Total Posts:51|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Clarfication on Jifpops false accusation

Mikal
Posts: 11,271
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2014 3:13:19 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
There are a majority of things that have bugged me today. One of which being Jifpop accusing me of multi accounting because of my response in a thread.

The first thing I want to note is this is false. Airmax and the Mods have confirmed this to be false and I am going to have airmax clarify this shortly as soon as this posts.

I am going to take the time to defend this because it bothers me for a variety of reasons

(a) Being accused of multi accounting and trying to convince other members I was multi accounting questions my integrity
(b) This does not just tie into this accusation but his accusation of accusing others of voting for me and only me.

I want to put this in perspective. He has accused not only me, but other great members such as bluesteel, bladerunner, Tuf, bsh, YYW , countless others, and even moderation in being apart of shady activities and cheating.

All these accusations are false and will be dealt with by airmax at some given point in time I am sure. He has violated the TOS by making all of these false claims, and I am sure he will be confronted about it or has been already. I am not here to bash him or criticize him but to defend myself from these false claims.

He got the idea of myself multi accounting from my response to romanis thread about a new member leaving

http://www.debate.org...

where I stated this

" and I was actually going to not run an argument in this debate with jif. Now I have no quams about it"

I was referring to my debate with him which was this

http://www.debate.org...

He worded the resolution poorly and I was not planning on running some of the arguments I ran because I wanted to give him a fair chance.

I let him clarify and make the resolution and I copy and pasted it. That was what he came up with

It was worded very poorly and there are countless ways to snipe that debate.

I was stating I felt less bad and no quams with running some of the arguments I was going to run after him noob sniping a new member and refusing to yield to a request by that member.

Now he arrives at this conclusion because I said "this" meaning he thought I was referring to that specific debate with a new member and not our debate we are currently in

I was referring to this debate and should have typed "my" instead. I was just rather annoyed that he ran a perspective member off the site by trolling him after the guy stated and asked him not to debate that debate in the way he planned to

So in short because i said "this" instead of "our current" debate he arrived at the conclusion i was multi accounting and spammed it in the forums

I personally don't care whether he thinks I was mutli accounting but the fact he was protraying this to new members and older members alike and even having them saying "hhmmm" bothers the hell out of me

Again i want to note this claim is false and airmax and ore can and will clarify this.

I would also like to thank progressive for taking up defense of me in this debate.

http://www.debate.org...

It meant alot that he was willing to call "bs" on jifs claim without hearing anything other than the claim itself. That meant alot.

Not alot of things bother me, but the accusation about me cheating really pisses me off.

In short I wanted to just clarify this entire thing was a giant false accusation that happened because he took the time to jump to conclusions and try to harass me in the forums publicly rather than messaging me or airmax. This just adds to the giant list of conduct violations that he has been constantly committing since his return.

If you took the time to read this or even care , thanks. I just hate lies, especially ones that happen in this type of way.

I hate the fact that my integrity, the integrity of the mods, and the integrity of almost every other top member was brought into question by him

It is something that should not happen in the way in which it did

Mikal
airmax1227
Posts: 13,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2014 3:39:57 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
My investigation concluded that Mikal did not multi account, and that there is no evidence of this whatsoever aside from some circumstantial things that are rarely accurate in these cases, and are certainly not accurate in this case.

I investigate these types of issues dozens of times every week. Usually this is done privately as it should be, and the issue is resolved simply enough.

Several things are done to confirm if a member is/isn't multi accounting, but in most cases circumstantial evidence proves to be false, and members should be very careful with these types of accusations. While members are always encouraged to bring their concerns to me privately so that genuine instances of multi accounting can be put to an end, it is never appropriate to make threads specifically to accuse members of these sorts of things.

It's not fair to the innocent member who is being accused, and it usually just leads to constant flame war threads. It is simple enough to have a moderator look into it, rather than having occur what happened here.
Debate.org Moderator
Mikal
Posts: 11,271
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2014 4:21:08 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/24/2014 3:39:57 AM, airmax1227 wrote:
My investigation concluded that Mikal did not multi account, and that there is no evidence of this whatsoever aside from some circumstantial things that are rarely accurate in these cases, and are certainly not accurate in this case.

I investigate these types of issues dozens of times every week. Usually this is done privately as it should be, and the issue is resolved simply enough.

