on this is pointless. :(
Logged

Lyn Farel

  • Guest
Re: Loosening the straps (ooooh).
« Reply #111 on: 10 Aug 2012, 15:30 »

I was going to answer point by point until I noticed it's futile, at best. Your answer is just full of misconception and misunderstandings, and I bet mine are too. Fine. Nevermind then, especially if everyone agrees (more or less).

I will however adress one or two very cheap shots.


I do never argue for the sake of arguing, and I am sorry you think I do. I, for one, find that debate and constructive discussion is always a good thing as long as it remains constructive. I also do not see the point of playing the sophist either. Do not confuse me with my character.

I think Mal/Raze/Azdan's post here pretty clearly explains why people say you argue for the sake of arguing, and gives a pretty clear example of you not reading what was in the post you responded to - or, if I'm going to be generous and give you the benefit of the doubt there, a clear example of you reading what was in the post and then responding in a fashion that pretty blatantly implies you didn't. I would also note that while his post is attributed primarily to your character, I personally see extremely similar behavior in your own OOC posting.

What the hell... ?  This linked post is about my character.


Quote
Sidenote : and yes, it has always amazed me how most of people tend to favor their (internet) friendship over ethics.

If this is the backhanded accusation of moderator bias that it reads as, my response to you, were I not inclined to give you the benefit of the doubt this time, would be something that would make a stereotypical Gallentean mother go dashing for her kid's ears.

No... It was actually me trying to emphasize on your own words...
Logged

Ava Starfire

  • Queen of Hashbrowns
  • Pod Captain
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 559
Re: Loosening the straps (ooooh).
« Reply #112 on: 10 Aug 2012, 16:50 »

It was MY IDEA to go from "no slaves in summit" to "slaves are ok, but if they fuck up, both owner and slave get banned" so I dont want to hear anyone scream and cry about how the "mods" are using their mod-given rights to push their own agendas. I play what is probably one of the die-hardest anti-slavery characters in EVE, and I despise it no less OOCly (BDSM Isnt slavery. Its BDSM. There's a difference.) Wanna talk about BDSM in the summit? Be my guest. Wanna talk about slavery? Be my guest. Confuse one for the other and call it RP? Ban likely incoming.

You clearly read this, then, Post no 73? Which was my 1st post in this thread?
« Last Edit: 10 Aug 2012, 16:54 by Ava Starfire »
Logged

Ava Starfire

  • Queen of Hashbrowns
  • Pod Captain
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 559
Re: Loosening the straps (ooooh).
« Reply #113 on: 10 Aug 2012, 16:52 »

Because of what Tiberious just said.

Lyn, I have to ask: are you really reading what people say?

I was going to ask the same thing, but I guess that's a misunderstanding somewhere that I can't really find (yet).

You argued about "Why no slaves in summit is unfair!" AFTER i said, in this same thread, that they're now permitted.

Pretty much confirming that no, you do not.

Are you kidding me ? Refering to your post saying that the rule has been overruled (your own words) on post #97, only after my last argument, so no, you told it after. Then I answered "\o/", post #98.

Quoting for great justice.
Logged

Lyn Farel

  • Guest
Re: Loosening the straps (ooooh).
« Reply #114 on: 10 Aug 2012, 17:42 »

It was MY IDEA to go from "no slaves in summit" to "slaves are ok, but if they fuck up, both owner and slave get banned" so I dont want to hear anyone scream and cry about how the "mods" are using their mod-given rights to push their own agendas. I play what is probably one of the die-hardest anti-slavery characters in EVE, and I despise it no less OOCly (BDSM Isnt slavery. Its BDSM. There's a difference.) Wanna talk about BDSM in the summit? Be my guest. Wanna talk about slavery? Be my guest. Confuse one for the other and call it RP? Ban likely incoming.

You clearly read this, then, Post no 73? Which was my 1st post in this thread?

You did not specified it was actually also part of the new rules, i thought it was only your opinion. Sorry if I can't read into minds yet.  :bash:

Though at least I see where is the misunderstanding now. What a storm in a kettle.
Logged

Morwen Lagann

  • Pretty Chewtoy
  • The Mods
  • Demigod
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3399
    • Lagging Behind
Re: Loosening the straps (ooooh).
« Reply #115 on: 10 Aug 2012, 17:48 »

It was MY IDEA to go from "no slaves in summit" to "slaves are ok, but if they fuck up, both owner and slave get banned" so I dont want to hear anyone scream and cry about how the "mods" are using their mod-given rights to push their own agendas. I play what is probably one of the die-hardest anti-slavery characters in EVE, and I despise it no less OOCly (BDSM Isnt slavery. Its BDSM. There's a difference.) Wanna talk about BDSM in the summit? Be my guest. Wanna talk about slavery? Be my guest. Confuse one for the other and call it RP? Ban likely incoming.

You clearly read this, then, Post no 73? Which was my 1st post in this thread?

You did not specified it was actually also part of the new rules, i thought it was only your opinion. Sorry if I can't read into minds yet.  :bash:

Though at least I see where is the misunderstanding now. What a storm in a kettle.

That's the thing, Lyn. It never was part of the 'new' rules. It was a suggestion that was banded about by several of the mods, and we decided against it and went with the "Holders suffer the same punishments as their misbehaving slaves" option instead, as I stated in my first post on the first page.

You arbitrarily decided that what had been clearly stated as nothing more than an opinion - after it had been stated that the "same punishments" thing was the active policy - was the rule. That is where you went way the fuck off the mark, and that's where it became clear you weren't reading what was being posted.
Logged
Lagging Behind

Morwen's Law:
1) The number of capsuleer women who are bisexual is greater than the number who are lesbian.
2) Most of the former group appear lesbian due to a lack of suitable male partners to go around.
3) The lack of suitable male partners can be summed up in most cases thusly: interested, worth the air they breathe, available; pick two.

Katrina Oniseki

  • The Iron Lady
  • Demigod
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2265
  • Caldari - Deteis - Tube Child
Re: Loosening the straps (ooooh).
« Reply #116 on: 10 Aug 2012, 20:35 »

This thread is getting pretty heated. Maybe we should all just relax a bit.

Lyn Farel

  • Guest
Re: Loosening the straps (ooooh).
« Reply #117 on: 11 Aug 2012, 03:54 »

Yeah of course, now it's my fault.  :roll:

You see ? That's the thing too.
Logged

Makkal

  • Pod Captain
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 837
  • Khanid victor
    • At the End of Your Journey
Re: Loosening the straps (ooooh).
« Reply #118 on: 12 Aug 2012, 19:42 »

No Posted Rules.
Does this mean people can connect from their hot tubs again?

Logged
Ask not the sparrow how the eagle soars!

Current Events

Graelyn

  • Ye Olde One
  • Moderator
  • Veteran
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1336
  • These things just seem to happen...
Re: Loosening the straps (ooooh).
« Reply #119 on: 12 Aug 2012, 22:42 »

You can connect that way.

I can't be held liable for what happens after, though.
Logged


If we can hit that bullseye, the rest of the dominoes will fall like a house of cards. Checkmate!
Pages: 1 ... 6 7 [8]