Forum - View topic

Double standards

Before anyone is too quick to make excuses on my behalf, and to call it "a regrettable loss of temper", let me point out that I do not in any way agree that I acted unreasonably, nor was my temper at any time out of control. An unfair attack was made upon a colleague, and I defended him. When the response to that was rudeness, I responded with a completely justified tongue-lashing.

Don't try to pretend that you are doing me a favour, ikillchicken, by claiming that I acted without knowing completely what I was doing. That's just a back-handed way of disrespecting me, and it's not going to fly --

I never say or do anything of which I am ashamed.

You don't care for me, ikillchicken, and that's your privilege (and I assure you, the feeling is completely mutual), so don't pretend to act as if you have my best interests at heart -- it is a transparent lie. And don't presume to speak for me, it is not among your rights.

As for the issue of politeness, I doubt anyone can point to anything that I wrote which (unless quoted out of context) is rude. There's a difference between "rude" and "not nice". You can be perfectly harsh without ever being impolite.

Are you confirming that you feel it is acceptable to break the ANN rules if you feel it is justified then? If you could in a simple yes/no manner confirm or deny this it would be very helpful.

Quote:

Don't try to pretend that you are doing me a favour, ikillchicken, by claiming that I acted without knowing completely what I was doing. That's just a back-handed way of disrespecting me, and it's not going to fly --

If you're going to take offense at the suggestion that like every other human being on this planet, you do in fact make mistakes then I expect anything I say to you will constitute disrespect.

Quote:

You don't care for me, ikillchicken, and that's your privilege (and I assure you, the feeling is completely mutual), so don't pretend to act as if you have my best interests at heart -- it is a transparent lie. And don't presume to speak for me, it is not among your rights.

But it's apparently your right to presume to tell me how I feel. Furthermore, you presume to know what my intentions are. I am genuinely trying to give you the benefit of the doubt here. Yet because you refuse to do the same, you have turned my attempt at being reasonable into something else to take offense at.

You will also notice upon re-reading my post that I never said this is definitely the case. I specifically stated "...if he simply made a mistake once..." So seeing as I'm not speaking for you, could you please return the favor and not make assumptions about me.

Quote:

As for the issue of politeness, I doubt anyone can point to anything that I wrote which (unless quoted out of context) is rude. There's a difference between "rude" and "not nice". You can be perfectly harsh without ever being impolite.

Agreed. However as I said, this is not an issue of rudeness. This is about crossing the line and making personal attacks on another poster. Something that is not allowed on ANN regardless of context.

I challenge you to tell me that if a user told somebody they were acting like an "insufferable twit" and told them to take their opinion and "put it somewhere indelicate" that they wouldn't get at least a harsh warning and a lecture about the rules if not an outright ban regardless of context.

And don't presume to speak for me, it is not among your rights.

But if you talk crap to me, or one of my fellow moderators, I won't let you walk away unscathed.

If you think it's tough on you, it's just too bad. Don't screw up, then.

abunai wrote:

And don't presume to speak for me, it is not among your rights.

abunai wrote:

But if you talk crap to me, or one of my fellow moderators, I won't let you walk away unscathed.

But apparently you can speak on behalf of the other Moderators,
butt into their fights and throw fuel on the fire even after the original conflict is over and the two guys have made amends.

I find that an interesting case of a double standard (trying to keep my post at least marginally on topic here).

abunai wrote:

If you think it's tough on you, it's just too bad. Don't screw up, then.

Yes, well, when you threaten to ban people for relatively minor offences (as you have done in the past), the definition of "screwing up" is rather fluid.

I suppose you could then define it as "whatever happens to catch my attention that I do not like". Which not only is unfair to those with bad luck, it is not a system that inspires much trust or confidence.

And you kind of need those to give your position a moral legitimacy, which happens to be the most powerful Moderation tool around (in my humble opinion anyway).

i guess i can't have an opinion because im a noob and abunai doesnt approve.