Several things are done to confirm if a member is/isn't multi accounting, but in most cases circumstantial evidence proves to be false, and members should be very careful with these types of accusations. While members are always encouraged to bring their concerns to me privately so that genuine instances of multi accounting can be put to an end, it is never appropriate to make threads specifically to accuse members of these sorts of things.

It's not fair to the innocent member who is being accused, and it usually just leads to constant flame war threads. It is simple enough to have a moderator look into it, rather than having occur what happened here.

Thanks for clarifying that and addressing all of my concerns.
tvellalott
Posts: 10,864
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2014 5:13:13 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
The DDO Elite strike again. Cover up I say!
"Caitlyn Jenner is an incredibly brave and stunningly beautiful woman."

Muh threads
Using mafia tactics in real-life: http://www.debate.org...
6 years of DDO: http://www.debate.org...
NiqashMotawadi3
Posts: 1,895
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2014 6:09:23 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
I was myself surprised to hear such accusations, mainly because there was not enough empirical evidence to jump to such conclusions, and because Mikal has not exhibited any trolling behavior to my knowledge but has acted decently and respectively to others throughout his DDO career. But I have to clarify that I'm not convinced that making false claims is a ToS violation as JiffPop most likely genuinely believed such accusations, and hence did not make such fabrications intentionally to disrepute Mikal, who has a good reputation on here, although the fact that he went ahead with such heinous accusations without waiting for Airmax's investigation could be arguably considered a form of harassment which is a ToS violation, if I'm not mistaken, because he was troubling Mikal when he didn't have good reason to do so or sufficient evidence to make such accusations to begin with.
Mikal
Posts: 11,271
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2014 6:18:45 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/24/2014 6:09:23 AM, NiqashMotawadi3 wrote:
I was myself surprised to hear such accusations, mainly because there was not enough empirical evidence to jump to such conclusions, and because Mikal has not exhibited any trolling behavior to my knowledge but has acted decently and respectively to others throughout his DDO career. But I have to clarify that I'm not convinced that making false claims is a ToS violation as JiffPop most likely genuinely believed such accusations, and hence did not make such fabrications intentionally to disrepute Mikal, who has a good reputation on here, although the fact that he went ahead with such heinous accusations without waiting for Airmax's investigation could be arguably considered a form of harassment which is a ToS violation, if I'm not mistaken, because he was troubling Mikal when he didn't have good reason to do so or sufficient evidence to make such accusations to begin with.

(a) I troll
(b) i can be an azzhole

That is irrelevant though. The issue was that i addressed him and stated that I would or have never multi accounted. First thing I told airmax to do was to ip check it. Instead of waiting for the results the dude makes 3 threads in a attempt to belittle me with false claims

The title of thread was "fall of the best" or something like that. The intent was obvious. in the process I was just not the one being questioned but *anyone* and I do mean anyone who has ever voted in favor of me

I'm use to hate and I'm cool with. He can hate on me all he wants, but don't try to convince others with blatant fabrications and in the process belittle some of the best users on the site

I just made this to defend myself.

It is irrelevant, he is on a way to a perma ban at some point. He has broken the rules over 10 times in the past 3 days. I am not even up for trying to talk to him or anything anymore

with his progress he will get himself banned in a matter of time. I did mention to airmax that I was drastically displeased and considered this a direct attack on my self.
NiqashMotawadi3
Posts: 1,895
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2014 6:24:34 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/24/2014 6:18:45 AM, Mikal wrote:
At 5/24/2014 6:09:23 AM, NiqashMotawadi3 wrote:
I was myself surprised to hear such accusations, mainly because there was not enough empirical evidence to jump to such conclusions, and because Mikal has not exhibited any trolling behavior to my knowledge but has acted decently and respectively to others throughout his DDO career. But I have to clarify that I'm not convinced that making false claims is a ToS violation as JiffPop most likely genuinely believed such accusations, and hence did not make such fabrications intentionally to disrepute Mikal, who has a good reputation on here, although the fact that he went ahead with such heinous accusations without waiting for Airmax's investigation could be arguably considered a form of harassment which is a ToS violation, if I'm not mistaken, because he was troubling Mikal when he didn't have good reason to do so or sufficient evidence to make such accusations to begin with.

