Total Posts:33|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

In regards to the "cultural divide"

1harderthanyouthink
Posts: 13,100
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2015 4:24:01 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
There are people here I don't like, and people that don't like me. Is that really all that shocking? It's like that for everyone: though the amount of the dislike varies from person to person, everyone has an enemy. This is not a new thought.

Sure, some people are so toxic that amends cannot be made with them. But for the most part, people can fix their flaws and repair their formerly neutral or positive relationships with others.

But continually calling people out isn't going to fix things. Continually insulting others isn't going to fix things. Many are guilty of these types of things. So, proposing we blacklist people, personally attacking others, and calling others out and challenging them to debates in an attempt to prove something is rather misguided. They contribute to flame wars, and they by no means fix anything.

I remind everyone that this all stemmed from a discussion thread about the use of a single word. One that shouldn't be used: but nevertheless, this is what things have devolved to:

Bluesteel makes discussion thread about the word "f@g" -> Bsh and Ajab start debate on homosexuality (-> Thett makes successful joke thread) -> Ajab and YYW begin flame war -> YYW makes cultural divide thread; proposes blacklisting -> Envisage makes counter-cultural divide thread -> Ajab challenges YYW to debate (-> Thett makes successful joke thread)

(Thett wins.)

Doesn't that seem a bit stupid? For that to turn into discussions about respective members' intellect and the allowance of rape battles. Though I think they should be banned, they're irrelevant to the topic at hand. Stirring up old petty controversy was unnecessary. It was stupid, and it shouldn't have been done.

Don't think I'm not taking sides: I am, I assure you. Thus is the nature of me, as a number of you must know by now. But I still find actions on both sides of this quite regrettable. This could've been avoided.

Give everyone that isn't an absolute douchebag a chance to make amends, though. This applies to everyone.

Like, I wanted to find Ajab and slap all hell out of him every time he said something about YYW's relationship with Bsh1. But did I agree with YYW? Sometimes I did in regards to his opinion of some people, but I will not propose a blacklist of members. I would rather Ajab and YYW and everyone else work things out, even if I found some words spoken here to be way over the line. Good day.
"It's awfully considerate of you to think of me here,
And I'm much obliged to you for making it clear - that I'm not here."

-Syd Barrett

DDO Risk King
bluesteel
Posts: 12,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2015 4:40:14 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/22/2015 4:24:01 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
There are people here I don't like, and people that don't like me. Is that really all that shocking? It's like that for everyone: though the amount of the dislike varies from person to person, everyone has an enemy. This is not a new thought.

Sure, some people are so toxic that amends cannot be made with them. But for the most part, people can fix their flaws and repair their formerly neutral or positive relationships with others.

Change for people with really extremist views and serious flaws that cause them to act this way happens over the time scale of *decades,* not months. It's a whole lot easier to ignore them until they've gone through a decade of maturing and can come back and be more palatable.

Like, I wanted to find Ajab and slap all hell out of him every time he said something about YYW's relationship with Bsh1. But did I agree with YYW? Sometimes I did in regards to his opinion of some people, but I will not propose a blacklist of members. I would rather Ajab and YYW and everyone else work things out, even if I found some words spoken here to be way over the line. Good day.

Ajab has proven time and again that he is incapable of change, at least in any sort of time scale that makes it worth tolerating his viewpoints and arrogance about his own rightness. I find no fault with YYW's refusal to reconcile. Do you know the history here? The last time Ajab threw a tantrum and left the site, YYW was actually the one telling me that he was just young and could change. YYW gave him way more chances than I did. If you keep proving to someone that you don't deserve their optimism, eventually they are going to give up on you. Despite the public face of YYW that you all seem to think you know, he's actually much more of an optimist about human nature than I am. And Ajab simply tried his patience to the point where he no longer felt optimistic that Ajab could change. I for one don't fault him and don't think he has any sort of obligation to just settle his differences and quash this whole thing.
You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into - Jonathan Swift (paraphrase)
1harderthanyouthink
Posts: 13,100
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2015 4:46:15 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/22/2015 4:40:14 PM, bluesteel wrote:
At 2/22/2015 4:24:01 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
Ajab has proven time and again that he is incapable of change, at least in any sort of time scale that makes it worth tolerating his viewpoints and arrogance about his own rightness. I find no fault with YYW's refusal to reconcile. Do you know the history here? The last time Ajab threw a tantrum and left the site, YYW was actually the one telling me that he was just young and could change. YYW gave him way more chances than I did. If you keep proving to someone that you don't deserve their optimism, eventually they are going to give up on you. Despite the public face of YYW that you all seem to think you know, he's actually much more of an optimist about human nature than I am. And Ajab simply tried his patience to the point where he no longer felt optimistic that Ajab could change. I for one don't fault him and don't think he has any sort of obligation to just settle his differences and quash this whole thing.

