New site staff and Mod, TresDias/Squall_of_SeeD

[Marauder]

Mako Eyes wrote:

Honestly, if that were the case, you would've been warned and banned several pages ago.

Sorry you don't feel the warning was justified bro, but saying someone sucked cock for their position is pretty rude. Especially in a serious thread discussion, and towards a guy you don't even know. Maybe if this was one of your pals and you two were joking around you'd have a point, but....that's not the case. At all.

I don't give a shit about the warning, tbqfh.

Leo Kliesen wrote:

I don't. That's why my post count is so high. :'c

everyone makes mistakes.

[The Man]

Ted Lange As Your Bartender wrote:

So making 'promises' in jest can't be jokes, either? I'm sorry, I'll make sure that next time I say 'First person who gets this answer right/posts/etc' gets a litereal fucking cookie shipped to their house because otherwise, I'd be a lying, promise breaking person, according to your logic.

I never said that. I said that it probably wasn't a good idea when people already don't like you and are looking for reasons to criticise you.

Almost every time you post in this area of the forum. Most of the posts in this topic, for one.

I asked for examples. You provided none.

Lately, I've been to bashing my head against a cinderblock with the hope that maybe, maybe a golden egg will pop out. I've been doing this for a long while now with absolutely no success but hopefully one day it'll happen!

This is significantly more entertaining than bashing my head against a cinderblock. So I'm not really inclined to stop anytime soon.

[Cat Rage Room]

I'm sorry, but you explicitly said you wanted someone new on staff regardless of how that would make the members feel.

You know, I could argue that the Staff doesn't have any obligations to any member, group of members, or the entire memberbase here. I could argue that the Staff of this site, and any site's only 'obligations' (which even that word is pushing it because it's a privately owned venture) is to whatever the Staff (or owner) made the site's focus on. It could be argued that the adminship here has no obligation to anything or anyone else except what the site is for, Final Fantasy information.

[The Man]

Ted Lange As Your Bartender wrote:

But with you there's no such thing as 'I disagree but I'll leave it at that' or 'let's agree to disagree'. When arguing with you, I've noticed you do not stop until you get the answer you want or you're satisfied.

Real life does not work that way buddy!

I'm sorry, but have you missed the numerous times I've conceded a point in this very thread? For example, I just said it was fair enough that Ryu was being facetious, and then I said it was fair enough that he attempted to clarify the matter after he realised he wasn't being understood properly.

[The Man]

Ted Lange As Your Bartender wrote:

You know, I could argue that the Staff doesn't have any obligations to any member, group of members, or the entire memberbase here. I could argue that the Staff of this site, and any site's only 'obligations' (which even that word is pushing it because it's a privately owned venture) is to whatever the Staff (or owner) made the site's focus on. It could be argued that the adminship here has no obligation to anything or anyone else except what the site is for, Final Fantasy information.

Yes, but if the staff took that attitude it would quickly find itself with a dead forum, and you know that as well as everyone else on the staff, so quit playing games.

[Makoeyes987]

Ⓐaron wrote:

Dacon said on MSN that this appointment and staff's poor response to the criticism it generated was the straw that broke the camel's back.

That's pretty damn strange because when he was posting, it was mostly Que responding, and she's not even staff

And I was mostly going by his latest post in this thread in response to her.

I gave a brief explanation as to why it was done back on page 4, and I felt it would suffice. I didn't even know I'd have to give further explanation on a moderator appointment.

I'm sorry, but you explicitly said you wanted someone new on staff regardless of how that would make the members feel. I'm not sure how else I was supposed to read that, other than that you don't care what the members think about staff appointments, which, by the way, are one of the most important aspects of forum politics.

We've had members voice their thoughts and votes regarding staff appointments numerous times before, is there a problem with the staff they've appointed/accepted exercising their judgment in policy and appointments too? That seems like a huge double standard there. Especially if we're just adding a replacement here.

Everyone's perspective is a unique and new that hasn't been on staff before, unless they're former staff. The fact that you'd rather have the opinion of someone who doesn't have much experience with the board than the opinion of someone who has identified problems and criticised them speaks volumes about the way this place is run.

I meant in terms of not just staff but the forum. I don't see how that speaks volumes of anything, except wanting a fresh perspective from a well trusted and respectable person who can give us an impartial and new viewpoint of things here.

I'm certainly going to give him a chance, but that doesn't mean I'm going to stop criticising the way he was appointed.

LOL, well that's obvious.

[Marauder]

Ted Lange As Your Bartender wrote:

But with you there's no such thing as 'I disagree but I'll leave it at that' or 'let's agree to disagree'. When arguing with you, I've noticed you do not stop until you get the answer you want or you're satisfied.

Real life does not work that way buddy!

I've got to say, I'm rather shocked! Aaron doesn't stop until he gets what he wants out of an argument? Are you sure about that? We've argued quite a bit, and he's stopped without provocation. Without me admitting I was wrong, or something equally juvenile. Maybe you guys are just fail-debaters.

Also, if this were the case, he would've gotten n00dz out of me ages ago.