(a) I troll
(b) i can be an azzhole

That is irrelevant though. The issue was that i addressed him and stated that I would or have never multi accounted. First thing I told airmax to do was to ip check it. Instead of waiting for the results the dude makes 3 threads in a attempt to belittle me with false claims

The title of thread was "fall of the best" or something like that. The intent was obvious. in the process I was just not the one being questioned but *anyone* and I do mean anyone who has ever voted in favor of me

I'm use to hate and I'm cool with. He can hate on me all he wants, but don't try to convince others with blatant fabrications and in the process belittle some of the best users on the site

I just made this to defend myself.

It is irrelevant, he is on a way to a perma ban at some point. He has broken the rules over 10 times in the past 3 days. I am not even up for trying to talk to him or anything anymore

with his progress he will get himself banned in a matter of time. I did mention to airmax that I was drastically displeased and considered this a direct attack on my self.

I'm personally not familiar with you trolling, and so I found it rather strange that you would be accused of trolling behavior, but that is just me. It's not like I stalk you around, so there must be things about you which I don't know.

And yes, I caught a glimpse of what he was doing, and it was unquestionably harassment, although it was ridiculously funny and awkward, but to be very sincere here, not many people listen to him or me, or anyone who isn't popular like you, and so he hasn't really convinced a great number of people with the false accusations, especially that Airmax just made a clarifying statement which cleared things out, so don't let what Jiffpop did get to you personally. What he did is nothing and it shouldn't scratch you more than a paper airplane could scratch a fortress' wall.
Mikal
Posts: 11,271
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2014 6:26:37 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/24/2014 6:24:34 AM, NiqashMotawadi3 wrote:
At 5/24/2014 6:18:45 AM, Mikal wrote:
At 5/24/2014 6:09:23 AM, NiqashMotawadi3 wrote:
I was myself surprised to hear such accusations, mainly because there was not enough empirical evidence to jump to such conclusions, and because Mikal has not exhibited any trolling behavior to my knowledge but has acted decently and respectively to others throughout his DDO career. But I have to clarify that I'm not convinced that making false claims is a ToS violation as JiffPop most likely genuinely believed such accusations, and hence did not make such fabrications intentionally to disrepute Mikal, who has a good reputation on here, although the fact that he went ahead with such heinous accusations without waiting for Airmax's investigation could be arguably considered a form of harassment which is a ToS violation, if I'm not mistaken, because he was troubling Mikal when he didn't have good reason to do so or sufficient evidence to make such accusations to begin with.

(a) I troll
(b) i can be an azzhole

That is irrelevant though. The issue was that i addressed him and stated that I would or have never multi accounted. First thing I told airmax to do was to ip check it. Instead of waiting for the results the dude makes 3 threads in a attempt to belittle me with false claims

The title of thread was "fall of the best" or something like that. The intent was obvious. in the process I was just not the one being questioned but *anyone* and I do mean anyone who has ever voted in favor of me

I'm use to hate and I'm cool with. He can hate on me all he wants, but don't try to convince others with blatant fabrications and in the process belittle some of the best users on the site

I just made this to defend myself.

It is irrelevant, he is on a way to a perma ban at some point. He has broken the rules over 10 times in the past 3 days. I am not even up for trying to talk to him or anything anymore

with his progress he will get himself banned in a matter of time. I did mention to airmax that I was drastically displeased and considered this a direct attack on my self.

I'm personally not familiar with you trolling, and so I found it rather strange that you would be accused of trolling behavior, but that is just me. It's not like I stalk you around, so there must be things about you which I don't know.

And yes, I caught a glimpse of what he was doing, and it was unquestionably harassment, although it was ridiculously funny and awkward, but to be very sincere here, not many people listen to him or me, or anyone who isn't popular like you, and so he hasn't really convinced a great number of people with the false accusations, especially that Airmax just made a clarifying statement which cleared things out, so don't let what Jiffpop did get to you personally. What he did is nothing and it shouldn't scratch you more than a paper airplane could scratch a fortress' wall.

lol the first bit of sarcasm was funny, the second bit was still humorous but over done a bit.

<3

Add me to your fan fik btw. I have yours on my top 4, you write very well
NiqashMotawadi3
Posts: 1,895
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2014 6:33:40 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Yes, I'll try to add you next episode. You also write really well, there is spirit in your words and great descriptions and animation.

