Total Posts:31|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Meh

mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2010 2:28:23 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
It appears that theLwerd (or somebody else trying to defend theLwerd, I don't know) has recently been editting her own DDO Wiki page with more than a few biased remarks. Instead of turning this into an editting war, which would end rather terribly, as the Wiki is meant to be a compedium, not a place for discussion, I think the discussion actually needs to be open here.

http://www.ddofans.com...

"Recent finding show that Mongoose and Mongeese have voted highly against her in the last 3 months, awarding 9 points for her and 50 points agains her, with 7 of the 9 points for her being awarded after the voting tab became public, which lead many to believe those 7 were only to make Mongeese look good, since his personal voting without it is 0 points for her and 31 points against her"
Citation and context needed, quite badly. Like, really, really, really badly. Also, who is this "many"?

"Yet people seem to still be obsessed with her and her actions while ignoring everybody else's less than stellar actions. She is the perfect distraction for other foul play and relishes the attention she's been given."
Most people apologized and/or took back their vote-bombing. The others are just n00bs who nobody could identify at all. It seems rather sensible that a famous politician's or famous athlete's sex scandal would get more coverage then a random guy with a 9-5 job that nobody cares about.
Also, atheistman now has a Wiki page: http://www.ddofans.com...

"He accused her of not being online to avoid the controversy, when in reality she was explaining why she had to share a computer with Vi and thus her time on DDO was limited."
I'm pretty sure that that was mongoose, not me.

"Her Answer: The reasoning was simple: Mongeese was acting like a huge **** to her and commenting on all of her debates that she suddenly started losing over night. Furthermore, a huge majority of the debates that vote bombed her were 'non-regular' members which means they were set up by a regular member. Mongeese may or may not be behind it."
lol @ swear words being used as an argument. Also, I recall perhaps one comment that I made on one of theLwerd's old debates, and if I remember correctly, it was an RFD that I then followed.
Finally, just assuming that I've multi-account bombed is without merit. I have created no other accounts, ever. I lack access to other cellphones. I don't even make up new e-mail addresses, or else I would have my own temporary account for while I was banned.

"Which is the biggest lie in the history of the planet; all one has to do is check out a slew of debates in which theLwerd was voted against straight 7s one by one within the matter of one day."
Okay, maybe I phrased Point 3 incorrectly. It meant to say, "vote-bombed by mongeese, mongoose, and/or Logical-Master."

Anyway, when the citation for a statement on the Wiki ends up being "TheLwerd Wrote this on the wiki in Response to the questions posed by Mongeese," things have gone too far. The Wiki page was made for displaying information. The Discussion tab was made for discussion, btw.
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2010 3:47:30 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Oh, and as for justifying giving yourself all seven points by pointing to other people's vote-bombs, I have three points to make:
1. "An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind."
2. In the Homeless debate, you agreed that you lost, so it was unreasonable to thinkk that losing was the result of vote-bombing.
3. Many rogue accounts vote-bomb for you as well, including numa, SaintNick, LaSalle, and that pesky Lwerd (lol).
philosphical
Posts: 1,643
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2010 4:20:06 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/24/2010 3:47:30 PM, mongeese wrote:
Oh, and as for justifying giving yourself all seven points by pointing to other people's vote-bombs, I have three points to make:
1. "An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind."
2. In the Homeless debate, you agreed that you lost, so it was unreasonable to thinkk that losing was the result of vote-bombing.
3. Many rogue accounts vote-bomb for you as well, including numa, SaintNick, LaSalle, and that pesky Lwerd (lol).

Just a question...

Why is it that all the stupid and pointless drama that nobody besides a very small select people actually care about, always between Mongeese and Lwerd?

Just wondering...
Your mouths writing checks that your @ss can't cash!
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2010 4:23:18 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/24/2010 4:20:06 PM, philosphical wrote:

Just a question...

Why is it that all the stupid and pointless drama that nobody besides a very small select people actually care about, always between Mongeese and Lwerd?

Just wondering...