I don't know Ajab all that well, so I'm going off of what I can gather from the past couple days, in regards to their history. If what you say is accurate, and he can't change: then sure, to he'll with him. But what about everyone else? I want this thread to apply to everyone. If anything can be fixed, then that'd be an improvement.
"It's awfully considerate of you to think of me here,
And I'm much obliged to you for making it clear - that I'm not here."

-Syd Barrett

DDO Risk King
1harderthanyouthink
Posts: 13,100
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2015 4:48:39 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Damn my phone and its autocorrection from "hell" to "he'll".
"It's awfully considerate of you to think of me here,
And I'm much obliged to you for making it clear - that I'm not here."

-Syd Barrett

DDO Risk King
1harderthanyouthink
Posts: 13,100
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2015 5:40:28 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/22/2015 4:46:15 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 2/22/2015 4:40:14 PM, bluesteel wrote:
At 2/22/2015 4:24:01 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
Ajab has proven time and again that he is incapable of change, at least in any sort of time scale that makes it worth tolerating his viewpoints and arrogance about his own rightness. I find no fault with YYW's refusal to reconcile. Do you know the history here? The last time Ajab threw a tantrum and left the site, YYW was actually the one telling me that he was just young and could change. YYW gave him way more chances than I did. If you keep proving to someone that you don't deserve their optimism, eventually they are going to give up on you. Despite the public face of YYW that you all seem to think you know, he's actually much more of an optimist about human nature than I am. And Ajab simply tried his patience to the point where he no longer felt optimistic that Ajab could change. I for one don't fault him and don't think he has any sort of obligation to just settle his differences and quash this whole thing.

I don't know Ajab all that well, so I'm going off of what I can gather from the past couple days, in regards to their history. If what you say is accurate, and he can't change: then sure, to he'll with him. But what about everyone else? I want this thread to apply to everyone. If anything can be fixed, then that'd be an improvement.

He named 4 other people to blacklist. Two of them I could see him giving up on, and the other two were more questionable, IMO.
"It's awfully considerate of you to think of me here,
And I'm much obliged to you for making it clear - that I'm not here."

-Syd Barrett

DDO Risk King
YamaVonKarma
Posts: 7,570
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2015 5:55:12 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
People need to do what I do and truly not care what others think about them.
Do people say mean things here? Yes.
Would someone say those things to my face? No.

You see, harder, there are lots of ways to have power.
Ex. My presence and skill give me power irl.
Blacklists gain their power from popular opinion. If enough people ignore them, they have no power. But if enough people accept them, they work well. Because you can't be forced to accept someone here, at the end of the day.

In all honesty, the concept of having an enemy you'll never meet baffles me.
People who I've called as mafia DP1:
TUF, and YYW
YYW
Posts: 36,263
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2015 6:13:15 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Basically, what Bluesteel said. Events don't take place in a vacuum. I gave Ajab, and I have given Cassie, and I have given Envisage, a gratuitous series of opportunities to redeem themselves... and now, I'm done. There are only so many chances I'm willing to give.

Every time there is an issue that surfaces, people treat it like it's a new thing. It's not. This is the same pattern of unacceptable behavior that Ajab has been engaging in for some time. At first, I thought that he was just a stupid kid being stupid. Maybe he was, then. But, at a given point in time, it is reasonable to expect that people will improve. If they don't, then that's an issue.

Ajab has not improved. He continues to demonstrate not only the same reprehensible behavior, but behavior that is even more egregious than in the previous case -going after bsh1's and my relationship. If that's the kind of activity he wants to engage in, that's fine... but it's something that puts him on a blacklist, given the context and history of his actions.

So, I directly disagree with you, 1harder. My cultural divide thread was appropriate, and my actions are totally justifiable here. I did not fail to take the high road, as thett suggested, and the thread wasn't really a "call out" thread either. It's a response to a series of problems that have taken place over a very long period of time. You're free to disagree with the method, and even with my judgement -but the fact remains that I am justified in doing what I did.

What is stupid is (1) treating each new incident in a long train of abuses as existing in the absence of any broader context, and (2) believing that someone who is demonstrably incorrigible can be anything other than incorrigible.

In the past, I tried to work things out; I went out of my way to, for example, pull Bluesteel off of Ajab the last time he acted out like he has because I didn't think that it was appropriate to publicly humiliate Ajab then. Well, that was then. Ajab failed to learn or improve. This is now. I do not forgive, when a person has been given numerous attempts to reform their outrageous behavior.