I also would like to clarify that in the past I had some differences with you, but you are one of the members on here who I've truly respected even in situations where we've locked horns, perhaps because you are very modest and understanding, and still not diseased with DDO elitism and anti-socialism like the other top and pseudo-top members, but someone who is clearly an interesting and self-reliant person, and someone I would introduce to new members who are looking for a role-model or debating coach to follow on DDO, not that I'm at odds with all DDO members or trying to win your favor, I'm the last person to do so, but watching that Youtube podcast and seeing your questions to Bladerunner made me understand you better than before, although I still have some differences with you much like I have with myself and all other members.
Mikal
Posts: 11,271
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2014 6:40:25 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/24/2014 6:33:40 AM, NiqashMotawadi3 wrote:
Yes, I'll try to add you next episode. You also write really well, there is spirit in your words and great descriptions and animation.

I also would like to clarify that in the past I had some differences with you, but you are one of the members on here who I've truly respected even in situations where we've locked horns, perhaps because you are very modest and understanding, and still not diseased with DDO elitism and anti-socialism like the other top and pseudo-top members, but someone who is clearly an interesting and self-reliant person, and someone I would introduce to new members who are looking for a role-model or debating coach to follow on DDO, not that I'm at odds with all DDO members or trying to win your favor, I'm the last person to do so, but watching that Youtube podcast and seeing your questions to Bladerunner made me understand you better than before, although I still have some differences with you much like I have with myself and all other members.

I had never had an issue with you either, I use to read a great deal of your debates. there was one you did about prophecy right when you joined that I loved.

I did this up until it seemed like you were biting my azz for no reason and some type of personal grudge. Then I became assholey to you

apologies for that.
NiqashMotawadi3
Posts: 1,895
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2014 6:51:51 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/24/2014 6:40:25 AM, Mikal wrote:
At 5/24/2014 6:33:40 AM, NiqashMotawadi3 wrote:
Yes, I'll try to add you next episode. You also write really well, there is spirit in your words and great descriptions and animation.

I also would like to clarify that in the past I had some differences with you, but you are one of the members on here who I've truly respected even in situations where we've locked horns, perhaps because you are very modest and understanding, and still not diseased with DDO elitism and anti-socialism like the other top and pseudo-top members, but someone who is clearly an interesting and self-reliant person, and someone I would introduce to new members who are looking for a role-model or debating coach to follow on DDO, not that I'm at odds with all DDO members or trying to win your favor, I'm the last person to do so, but watching that Youtube podcast and seeing your questions to Bladerunner made me understand you better than before, although I still have some differences with you much like I have with myself and all other members.

I had never had an issue with you either, I use to read a great deal of your debates. there was one you did about prophecy right when you joined that I loved.

I did this up until it seemed like you were biting my azz for no reason and some type of personal grudge. Then I became assholey to you

apologies for that.

It's not that I had a personal grudge against you. I just hate and love people for experimental purposes, and then flip people around every now and then from basket to basket to have different social experiences. It's really amusing, especially when you convert someone who despises you into liking you and notice the conceptual shift that occurs, but that makes you lose some friends on the way, but that is okay as you would always find people that are kind to you when you make them hate you and when you make them love you, and those, I think, deserve to be your friends more than others, and so you might put them in another basket altogether to not toy with their emotions and continue flipping others around.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2014 7:16:48 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/24/2014 3:39:57 AM, airmax1227 wrote:
My investigation concluded that Mikal did not multi account, and that there is no evidence of this whatsoever aside from some circumstantial things that are rarely accurate in these cases, and are certainly not accurate in this case.

I investigate these types of issues dozens of times every week. Usually this is done privately as it should be, and the issue is resolved simply enough.

Several things are done to confirm if a member is/isn't multi accounting, but in most cases circumstantial evidence proves to be false, and members should be very careful with these types of accusations. While members are always encouraged to bring their concerns to me privately so that genuine instances of multi accounting can be put to an end, it is never appropriate to make threads specifically to accuse members of these sorts of things.

It's not fair to the innocent member who is being accused, and it usually just leads to constant flame war threads. It is simple enough to have a moderator look into it, rather than having occur what happened here.

It's my understanding that the referent thread has been deleted. If it has been deleted, so should this one for the same reasons.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
ESocialBookworm
Posts: 14,373
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2014 7:43:09 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
I saw the member as well and he did start of the debate, kind of like you. But I doubted it was you.

It was a major dimwitted move on Jif's behalf to harrass the new member. If nuthjng, he should have contacted you to find out if it was you, not accuse the new member, who could have contributed very much to the site!!!

On the other hand, I don't think it is a violation of the rules to call someone out on multi-accounting. It is the move of a jerk... But I don't think he should be banned for that
Solonkr~
I don't care about whether an ideology is "necessary" or not,
I care about how to solve problems,
which is what everyone else should also care about.