The drama supposedly ended about a month ago. However, theLwerd decided to use the Wiki page for discussion, which just doesn't work well. I'm just dragging the conversation here, where it's less messy.
philosphical
Posts: 1,643
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2010 4:25:10 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
WE all know that she vote bombs. So what? She can vote however she wants and lie about it as much as she wants. WE can't change what she does or doesn't do, so really who cares? It's her voting privilege, and although I don't agree with it, its her right. People vote for presidents every election without even knowing the reasons why they vote that person.

Life isn't fair, so I ask you to please stop the useless drama.
Your mouths writing checks that your @ss can't cash!
mongoose
Posts: 3,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2010 4:39:13 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/24/2010 4:25:10 PM, philosphical wrote:
WE all know that she vote bombs. So what? She can vote however she wants and lie about it as much as she wants. WE can't change what she does or doesn't do, so really who cares? It's her voting privilege, and although I don't agree with it, its her right. People vote for presidents every election without even knowing the reasons why they vote that person.

Life isn't fair, so I ask you to please stop the useless drama.

The thing is, mongeese equally has the right to make this topic. You critiquing it is the same as this criticizing her voting. Result = paradox.
It is odd when one's capacity for compassion is measured not in what he is willing to do by his own time, effort, and property, but what he will force others to do with their own property instead.
philosphical
Posts: 1,643
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2010 4:48:28 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/24/2010 4:39:13 PM, mongoose wrote:
At 2/24/2010 4:25:10 PM, philosphical wrote:
WE all know that she vote bombs. So what? She can vote however she wants and lie about it as much as she wants. WE can't change what she does or doesn't do, so really who cares? It's her voting privilege, and although I don't agree with it, its her right. People vote for presidents every election without even knowing the reasons why they vote that person.

Life isn't fair, so I ask you to please stop the useless drama.

The thing is, mongeese equally has the right to make this topic. You critiquing it is the same as this criticizing her voting. Result = paradox.

Oh I know he has the right. I'm just kind of confused as to the purpose of it. I can't openly make him stop the forum, just like he can't make theLwerd be honest with her voting.

Yeah it pisses me off too, but, just let the dis-honest just live with their concious.
That can be the best source of punishment.
Your mouths writing checks that your @ss can't cash!
mongoose
Posts: 3,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2010 4:49:35 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/24/2010 4:48:28 PM, philosphical wrote:
At 2/24/2010 4:39:13 PM, mongoose wrote:
At 2/24/2010 4:25:10 PM, philosphical wrote:
WE all know that she vote bombs. So what? She can vote however she wants and lie about it as much as she wants. WE can't change what she does or doesn't do, so really who cares? It's her voting privilege, and although I don't agree with it, its her right. People vote for presidents every election without even knowing the reasons why they vote that person.

Life isn't fair, so I ask you to please stop the useless drama.

The thing is, mongeese equally has the right to make this topic. You critiquing it is the same as this criticizing her voting. Result = paradox.

Oh I know he has the right. I'm just kind of confused as to the purpose of it. I can't openly make him stop the forum, just like he can't make theLwerd be honest with her voting.

Yeah it pisses me off too, but, just let the dis-honest just live with their concious.
That can be the best source of punishment.

I personally doubt that theLwerd has a conscience.
It is odd when one's capacity for compassion is measured not in what he is willing to do by his own time, effort, and property, but what he will force others to do with their own property instead.
PoeJoe
Posts: 3,822
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2010 4:58:22 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
I agree with philisophical. I think we've all grow to just not care about the voting system any more.

Many of the older members can remember that I used to be very rabid about reform, and I even contributed to a couple of changes on this site. But the site is OK as of now. I wouldn't get too upset because of this.

As for the DDOWiki, I wouldn't get too upset about it either. It isn't Wikipedia (which I'm a member of), and few hold it to as high a standard.
Television Rot: http://tvrot.com...
mongoose
Posts: 3,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2010 5:19:37 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/24/2010 5:01:35 PM, philosphical wrote:
I personally doubt that theLwerd has a conscience.

lol... no comment...

