Translation of the original japanese game project aka How to wind up flunkies

[Ⓐaron]

"Dumb" is an insult where I come from. If you don't agree, then perhaps you'll agree that it's at least very strong wording for constructive criticism.

It's certainly strong wording but it's attacking the idea, not the person responsible for it. I have always rather construed the word insult as referring to statements intended against a person.

So it's a personal insult to call something a personal insult.

I never said anything was a personal insult; the specific phrase I used was "personal attack". I would consider it to be a personal attack on an individual's character to ascribe to that person a malicious motive, such as "They're only doing it because they hate the OP," as you have done several times.

Does that mean you're making a personal insult against me?

Clearly not, for reasons already explained.

I think she was wrong to say what she said in the way she said it, and I thought that she said it the way she said it because she was unhappy with the OP. I have no wish to make personal attack on anyone.

Fair enough.

Nor would I want to. But calling things stupid is not constructive.

Perhaps not, but there was plenty in that post that was constructive. Your claim was that Silvers came in and made posts which were not constructive; and, while parts of it may have been worded more strongly than they needed to have been, I think we can agree now that the post in its entirety was not in its whole un-constructive. Certainly it could have been worded better, but hindsight is twenty-twenty.

Well I didn't know that, but it's certainly interesting. Maybe I hang out in the wrong parts of the internets?

Quite likely.

Yes, but those other message boards probably don't have tits in every single one of their threads,

Some of them are rather sausage fests, yes.

 

[A]

He said he was going to be blunt about it. Don't expect everything to be sugarcoated, and it's obvious that he wasn't directly insulting at anyone, or at least, meant to. There was already enough in that post to be pointed out as constructive. It'd be a whole different story if all he pointed out was, "dumb." The rest of the post clearly indicates that he does want to help, and it's not intentional if you find it offensive.

Quite frankly, I don't understand why people are finding it so offensive. Just accept the criticism and let's just all move on from this:

:drama:

 

[Channy]

correct, in fact she was actually a member of ACF (though that's not where we met) and is also a member of TLS

orly? Shouldn't have told me because now I'm gonna be nosy and want to know who it is.

Only TLS has the capability to switch discussion from debating at one minute and talking about Aaron's dry spell the next.

You should have seen FCF in its prime.

The "dumb" in the first sentence might be construed as pretty insulting in the context of the drama.

http://forums.qhimm.com/index.php?topic=8454.msg103001#msg103001

"Do you hate FFVII?" isn't a very nice thing to say to a FF7 fan.

And again:

"Sorry, but it's just the silliest thought to ever be seen on my computer screen. I don't know why you're ruining the game like that. I can't even fathom it."

Come on, unless you've never read comments on youtube or visited a certain image whose name we can't say, then that's pretty insulting, because there are some pretty dumb things to be seen on computer screens.

The idea was dumb. Not Seifer. If Silvers said Seifer was dumb, then it would be insulting.

If somebody told me some of my ideas were dumb (and it's not like it hasn't happened before) I'd probably thank them for their opinion and then tell them to gtfo when they've already gone. There's good and bad ways of handling things, and while Silvers was aggressive in the way she stated her opinion, Seifer was even moreso aggressive in saying 'THIS IS MAI 4RUM, U GTFO, U DUN BELAWNG HEER."

 

[Kudistos Megistos]

It's certainly strong wording but it's attacking the idea, not the person responsible for it. I have always rather construed the word insult as referring to statements intended against a person.

I never said anything was a personal insult; the specific phrase I used was "personal attack". I would consider it to be a personal attack on an individual's character to ascribe to that person a malicious motive, such as "They're only doing it because they hate the OP," as you have done several times.

Clearly not, for reasons already explained.

Fair enough.

Perhaps not, but there was plenty in that post that was constructive. Your claim was that Silvers came in and made posts which were not constructive; and, while parts of it may have been worded more strongly than they needed to have been, I think we can agree now that the post in its entirety was not in its whole un-constructive. Certainly it could have been worded better, but hindsight is twenty-twenty.

Quite likely.

Saying something nasty about an idea isn't necessarily a personal insult, but it can be, and given the wording and the context it comes off as insulting. Do you really think that if you were told something you had said was the dumbest idea the other person had seen on their computer screen, you wouldn't feel insulted?