Ken~
In essence, the world is fucked up and you can either ignore it, become cynical or bitter about it.

Me~
"BAILEY + SOLON = SAILEY
MY SHIP SAILEY MUST SAIL"

SCREW THAT SHIZ #BANNIE = BAILEY & ANNIE

P.S. Shipped Sailey before it was cannon bitches.
Mikal
Posts: 11,271
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2014 7:46:33 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/24/2014 7:43:09 AM, ESocialBookworm wrote:
I saw the member as well and he did start of the debate, kind of like you. But I doubted it was you.

It was a major dimwitted move on Jif's behalf to harrass the new member. If nuthjng, he should have contacted you to find out if it was you, not accuse the new member, who could have contributed very much to the site!!!

On the other hand, I don't think it is a violation of the rules to call someone out on multi-accounting. It is the move of a jerk... But I don't think he should be banned for that

actually its a blatant violation of the TOS
Mikal
Posts: 11,271
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2014 7:46:48 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/24/2014 6:51:51 AM, NiqashMotawadi3 wrote:
At 5/24/2014 6:40:25 AM, Mikal wrote:
At 5/24/2014 6:33:40 AM, NiqashMotawadi3 wrote:
Yes, I'll try to add you next episode. You also write really well, there is spirit in your words and great descriptions and animation.

I also would like to clarify that in the past I had some differences with you, but you are one of the members on here who I've truly respected even in situations where we've locked horns, perhaps because you are very modest and understanding, and still not diseased with DDO elitism and anti-socialism like the other top and pseudo-top members, but someone who is clearly an interesting and self-reliant person, and someone I would introduce to new members who are looking for a role-model or debating coach to follow on DDO, not that I'm at odds with all DDO members or trying to win your favor, I'm the last person to do so, but watching that Youtube podcast and seeing your questions to Bladerunner made me understand you better than before, although I still have some differences with you much like I have with myself and all other members.

I had never had an issue with you either, I use to read a great deal of your debates. there was one you did about prophecy right when you joined that I loved.

I did this up until it seemed like you were biting my azz for no reason and some type of personal grudge. Then I became assholey to you

apologies for that.

It's not that I had a personal grudge against you. I just hate and love people for experimental purposes, and then flip people around every now and then from basket to basket to have different social experiences. It's really amusing, especially when you convert someone who despises you into liking you and notice the conceptual shift that occurs, but that makes you lose some friends on the way, but that is okay as you would always find people that are kind to you when you make them hate you and when you make them love you, and those, I think, deserve to be your friends more than others, and so you might put them in another basket altogether to not toy with their emotions and continue flipping others around.

fair enough lol
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2014 7:50:56 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/24/2014 7:43:09 AM, ESocialBookworm wrote:
I saw the member as well and he did start of the debate, kind of like you. But I doubted it was you.

It was a major dimwitted move on Jif's behalf to harrass the new member. If nuthjng, he should have contacted you to find out if it was you, not accuse the new member, who could have contributed very much to the site!!!

On the other hand, I don't think it is a violation of the rules to call someone out on multi-accounting. It is the move of a jerk... But I don't think he should be banned for that

Making threads designed to attack others are against TOS.
Attacking members solely on the fact they are a multi account is a violation, due to ad hom.
This is especially relevant given cesaro's demand for following tenants of debate, wanting intelligent discussion, and a violation of the common sense.

Why would you accept a debate and start by insulting and personally attacking a member, instead of NOT accepting the debate (or accepting and debating normally) and contacting Airmax directly about the issue?
I have asked Airmax if a certain member was a multi before. Cesaro's actions are 100% unjustified. Just because he thought they were true, doesn't excuse them.
My work here is, finally, done.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2014 7:55:09 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/24/2014 7:16:48 AM, wrichcirw wrote:

It's my understanding that the referent thread has been deleted. If it has been deleted, so should this one for the same reasons.

I disagree, but i guess it depends on the reasons for deletion.
If the first thread was deleted due to the false accusation, it should be deleted as there is no value to the thread.
While this thread clears the accused's name.

Cesaro can, and has, made a debate/thread defending his action, as long as he is not making accusations. The OP of that thread did just that. He should be able to post a thread defending why he thought what he did, but not state what he thought as fact.

