Pages: 1 2 :: [one page] |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
Taikun
Gallente Serenity Prime Praesidium Libertatis
|
Posted - 2007.10.19 12:05:00 -
[1]
Edited by: Taikun on 19/10/2007 12:13:54 I don't know what to call what we are looking at now but it certianly is no longer accurately described as a 'discussion' forum with jac's new rules regarding discussing IPOs.
Originally by: Jacques Archambault Please only post here if you have a question to the OP or if you wish to make a purchase. Anti-competitive posts are considered trolling and will be warned for.
-Jacques
Discussing IPO offerings which by their very nature should be in the WTS forum is IMO the ONLY way investers can share thoughts about the potential risks and benefits associated with a business venture. As well as I might add, the quality of the individuals charactor putting forward any IPO.
However, now ANY desention, concerns, possible drawbacks or negative opinions voiced about an IPO will be considered 'anti-competitive' and you will be subject to moderator actions.
This is a wildly dangerous precident to set. What about prior investor in IPOs who wish to warn others about other business practices? Anti-competitive? What about people who point out flaws in the business model? Anti-competitive? Charactor flaws? Anti-competitive?
WHAT about exposing a IPO scam? Anti-competitive? By removing our freedom to discuss IPOs in the disucussion forums we will not be able to warn each other of potential scams! Let me say again. This change is dangerous for everyone and a crappy move for the gamne itself.
I encourge everyone to read Wranglers interpretation of what these market forums ARE as he defined them. If you disagree with jac's new standards, voice your concerns directly to Wrangler as I have.
[email protected]
Taikun -----------------------------------
For lack of a better word ladies and gentlemen... Greed is good. |
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2007.10.19 12:12:00 -
[2]
Well, maybe J.A.'s choice of words wasn't the most fortunate. I really doubt that he meant what you seem to think he meant.
Personally, I took that as a "stop trolling somebody else's investment thread telling everybody it's pure crap, that the administrator is a scammer, offering no proof of any of what you say, that your investment in the same field is better, and that everybody should go for yours and not his" or something to that extent. _
1|2|3 |
Robacz
Essence Trade Essence Enterprises
|
Posted - 2007.10.19 12:14:00 -
[3]
Edited by: Robacz on 19/10/2007 12:14:36 He said "if you have a question to the OP or if you wish to make a purchase", so discussion is ok. You ask, OP replies, you ask more.
Either way, discussing moderation is against forum rules, so IBTL.
|
Hexxx
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2007.10.19 12:15:00 -
[4]
Originally by: Akita T Well, maybe J.A.'s choice of words wasn't the most fortunate. I really doubt that he meant what you seem to think he meant.
Personally, I took that as a "stop trolling somebody else's investment thread telling everybody it's pure crap, that the administrator is a scammer, offering no proof of any of what you say, that your investment in the same field is better, and that everybody should go for yours and not his" or something to that extent.
Well yes, but I don't want any and all dissent wiped out of IPO threads. Troll or not, it's a slippery slope.
Consulting, IPO Template, and Stock/Bond definitions.
|
Taikun
Gallente Serenity Prime Praesidium Libertatis
|
Posted - 2007.10.19 12:19:00 -
[5]
Originally by: Akita T Well, maybe J.A.'s choice of words wasn't the most fortunate. I really doubt that he meant what you seem to think he meant.
I am not so sure. I trust actions over words any day. Whan I questioned Shar about his self description of himself and how I found it disconcerning for someone asking for billions of ISK. It was removed as anti-competitive.
If someone want the freedom to post stuff for sale without anti-competitve posts they have the Want To Sell fourms. Here we discuss IPOs and that right is under threat.
Now it seems if the IPO manager dislikes a comment, now all the have to say is it's anti-competitive and jac will come running. Dangerous move and a bad change.
Taikun -----------------------------------
For lack of a better word ladies and gentlemen... Greed is good. |
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2007.10.19 12:19:00 -
[6]
Originally by: Robacz Either way, discussing moderation is against forum rules, so IBTL.