And my original intent was only to give one example of unconstructive criticisms being made. Some parts of the post gave valid criticisms but the post as a whole was not constructive.

 

[Channy]

See above post for relation to this

 

[Ⓐaron]

@Kudistos:

Given that the poster explicitly stated she felt the need to be blunt and even apologised for doing so, I don't think it's really that insulting.

And the original statement you made, to refresh your memory, was:

much of the "criticism" was hardly constructive and was only really made because people didn't like Seifer.

As has been pointed out, certain parts of that post may not have been individually constructive but the post in its entirety certainly cannot be dismissed as "hardly constructive". To me, that does not amount to "much of the 'criticism [being] hardly constructive" at all.

orly? Shouldn't have told me because now I'm gonna be nosy and want to know who it is. "

If she wants to reveal her status as my ex to you she's more than welcome to do so, though there probably are references to her identity elsewhere on the boards anyway.

 

[Channy]

I don't read too much into things and I'm fairly blond to references just anywhere on the boards.

 

[A]

Giving out blunt/harsh criticism on the Internet is not something to get insulted over. Note that when you POST something on the Internet, your ideas will be critiqued over, and there are always different levels of how one critiques someone's ideas. Asking people for critique then acting dramatic after he was given criticism is not exactly mature. He put himself out there on the spotlight, no one else is to blame.

 

[Vendel]

I was gonna step into this. But I think i will warm up on something easier. Like the N. Korea situation or hyperinflation in Zimbabwe.

 

[Ⓐaron]

The American culture wars and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict might be good warmup acts, too

 

[Kudistos Megistos]

@Kudistos:

Given that the poster explicitly stated she felt the need to be blunt and even apologised for doing so, I don't think it's really that insulting.

And the original statement you made, to refresh your memory, was: As has been pointed out, certain parts of that post may not have been individually constructive but the post in its entirety certainly cannot be dismissed as "hardly constructive". To me, that does not amount to "much of the 'criticism [being] hardly constructive" at all.

Saying that you need to be blunt is often just a head's up that you're going to say something unpleasant. It's like starting a sentence with "I don't mean to offend anyone but...", which is usually followed by something that the person speaking knows will offend someone but doesn't care. And the apology is the same. "I'm sorry, but" means you're not sorry at all.

And a post in it's entirety can be dismissed as "hardly constructive" if the language used in it is such that it will come across as insulting and not posted for the benefit of the person to whom it's addressed.

Giving out blunt/harsh criticism on the Internet is not something to get insulted over. Note that when you POST something on the Internet, your ideas will be critiqued over, and there are always different levels of how one critiques someone's ideas. Asking people for critique then acting dramatic after he was given criticism is not exactly mature. He put himself out there on the spotlight, no one else is to blame.

I'm aware (and I'm sure Seifer is) that in most parts of the internet people say what they think with a level of bluntness that they would not use IRL, but that's not how things work everywhere, and that's not how things work there. If you don't lurk for a while (which I'll admit that I don't do here), then you're bound to make a few mistakes and offend people because you're not familiar with the board's culture. And IIRC, I first waded into this debate by answering a question about the mores of the qhimm forums.

 

[Ⓐaron]

Saying that you need to be blunt is often just a head's up that you're going to say something unpleasant. It's like starting a sentence with "I don't mean to offend anyone but...", which is usually followed by something that the person speaking knows will offend someone but doesn't care. And the apology is the same. "I'm sorry, but" means you're not sorry at all.

And a post in it's entirety can be dismissed as "hardly constructive" if the language used in it is such that it will come across as insulting and not posted for the benefit of the person to whom it's addressed.

What? That's just ridiculous. Because an opinion is expressed bluntly, it's unconstructive? That's absurd. A single harsh line does not invalidate the rest of a post, and none of that post is even particularly insulting; it's all criticism of the ideas behind the hack, there's nothing directed at the people working on it. If such a post were made at TLS we might lightly remind the poster that her opinions could be expressed more tactfully, but writing the whole post off as "hardly constructive" is ridiculous because, with the exception of a couple of sentences, the entire post was substantive criticism. Dismissing the entire post because Seifer has too oversized an ego to take honest criticism in stride is just preposterous.