My Cultural Divide thread, though, was to address both the specific indecent giving rise to the problem at hand yesterday (Ajab's egregious behavior) and some of the reasons why his behavior has not improved (the circle of friends that he associates himself with). After all, Ajab is only the symptom. There are problems much larger than only him, and it's been ignored for too long.

I would further submit that all of the people I included in the 'out' group are already functionally blacklisted. Members do not seriously engage Ajab, because we know what he's about. We learned what he was about after his incident with Liz; I hoped he would improve, I was wrong. Envisage, Cassie and Wylted are also already functionally blacklisted. My "cultural divide" thread only gave expression to what already existed.
Tsar of DDO
YYW
Posts: 36,263
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2015 6:19:40 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/22/2015 5:55:12 PM, YamaVonKarma wrote:
In all honesty, the concept of having an enemy you'll never meet baffles me.

Of course... and it should be noted that blacklisting someone isn't the same as saying "You damn dirty scoundrel, we be enemies forever!"

All blacklisting, on DDO, means is that these are people are pariahs and therefore we're not going to talk to them.

Some people already don't talk to the people I've listed; some do. That is (as you said in your post) their prerogative.
Tsar of DDO
1harderthanyouthink
Posts: 13,100
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2015 6:21:57 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/22/2015 6:13:15 PM, YYW wrote:
I would further submit that all of the people I included in the 'out' group are already functionally blacklisted. Members do not seriously engage Ajab, because we know what he's about. We learned what he was about after his incident with Liz; I hoped he would improve, I was wrong. Envisage, Cassie and Wylted are also already functionally blacklisted. My "cultural divide" thread only gave expression to what already existed.

I'm working with what's available to me. I have no idea what happened between Ajab and Liz. Another example being: I can't understand the JMK-Bsh incident. All I get as an explanation is "it was bad". I don't know what happened, so I can't say anything in regards to the incident.

I understand wanting to blacklist Zarroette and Envisage. I disagree with blacklisting Wylted, and I understand blacklisting Zmike even less.
"It's awfully considerate of you to think of me here,
And I'm much obliged to you for making it clear - that I'm not here."

-Syd Barrett

DDO Risk King
YYW
Posts: 36,263
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2015 6:22:22 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/22/2015 4:46:15 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
But what about everyone else? I want this thread to apply to everyone. If anything can be fixed, then that'd be an improvement.

To the extent that there improvements, a person is less blacklisted. Being blacklisted isn't a forever thing; it's a judgement and a condemnation, but it's not a permanent condemnation. It's an indication that behavior is totally unacceptable; as Ajabi's is. Casse's, Wylted's and Envisage's is too.

If they improve... then this thread is unnecessary. I have yet to see any indication that that's the case. Instead, what I've seen over the past day and a half is very strong evidence that I was right.
Tsar of DDO
YamaVonKarma
Posts: 7,570
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2015 6:25:49 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/22/2015 6:13:15 PM, YYW wrote:
Are you going to blacklist me for wanting to sleep with people my age?
People who I've called as mafia DP1:
TUF, and YYW
YYW
Posts: 36,263
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2015 6:26:36 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/22/2015 6:21:57 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 2/22/2015 6:13:15 PM, YYW wrote:
I would further submit that all of the people I included in the 'out' group are already functionally blacklisted. Members do not seriously engage Ajab, because we know what he's about. We learned what he was about after his incident with Liz; I hoped he would improve, I was wrong. Envisage, Cassie and Wylted are also already functionally blacklisted. My "cultural divide" thread only gave expression to what already existed.

I'm working with what's available to me. I have no idea what happened between Ajab and Liz. Another example being: I can't understand the JMK-Bsh incident. All I get as an explanation is "it was bad". I don't know what happened, so I can't say anything in regards to the incident.

I understand wanting to blacklist Zarroette and Envisage. I disagree with blacklisting Wylted, and I understand blacklisting Zmike even less.

I don't expect you to understand the JMK incident because you weren't a part of it. It's something that happened, and it's over, but it's not something that can be undone. It happened, and the outcome is settled. There is no animosity or bitterness; I'm just done.

There are some people who, for reasons I'm sure they could articulate better than I, chose to forgive and forget. They're free to do that. I just move on, and kick the dust off my feet.

That is basically what's happening now.
Tsar of DDO
YYW
Posts: 36,263
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2015 6:26:51 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/22/2015 6:25:49 PM, YamaVonKarma wrote:
At 2/22/2015 6:13:15 PM, YYW wrote:
Are you going to blacklist me for wanting to sleep with people my age?

lol no
Tsar of DDO
1harderthanyouthink
Posts: 13,100
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2015 6:29:43 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/22/2015 6:26:36 PM, YYW wrote:
At 2/22/2015 6:21:57 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 2/22/2015 6:13:15 PM, YYW wrote:
I would further submit that all of the people I included in the 'out' group are already functionally blacklisted. Members do not seriously engage Ajab, because we know what he's about. We learned what he was about after his incident with Liz; I hoped he would improve, I was wrong. Envisage, Cassie and Wylted are also already functionally blacklisted. My "cultural divide" thread only gave expression to what already existed.

