(10-06-2012, 00:13)Cell Wrote: (10-05-2012, 22:42)Leech Wrote: (10-05-2012, 21:27)Crashlander04 Wrote: (10-05-2012, 15:21)Leech Wrote: (10-05-2012, 14:24)Crashlander04 Wrote: If that thing is blatantly wrong, yes, that makes sense. The problem arises when the action is subjective and controversial. (eg; raiding too much with RP reason, breaking blocks with the intention of fixing them, etc..).
Crash, we get that you're pissed that Ian's banned, you can start making arguments that don't focus on that point now
I gave two examples for the purpose of helping give a picture of what a subjective offence could be. There is nothing wrong with that.
Unless you have a point relevant to this discussion, whether as a legitimate argument or constructive critic of my own argument, please, don't be a cunt.
Let me restate it then. My argument is that you attempt to validate every single argument by bringing up Solitude and Ian. Your argument for why a major portion of a plan is bad is based on a single example, the validity of which is extremely debatable. Furthermore, months after this event has occurred, you still consistently use this as your main point for almost every topic. Whether it's pushing the demotion of someone involved are preventing legitimate change, I can always expect the same argument from you. Every time you do this, your argument appears invalid to me and many others. So, if you ever want us to take you seriously, shut the fuck up about Solitude. They're gone , get over it
tl;dr Kiwike ≠ Ian
I'm pro Solitude ban!
So my information isn't tainted! Right?
So, lets get this straight. Don't be an asshole, Leech. Your a nice guy and all, but he is using legitimate information to back up his claims. He is one of the few that wanted them to not be banned. So, that voids all of his reasoning? I think not. You can't just bullshit your way through the rules, stating "Exception" as a rule, and then banning people for something that was not even related to at all in the official rules list. That is not how the server should operate. There should be a little leeway, but nothing extreme, and Crash is making a good point on the topic. So, quit your bitching, and let him speak.
Unless you call noting someone's supposed anger publicly extremely offensive, it should be clear that Leech didn't start the hostility in this argument, Crash did, and every time he does as such, the rate of legitimacy in his arguments falls 99%. As you can also see, Leech retaliated as any sane person would do, only to have people directly blame him for being the jerk that Crash reflected himself. If you want to see further proof, look not one line below.
(10-06-2012, 00:46)Crashlander04 Wrote: cue a mean smythie comment
is it que?
queue? that sounds right
You were right the first time, with cue. Also, this is completely unnecessary to bring up. Just as you call me condescending, I'd suggest you stop with ridiculous posts.
Look, I'm not trying to call names here, just noting some key misconceptions taking place, and trying to keep the directionless arguing at a minimum.