And the fact that Silvers recognised that her opinion was blunt and felt it necessary to tender an apology for expressing it thusly indicates that she's quite a bit more contrite than she would be if she'd recognised that it was blunt and delivered it without apology.

I'm aware (and I'm sure Seifer is) that in most parts of the internet people say what they think with a level of bluntness that they would not use IRL, but that's not how things work everywhere, and that's not how things work there. If you don't lurk for a while (which I'll admit that I don't do here), then you're bound to make a few mistakes and offend people because you're not familiar with the board's culture. And IIRC, I first waded into this debate by answering a question about the mores of the qhimm forums.

Maybe things are just done differently at Qhimms, I don't know, but that's completely different from the way things are done here at TLS, and it's completely different from the way things were done at ACF before it as well. Expecting someone who's completely new to that board and to its culture to understand that upon first posting there, and then blaming the entire board they come from for that one member's posts there as Seifer did several times, is utterly absurd.

 

[Kudistos Megistos]

What? That's just ridiculous. Because an opinion is expressed bluntly, it's unconstructive? That's absurd. A single harsh line does not invalidate the rest of a post, and none of that post is even particularly insulting; it's all criticism of the ideas behind the hack, there's nothing directed at the people working on it. If such a post were made at TLS we might lightly remind the poster that her opinions could be expressed more tactfully, but writing the whole post off as "hardly constructive" is ridiculous because, with the exception of a couple of sentences, the entire post was substantive criticism. Dismissing the entire post because Seifer has too oversized an ego to take honest criticism in stride is just preposterous.

So, should I not take that as an insult? And it's not a single harsh line it's several harsh lines that suggest the poster wanted to give a little more than honest criticism.

And the fact that Silvers recognised that her opinion was blunt and felt it necessary to tender an apology for expressing it thusly indicates that she's quite a bit more contrite than she would be if she'd recognised that it was blunt and delivered it without apology.

As I said, "I'm sorry, but" means something completely different from "I'm sorry". "I'm sorry, but" means you're not sorry at all.

Maybe things are just done differently at Qhimms, I don't know, but that's completely different from the way things are done here at TLS, and it's completely different from the way things were done at ACF before it as well.

Yes, things are done differently there, and what's fine in one place isn't always fine in another place. If you went to another country and did something illegal/socially unacceptable there, would you defend yourself by saying that's how things are done where you live?

 

[Ⓐaron]

So, should I not take that as an insult?

It's not an insult. It's an attack on an idea, it's not directed at a person.

And it's not a single harsh line it's several harsh lines that suggest the poster wanted to give a little more than honest criticism.

I count two instances in the entire post that could be construed as even slightly provocative, and both of them are attacks on an ideal. That's in comparison to several paragraphs of nothing but substantive criticism. I think you're missing the point.

As I said, "I'm sorry, but" means something completely different from "I'm sorry". "I'm sorry, but" means you're not sorry at all.

No it doesn't. There you go ascribing malicious intentions where none necessarily exist again. If nothing else, it means the person uttering the remark knows that it's harsh and wishes he or she could think of a way to put it less bluntly with the same intellectual impact but not so much visceral impact.

Yes, things are done differently there, and what's fine in one place isn't always fine in another place. If you went to another country and did something illegal/socially unacceptable there, would you defend yourself by saying that's how things are done where you live?

You missed out the last two lines of my post, since it originally submitted before I intended:

Expecting someone who's completely new to that board and to its culture to understand that upon first posting there, and then blaming the entire board they come from for that one member's posts there as Seifer did several times, is utterly absurd.

That's the point I was trying to make. And I've read that entire thread, read every thread Seifer's been involved in over the past several days in fact, and the only member who's posted anything that could be considered questionable is Silvers. So yeah, he is bitching about the whole board because of the conduct of one member.

 

[Kudistos Megistos]

It's not an insult. It's an attack on an idea, it's not directed at a person.

I count two instances in the entire post that could be construed as even slightly provocative, and both of them are attacks on an ideal. That's in comparison to several paragraphs of nothing but substantive criticism. I think you're missing the point.

What part of "Sorry, but it's just the silliest thought to ever be seen on my computer screen. I don't know why you're ruining the game like that. I can't even fathom it" is slightly provocative? It's just provocative and shows that the intentions of the post were provocative. And several other people criticised the idea without being provocative at all.

