Not to meddle, but don't you two think that you should both follow each other's advice, just for once?

Because from the point of view of person who's reading this argument and trying to see who's right, right now you're both being fairly silly.

Not to meddle, but don't you two think that you should both follow each other's advice, just for once?

 

Because from the point of view of person who's reading this argument and trying to see who's right, right now you're both being fairly silly.

Silly how? Silly as "stooping to name-calling and ignoring the issue at heart"? Because I can certainly understand that with Kraa...No offence Kra.

I dunno if it's "Silly", to me, it seems like a heated discussion. Sorry if I'm stepping in all of a sudden BC...

No problem...it is sorta heated.

Yeah. That's why I avoid discussion over someone's character at all costs, unless I'm sure that no effect of it will ever reach them. It's worse when it's two people basically putting each other on trial. What does the current discussion have to do with the EMK, anyway?

Yeah. That's why I avoid discussion over someone's character at all costs, unless I'm sure that no effect of it will ever reach them. It's worse when it's two people basically putting each other on trial. What does the current discussion have to do with the EMK, anyway?

Basically, BS01 voted to keep the Mask of Intangibility and Mask of Possibilities pages that I nominated. They kept them even though there was no image and there was barely any info and could be deleted without loss. That's cool; I was completely fine with that. However, after I nominated the EMK pages, the Staff rejected the nomination even though they all had images and lots of info. So the Staff kept 2 pages with a small amount of info and no picture, and rejected 10 pages with plenty of info and images. Why?

Apparantly because they have no known users. Aki Nuva. Mask of Elemental Energy. Explanation fails; why are they rejecting the EMK? They haven't appeared in story. Mask of Mutation. Mask of Charisma. Aki Nuva. Explanation fails; why are they rejecting the EMK? They have a double-standard; translation--hypocrisy.

I agree with you on the mask pages, but even though the staff have technically fulfilled the definition of hypocrisy (nicest way I could put it) the confrontational attitude won't help you're stance much.

You don't care about these debates.

If you really did. REALLY. You would follow the clear. plain. simple. steps that have been laid it to you time and time again.

 

But you don't care enough.

You're just using whatever you can come up with as a weapon against BS01's "corrupted administration." Maybe you used to actually want to work some stuff out, but now you are just bitter and hostile.

 

I'm sure there are things we could do better, things we have overlooked, and things that have been handled wrong. We are human, the site is a WIKI, and we are open to suggestions, feedback, and criticism.

 

You just go about it in the wrong way.

 

Sound familiar yet?

Yeah...you're brushing me off again because you can't handle my 'disrespect'.

 

My blocking was the result of edit warring against ET. For some reason, I was actually doing the wrong thing by removing a piece of false info a Staffer left up, contacting ET respectfully about why he was replacing the blatantly false info, and standing up for my freedom of speech...keep telling yourself that.

 

You aren't really open to suggestions, feedback, and criticism. Otherwise, we would have resolved your hypocrisy now. Instead...you just care about being respected.

 

Nobody on the Staff can refute that they are being a hypocrite (whether knowingly or not), and so they refuse to listen to me. If the staff REALLY cared about handling this properly, they would come with an open mind and be polite, like B-man. Can you refute that you are a hypocrite?

Every single one of my points still stand. It is not a matter of handling your disrespect - it is tolerating it. Tolerating you and your attitude.

Your block was for exactly what the log will show - repeated breaking of policies. You can complain about them, but you cannot deny breaking them.

Nonsense, Bold Clone. You had every chance to respectfully approach disagreements. Do not write this off on me, or anyone else but yourself.

Not to meddle, but don't you two think that you should both follow each other's advice, just for once?

 

Because from the point of view of person who's reading this argument and trying to see who's right, right now you're both being fairly silly.

Without knowing the intense circumstances and being involved with the situation for as long as those who were tasked to be have, outside opinions will not get anyone very far. You are only seeing a small, foggy portion of the big picture.

Which appears to be why BC wanted to make this public... it is easier to get people to side with you when you only give your side of the story, and do so charismatically.

Not to meddle, but don't you two think that you should both follow each other's advice, just for once?