"lol" was a comment.
It is odd when one's capacity for compassion is measured not in what he is willing to do by his own time, effort, and property, but what he will force others to do with their own property instead.
wjmelements
Posts: 8,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2010 6:15:25 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
theLwerd turned her page into an attack on mongeese. He has a right to protest.
in the blink of an eye you finally see the light
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2010 6:18:43 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/24/2010 6:15:25 PM, wjmelements wrote:
theLwerd turned her page into an attack on mongeese. He has a right to protest.

You can't accuse Lwerd without some proof. It may not have been her.
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2010 6:27:22 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/24/2010 6:18:43 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 2/24/2010 6:15:25 PM, wjmelements wrote:
theLwerd turned her page into an attack on mongeese. He has a right to protest.

You can't accuse Lwerd without some proof. It may not have been her.

Whoever it was, the editor claimed to be theLwerd.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2010 6:28:55 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/24/2010 6:27:22 PM, mongeese wrote:
At 2/24/2010 6:18:43 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 2/24/2010 6:15:25 PM, wjmelements wrote:
theLwerd turned her page into an attack on mongeese. He has a right to protest.

You can't accuse Lwerd without some proof. It may not have been her.

Whoever it was, the editor claimed to be theLwerd.

for all of the changes?
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2010 6:33:35 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/24/2010 6:28:55 PM, OreEle wrote:
At 2/24/2010 6:27:22 PM, mongeese wrote:
At 2/24/2010 6:18:43 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 2/24/2010 6:15:25 PM, wjmelements wrote:
theLwerd turned her page into an attack on mongeese. He has a right to protest.

You can't accuse Lwerd without some proof. It may not have been her.

Whoever it was, the editor claimed to be theLwerd.

for all of the changes?

Same IP address for all of the recent additions, besides Mafia stuff (AskBob) and the numerous (Citation needed)s (me).
wjmelements
Posts: 8,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2010 6:36:35 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/24/2010 6:27:22 PM, mongeese wrote:
At 2/24/2010 6:18:43 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 2/24/2010 6:15:25 PM, wjmelements wrote:
theLwerd turned her page into an attack on mongeese. He has a right to protest.

You can't accuse Lwerd without some proof. It may not have been her.

Whoever it was, the editor claimed to be theLwerd.

Also, she's ranted before (in her cuss-wjm-out PM) with the same arguments in her defense. I have no doubt that it was theLwerd.
in the blink of an eye you finally see the light
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2010 6:49:03 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/24/2010 6:44:57 PM, Volkov wrote:

Mongeese, how do you know its Lwerd's IP?

I don't. However, I do know that the two edits made pro-Lwerd were made by the same IP, which claimed to be theLwerd. The best guess is that it was theLwerd right now. It's odd how in this case, we're actually speculating who was editting, even though everybody immediately assumed that it was me in the banning incident.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2010 6:52:16 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/24/2010 6:49:03 PM, mongeese wrote:
It's odd how in this case, we're actually speculating who was editting, even though everybody immediately assumed that it was me in the banning incident.

What?
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2010 6:55:38 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/24/2010 6:52:16 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 2/24/2010 6:49:03 PM, mongeese wrote:
It's odd how in this case, we're actually speculating who was editting, even though everybody immediately assumed that it was me in the banning incident.

What?

Based on what comment got theLwerd banned, nobody questioned the assumption that I was the reporter. Vote-bombing blocs against me were formed before I was even online again.

However, currently, we are speculating that somebody might have merely impersonated theLwerd.

Just an inconsistency that I felt like pointing out.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2010 6:59:37 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/24/2010 2:28:23 PM, mongeese wrote:
It appears that theLwerd (or somebody else trying to defend theLwerd, I don't know) has recently been editting her own DDO Wiki page with more than a few biased remarks. Instead of turning this into an editting war, which would end rather terribly, as the Wiki is meant to be a compedium, not a place for discussion, I think the discussion actually needs to be open here.