[Cat Rage Room]

I'm sorry, but have you missed the numerous times I've conceded a point in this very thread? For example, I just said it was fair enough that Ryu was being facetious, and then I said it was fair enough that he attempted to clarify the matter after he realised he wasn't being understood properly.

No, I'm not saying you're completely insufferable, but there is such a thing as 'I don't agree with any of this but I'll agree to disagree'. Conceding a point when you're satisfied with the information given is fine and dandy, but that's not really what I was talking about.

[Cat Rage Room]

Yes, but if the staff took that attitude it would quickly find itself with a dead forum, and you know that as well as everyone else on the staff, so quit playing games.

False. Anecdotal evidence I know, but the site in my sig's owner is notorious for not giving a shit about anything (or anyone, damn near) but his goals for the site (that he built with his own bare hands from nothing), and it's one of the most thriving sites of his kind. Why? Because he does what he wants and it works. If someone doesn't like what he does or how he does it, he tells them to get the fuck out (or rather, if you don't like it leave).

[The Man]

Mako Eyes wrote:

That's pretty damn strange because when he was posting, it was mostly Que responding, and she's not even staff

And I was mostly going by his latest post in this thread in response to her.

I gave a brief explanation as to why it was done back on page 4, and I felt it would suffice. I didn't even know I'd have to give further explanation on a moderator appointment.

I'm just going by what he told me on MSN. Though now that I think about it, he might have just cited the staff response as reason he wouldn't bother returning when shit gets better. I can't remember now.

Mako Eyes wrote:

We've had members voice their thoughts and votes regarding staff appointments numerous times before, is there a problem with the staff they've appointed/accepted exercising their judgment in policy and appointments too? That seems like a huge double standard there. Especially if we're just adding a replacement here.

Why is it a double standard for members to want their thoughts about staff appointments to be taken into consideration?

I meant in terms of not just staff but the forum. I don't see how that speaks volumes of anything, except wanting a fresh perspective from a well trusted and respectable person who can give us an impartial and new viewpoint of things here.

Sorry bub, but you're not going to get an impartial viewpoint from anyone. Human beings are incapable of being impartial - yes, that includes me. And again, you've yet to explain why the opinions of someone who's barely been a member for a month is so valuable.

[The Man]

Ted Lange As Your Bartender wrote:

No, I'm not saying you're completely insufferable, but there is such a thing as 'I don't agree with any of this but I'll agree to disagree'. Conceding a point when you're satisfied with the information given is fine and dandy, but that's not really what I was talking about.

I fail to see any advantage in conceding an argument when the information given to me is unsatisfactory.

[The Man]

Ted Lange As Your Bartender wrote:

False. Anecdotal evidence I know, but the site in my sig's owner is notorious for not giving a shit about anything (or anyone, damn near) but his goals for the site (that he built with his own bare hands from nothing), and it's one of the most thriving sites of his kind. Why? Because he does what he wants and it works. If someone doesn't like what he does or how he does it, he tells them to get the fuck out (or rather, if you don't like it leave).

It's also a site for building games, not a site for discussing them. The two aren't really comparable, especially since there aren't many sites for building games. If people don't like the atmosphere at this Square Enix site, and most of them won't when the staff admits they don't give a shit what anyone thinks, they'll find a Square Enix that has a staff with a better attitude.

[Cat Rage Room]

I fail to see any advantage in conceding an argument when the information given to me is unsatisfactory.

Because life isn't about 'advantages' in arguments all the time and not everyone is going to agree (or care) about the quality of information given to you. What would you do if one of us (or anyone in such an argument) told you to go fuck yourself and ended the conversation? Nag them to death? Recently I had an argument with one of my bosses about how they handle scheduling. The debate and the information given to me wasn't satisfactory, but I had to cut my losses and call it a day. What the fuck else was I going to do, follow him home and tap him on the shoulder constantly because I didn't like the answer he was giving me?

No, there is such as thing as cutting your losses like an adult when you don't get your way and it doesn't look like you're going to.

[Marauder]

He doesn't want to get his way. He wants sufficient information. There's a difference.

[Makoeyes987]

Ⓐaron wrote:

Why is it a double standard for members to want their thoughts about staff appointments to be taken into consideration?

We have before. We agree on that, right? Can staff not make any decision at all as staff in terms of making appointments as well, too? It's not like we're appointing a new admin here. It's just one mod.

Sorry bub, but you're not going to get an impartial viewpoint from anyone. Human beings are incapable of being impartial - yes, that includes me. And again, you've yet to explain why the opinions of someone who's barely been a member for a month is so valuable.

To be specific, maybe I should say a more impartial view. I agree there's no such thing as a perfectly impartial view point since humans are incapable of it. But him being a fresh face and new to how things go down here, could help in gaining new ideas and viewpoints on how things are done. I don't know what's so hard to understand about how gaining a fresh perspective from someone outside is valuable in management. It's why businesses hire outside consultants, or appoint completely new individuals (those who have no history at all with the company in question) to management positions or higher. Incidentally that too can be to the chagrin of some of the older workers at the company but in the long run it can serve the business's interests as a whole in the long run. If the individual proves themselves to be a good choice for said position, that is.