This is what I assume is the reason for deletion of the other thread. and it is not hypocritical. If it is another reason, then I have no comment.
My work here is, finally, done.
Mikal
Posts: 11,271
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2014 8:14:00 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/24/2014 7:16:48 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 5/24/2014 3:39:57 AM, airmax1227 wrote:
My investigation concluded that Mikal did not multi account, and that there is no evidence of this whatsoever aside from some circumstantial things that are rarely accurate in these cases, and are certainly not accurate in this case.

I investigate these types of issues dozens of times every week. Usually this is done privately as it should be, and the issue is resolved simply enough.

Several things are done to confirm if a member is/isn't multi accounting, but in most cases circumstantial evidence proves to be false, and members should be very careful with these types of accusations. While members are always encouraged to bring their concerns to me privately so that genuine instances of multi accounting can be put to an end, it is never appropriate to make threads specifically to accuse members of these sorts of things.

It's not fair to the innocent member who is being accused, and it usually just leads to constant flame war threads. It is simple enough to have a moderator look into it, rather than having occur what happened here.

It's my understanding that the referent thread has been deleted. If it has been deleted, so should this one for the same reasons.

The referral thread was riddled with adhoms and personal attacks on me

This has nothing to do with a personal attack and is my way to defend myself against false accusations.
bluesteel
Posts: 12,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2014 8:48:56 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/24/2014 7:43:09 AM, ESocialBookworm wrote:
I saw the member as well and he did start of the debate, kind of like you. But I doubted it was you.

It was a major dimwitted move on Jif's behalf to harrass the new member. If nuthjng, he should have contacted you to find out if it was you, not accuse the new member, who could have contributed very much to the site!!!

On the other hand, I don't think it is a violation of the rules to call someone out on multi-accounting. It is the move of a jerk... But I don't think he should be banned for that

I don't think you (ESocial) or some other member of the site should be banned for what jifpop did. But I think jifpop should be. He was already a problem member. His return was premised on him behaving. It has been only *24 hours* and he has already pissed off a major member of the site and chased away a new member.

To analogize to real life, jifpop was on probation. A condition of his probation was good behavior. He violated that condition. Engaging in bad conduct that would not *normally* land you in jail *does* land you in jail if you are on probation.
You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into - Jonathan Swift (paraphrase)
bluesteel
Posts: 12,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2014 8:51:41 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/24/2014 7:16:48 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 5/24/2014 3:39:57 AM, airmax1227 wrote:


It's my understanding that the referent thread has been deleted. If it has been deleted, so should this one for the same reasons.

Fail logic is fail.

The original thread was deleted because it contained *false allegations* of multi-accounting. This thread is not being deleted because (1) mikal deserves the chance to unring the bell for the people who *did* see jifpop's false allegations before the thread was deleted, and (2) this thread has the advantage of containing the truth, not lies.
You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into - Jonathan Swift (paraphrase)
ESocialBookworm
Posts: 14,373
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2014 8:51:54 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/24/2014 7:46:33 AM, Mikal wrote:
At 5/24/2014 7:43:09 AM, ESocialBookworm wrote:
I saw the member as well and he did start of the debate, kind of like you. But I doubted it was you.

It was a major dimwitted move on Jif's behalf to harrass the new member. If nuthjng, he should have contacted you to find out if it was you, not accuse the new member, who could have contributed very much to the site!!!

On the other hand, I don't think it is a violation of the rules to call someone out on multi-accounting. It is the move of a jerk... But I don't think he should be banned for that

actually its a blatant violation of the TOS

Oh okay.

I just read out the whole thread...
>.<

Oh Jif... why?!

I know he has some problems.... but did he honestly have to harass the poor kid?!
He could've just asked you! Or Max to find out!!!
Solonkr~
I don't care about whether an ideology is "necessary" or not,
I care about how to solve problems,
which is what everyone else should also care about.

Ken~
In essence, the world is fucked up and you can either ignore it, become cynical or bitter about it.

Me~
"BAILEY + SOLON = SAILEY
MY SHIP SAILEY MUST SAIL"

SCREW THAT SHIZ #BANNIE = BAILEY & ANNIE

P.S. Shipped Sailey before it was cannon bitches.
bluesteel
Posts: 12,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2014 8:55:07 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/24/2014 8:51:54 AM, ESocialBookworm wrote:
At 5/24/2014 7:46:33 AM, Mikal wrote:
At 5/24/2014 7:43:09 AM, ESocialBookworm wrote:

I just read out the whole thread...
>.<

Oh Jif... why?!