No it doesn't. There you go ascribing malicious intentions where none necessarily exist again. If nothing else, it means the person uttering the remark knows that it's harsh and wishes he or she could think of a way to put it less bluntly with the same intellectual impact but not so much visceral impact.

Come on, do you really believe that? Please tell me you don't.

You missed out the last two lines of my post, since it originally submitted before I intended: That's the point I was trying to make. And I've read that entire thread, read every thread Seifer's been involved in over the past several days in fact, and the only member who's posted anything that could be considered questionable is Silvers. So yeah, he is bitching about the whole board because of the conduct of one member.

Well, I've read them now and whilst I don't agree with tarring everyone with the same brush (I didn't come here to defend anyone), I do agree with Seifer that people should be expected to understand how things work when they start posting because they should lurk for a while before posting in a thread that had nothing to do with the unfortunate drama. Using the example of going to another country again, wouldn't you take the time to learn a little about how things work over, in order to avoid doing something that you think is fine but they think isn't? And yes, I'm aware that I haven't lurked here, so don't worry about pointing that out.

 

[Ⓐaron]

What part of "Sorry, but it's just the silliest thought to ever be seen on my computer screen. I don't know why you're ruining the game like that. I can't even fathom it" is slightly provocative?

I didn't say those lines were slightly provocative; I said that the rest of the post (with the possible exceptions of the first sentence and "Do you hate FFVII") couldn't be construed as even slightly provocative. Obviously that's slightly more than slightly provocative; I'm not going to quibble about how much. My point is that the post in its entirety is full of substantive criticism.

It's just provocative and shows that the intentions of the post were provocative.

Yet again, you are bringing your interpretation of Silvers' intentions into the matter and labelling them as fact. You have no way of knowing what her intentions were; this is pure speculation.

And several other people criticised the idea without being provocative at all.

So? Different people have different styles.

Come on, do you really believe that? Please tell me you don't.

Yeah, believe it or not I like to think people mean what they say until they present me with reason to believe otherwise. In this case I think Silvers may not have been able to think of any better way to phrase her post at the time. Ascribing it to malicious intentions is, as far as I'm concerned, rushing to a snap judgement. Certainly perhaps she should have waited until she could think of a better way to phrase her post, but well, again, hindsight is twenty-twenty.

Well, I've read them now and whilst I don't agree with tarring everyone with the same brush (I didn't come here to defend anyone), I do agree with Seifer that people should be expected to understand how things work when they start posting because they should lurk for a while before posting in a thread that had nothing to do with the unfortunate drama. Using the example of going to another country again, wouldn't you take the time to learn a little about how things work over, in order to avoid doing something that you think is fine but they think isn't?

While I certainly wouldn't disagree with that part of it, unfortunately that's not precisely the extent of the statements Seifer made. He proceeded to paint the entirety of the criticisms he was receiving as being the result of a carefully coordinated conspiracy being directed by the biased and "militant fanboy" leadership of TLS, when I think it's plain to all that no such conspiracy in existence. He also attempted to tar every member of TLS with the same brush, as only being there to disrupt his projects and posting nothing but vitriol at every turn. As we can see from reviewing the substance of what was actually posted, not even in Silvers' post was that the case, and with every other member from TLS it proves to be not even remotely accurate.

 

[Kudistos Megistos]

I didn't say those lines were slightly provocative, I said that the rest of the post (with the possible exceptions of the first sentence and "Do you hate FFVII") couldn't be construed as even slightly provocative. Obviously that's slightly more than slightly provocative. I'm not going to quibble about how much. My point is that the post in its entirety is full of substantive criticism.

But that substantive criticism won't be taken seriously when it's surrounded by unsubstantive criticism.

There you go bringing your interpretation of Silvers' intentions into the matter again. You have no way of knowing what her intentions were; this is pure speculation.

It's not pure speculation, it's blatantly obvious.

So? Different people have different styles.

Some of which are more helpful than others

Yeah, believe it or not I like to think people mean what they say until they present me with reason to believe otherwise. In this case I think Silvers may not have been able to think of any better way to phrase her post at the time. Ascribing it to malicious intentions is, as far as I'm concerned, rushing to a snap judgement. Certainly perhaps she should have waited until she could think of a better way to phrase her post, but well, again, hindsight is twenty-twenty.