I'm working with what's available to me. I have no idea what happened between Ajab and Liz. Another example being: I can't understand the JMK-Bsh incident. All I get as an explanation is "it was bad". I don't know what happened, so I can't say anything in regards to the incident.

I understand wanting to blacklist Zarroette and Envisage. I disagree with blacklisting Wylted, and I understand blacklisting Zmike even less.

I don't expect you to understand the JMK incident because you weren't a part of it. It's something that happened, and it's over, but it's not something that can be undone. It happened, and the outcome is settled. There is no animosity or bitterness; I'm just done.

I'm using it because you've told me not to interact with people based on past incidents, with the only explanation being "it was bad". Such a telling is unsatisfactory in regards to my consideration of whether or not I talk to someone.

There are some people who, for reasons I'm sure they could articulate better than I, chose to forgive and forget. They're free to do that. I just move on, and kick the dust off my feet.

That is basically what's happening now.
"It's awfully considerate of you to think of me here,
And I'm much obliged to you for making it clear - that I'm not here."

-Syd Barrett

DDO Risk King
SeventhProfessor
Posts: 5,085
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2015 6:30:49 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/22/2015 6:21:57 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 2/22/2015 6:13:15 PM, YYW wrote:
I would further submit that all of the people I included in the 'out' group are already functionally blacklisted. Members do not seriously engage Ajab, because we know what he's about. We learned what he was about after his incident with Liz; I hoped he would improve, I was wrong. Envisage, Cassie and Wylted are also already functionally blacklisted. My "cultural divide" thread only gave expression to what already existed.

I'm working with what's available to me. I have no idea what happened between Ajab and Liz. Another example being: I can't understand the JMK-Bsh incident. All I get as an explanation is "it was bad". I don't know what happened, so I can't say anything in regards to the incident.

I understand wanting to blacklist Zarroette and Envisage. I disagree with blacklisting Wylted, and I understand blacklisting Zmike even less.

I don't think anyone understands why cuber was brought into this, but if we were blacklisting people I'd put Wylted ahead of Envisage. Wylted does stuff specifically to upset and anger people, while Envisage does his to attract more views for his nihilism debates.
#UnbanTheMadman

#StandWithBossy

#BetOnThett

"bossy r u like 85 years old and have lost ur mind"
~mysteriouscrystals

"I've honestly never seen seventh post anything that wasn't completely idiotic in a trying-to-be-funny way."
~F-16

https://docs.google.com...
YYW
Posts: 36,263
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2015 6:31:40 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/22/2015 6:29:43 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 2/22/2015 6:26:36 PM, YYW wrote:
At 2/22/2015 6:21:57 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 2/22/2015 6:13:15 PM, YYW wrote:
I would further submit that all of the people I included in the 'out' group are already functionally blacklisted. Members do not seriously engage Ajab, because we know what he's about. We learned what he was about after his incident with Liz; I hoped he would improve, I was wrong. Envisage, Cassie and Wylted are also already functionally blacklisted. My "cultural divide" thread only gave expression to what already existed.

I'm working with what's available to me. I have no idea what happened between Ajab and Liz. Another example being: I can't understand the JMK-Bsh incident. All I get as an explanation is "it was bad". I don't know what happened, so I can't say anything in regards to the incident.

I understand wanting to blacklist Zarroette and Envisage. I disagree with blacklisting Wylted, and I understand blacklisting Zmike even less.

I don't expect you to understand the JMK incident because you weren't a part of it. It's something that happened, and it's over, but it's not something that can be undone. It happened, and the outcome is settled. There is no animosity or bitterness; I'm just done.

I'm using it because you've told me not to interact with people based on past incidents, with the only explanation being "it was bad". Such a telling is unsatisfactory in regards to my consideration of whether or not I talk to someone.

It's the kind of thing that I am not interested in talking about publicly, but you're free to do what you want.

There are some people who, for reasons I'm sure they could articulate better than I, chose to forgive and forget. They're free to do that. I just move on, and kick the dust off my feet.

