New site staff and Mod, TresDias/Squall_of_SeeD

[Marauder]

Purely due to Road having a brain. And knowing how this would be received.

[Ryushikaze]

Aaron, IN MY RESPONSE TO YOU, I said you were taking my facetiousness too seriously, and then provided examples of things that would be taken as blatant flames ELSEWHERE. I'm not saying that ARE flames or that I think they're goddamn terrible, except for Phobos' accusation of fellatio on Tres' part to get his position, and comments of the sort should be avoided in the future.

My POINT, was that elsewhere, criticizing staff is often bannable offense, and for all your complaints about how little we do and how hypocritical we all are and nonsense, we are pretty much live and let live. And people complain about that.
And then we do something, and people complain about that.
And it's always the same set of people. But at least we are trying to listen and explain ourselves, even if some people don't want to listen.

[The Man]

Mako Eyes wrote:

If it was just about having a mod who knew Japanese, I could find a friend of mine who knows Japanese, have them register, appoint them mod, and be done with it. I'm sorry, but no. Him knowing Japanese isn't even the point. We're looking at the whole picture, and I'm sorry, but you keep coming back to other members here, when that's irrelevant. No one's entitled. If we want someone with those qualifications, who we've known before to be a positive, level headed and mature member, who also is fresh to the community in terms of ideas and experience, we're gonna go with who we see as exemplifying those traits.

And you haven't given a single reason as to why he exemplifies those traits better than other people who also have rapport with the members already.

He can if people give him a chance, and he presents himself in a courteous, kind, and professional manner, all of which he's shown himself capable of doing, and is doing.

At this point he's doing a much better job than the rest of the staff, I'll say that much. But then again, I can't say that would be particularly difficult. It still doesn't make his selection make any more sense.

You took a simple analogy and blew it out of proportion....

No we don't think of ourselves as a police force. We don't have a fucking subforum jail we throw you in to post in to state your case and justify your membership here. But the fact is, is that we are in place to enforce the forum rules here. Which police officers in a simliar vein...enforce the rules of society. Not that big of a stretch. Way to go at assuming an unwarranted sense of authority and importance for our positions here.

Maybe if you don't want people to read an unwarranted sense of importance for your positions into your words, you shouldn't use such a ridiculous analogy.

[Makoeyes987]

Phobos wrote:

Purely due to Road having a brain. And knowing how this would be received.

Good job at being insulting again in what's trying to stay a civilized and mature debate. Thank you.

[The Man]

Mako Eyes wrote:

That's irrelevant, because again, that doesn't negate the fact that staff are not a bunch of "yes men" in the least. Case in point, Road's hesitation of appointing the guy in the first place.

It's not irrelevant, because I never accused staff of being a bunch of "yes men." Way to make a straw man argument though.

[Marauder]

Yes, this is all about the insults. Because I'm just oh so insulting.

[Makoeyes987]

Ⓐaron wrote:

And you haven't given a single reason as to why he exemplifies those traits better than other people who also have rapport with the members already.

Because that again comes to our decision and choice in judgment that was bred from our experience, interaction, and knowledge of this individual, coupled with our desire to have a fresh face on staff.

At this point he's doing a much better job than the rest of the staff, I'll say that much. But then again, I can't say that would be particularly difficult. It still doesn't make his selection make any more sense.

You know, I'm already past being insulted or whatever by such subtle, and sarcastic jabs at our expense, but I will say that I'm glad you feel that way, and it is for that reason we felt a fresh face on staff would be a good reason. Because at least he would then be fresh and people would be able to see him for himself, and not just as "another staff person." So I guess that's a good start.

Maybe if you don't want people to read an unwarranted sense of importance for your positions into your words, you shouldn't use such a ridiculous analogy.

Okay. Because one can truly gleam and make a completely valid reading of one's sense of importance from a mere internet analogy, especially isolated from their points at hand. Right.

[The Man]

Mako Eyes wrote:

I'm not putting words in your mouth, I'm making a summation of what I feel our disagreement is.

Well it's a poor summation and I find it insulting.

I disagree to a point, here. Tres isn't a faceless automaton here, and he's just as qualified as anyone else here and will be known as he acts as a member here. There is no reason at all they can't get to know him now.

I'm not disputing that at all. I'm just saying you could have avoided the whole shit storm by appointing someone the members already knew, and it wouldn't have come across as such a slap in the face to people who've been model members for the majority of this forum's existence.

The fact he's an individual several staffers are familiar with, accept, and feel confidence in, doesn't distinguish him at all?