 

Because from the point of view of person who's reading this argument and trying to see who's right, right now you're both being fairly silly.

Silly how? Silly as "stooping to name-calling and ignoring the issue at heart"? Because I can certainly understand that with Kraa...No offence Kra.

 

I dunno if it's "Silly", to me, it seems like a heated discussion. Sorry if I'm stepping in all of a sudden BC...

No problem...it is sorta heated.

I take every bit of offense, just as you intended it.

Every single one of my points still stand. It is not a matter of handling your disrespect - it is tolerating it. Tolerating you and your attitude.

 

Your block was for exactly what the log will show - repeated breaking of policies. You can complain about them, but you cannot deny breaking them.

 

Nonsense, Bold Clone. You had every chance to respectfully approach disagreements. Do not write this off on me, or anyone else but yourself.

 

Not to meddle, but don't you two think that you should both follow each other's advice, just for once?

 

Because from the point of view of person who's reading this argument and trying to see who's right, right now you're both being fairly silly.

Without knowing the intense circumstances and being involved with the situation for as long as those who were tasked to be have, outside opinions will not get anyone very far. You are only seeing a small, foggy portion of the big picture.

 

Which appears to be why BC wanted to make this public... it is easier to get people to side with you when you only give your side of the story, and do so charismatically.

 

I take every bit of offense, just as you intended it.

What policy did I break? The 'don't contradict the Staff' policy? I was doing my job--removing false info and improving the wiki. Period. ET was just being himself and getting in my way.

The Staff have also had every chance to be polite and privately discuss this, but no...you couldn't listen to me...

...No, he's seeing this picture pretty clearly. I think your glasses are the problem.

...No. I made this public so BS01 could see the problems with the BS01 Staff and why I was banned--I got in an edit war against ET while I was minding my own business. Not even you can deny that.

No. No I did not intend any offense. Period. You are overreacting, and are now making claims you can't possibly back up.

And on top of all of this, you still can;t refute a single one of my arguments against the BS01 Staff. Sound like you're simply stooping to attacks against me as compared to actually countering my points...maybe there's a reason behind that?

You are becoming the 'boy who cried "period."' Periods are for established facts, and the fact is that you have continually had a problem breaking the No Reverting Staff Edits rule. Speaking of things that can't be refuted - shall we get into that one?

If you are the one with the concern, it's your job to begin the approach. You have yet to do so correctly. If you have and I do not know about it, send me the evidence and I will take action.

I do not wear glasses or contacts. My vision is above average. No one is seeing the entire picture here - it's been an ongoing issue for quite some grueling long time.

There is no way you could have said that without intending offense, so say what you want now, but anything short of an apology will not suffice.

No? I'm the one who began with encouraging you to calm down, and all of my comments have promoted calm, respectful methods of working out petty disagreements. Whenever you are ready, I have been waiting for a year.

You are becoming the 'boy who cried "period."' Periods are for established facts, and the fact is that you have continually had a problem breaking the No Reverting Staff Edits rule. Speaking of things that can't be refuted - shall we get into that one?

 

If you are the one with the concern, it's your job to begin the approach. You have yet to do so correctly. If you have and I do not know about it, send me the evidence and I will take action.

 

I do not wear glasses or contacts. My vision is above average. No one is seeing the entire picture here - it's been an ongoing issue for quite some grueling long time.

 

There is no way you could have said that without intending offense, so say what you want now, but anything short of an apology will not suffice.

 

No? I'm the one who began with encouraging you to calm down, and all of my comments have promoted calm, respectful methods of working out petty disagreements. Whenever you are ready, I have been waiting for a year.

Periods are for established facts, and the established fact is that I was doing my job and removing a false piece of info that ET was replacing. You should be thanking me for standing up to ET's completely inappropriate behaviour.

I began the approch. You brushed me off and refused to listen to me. Now I'm still trying to get your attention and you are still refusing to listen to the facts I am giving you.

That was a figure of speech. You aren't seeing the issue clearly.

I don't really care what you think, that did not have ANY offense behind it. It's your problem if it offended you, and I won't apologize for an insult I didn't make. Just drop it.