Well, let's look at each one then.


"Recent finding show that Mongoose and Mongeese have voted highly against her in the last 3 months, awarding 9 points for her and 50 points agains her, with 7 of the 9 points for her being awarded after the voting tab became public, which lead many to believe those 7 were only to make Mongeese look good, since his personal voting without it is 0 points for her and 31 points against her"
Citation and context needed, quite badly. Like, really, really, really badly. Also, who is this "many"?

Well, if someone wants to look it up, all the past voting is now visible, so it is just a matter of digging through the debates to see if it is true or not.


"Yet people seem to still be obsessed with her and her actions while ignoring everybody else's less than stellar actions. She is the perfect distraction for other foul play and relishes the attention she's been given."

I wasn't here at the time, so I don't know about the "less than stellar actions." So for this, it isn't really logistically possible to go through all the forums for such examples, so links would be necessary, or it is just unfounded personal opinion.

"He accused her of not being online to avoid the controversy, when in reality she was explaining why she had to share a computer with Vi and thus her time on DDO was limited."
I'm pretty sure that that was mongoose, not me.

So that is a simple mistaken identity, rather then the whole statement being false.


"Her Answer: The reasoning was simple: Mongeese was acting like a huge **** to her and commenting on all of her debates that she suddenly started losing over night. Furthermore, a huge majority of the debates that vote bombed her were 'non-regular' members which means they were set up by a regular member. Mongeese may or may not be behind it."

Speculation. And it is not possible to know, not to mention that the "logic" of "vote bombed her were 'non-regular' members which means they were set up by a regular member." is non existent.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2010 7:00:23 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/24/2010 6:55:38 PM, mongeese wrote:
Just an inconsistency that I felt like pointing out.

I don't necessarily remember everything about that incident, but I do remember someone saying something to the effect of "I reported Lwerd." May or may not have been you.
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2010 7:10:18 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/24/2010 7:00:23 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 2/24/2010 6:55:38 PM, mongeese wrote:
Just an inconsistency that I felt like pointing out.

I don't necessarily remember everything about that incident, but I do remember someone saying something to the effect of "I reported Lwerd." May or may not have been you.

I said it, but after everybody had already jumped the gun and formed voting blocs against me.
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2010 7:13:58 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/24/2010 6:59:37 PM, OreEle wrote:
At 2/24/2010 2:28:23 PM, mongeese wrote:
It appears that theLwerd (or somebody else trying to defend theLwerd, I don't know) has recently been editting her own DDO Wiki page with more than a few biased remarks. Instead of turning this into an editting war, which would end rather terribly, as the Wiki is meant to be a compedium, not a place for discussion, I think the discussion actually needs to be open here.

Well, let's look at each one then.


"Recent finding show that Mongoose and Mongeese have voted highly against her in the last 3 months, awarding 9 points for her and 50 points agains her, with 7 of the 9 points for her being awarded after the voting tab became public, which lead many to believe those 7 were only to make Mongeese look good, since his personal voting without it is 0 points for her and 31 points against her"
Citation and context needed, quite badly. Like, really, really, really badly. Also, who is this "many"?

Well, if someone wants to look it up, all the past voting is now visible, so it is just a matter of digging through the debates to see if it is true or not.

However, how many people are going to do that work, and how many are going to take theLwerd(?)'s word for it? It is the responsibility of the journalist to cite his or her work specifically. I can't just say, "It was some page in that book," and expect to be cleared. theLwerd has over 200 debates for somebody to go through. Additionally, theLwerd(?) would have had to find the debates to get these statistics, so posting a source would hadly be difficult after using said source. Unless there are no sources, in which case, it should be removed. Which is why the burden is on the claimant to prove their statements true.

"Yet people seem to still be obsessed with her and her actions while ignoring everybody else's less than stellar actions. She is the perfect distraction for other foul play and relishes the attention she's been given."

I wasn't here at the time, so I don't know about the "less than stellar actions." So for this, it isn't really logistically possible to go through all the forums for such examples, so links would be necessary, or it is just unfounded personal opinion.