That is basically what's happening now.
Tsar of DDO
1harderthanyouthink
Posts: 13,100
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2015 6:33:13 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/22/2015 6:31:40 PM, YYW wrote:
At 2/22/2015 6:29:43 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 2/22/2015 6:26:36 PM, YYW wrote:
At 2/22/2015 6:21:57 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 2/22/2015 6:13:15 PM, YYW wrote:
I would further submit that all of the people I included in the 'out' group are already functionally blacklisted. Members do not seriously engage Ajab, because we know what he's about. We learned what he was about after his incident with Liz; I hoped he would improve, I was wrong. Envisage, Cassie and Wylted are also already functionally blacklisted. My "cultural divide" thread only gave expression to what already existed.

I'm working with what's available to me. I have no idea what happened between Ajab and Liz. Another example being: I can't understand the JMK-Bsh incident. All I get as an explanation is "it was bad". I don't know what happened, so I can't say anything in regards to the incident.

I understand wanting to blacklist Zarroette and Envisage. I disagree with blacklisting Wylted, and I understand blacklisting Zmike even less.

I don't expect you to understand the JMK incident because you weren't a part of it. It's something that happened, and it's over, but it's not something that can be undone. It happened, and the outcome is settled. There is no animosity or bitterness; I'm just done.

I'm using it because you've told me not to interact with people based on past incidents, with the only explanation being "it was bad". Such a telling is unsatisfactory in regards to my consideration of whether or not I talk to someone.

It's the kind of thing that I am not interested in talking about publicly, but you're free to do what you want.

Then where does that leave me? I'm going to disagree with blacklisting someone if I have no idea what happened: because no reason has been given to me to blacklist them.
"It's awfully considerate of you to think of me here,
And I'm much obliged to you for making it clear - that I'm not here."

-Syd Barrett

DDO Risk King
YYW
Posts: 36,263
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2015 6:34:21 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
And in the event that I wasn't clear:

I'm will not publicly discuss JMK. What happened is in the past, and what's done is done. It has no relevance to this discussion. The JMK situation is not analogous to this one, and JMK is not comparable to any member of the group I listed.

Beyond that, if people have questions we can talk via PM. But, when I talk about someone like this, there is a degree of public censure that necessarily follows. JMK hasn't done anything now to merit that. What has happened in the past is exactly that; the past.
Tsar of DDO
YYW
Posts: 36,263
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2015 6:35:19 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/22/2015 6:33:13 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 2/22/2015 6:31:40 PM, YYW wrote:
At 2/22/2015 6:29:43 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 2/22/2015 6:26:36 PM, YYW wrote:
At 2/22/2015 6:21:57 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 2/22/2015 6:13:15 PM, YYW wrote:
I would further submit that all of the people I included in the 'out' group are already functionally blacklisted. Members do not seriously engage Ajab, because we know what he's about. We learned what he was about after his incident with Liz; I hoped he would improve, I was wrong. Envisage, Cassie and Wylted are also already functionally blacklisted. My "cultural divide" thread only gave expression to what already existed.

I'm working with what's available to me. I have no idea what happened between Ajab and Liz. Another example being: I can't understand the JMK-Bsh incident. All I get as an explanation is "it was bad". I don't know what happened, so I can't say anything in regards to the incident.

I understand wanting to blacklist Zarroette and Envisage. I disagree with blacklisting Wylted, and I understand blacklisting Zmike even less.

I don't expect you to understand the JMK incident because you weren't a part of it. It's something that happened, and it's over, but it's not something that can be undone. It happened, and the outcome is settled. There is no animosity or bitterness; I'm just done.

I'm using it because you've told me not to interact with people based on past incidents, with the only explanation being "it was bad". Such a telling is unsatisfactory in regards to my consideration of whether or not I talk to someone.

It's the kind of thing that I am not interested in talking about publicly, but you're free to do what you want.

Then where does that leave me? I'm going to disagree with blacklisting someone if I have no idea what happened: because no reason has been given to me to blacklist them.

It leaves you with three options:

1. You can PM me and ask questions about stuff.
2. You can do nothing.
3. You can disagree with me.

All are permissible options...
Tsar of DDO
YamaVonKarma
Posts: 7,570
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2015 6:38:33 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/22/2015 6:26:51 PM, YYW wrote:
At 2/22/2015 6:25:49 PM, YamaVonKarma wrote:
At 2/22/2015 6:13:15 PM, YYW wrote:
Are you going to blacklist me for wanting to sleep with people my age?

lol no

Kewl
When I'm older, I hope I get assigned to Asia. Petite bodies applenty.
People who I've called as mafia DP1:
TUF, and YYW
1harderthanyouthink
Posts: 13,100
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2015 6:41:21 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/22/2015 6:35:19 PM, YYW wrote:
At 2/22/2015 6:33:13 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 2/22/2015 6:31:40 PM, YYW wrote:
At 2/22/2015 6:29:43 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 2/22/2015 6:26:36 PM, YYW wrote:
At 2/22/2015 6:21:57 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 2/22/2015 6:13:15 PM, YYW wrote:
I would further submit that all of the people I included in the 'out' group are already functionally blacklisted. Members do not seriously engage Ajab, because we know what he's about. We learned what he was about after his incident with Liz; I hoped he would improve, I was wrong. Envisage, Cassie and Wylted are also already functionally blacklisted. My "cultural divide" thread only gave expression to what already existed.