And on top of all that, I am just asking you to listen and be open-minded, like B-man. If you can't do that, then stay at BS01 and continue in your hypocrisy by voting against the EMK. On the other hand, if you can wrap your head around the possibility that I am right, then please, approach me civilly and let's continue.

What a ridiculous and petty debate.

There's no issue with expressing dissent, however you've gone beyond that. You've resorted to baseless accusations and personal attacks. Look, you don't have to agree with how the BS01 staff decides to run their site, however you cannot go about attacking them every opportunity you get. They have every right to run their site as they see fit and you have to accept that what they say goes. If you aren't going to handle this maturely then maybe this isn't a discussion you should be participating in.

What a ridiculous and petty debate.

 

There's no issue with expressing dissent, however you've gone beyond that. You've resorted to baseless accusations and personal attacks. Look, you don't have to agree with how the BS01 staff decides to run their site, however you cannot go about attacking them every opportunity you get. They have every right to run their site as they see fit and you have to accept that what they say goes. If you aren't going to handle this maturely then maybe this isn't a discussion you should be participating in.

Ridiculous? Petty? If by that you mean arguing over my character, then I agree. If by the EMK, then you're wrong. This issue goes straight to the heart of BS01: consistancy and the effects of refusing to adhere to it. If the Staff refuse to be consistant, then what does that say about their character? What does that say about their responsibilities and accountability? If the Staff refuse to be consistant in one area, then what's to keep them from being inconsistant in another area? Say, Toa Tools? Guess what? That's already happening. Can they be relied upon to accurately make decisions? Well, of course they can...if they are willing to accept the fact that they are not perfect and should pick a consistant stance one way or the other. If they refuse the EMK, then they need to abide by their own rules.

No. No it is not baseless accusations. What are you talking about? Point out example is you can. They are hypocrites. Prove me wrong, if you want. Thus, I call them hypocrites. Stating that fact isn't so much a personal attack as confronting them about their unwillingness to reconsider the issue that they have a double-standard on. I'm handling this as maturely as anyone should: standing up for what I believe in and pointing out what is wrong with the BS01 administation. If you can't appriciate my willingness to endure personal attacks from Kraa about myself for the sake of correcting Kraa's character...

Is it too much to ask that we stay on-topic here with the issue? What do the Staff have to say in defense of their actions? Besides making personal attacks on my character...

On one hand, we have a person screaming "You're all hypocrites! Kill all hypocrites!".

On the other, we have a person screaming "We ain't hypocrites! Kill all extremists!".

Exaggerated, of course, but any outsider such as myself can easily see the idiocy being displayed by both sides of the argument. Both of you goes out to aggressively attack each other, and attempt to intimidate the other into submission via a holier-than-thou attitude, and not actually providing any sort of constructive solution towards any of the problems on hand.

~ Bioran

You are becoming the 'boy who cried "period."' Periods are for established facts, and the fact is that you have continually had a problem breaking the No Reverting Staff Edits rule. Speaking of things that can't be refuted - shall we get into that one?

 

If you are the one with the concern, it's your job to begin the approach. You have yet to do so correctly. If you have and I do not know about it, send me the evidence and I will take action.

 

I do not wear glasses or contacts. My vision is above average. No one is seeing the entire picture here - it's been an ongoing issue for quite some grueling long time.

 

There is no way you could have said that without intending offense, so say what you want now, but anything short of an apology will not suffice.

 

No? I'm the one who began with encouraging you to calm down, and all of my comments have promoted calm, respectful methods of working out petty disagreements. Whenever you are ready, I have been waiting for a year.

Periods are for established facts, and the established fact is that I was doing my job and removing a false piece of info that ET was replacing. You should be thanking me for standing up to ET's completely inappropriate behaviour.

 

I began the approch. You brushed me off and refused to listen to me. Now I'm still trying to get your attention and you are still refusing to listen to the facts I am giving you.

 

That was a figure of speech. You aren't seeing the issue clearly.

 

I don't really care what you think, that did not have ANY offense behind it. It's your problem if it offended you, and I won't apologize for an insult I didn't make. Just drop it.