I know he has some problems.... but did he honestly have to harass the poor kid?!
He could've just asked you! Or Max to find out!!!

I don't see why you even have to ask that question..... jif is an immature *$% -- with little intelligence or common sense -- who is unable to reform his behavior. Nothing he does surprises me anymore.
You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into - Jonathan Swift (paraphrase)
ESocialBookworm
Posts: 14,373
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2014 8:55:21 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/24/2014 7:50:56 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 5/24/2014 7:43:09 AM, ESocialBookworm wrote:
I saw the member as well and he did start of the debate, kind of like you. But I doubted it was you.

It was a major dimwitted move on Jif's behalf to harrass the new member. If nuthjng, he should have contacted you to find out if it was you, not accuse the new member, who could have contributed very much to the site!!!

On the other hand, I don't think it is a violation of the rules to call someone out on multi-accounting. It is the move of a jerk... But I don't think he should be banned for that

Making threads designed to attack others are against TOS.
Attacking members solely on the fact they are a multi account is a violation, due to ad hom.
This is especially relevant given cesaro's demand for following tenants of debate, wanting intelligent discussion, and a violation of the common sense.

Why would you accept a debate and start by insulting and personally attacking a member, instead of NOT accepting the debate (or accepting and debating normally) and contacting Airmax directly about the issue?
I have asked Airmax if a certain member was a multi before. Cesaro's actions are 100% unjustified. Just because he thought they were true, doesn't excuse them.

http://cdn2.thegloss.com...
@Jif,
http://www.quickmeme.com...
Solonkr~
I don't care about whether an ideology is "necessary" or not,
I care about how to solve problems,
which is what everyone else should also care about.

Ken~
In essence, the world is fucked up and you can either ignore it, become cynical or bitter about it.

Me~
"BAILEY + SOLON = SAILEY
MY SHIP SAILEY MUST SAIL"

SCREW THAT SHIZ #BANNIE = BAILEY & ANNIE

P.S. Shipped Sailey before it was cannon bitches.
ESocialBookworm
Posts: 14,373
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2014 8:55:47 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/24/2014 8:55:07 AM, bluesteel wrote:
At 5/24/2014 8:51:54 AM, ESocialBookworm wrote:
At 5/24/2014 7:46:33 AM, Mikal wrote:
At 5/24/2014 7:43:09 AM, ESocialBookworm wrote:

I just read out the whole thread...
>.<

Oh Jif... why?!

I know he has some problems.... but did he honestly have to harass the poor kid?!
He could've just asked you! Or Max to find out!!!

I don't see why you even have to ask that question..... jif is an immature *$% -- with little intelligence or common sense -- who is unable to reform his behavior. Nothing he does surprises me anymore.

see post above
Solonkr~
I don't care about whether an ideology is "necessary" or not,
I care about how to solve problems,
which is what everyone else should also care about.

Ken~
In essence, the world is fucked up and you can either ignore it, become cynical or bitter about it.

Me~
"BAILEY + SOLON = SAILEY
MY SHIP SAILEY MUST SAIL"

SCREW THAT SHIZ #BANNIE = BAILEY & ANNIE

P.S. Shipped Sailey before it was cannon bitches.
ESocialBookworm
Posts: 14,373
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2014 8:57:49 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/24/2014 8:48:56 AM, bluesteel wrote:
At 5/24/2014 7:43:09 AM, ESocialBookworm wrote:
I saw the member as well and he did start of the debate, kind of like you. But I doubted it was you.

It was a major dimwitted move on Jif's behalf to harrass the new member. If nuthjng, he should have contacted you to find out if it was you, not accuse the new member, who could have contributed very much to the site!!!

On the other hand, I don't think it is a violation of the rules to call someone out on multi-accounting. It is the move of a jerk... But I don't think he should be banned for that

I don't think you (ESocial) or some other member of the site should be banned for what jifpop did. But I think jifpop should be. He was already a problem member. His return was premised on him behaving. It has been only *24 hours* and he has already pissed off major members of the site and chased away a new member.

To analogize to real life, jifpop was on probation. A condition of his probation was good behavior. He violated that condition. Engaging in bad conduct that would not *normally* land you in jail *does* land you in jail if you are on probation.

(@Jif, http://www.quickmeme.com...)
Solonkr~
I don't care about whether an ideology is "necessary" or not,
I care about how to solve problems,
which is what everyone else should also care about.