Semantics squad to the rescue ! "Discussing moderation" would refer to "discussing something that a moderator has done". What we're doing here is "discussing moderation policy", which is something else _
1|2|3 |
Rhiraven
Gallente The Scope
|
Posted - 2007.10.19 12:20:00 -
[7]
Taikun might not be the most popular guy around here and insults a lot of people, so I just want to point out that he has a point. This forum has been too heavily moderated in the last few days.
So far we have:
- Removing anti-competitive posts in IPO threads - Censoring non-filtered words - Moderating to remove the original intent of a post
And don't forget how he seems to respond to reported threads nearly instantly, moderating posts that would not have been moderated if not for a complaint. Reminds me of elementary school, when whoever 'gets told on' first gets in trouble.
|
Taikun
Gallente Serenity Prime Praesidium Libertatis
|
Posted - 2007.10.19 12:24:00 -
[8]
Edited by: Taikun on 19/10/2007 12:25:00
Originally by: Robacz Edited by: Robacz on 19/10/2007 12:14:36 He said "if you have a question to the OP or if you wish to make a purchase", so discussion is ok. You ask, OP replies, you ask more.
What happens if you don't have a question, only information that the IPO manager actually scammed you out of a billion isk? New rules state you are not allowed to post.
What about a statement that the business model flawed? Any critique is open for suggestion by the OP that it is anti-competitive.
We already have a set of rules pertaining to trolling, flaing, etc. This is a complete new definition jac has slammed down on us.
I feel he either needs to more adequately explain them to the entire market discussion community, or accpet that the old rules were adequate and retract his 'anti-competitive' terminology.
Taikun
-----------------------------------
For lack of a better word ladies and gentlemen... Greed is good. |
LaVista Vista
Corporate Research And Production Pty Ltd Zzz
|
Posted - 2007.10.19 12:33:00 -
[9]
I have flirted with the idea of just moving out of the eve-o forums for most of the discussion, and just announce whatever in here when the public needs to know something.
Unfortunately the discussions in here isnt discussion when they are moderated. So it worthless to discuss in here.
|
Rhiraven
Gallente The Scope
|
Posted - 2007.10.19 12:34:00 -
[10]
Maybe this is a good area for the Ebank to branch into. Unmoderated stock trading and discussion.
|
|
Robacz
Essence Trade Essence Enterprises
|
Posted - 2007.10.19 12:46:00 -
[11]
Originally by: Taikun Edited by: Taikun on 19/10/2007 12:29:52
Originally by: Robacz Edited by: Robacz on 19/10/2007 12:14:36 He said "if you have a question to the OP or if you wish to make a purchase", so discussion is ok. You ask, OP replies, you ask more.
What happens if you don't have a question, only information that the IPO manager actually scammed you out of a billion isk? New rules state you are not allowed to post.
What about a statement that the business model flawed? Any critique is open for suggestion by the OP that it is anti-competitive.
Open discussion and ther free flow of information is practially our only defence against bad IPOs, scams or other poor investment decisions. What jac is saying is... we are not allowed to protect ourselves while scammers will be allowed to prey on us unfettered.
Think about it. If I am a scammer (allowed by CCP rules) and somebody points that out, they are being anti-competitive to my business model. Sounds crazy doesn't it? But will that become the new standard for these fourms. Ask a question or buy, nothing more?
To be honest I think he just copypasted WTS forum moderation reply, such moderation was never applied on this forum + I think his recent actions were completly OK. Sometimes I think this forum actually needs more moderation, not less.
Regarding scams, people should be more careful when labelling people scammers. It is easy to post SCAM sign without any proof. In many games people who call everyone cheater are bigger problem than actual cheaters. "Proof or STFU" should be applied.
|
Taikun
Gallente Serenity Prime Praesidium Libertatis
|
Posted - 2007.10.19 12:54:00 -
[12]
Edited by: Taikun on 19/10/2007 12:55:14
Originally by: Robacz To be honest I think he just copypasted WTS forum moderation reply
There is the problem. This is the market discussion forum, not the WTS forums.