Then you are far too trusting, or you need to take off those rose-tinted spectacles.

While I certainly wouldn't disagree with that part of it, unfortunately that's not precisely the extent of the statements Seifer made. He proceeded to paint the entirety of the criticisms he was receiving as being the result of a carefully coordinated conspiracy being directed by the biased and "militant fanboy"ish leadership of TLS, when I think it's plain to all that no such conspiracy in existence.

You seem to make the mistake of assuming that I'm here to defend Seifer. I'm not. He made mistakes. The fact that I agree with him that the post in question was not constructive does not mean that I agree with everything he posted.

Unfortunately I must leave this delightful discussion now. Real life is getting in the way again, dammit.

 

[Ⓐaron]

But that substantive criticism won't be taken seriously when it's surrounded by unsubstantive criticism.

Describing it as "surrounded by unsubstantive criticism" is blatantly distorting the record. You're acting like 90% of the post was a personal attack, when a closer representation of the facts would be that 90% of the post was substantive criticism. Ignoring all of that because of three sentences is, to put it bluntly, childish, and a person who can't see through to the serious objections raised within needs to grow up a little. Certainly I'm not saying they have no right to be offended, but they also have no right to disregard the entirety of the post just because a couple of sentences weren't phrased as politely as they could have been.

It's not pure speculation, it's blatantly obvious.

Yes it is, and no, no it really isn't.

Some of which are more helpful than others

Won't disagree there.

Then you are far too trusting, or you need to take off those rose-tinted spectacles.

Now that is a personal attack. And it's hilariously off the mark; I'm one of the most cynical, paranoid people you'll ever meet. However, that doesn't prevent me from giving people the benefit of the doubt when it comes to something as trivial as a first post on a message board.

You seem to make the mistake of assuming that I'm here to defend Seifer.

You've already clarified that you aren't, but by not clarifying how wildly off the mark he was with his other ranting you have required me to post a clarification.

Good luck with that tedious, vexing, and possibly mythical thing known as real life.

 

[Eerie]

And here I thought gamerz were more hardcore than your lambda user and could take a bit of bluntness Where are the IGN/4chan users nowadays, seriously? I still remember those days where people tell the others to bring back their computers to their local retailer because they were too stupid to use it, to buy a brain, to learn to play etc Now those were totally lulz-worthy, but I admit that they were truly offending, for that matter

So, if an idea is stupid, we shall not say it as it is because hey, that might HURT the one who's emitting it? Sorry, but if bullshit is said, expect people to say it's bullshit. So what. I have stupid ideas ALL THE FUCKING TIMES. I just laugh about them with my friends on MSN It's no big deal, really. If you're offended that people say it's BS, maybe it's because you were serious about it.
And yeah. Taking out Cait Sith is just gathering a WHY? From me. This is a KEY character dudes. By what are you going to replace it? Tifa's boobies?

But seriously, all this crap reminds me of fanfics writers/fanartists who ask for concrit and once they're given it cry that the one giving it is just a BIG MEANIE BOOHOO.

@Aaron: the reason why I finally joined TLS is because it's a forum where you can be blunt, ironic and have a lot of fun So thank you anyway for existing! XD FF7 being not my favourite game - far from it, I'm more a MMORPG gamer anyway - I wouldn't have joined if it wasn't for that The lulz, guys, the lulz XD

 

[Ⓐaron]

The idea of replacing Cait Sith with Tifa's boobies is one I could get behind, actually

 

[Kudistos Megistos]

Describing it as "surrounded by unsubstantive criticism" is blatantly distorting the record. You're acting like 90% of the post was a personal attack, when a closer representation of the facts would be that 90% of the post was substantive criticism. Ignoring all of that because of three sentences is, to put it bluntly, childish, and a person who can't see through to the serious objections raised within needs to grow up a little. Certainly I'm not saying they have no right to be offended, but they also have no right to disregard the entirety of the post just because a couple of sentences weren't phrased as politely as they could have been.

The post starts by being rude and it ends by being rude. Anything in the middle is surrounded by rudeness and is bound to be ignored, no matter how valid it may be. Is it right? Maybe. Maybe not. But that's what's going to happen when you present your arguments like that, and you have no-one to blame but yourself. BTW, perhaps rude is a better word than insulting. I'll use it from now on.