I'm working with what's available to me. I have no idea what happened between Ajab and Liz. Another example being: I can't understand the JMK-Bsh incident. All I get as an explanation is "it was bad". I don't know what happened, so I can't say anything in regards to the incident.

I understand wanting to blacklist Zarroette and Envisage. I disagree with blacklisting Wylted, and I understand blacklisting Zmike even less.

I don't expect you to understand the JMK incident because you weren't a part of it. It's something that happened, and it's over, but it's not something that can be undone. It happened, and the outcome is settled. There is no animosity or bitterness; I'm just done.

I'm using it because you've told me not to interact with people based on past incidents, with the only explanation being "it was bad". Such a telling is unsatisfactory in regards to my consideration of whether or not I talk to someone.

It's the kind of thing that I am not interested in talking about publicly, but you're free to do what you want.

Then where does that leave me? I'm going to disagree with blacklisting someone if I have no idea what happened: because no reason has been given to me to blacklist them.

It leaves you with three options:

1. You can PM me and ask questions about stuff.
2. You can do nothing.
3. You can disagree with me.

All are permissible options...

The only thing I can do is disagree with you until you explain what happened. I don't care if it's by PM. Knowing what happened between Liz and Ajab would quite help me understand his history and why you want to blacklist him, as knowing what happened between JMK and Bsh would help me understand why you want me to not interact with JMK. Does that seem like a fair viewpoint?
"It's awfully considerate of you to think of me here,
And I'm much obliged to you for making it clear - that I'm not here."

-Syd Barrett

DDO Risk King
YYW
Posts: 36,263
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2015 6:42:24 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/22/2015 6:41:21 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 2/22/2015 6:35:19 PM, YYW wrote:
At 2/22/2015 6:33:13 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 2/22/2015 6:31:40 PM, YYW wrote:
At 2/22/2015 6:29:43 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 2/22/2015 6:26:36 PM, YYW wrote:
At 2/22/2015 6:21:57 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 2/22/2015 6:13:15 PM, YYW wrote:
I would further submit that all of the people I included in the 'out' group are already functionally blacklisted. Members do not seriously engage Ajab, because we know what he's about. We learned what he was about after his incident with Liz; I hoped he would improve, I was wrong. Envisage, Cassie and Wylted are also already functionally blacklisted. My "cultural divide" thread only gave expression to what already existed.

I'm working with what's available to me. I have no idea what happened between Ajab and Liz. Another example being: I can't understand the JMK-Bsh incident. All I get as an explanation is "it was bad". I don't know what happened, so I can't say anything in regards to the incident.

I understand wanting to blacklist Zarroette and Envisage. I disagree with blacklisting Wylted, and I understand blacklisting Zmike even less.

I don't expect you to understand the JMK incident because you weren't a part of it. It's something that happened, and it's over, but it's not something that can be undone. It happened, and the outcome is settled. There is no animosity or bitterness; I'm just done.

I'm using it because you've told me not to interact with people based on past incidents, with the only explanation being "it was bad". Such a telling is unsatisfactory in regards to my consideration of whether or not I talk to someone.

It's the kind of thing that I am not interested in talking about publicly, but you're free to do what you want.

Then where does that leave me? I'm going to disagree with blacklisting someone if I have no idea what happened: because no reason has been given to me to blacklist them.

It leaves you with three options:

1. You can PM me and ask questions about stuff.
2. You can do nothing.
3. You can disagree with me.

All are permissible options...

The only thing I can do is disagree with you until you explain what happened. I don't care if it's by PM. Knowing what happened between Liz and Ajab would quite help me understand his history and why you want to blacklist him, as knowing what happened between JMK and Bsh would help me understand why you want me to not interact with JMK. Does that seem like a fair viewpoint?

We can talk about it via PM, then.
Tsar of DDO
YamaVonKarma
Posts: 7,570
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2015 6:45:35 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/22/2015 6:42:24 PM, YYW wrote:
At 2/22/2015 6:41:21 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 2/22/2015 6:35:19 PM, YYW wrote:
At 2/22/2015 6:33:13 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 2/22/2015 6:31:40 PM, YYW wrote:
At 2/22/2015 6:29:43 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 2/22/2015 6:26:36 PM, YYW wrote:
At 2/22/2015 6:21:57 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 2/22/2015 6:13:15 PM, YYW wrote:
I would further submit that all of the people I included in the 'out' group are already functionally blacklisted. Members do not seriously engage Ajab, because we know what he's about. We learned what he was about after his incident with Liz; I hoped he would improve, I was wrong. Envisage, Cassie and Wylted are also already functionally blacklisted. My "cultural divide" thread only gave expression to what already existed.