Wrangler was very specific about us being open and allowed to discuss the market in here. He was equally clear that if you want to sell something not to post it here.
Jac's most recent statement is hard to reconcile considering Wranglers statement about what this forum is to be used for.
If we can not discuss IPOs, like it was said, there a going to move somewhere else with a public announcement and a link to it elsewhere. Now THAT will be the wild wild west as everyone will not be linked to their accounts. We will lose a level of security associated with posting with mains.
Taikun -----------------------------------
For lack of a better word ladies and gentlemen... Greed is good. |
Hexxx
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2007.10.19 14:21:00 -
[13]
Originally by: Taikun Edited by: Taikun on 19/10/2007 12:56:35 Edited by: Taikun on 19/10/2007 12:55:14
Originally by: Robacz To be honest I think he just copypasted WTS forum moderation reply
There is the problem. This is the market discussion forum, not the WTS forums.
Wrangler was very specific about us being open and allowed to discuss the market in here. He was equally clear that if you want to sell something not to post it here.
Jac's most recent statement is hard to reconcile considering Wranglers statement about what this forum is to be used for.
If we can not discuss IPOs, like it was said before, they are going to move somewhere else. Only thing left here will be a public announcement and a link to it elsewhere. Now THAT will be the wild wild west as everyone will not be linked to their accounts. We will lose a level of security associated with posting with mains.
Taikun
I'm considering linking EBANK accounts to EBANK Forum accounts. Since accounts are linked absolutely to deposits, we could force Forum names to match true EVE character names . Not sure how much work this is....but it might be a possibility.
Consulting, IPO Template, and Stock/Bond definitions.
|
Shar Tegral
|
Posted - 2007.10.19 22:35:00 -
[14]
Originally by: Taikun I am not so sure. I trust actions over words any day. Whan I questioned Shar about his self description of himself and how I found it disconcerning for someone asking for billions of ISK. It was removed as anti-competitive.
And it was sabotage no doubt. Useless sabotage in fact as someone like you are not going to be the death of any reputation I have. However you keep missing one simple fact mate: Line's have to be drawn somewhere. Not only do you seem intent on finding those line, you seem determined to cross every single one of them with the sole purpose of disruption. Now, just because evacuating your bowels is a natural process that must happen does not mean you will be excused for doing it on the steps of the police house. And, since you've decided to mention me by name, your past history of attempting to grief me, via these very same forums, is also very likely the reason your "insinuations" were deemed as trolling. These forums do not exist in a vacuum and they are regulated. This regulation will always be called censorship by those who wish to push the limits of acceptable posting to the very bleeding edge. What they fail to consider, like children, is the blood must come from somewhere. In closing, actions taken by moderators against you do not set a dangerous precedent no matter how much you try to spin it as such. And, where such a precedent may occur - if, it is unlikely you would be a reasonable voice expressing a concern for the common good. I've tried to tell you repeatedly mate. Your actions are being watched because they are disruptive. If you will not adjust yourself to conform within the minimum acceptable standards for communal interaction... you will be removed. That is life.
It's A GIRL!!!!! |
SencneS
Amarr Balsarferskratchin Inc Axiom Empire
|
Posted - 2007.10.19 22:38:00 -
[15]
Ugh.... what happened that we all of a sudden are getting these terribly mods?!?... What happened to the mods that would just delete the duplicates, clean up the treads from "stupid" posts and that's it.
In my opinion if you don't live and breath the forum your modding you shouldn't impose the same "rules" used in other forums. No one can expect every mod to be perfect, it's understandable. However this particular forum deals with hundreds of billions of ISK, according to my last calculation all IPO's on EGSE and REX have come up to 4 Trillion ISK. We're not some dinky little childish forum here.
This forum requires little, to no moderation from anyone, maybe it's best if you just leave this forum alone and only come when we call you if we detect a problem with a user or a thread.