 

And on top of all that, I am just asking you to listen and be open-minded, like B-man. If you can't do that, then stay at BS01 and continue in your hypocrisy by voting against the EMK. On the other hand, if you can wrap your head around the possibility that I am right, then please, approach me civilly and let's continue.

[i'm getting tired of you mirroring my remarks. It seems a little juvenile, and I thought I would let you know.]

You're job was never reverting staff edits, that's what you were told not to do. Ever. ET had his problems, you had yours. He was dealt with, you were dealt with. You can accept that whenever you are able.

You have yet to do so correctly. If you have and I do not know about it, send me the evidence and I will take action.

And you can say that... how?

So what I am to believe... is that amongst a barrage of insults and name-calling, one portion in particular just sounds rude, but had no harmful intentions? That's interesting.

I don't recommend telling me things like "Just drop it." Not only is it bossy and you are out of your place - it seems counter-intuitive to the approach you are trying for.

It really isn't that hard to understand. You know the procedure - any child old enough to make an account on BS01 could be taught this.

If you have a disagreement... you talk to us. Nicely. We have a mature conversation about what should be done.

Because we are NOT actually the TERRIBLE people you think of us as. We do actually like to have our reference site accurate. Crazy, huh?! The problem with your case is that we're not going to allow you to set an example for everyone else of getting things done the way you want to do it. We will not have a member-base of users throwing a fit when they come across something they don't agree with. You will not get your way unless you can interact with the staff in an acceptable way.

You should try it. It's pretty easy.

So right now, if there's something that you think got overlooked/not handled the right way, come talk to us. Come explain why you think what you think should be done and it will be addressed. How does that not sound like the way things should work?

What a ridiculous and petty debate.

 

There's no issue with expressing dissent, however you've gone beyond that. You've resorted to baseless accusations and personal attacks. Look, you don't have to agree with how the BS01 staff decides to run their site, however you cannot go about attacking them every opportunity you get. They have every right to run their site as they see fit and you have to accept that what they say goes. If you aren't going to handle this maturely then maybe this isn't a discussion you should be participating in.

Ridiculous? Petty? If by that you mean arguing over my character, then I agree. If by the EMK, then you're wrong. This issue goes straight to the heart of BS01: consistancy and the effects of refusing to adhere to it. If the Staff refuse to be consistant, then what does that say about their character? What does that say about their responsibilities and accountability? If the Staff refuse to be consistant in one area, then what's to keep them from being inconsistant in another area? Say, Toa Tools? Guess what? That's already happening. Can they be relied upon to accurately make decisions? Well, of course they can...if they are willing to accept the fact that they are not perfect and should pick a consistant stance one way or the other. If they refuse the EMK, then they need to abide by their own rules.

 

No. No it is not baseless accusations. What are you talking about? Point out example is you can. They are hypocrites. Prove me wrong, if you want. Thus, I call them hypocrites. Stating that fact isn't so much a personal attack as confronting them about their unwillingness to reconsider the issue that they have a double-standard on. I'm handling this as maturely as anyone should: standing up for what I believe in and pointing out what is wrong with the BS01 administation. If you can't appriciate my willingness to endure personal attacks from Kraa about myself for the sake of correcting Kraa's character...

 

Is it too much to ask that we stay on-topic here with the issue? What do the Staff have to say in defense of their actions? Besides making personal attacks on my character...

As I've made clear, the issue will be addressed once it is is raised properly. That's how the dots connect.

On one hand, we have a person screaming "You're all hypocrites! Kill all hypocrites!".

 

On the other, we have a person screaming "We ain't hypocrites! Kill all extremists!".

 

Exaggerated, of course, but any outsider such as myself can easily see the idiocy being displayed by both sides of the argument. Both of you goes out to aggressively attack each other, and attempt to intimidate the other into submission via a holier-than-thou attitude, and not actually providing any sort of constructive solution towards any of the problems on hand.

 

~ Bioran

Why don't you speak for yourself there, Bioran? Don't be so quick to assume that "outsiders like yourself" will agree with you. What any outsider could see easily, though, is that you constantly tend to disagree with me at every turn.

That's why it come to absolutely no surprise for me to find that you are here, trying to drop in and hinder what I am doing.