Yes it is, and no, no it really isn't.

NO U

Won't disagree there.

Good

Now that is a personal attack. And it's hilariously off the mark; I'm one of the most cynical, paranoid people you'll ever meet. However, that doesn't prevent me from giving people the benefit of the doubt when it comes to something as trivial as a first post on a message board.

If that's what you call a personal attack, then you're as touchy as we are. And taking things as literally as the way you took her "I'm sorry, but" does not seem like the actions of a paranoid person.

BTW, look at this post:

http://forums.qhimm.com/index.php?topic=8485.msg103471#msg103471

"I'm a certified dramawhore"

Isn't that interesting? That would suggest to me that the person in question might not have been trying her hardest to avoid a little drama. At the very least, I wouldn't be so adamant about giving a self-identified dramawhore the benefit of the doubt.

Good luck with that tedious, vexing, and possibly mythical thing known as real life.

Don't worry. In a year's time I'll be able to become a full-time NEET.

 

[Ⓐaron]

The post starts by being rude and it ends by being rude. Anything in the middle is surrounded by rudeness and is bound to be ignored, no matter how valid it may be. Is it right? Maybe. Maybe not. But that's what's going to happen when you present your arguments like that, and you have no-one to blame but yourself. BTW, perhaps rude is a better word than insulting. I'll use it from now on.

Possible. But regardless, we've gotten off on a tangent. You said the majority of Silvers' input was not substantive in your opening post, when that's clearly not the case. The majority of the input is substantive. It might not be phrased in the most constructive manner, but that's a flaw in expression rather than in content.

If that's what you call a personal attack, then you're as touchy as we are.

In that particular part of the post I was playing devil's advocate to illustrate that the standards you hold others to aren't particularly easy to hold oneself to, in an attempt to demonstrate why others may have failed to meet them.

And taking things as literally as the way you took her "I'm sorry, but" does not seem like the actions of a paranoid person.

That's because, as already stated, I don't feel it necessary to be paranoid about people's motivations when posting on an internet message board most of the time. There are much more important things to get paranoid about.

And there are plenty of other explanations other than sheer malice for why her post could have come across as strongly worded. She could have simply been stressed out about other shit in real life, or she could have been responding to one of Seifer's many posts on TLS that were vastly more insulting than anything she posted on Qhimm, or she could have literally been at a loss for how to phrase her opinion any less severely than she did, or half a dozen other things.

"I'm a certified dramawhore"

Isn't that interesting? That would suggest to me that the person in question might not have been trying her hardest to avoid a little drama. At the very least, I wouldn't be so adamant about giving a self-identified dramawhore the benefit of the doubt.

Believe me, I know vastly better than you do how much of a drama whore she can be. I just don't see, in this particular case, any evidence that causing drama was the intended motivation. It sounds to me like she was just pissed off.

 

[Kudistos Megistos]

Possible. But regardless, we've gotten off on a tangent. You said the majority of Silvers' input was not substantive in your opening post, when that's clearly not the case. The majority of the input is substantive. It might not be phrased in the most constructive manner, but that's a flaw in expression rather than in content.

IIRC correctly, my opening post (which I regret making, since I only continue drama because I don't like backing down, not because I enjoy it) didn't mention that post at all. Our whole argument has been a tangent. Anyway, the opening sets the tone and the ending determines how people will remember something. Get those wrong and you'll be taken wrong.

In that particular part of the post I was playing devil's advocate to illustrate that the standards you hold others to aren't particularly easy to hold oneself to, in an attempt to demonstrate why others may have failed to meet them.

I'd say that what I said was a little less harsh. In any case, it's a tu quoque argument.

That's because, as already stated, I don't feel it necessary to be paranoid about people's motivations when posting on an internet message board most of the time. There are much more important things to get paranoid about.

And there are plenty of other explanations other than sheer malice for why her post could have come across as strongly worded. She could have simply been stressed out about other shit in real life, or she could have been responding to one of Seifer's many posts on TLS that were vastly more insulting than anything she posted on Qhimm, or she could have literally been at a loss for how to phrase her opinion any less severely than she did, or half a dozen other things.

Believe me, I know vastly better than you do how much of a drama whore she can be. I just don't see, in this particular case, any evidence that causing drama was the intended motivation. It sounds to me like she was just pissed off.