Considering that all the other candidates mentioned in this thread presumably excluding myself should fit those criteria as well, no it doesn't distinguish him.

Fresh as in, he hasn't been apart of this particular forum and we'd like someone new to add to our bunch as well. That's not the same thing.

Well you can see how that worked out.

So what? The fact we have several members on staff with differing viewpoints and opinions isn't lost at all because of that. You're tying unrelated points together now.[/QUOTE]I never said you didn't have differing viewpoints on staff. I said you didn't want to add more differing viewpoints to staff. Apparently the nuance in this argument escapes you.

[Makoeyes987]

Ⓐaron wrote:

It's not irrelevant, because I never accused staff of being a bunch of "yes men." Way to make a straw man argument though.

Then what is your point, Aaron? If you mentioning that we haven't added people who've had a dissenting viewpoint to staff, isn't an accusation that we only accept those who follow our own line of thought and think of us favorly, so to minimize dissent...what's the point you're making? Please say it clearly.

[The Man]

Ryushikaze wrote:

Aaron, IN MY RESPONSE TO YOU, I said you were taking my facetiousness too seriously

Perhaps you fail at making your facetiousness obvious then. Several other people I was speaking to didn't see it either.

and then provided examples of things that would be taken as blatant flames ELSEWHERE. I'm not saying that ARE flames or that I think they're goddamn terrible,

Good, then I'm at a loss as to why you directly called them "blatant flames" in the first place, rather than saying "would be seen as blatant flames in other, stricter communities." A little bit of clarity goes a long way.

except for Phobos' accusation of fellatio on Tres' part to get his position, and comments of the sort should be avoided in the future.

I'm not seeing how a joking insinuation that someone may or may not have committed fellatio is an insult. It's a joke.

My POINT, was that elsewhere, criticizing staff is often bannable offense, and for all your complaints about how little we do and how hypocritical we all are and nonsense, we are pretty much live and let live. And people complain about that.

I haven't disagreed with any of that. In fact, I explicitly said exactly the same thing you said in another post. So perhaps you failed to discern my point.

And then we do something, and people complain about that.
And it's always the same set of people. But at least we are trying to listen and explain ourselves, even if some people don't want to listen.

Well I think it's easily solved. If you want me to make a serious diagnosis of where this place has gone I'll do it tomorrow, assuming I don't throw up in the morning again or something.

[Makoeyes987]

Ⓐaron wrote:

Well it's a poor summation and I find it insulting.

You find me stating the obvious that we disagree...insulting?

I'm not disputing that at all. I'm just saying you could have avoided the whole shit storm by appointing someone the members already knew, and it wouldn't have come across as such a slap in the face to people who've been model members for the majority of this forum's existence.

And we would've sacrificed our appointment of who we felt was more qualified and capable of doing the job.

And it's only a slap in the face to those who feel unwarranted entitlement to a position they were never promised in the first place.

Considering that all the other candidates mentioned in this thread presumably excluding myself should fit those criteria as well, no it doesn't distinguish him.

Well that's your opinion, and I and the rest of us staff have to respectfully disagree.

I never said you didn't have differing viewpoints on staff. I said you didn't want to add more differing viewpoints to staff. Apparently the nuance in this argument escapes you.

That's an assessment of yours that isn't true, but okay. Thanks for the clarification.

[Cat Rage Room]

I'm not seeing how a joking insinuation that someone may or may not have committed fellatio is an insult. It's a joke.

The last time I was joking and said this I got into one of the biggest shitstorms of my entire stay here. I'm beginning to think that some of the people here are pretty selective over the stuff that gets their panties in knots.

[Ryushikaze]

Aaron, at this point, I have to say, it really feels like you're misunderstanding things on purpose just so you can get up in arms. That's the only way your misunderstanding and overblowing of a very simple analogy makes sense.

[The Man]

Mako Eyes wrote:

Then what is your point, Aaron? If you mentioning that we haven't added people who've had a dissenting viewpoint to staff, isn't an accusation that we only accept those who follow our own line of thought and think of us favorly, so to minimize dissent...what's the point you're making? Please say it clearly.

You claimed I said staff are "yes men." I never claimed that. I did say you want to minimise dissent. Having trouble keeping your own words straight? It's okay, you're posting pretty quickly so it's understandable.

[Dashell]

Ted Lange As Your Bartender wrote:

The last time I was joking and said this I got into one of the biggest shitstorms of my entire stay here. I'm beginning to think that some of the people here are pretty selective over the stuff that gets their panties in knots.

To be fair I think the point in that situation was that you are a mod and shouldn't be making such comments.