NationStates Jolt Archive

Hello,

In the following post is over the top for UN forum posts, and I've highlighted in red the portions of the post that I feel are beyond any civil / constructive debate:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8613423&postcount=19

I'd like a moderator to review this post. While the previous threads were certainly borderline, this one really crosses a few lines and should be stopped before ithis behavior continues into other threads.

Thank you,
-Michael

You realize that outright posting that what he said is flaming in a specific post like that can also be considered flamebait?

You realize that outright posting that what he said is flaming in a specific post like that can also be considered flamebait?

No, and that was not my intent.

I wanted to specifically color in red the parts of his post quoted exactly, to illustrate how much of that post bothered me. The point is, I do post LONG posts ... and often I post very detailed technical / statistical info. In this case I was actually counting out hypothetical thread views, vote margins and total vote counts in order to prove a point I had stated several times and was flamed for saying, namely that in the grand scheme of things, while roleplaying is __fun__ and an enjoyable part of the game, it is not essential to the passage of a NS UN resolution. There have been many resolutions which passed where the overwhelming majority of the posts on the UN forum were very negative if not downright hostile towards the resolution (and in some cases its author).

In this particular case, Hersfold (a player who was subjected to this via the UN Educational Committee resolution from a year ago) was setting up a school to teach newbies about the UN, and the players involved decided that roleplaying in general would be covered elsewhere. I was invited to "teach" at this school. This started at some point when this player complained about Hersfold's idea and argued that roleplaying and resolution debate are very important parts of getting a resolution adopted. There is no data to support this, and I presented numbers to illustrate this several times.

The result looked like this (just an example):

I wanted to specifically color in red the parts of his post quoted exactly, to illustrate how much of that post bothered me.You've illustrated nothing at all.The point is, I do post LONG posts ... and often I post very detailed technical / statistical info.They are long posts, but you never say anything.In this case I was actually counting out hypothetical thread views, vote margins and total vote counts in order to prove a point I had stated several times and was flamed for saying, namely that in the grand scheme of things, while roleplaying is __fun__ and an enjoyable part of the game, it is not essential to the passage of a NS UN resolution.So you admit it is fun, but not essential. Sounds like hypocrisy to me!There have been many resolutions which passed where the overwhelming majority of the posts on the UN forum were very negative if not downright hostile towards the resolution (and in some cases its author).Once again false, I see your grasp on the game is as poor as ever.In this particular case, Hersfold (a player who was subjected to this via the UN Educational Committee resolution from a year ago) was setting up a school to teach newbies about the UN, and the players involved decided that roleplaying in general would be covered elsewhere.That is a misrepresentation. Irrelevant.
I was invited to "teach" at this school. This started at some point when this player complained about Hersfold's idea and argued that roleplaying and resolution debate are very important parts of getting a resolution adopted. There is no data to support this, and I presented numbers to illustrate this several times. There is no data to support this, and I presented numbers to illustrate this several times.
You flamed me first. And it is a fact roleplayed debate is necessary for UN resolutions. Normally I'd think somebody doesn't realize this, but you have a long history of not understanding anything here.

But it is a common tactic to actually do this for PAGES in the UN forum, but if you take out the text that is being broken up (sometimes out of context), this is really what is being added:


You've illustrated nothing at all.

They are long posts, but you never say anything.

So you admit it is fun, but not essential. Sounds like hypocrisy to me!

Once again false, I see your grasp on the game is as poor as ever.

That is a misrepresentation. Irrelevant

You flamed me first. And it is a fact roleplayed debate is necessary for UN resolutions. Normally I'd think somebody doesn't realize this, but you have a long history of not understanding anything here.


The problem here is that it is easy to add nothing, but make it appear as though you are reading somebody's posts by quoting every line ... and just trading insults. If you take away the post that is being attacked, it becomes very apparent that this is in fact a flame. And that is why I did this.

Mods, before you deal with Mik's post, I want you to know the truth of what is going on and not just Mik's twist. For one thing, notice he purposefully took the comments out of context in his post before reporting to you and couldn't be bothered to link to my post. I will now do so.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8612952&postcount=18

Second, I want you to know the entire story of what is going on.

This whole thing started on this topic: http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=409505

Specifically, with Mik responding to this post by myself: http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8606013&postcount=5

In which he posts this: http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8606505&postcount=1

After awhile of arguing, I asked for a split of the topic (which is found on this forum), resulting in this thread: http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=410286

Now, I will note that some of my comments are outright flamebait. But I'll also note that Mik is not as innocent as he presents himself to be. For one thing, he has repeatedly dodged actually arguing my points by instead going off on a barely-related (if that) tangent on the conversation he started with his reply to my post. That is, in my experience, a form of flamebait and is bannable as trolling on some forums. I consider it trolling (which is the absolute truth of the matter) for those reasons.

You want an example? Here's one.

My comment: http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8609847&postcount=4
His reply: http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8610393&postcount=5

Now, can anyone here tell me what the separation of roleplaying from UN activities in the Lemurian system has to do with the technical aspect of arguing resolutions when they are up to vote? If it were the roleplaying aspect, maybe it would have been actually addressing what I said.

I have skipped over this several times as I dealt with other matters, and I'm still not going to address a point-by-point response to either of you.

I split that earlier thread, and even then I didn't read the posts. (Which caused a few problems with the split, but that's been dealt with.) I find the constant use of quote-box argument splitting to be impenetrable and unreadable, and I frankly blow off any argument that uses them.

The two of you have been cordially fighting for much of my time in the UN. By comparison to the tubgirl spammers and General flamers, both of you are milder than Ivory soap. It's only because you're disagreeing in the relatively staid UN that this is even worthy of a mention in Moderation.

There is no question that each of you brings out the worst in the other, and you're both capable of writing paragraph after impenetrable paragraph describing why. I don't want to deal with it, the UN posters don't want to deal with it, and apparently you two don't want to deal with each other.

I'm going to suggest that you avail yourselves of the Jolt ignore function, and simply disregard other quoted mentions of the other's posts. You're never going to agree, and you're never going to accept the other's posting style. That is self-evident fact after about a year of battles.

If either of you have any constructive suggestions (as opposed to further complaints), please feel free to post them here. Otherwise, I'm don't see anything that really needs to be dealt with.

~ Frisbeeteria ~
NationStates Forum Moderator