I know it's hard not too intrude on two people arguing and try to make yourself look awesome, but maybe you could resist and pay more attention to what is going on? Because what you described is not what I am seeing - which goes along with what I've already made a point of.

----

This is a lot harder than it has to be. It can end at any time you will just end your hostility and work out the issues you have. I'm all for it.

[i do that to get my point across; it seems a little juvenile if you can't handle that, and I thought I would let you know.]

My job was to improve the wiki. If that means reverting a Staff edit that wasn't improving the wiki, then that is my job. Instead of thanking me for removing a piece of false info, you decided to ban one of the oldest and best editors the wiki ever had.

You have yet to approach me correctly. If you have and I do not know about it, send me the evidence and I will take action.

Because you still aren't being open-minded, like you should have been in the first place. Since you haven't been, my position is validated.

Yes. Just leave it alone; you aren't going to accomplish anything wise there.

And any staff member competent enough to hold their job can be taught this: you listen to the little users with and open-mind. If you don't, then any disagreement they can with you can be justified by your refusal to listen.

If they have an idea, listen to it and consider it logically. If it paints you into a corner with your double-standard, then change your stance so you can still set a good example for others.

No. If you cared about having an accurate referance site, then you would have been open-minded and accepted my idea in the first place. And you won't get my respect unless you behave yourself in a respectable, open-minded way, like B-man. You should try it; it's pretty easy.

...And for the record, you still have yet to respond to the issue properly. After that, the issue will be handled responsibly.

B-ran is trying to help. You are not. You are constantly critizing me and hindering any open-minded discussion about the EMK. Please, let him speak. He may help out.

This is a lot harder than it has to be, Kraa. It can end at any time if you will just end your hostility and work out the issues you have with me about your unwillingness to listen. I'm all for it.

BC, I hate to get involved in this, but I think you should realize that as the half-creator of the EMK, I am fine with the wiki handling them how it does. I see a clear distinction between EMK and the other masks you're talking about -- correct me if I'm wrong, but those other masks were created by Greg. I'm humble enough to be satisfied by that.

Besides, if people want more details about the masks, they can simply look them up in the Expanded Multiverse reference material. The actual canonized basics are pretty much there on the wiki, so no problemo IMO.

Now I'm not as familiar with the technicalities of the policy you're talking about, but the whole argument feels legalistic to me. In my experience, legalism is usually the wrong way to go. The way they have it now makes sense, so what's the point in beating the dead horse as Dorek put it?

Just my two cents, take it or leave it.

BC, I hate to get involved in this, but I think you should realize that as the half-creator of the EMK, I am fine with the wiki handling them how it does. I see a clear distinction between EMK and the other masks you're talking about -- correct me if I'm wrong, but those other masks were created by Greg. I'm humble enough to be satisfied by that.

 

Besides, if people want more details about the masks, they can simply look them up in the Expanded Multiverse reference material. The actual canonized basics are pretty much there on the wiki, so no problemo IMO.

 

Now I'm not as familiar with the technicalities of the policy you're talking about, but the whole argument feels legalistic to me. In my experience, legalism is usually the wrong way to go. The way they have it now makes sense, so what's the point in beating the dead horse as Dorek put it?

My problem is that the Staff were being inconsistant in their behaviour towards the EMK and wouldn't admit it. Now that the 'Other Kanohi' page has been created, they have (at least partially) cleaned up their act, for which I am happy.

Alright. I guess what I was trying to say was, there's a huge difference between staff (who make rules) deciding when exceptions are warranted, and actual "hypocrisy". What was done before now was the former, not the latter, IMO.

Problem I'm seeing is that you were banned for speaking your opinion. :/

Problem I'm seeing is that you were banned for speaking your opinion. :/

...I was actually banned for edit warring agianst ET's inappropriate and immature behavior. That said, because I was banned, I created this blog.

Problem I'm seeing is that you were banned for speaking your opinion. :/

You know where to look. I don't know why you would say that.

Problem I'm seeing is that you were banned for speaking your opinion. :/

You know where to look. I don't know why you would say that.

...possibly because it's true?