Ken~
In essence, the world is fucked up and you can either ignore it, become cynical or bitter about it.

Me~
"BAILEY + SOLON = SAILEY
MY SHIP SAILEY MUST SAIL"

SCREW THAT SHIZ #BANNIE = BAILEY & ANNIE

P.S. Shipped Sailey before it was cannon bitches.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2014 9:21:11 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/24/2014 8:14:00 AM, Mikal wrote:
At 5/24/2014 7:16:48 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 5/24/2014 3:39:57 AM, airmax1227 wrote:
My investigation concluded that Mikal did not multi account, and that there is no evidence of this whatsoever aside from some circumstantial things that are rarely accurate in these cases, and are certainly not accurate in this case.

I investigate these types of issues dozens of times every week. Usually this is done privately as it should be, and the issue is resolved simply enough.

Several things are done to confirm if a member is/isn't multi accounting, but in most cases circumstantial evidence proves to be false, and members should be very careful with these types of accusations. While members are always encouraged to bring their concerns to me privately so that genuine instances of multi accounting can be put to an end, it is never appropriate to make threads specifically to accuse members of these sorts of things.

It's not fair to the innocent member who is being accused, and it usually just leads to constant flame war threads. It is simple enough to have a moderator look into it, rather than having occur what happened here.

It's my understanding that the referent thread has been deleted. If it has been deleted, so should this one for the same reasons.

The referral thread was riddled with adhoms and personal attacks on me

This has nothing to do with a personal attack and is my way to defend myself against false accusations.

...but those accusations don't exist anymore, yes? Why should this thread exist then?
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
bluesteel
Posts: 12,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2014 9:23:53 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/24/2014 9:21:11 AM, wrichcirw wrote:

...but those accusations don't exist anymore, yes? Why should this thread exist then?

Because presumably many people read the thread before it was deleted, so mikal deserves a chance to set the record straight.
You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into - Jonathan Swift (paraphrase)
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2014 9:27:46 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/24/2014 8:51:41 AM, bluesteel wrote:
At 5/24/2014 7:16:48 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 5/24/2014 3:39:57 AM, airmax1227 wrote:


It's my understanding that the referent thread has been deleted. If it has been deleted, so should this one for the same reasons.

Fail logic is fail.

This is a false allegation.

The original thread was deleted because it contained *false allegations* of multi-accounting. This thread is not being deleted because (1) mikal deserves the chance to unring the bell for the people who *did* see jifpop's false allegations before the thread was deleted, and (2) this thread has the advantage of containing the truth, not lies.

My understanding is that the original thread was deleted because it was an attack thread, regardless of the validity of the allegations. Fair enough.

However this thread is ALSO an attack thread...it's calling out jifpop as a liar within the confines of that specific thread.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2014 9:28:08 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/24/2014 9:23:53 AM, bluesteel wrote:
At 5/24/2014 9:21:11 AM, wrichcirw wrote:

...but those accusations don't exist anymore, yes? Why should this thread exist then?

Because presumably many people read the thread before it was deleted, so mikal deserves a chance to set the record straight.

...before this thread also gets deleted. That would only be fair.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2014 9:29:16 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/24/2014 8:57:49 AM, ESocialBookworm wrote:
At 5/24/2014 8:48:56 AM, bluesteel wrote:
At 5/24/2014 7:43:09 AM, ESocialBookworm wrote:
I saw the member as well and he did start of the debate, kind of like you. But I doubted it was you.

It was a major dimwitted move on Jif's behalf to harrass the new member. If nuthjng, he should have contacted you to find out if it was you, not accuse the new member, who could have contributed very much to the site!!!

On the other hand, I don't think it is a violation of the rules to call someone out on multi-accounting. It is the move of a jerk... But I don't think he should be banned for that

I don't think you (ESocial) or some other member of the site should be banned for what jifpop did. But I think jifpop should be. He was already a problem member. His return was premised on him behaving. It has been only *24 hours* and he has already pissed off major members of the site and chased away a new member.

To analogize to real life, jifpop was on probation. A condition of his probation was good behavior. He violated that condition. Engaging in bad conduct that would not *normally* land you in jail *does* land you in jail if you are on probation.

(@Jif, http://www.quickmeme.com...)

Yeah, it's hard to defend him sometimes, lol.

As it is, I understand he's been banned from the forums, so to set up a thread like this with his name in it where he can't even speak on his own behalf is a bit...unfair.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?