"He accused her of not being online to avoid the controversy, when in reality she was explaining why she had to share a computer with Vi and thus her time on DDO was limited."
I'm pretty sure that that was mongoose, not me.

So that is a simple mistaken identity, rather then the whole statement being false.

mongoose also only said that he wouldn't be surprised if she were avoiding DDO, not that she was. I think. A SOURCE would prove me wrong.

"Her Answer: The reasoning was simple: Mongeese was acting like a huge **** to her and commenting on all of her debates that she suddenly started losing over night. Furthermore, a huge majority of the debates that vote bombed her were 'non-regular' members which means they were set up by a regular member. Mongeese may or may not be behind it."

Speculation. And it is not possible to know, not to mention that the "logic" of "vote bombed her were 'non-regular' members which means they were set up by a regular member." is non existent.
Which is why I put (reasoning needs explanation) on said Wiki page.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2010 7:25:00 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/24/2010 7:10:18 PM, mongeese wrote:
I said it, but after everybody had already jumped the gun and formed voting blocs against me.

Mhm. So you're noticing an inconsistency... even though everyone's suspicions were actually true in the end. I see.

Well, in any case, I checked the IP for the person who made the edits to "Allegations and Admittance of Vote-Bombing," the ones you added "citations needed" to, and it looks like you're looking for someone from Pennsylvania, or who uses the Atlantic Broadband service at the very least. The same goes for the Mafia editor, who's IPs are all based in Pennsylvania. Some are also based at the Pennsylvania State University.

Which means a couple things; if you connect the Mafia editor to Lwerd, then she's from Pennsylvania and attended Penn. State. If that's true, then maybe you're right about Lwerd. But, otherwise....
Sky_ace25
Posts: 190
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2010 7:49:35 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Can you two just get a room? Seriously, you two argue more than your average couple. So much drama built around the public voting system. Is the witch hunt for vote-bombers still going on? Geesh... is this little petty feud between you two ever going to end?
Seriously, Pluto is no longer a planet?
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2010 8:06:41 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/24/2010 7:25:00 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 2/24/2010 7:10:18 PM, mongeese wrote:
I said it, but after everybody had already jumped the gun and formed voting blocs against me.

Mhm. So you're noticing an inconsistency... even though everyone's suspicions were actually true in the end. I see.

Well, in any case, I checked the IP for the person who made the edits to "Allegations and Admittance of Vote-Bombing," the ones you added "citations needed" to, and it looks like you're looking for someone from Pennsylvania, or who uses the Atlantic Broadband service at the very least. The same goes for the Mafia editor, who's IPs are all based in Pennsylvania. Some are also based at the Pennsylvania State University.

Which means a couple things; if you connect the Mafia editor to Lwerd, then she's from Pennsylvania and attended Penn. State. If that's true, then maybe you're right about Lwerd. But, otherwise....

Checking the contributions of the IP address, it also appears that our mystery user made many contributions to Mafia and Banker pages... very strange... AskBob?
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2010 8:14:40 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/24/2010 6:36:35 PM, wjmelements wrote:
Also, she's ranted before (in her cuss-wjm-out PM) with the same arguments in her defense. I have no doubt that it was theLwerd.

You may need to post the PM in question
mongoose
Posts: 3,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2010 8:20:57 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/24/2010 8:14:40 PM, mongeese wrote:
At 2/24/2010 6:36:35 PM, wjmelements wrote:
Also, she's ranted before (in her cuss-wjm-out PM) with the same arguments in her defense. I have no doubt that it was theLwerd.

You may need to post the PM in question

As I have reviewed the PM, I find that many of the arguments are the exact same as in the wiki page, leading me to believe that they are both from the same person. As the first person is clearly labeled to be TheLwerd, the wiki-editor must be TheLwerd or somebody influenced in some way by TheLwerd.
It is odd when one's capacity for compassion is measured not in what he is willing to do by his own time, effort, and property, but what he will force others to do with their own property instead.