I'm working with what's available to me. I have no idea what happened between Ajab and Liz. Another example being: I can't understand the JMK-Bsh incident. All I get as an explanation is "it was bad". I don't know what happened, so I can't say anything in regards to the incident.

I understand wanting to blacklist Zarroette and Envisage. I disagree with blacklisting Wylted, and I understand blacklisting Zmike even less.

I don't expect you to understand the JMK incident because you weren't a part of it. It's something that happened, and it's over, but it's not something that can be undone. It happened, and the outcome is settled. There is no animosity or bitterness; I'm just done.

I'm using it because you've told me not to interact with people based on past incidents, with the only explanation being "it was bad". Such a telling is unsatisfactory in regards to my consideration of whether or not I talk to someone.

It's the kind of thing that I am not interested in talking about publicly, but you're free to do what you want.

Then where does that leave me? I'm going to disagree with blacklisting someone if I have no idea what happened: because no reason has been given to me to blacklist them.

It leaves you with three options:

1. You can PM me and ask questions about stuff.
2. You can do nothing.
3. You can disagree with me.

All are permissible options...

The only thing I can do is disagree with you until you explain what happened. I don't care if it's by PM. Knowing what happened between Liz and Ajab would quite help me understand his history and why you want to blacklist him, as knowing what happened between JMK and Bsh would help me understand why you want me to not interact with JMK. Does that seem like a fair viewpoint?

We can talk about it via PM, then.

Include me
People who I've called as mafia DP1:
TUF, and YYW
SeventhProfessor
Posts: 5,085
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2015 6:49:44 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/22/2015 6:45:35 PM, YamaVonKarma wrote:
At 2/22/2015 6:42:24 PM, YYW wrote:
At 2/22/2015 6:41:21 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 2/22/2015 6:35:19 PM, YYW wrote:
At 2/22/2015 6:33:13 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 2/22/2015 6:31:40 PM, YYW wrote:
At 2/22/2015 6:29:43 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 2/22/2015 6:26:36 PM, YYW wrote:
At 2/22/2015 6:21:57 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 2/22/2015 6:13:15 PM, YYW wrote:
I would further submit that all of the people I included in the 'out' group are already functionally blacklisted. Members do not seriously engage Ajab, because we know what he's about. We learned what he was about after his incident with Liz; I hoped he would improve, I was wrong. Envisage, Cassie and Wylted are also already functionally blacklisted. My "cultural divide" thread only gave expression to what already existed.

I'm working with what's available to me. I have no idea what happened between Ajab and Liz. Another example being: I can't understand the JMK-Bsh incident. All I get as an explanation is "it was bad". I don't know what happened, so I can't say anything in regards to the incident.

I understand wanting to blacklist Zarroette and Envisage. I disagree with blacklisting Wylted, and I understand blacklisting Zmike even less.

I don't expect you to understand the JMK incident because you weren't a part of it. It's something that happened, and it's over, but it's not something that can be undone. It happened, and the outcome is settled. There is no animosity or bitterness; I'm just done.

I'm using it because you've told me not to interact with people based on past incidents, with the only explanation being "it was bad". Such a telling is unsatisfactory in regards to my consideration of whether or not I talk to someone.

It's the kind of thing that I am not interested in talking about publicly, but you're free to do what you want.

Then where does that leave me? I'm going to disagree with blacklisting someone if I have no idea what happened: because no reason has been given to me to blacklist them.

It leaves you with three options:

1. You can PM me and ask questions about stuff.
2. You can do nothing.
3. You can disagree with me.

All are permissible options...

The only thing I can do is disagree with you until you explain what happened. I don't care if it's by PM. Knowing what happened between Liz and Ajab would quite help me understand his history and why you want to blacklist him, as knowing what happened between JMK and Bsh would help me understand why you want me to not interact with JMK. Does that seem like a fair viewpoint?

We can talk about it via PM, then.