Well, taking it in context, it looks like she just wanted to continue drama, or at least wasn't interested in helping anyone. Can I be certain? No. But it seems like the most obvious answer, and life is too short (even for those who don't have one) to avoid making snap decisions over things that don't really matter; it walks like a duck and it quacks like a duck, so I'm going to assume it's a duck.

By the way, it seems that most of the drama has happened because no-one likes to let anything go. Seifer didn't want to let his point go and a lot of the people here didn't want to let things go (it takes two to tango, and two to completely derail threads with argument). I'm going to let this go (much as I don't want to), and I'm not going to post in this thread any more, because I'm sick of it. Interpret that any way you like. Despite the drama, I don't think you're that unreasonable, so I hope you'll let it go as well. Good day to you.

 

[Channy]

omfg you two shut up.

Megistos, let's set the record straight here. I'm Silvers. Silvers is I. I'm McChanny by day and Silvers by night.

Yes, I am a dramawhore. V knows the full extent to this considering he's been on the receving end several times. That post where I said I'm a certified dramawhore, did you bother to read the following bit? "I could create far more trouble than this is worth" Which means, I wasn't there to cause drama, nor did I want to. I was simply stating that because of Seifer who continued to berate the forum with his painted little picture of TLS fanboys, I could do so much more, and in fact, attempt to ruin the forum.

But I wasn't there for that.

Seifer continued to not listen to our ideas here, so when he left, we all let out a sigh of relief that bawwwwing was done. But when someone linked us to a thread where he was talking smack behind our backs, something had to be done. I was not the only one to sign up to set the record straight. Others signed up as well.

However, to see him still be so disrespectful, I didn't bother to try using tact with him, considering he doesn't seem to use it either. Sure I posted, and I'm sorry you think it's offensive, but get real. Removing Cait Sith is a stupid idea. And I would have told him that here, but I didn't know he was doing that until I saw the thread there. So it was only interpreted as an attack on him because he thinks it is and he thinks I hate him.

I don't hate him, he's just a silly little person with stupid ideas. He seems to know his stuff regarding mods so he should put it to better use and leave the translating and Cait Sith alone. Alternatively Tifa's boobies could be bigger

So yeah, that's how it is. If you get so riled up over something on the internet, and can't stand to take the heat because somebody's being mean, then go read a book. Nobody to bother you there.

 

[Munatik]

I'm late, but I just want to make a couple more statements.

IIRC correctly, my opening post (which I regret making, since I only continue drama because I don't like backing down, not because I enjoy it) didn't mention that post at all. Our whole argument has been a tangent. Anyway, the opening sets the tone and the ending determines how people will remember something. Get those wrong and you'll be taken wrong.

I don't think this is true. It doesn't take much mental or emotional effort to separate the wheat from the chaff in this case. The unhelpful portions ought to be ignored, or remarked on separately as improper, rather than used as justification for invalidating the rest of what was said. Also, this:

If you get so riled up over something on the internet, and can't stand to take the heat because somebody's being mean, then go read a book. Nobody to bother you there.

Agreed. If a saucy remark gets to you on the Internet, then you need to close your eyes, turn around, stand up, and walk away from your computer for a while.

Besides, not everyone is going to like what someone wants to create. That's life, not an aberration exclusive to the net or net drama.

Using the example of going to another country again, wouldn't you take the time to learn a little about how things work over, in order to avoid doing something that you think is fine but they think isn't?

I'm sorry, but this is a very curious analogy. If I visited a country where honest feedback was irrationally labeled vitriol-soaked profanation, I'd wonder where I was, what time period I was in, and how fast I could get the hell out of there. However, we know that this in no way describes the status quo on Qhimm. I have taken a look at some of those threads, and my impression was that a lot of users are reasonable when it comes to honest criticism, and the moderators are apparently fine with it. Much unlike a certain bad apple or two.

As a side note, the core of this disagreement is not the mores of qhimm anyway, therefore I struggle to understand why we are bothering to argue about forum culture. The only person who has lashed out with blanket statements about a forum's populace is Seifer, a mistake he has been properly spanked for.

Therefore, I'll meet you halfway and say that great justice was served, but I for one am content with this case being closed until further notice.