Include me

http://www.debate.org...
#UnbanTheMadman

#StandWithBossy

#BetOnThett

"bossy r u like 85 years old and have lost ur mind"
~mysteriouscrystals

"I've honestly never seen seventh post anything that wasn't completely idiotic in a trying-to-be-funny way."
~F-16

https://docs.google.com...
zmikecuber
Posts: 4,078
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2015 6:49:56 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/22/2015 6:21:57 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 2/22/2015 6:13:15 PM, YYW wrote:
I would further submit that all of the people I included in the 'out' group are already functionally blacklisted. Members do not seriously engage Ajab, because we know what he's about. We learned what he was about after his incident with Liz; I hoped he would improve, I was wrong. Envisage, Cassie and Wylted are also already functionally blacklisted. My "cultural divide" thread only gave expression to what already existed.

I'm working with what's available to me. I have no idea what happened between Ajab and Liz. Another example being: I can't understand the JMK-Bsh incident. All I get as an explanation is "it was bad". I don't know what happened, so I can't say anything in regards to the incident.

I understand wanting to blacklist Zarroette and Envisage. I disagree with blacklisting Wylted, and I understand blacklisting Zmike even less.

PM me if you want to know why.
"Delete your fvcking sig" -1hard

"primal man had the habit, when he came into contact with fire, of satisfying the infantile desire connected with it, by putting it out with a stream of his urine... Putting out the fire by micturating was therefore a kind of sexual act with a male, an enjoyment of sexual potency in a homosexual competition."
YamaVonKarma
Posts: 7,570
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2015 6:54:52 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/22/2015 6:49:44 PM, SeventhProfessor wrote:
At 2/22/2015 6:45:35 PM, YamaVonKarma wrote:
At 2/22/2015 6:42:24 PM, YYW wrote:
At 2/22/2015 6:41:21 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 2/22/2015 6:35:19 PM, YYW wrote:
At 2/22/2015 6:33:13 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 2/22/2015 6:31:40 PM, YYW wrote:
At 2/22/2015 6:29:43 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 2/22/2015 6:26:36 PM, YYW wrote:
At 2/22/2015 6:21:57 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 2/22/2015 6:13:15 PM, YYW wrote:
I would further submit that all of the people I included in the 'out' group are already functionally blacklisted. Members do not seriously engage Ajab, because we know what he's about. We learned what he was about after his incident with Liz; I hoped he would improve, I was wrong. Envisage, Cassie and Wylted are also already functionally blacklisted. My "cultural divide" thread only gave expression to what already existed.

I'm working with what's available to me. I have no idea what happened between Ajab and Liz. Another example being: I can't understand the JMK-Bsh incident. All I get as an explanation is "it was bad". I don't know what happened, so I can't say anything in regards to the incident.

I understand wanting to blacklist Zarroette and Envisage. I disagree with blacklisting Wylted, and I understand blacklisting Zmike even less.

I don't expect you to understand the JMK incident because you weren't a part of it. It's something that happened, and it's over, but it's not something that can be undone. It happened, and the outcome is settled. There is no animosity or bitterness; I'm just done.

I'm using it because you've told me not to interact with people based on past incidents, with the only explanation being "it was bad". Such a telling is unsatisfactory in regards to my consideration of whether or not I talk to someone.

It's the kind of thing that I am not interested in talking about publicly, but you're free to do what you want.

Then where does that leave me? I'm going to disagree with blacklisting someone if I have no idea what happened: because no reason has been given to me to blacklist them.

It leaves you with three options:

1. You can PM me and ask questions about stuff.
2. You can do nothing.
3. You can disagree with me.

All are permissible options...

The only thing I can do is disagree with you until you explain what happened. I don't care if it's by PM. Knowing what happened between Liz and Ajab would quite help me understand his history and why you want to blacklist him, as knowing what happened between JMK and Bsh would help me understand why you want me to not interact with JMK. Does that seem like a fair viewpoint?

We can talk about it via PM, then.

Include me

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

I'm not reading through that clusterf**k
People who I've called as mafia DP1:
TUF, and YYW
1harderthanyouthink
Posts: 13,100
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2015 6:57:00 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Well, don't explanations make everything easier? And all it took was a couple minutes. <.<
"It's awfully considerate of you to think of me here,
And I'm much obliged to you for making it clear - that I'm not here."

-Syd Barrett

DDO Risk King
YYW
Posts: 36,263
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2015 6:59:08 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/22/2015 6:57:00 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
Well, don't explanations make everything easier? And all it took was a couple minutes. <.<

All you had to do was ask.
Tsar of DDO
1harderthanyouthink
Posts: 13,100
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2015 7:00:51 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/22/2015 6:59:08 PM, YYW wrote:
At 2/22/2015 6:57:00 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
Well, don't explanations make everything easier? And all it took was a couple minutes. <.<

All you had to do was ask.

When people don't know about things, it's helpful to say something: regardless of whether or not they asked for an explanation.
"It's awfully considerate of you to think of me here,
And I'm much obliged to you for making it clear - that I'm not here."

-Syd Barrett

DDO Risk King