Amarr for Life |
Shar Tegral
|
Posted - 2007.10.19 23:39:00 -
[16]
I'd like for this to not get lost. A briefer way of saying it though is: " Moderating Taikun is not censorhip, it is public service in its purest form."
It's A GIRL!!!!! |
Danari
Amarr Viper Squad Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2007.10.20 00:12:00 -
[17]
Scrapheap-challenge is quickly reaching a critical mass of relevance and CCP has imo oh about 60 days to turn this around or they'll be #2 in discussion content.
|
Argenton Sayvers
|
Posted - 2007.10.20 00:25:00 -
[18]
Edited by: Argenton Sayvers on 20/10/2007 00:26:27 When you have moderators that happen to be alts of player characters, all kinds of "fun" things happen.
Not that anything of that ever happened though... nope.
Originally by: Shar Tegral
"Moderating Taikun is not censorhip, it is public service in its purest form."[/justify]
You may regret that if he ever applies for ISD...
|
Dark Shikari
Caldari Imperium Technologies Firmus Ixion
|
Posted - 2007.10.20 00:30:00 -
[19]
Edited by: Dark Shikari on 20/10/2007 00:33:33
Originally by: Shar Tegral
Originally by: Taikun I am not so sure. I trust actions over words any day. Whan I questioned Shar about his self description of himself and how I found it disconcerning for someone asking for billions of ISK. It was removed as anti-competitive.
And it was sabotage no doubt. Useless sabotage in fact as someone like you are not going to be the death of any reputation I have. However you keep missing one simple fact mate: Line's have to be drawn somewhere. Not only do you seem intent on finding those line, you seem determined to cross every single one of them with the sole purpose of disruption. Now, just because evacuating your bowels is a natural process that must happen does not mean you will be excused for doing it on the steps of the police house. And, since you've decided to mention me by name, your past history of attempting to grief me, via these very same forums, is also very likely the reason your "insinuations" were deemed as trolling. These forums do not exist in a vacuum and they are regulated. This regulation will always be called censorship by those who wish to push the limits of acceptable posting to the very bleeding edge. What they fail to consider, like children, is the blood must come from somewhere. In closing, actions taken by moderators against you do not set a dangerous precedent no matter how much you try to spin it as such. And, where such a precedent may occur - if, it is unlikely you would be a reasonable voice expressing a concern for the common good. I've tried to tell you repeatedly mate. Your actions are being watched because they are disruptive. If you will not adjust yourself to conform within the minimum acceptable standards for communal interaction... you will be removed. That is life.
You cannot justify moderation of someone's views because you disagree with them.
If they express them in a rulebreaking fashion, such as trolling or personal attacks, only then can their posts be removed.
Intention is also an important aspect. Are they intending to foster discussion, or be a troll?
However, the most important thing is that nobody with a major vested interest in the specific topic can judge someone commenting on it to be a troll unless they are way, way beyond the line. It takes a separate observer to clear up the gray area.
23 Member
EVE Video makers: save bandwidth! Use the H.264 AutoEncoder! (updated) |
Ricdic
Caldari Corporate Research And Production Pty Ltd Zzz
|
Posted - 2007.10.20 01:10:00 -
[20]
I have been working with someone in Eve quite a lot, designing a market management system, a way to view your share portfolio's, update them, see other people's, have public corporations specifically list their corporate information, post all dividend updates and vote/changes, etc.
Basically think EGSE (broker reports and basic dividend info) mixed with ESMAR (updated changes, reports, voting info etc). This is what is currently in design. From what I have seen of his coding work so far, it is superb (only a few days coding).
A forum through that site when done, would be perfect for this kind of thing, I don't really see a need for EBANK to cover it themselves. Anyway, I will be making a public announcement on it in about 7 hours, with linkage so you can all go and play to see what you think.
Need Empire Research Slots. Click here |
|
Shadarle
|
Posted - 2007.10.20 01:31:00 -
[21]
I must say that I didn't see a real problem with Taikun's post in Shar's thread. Sure, I knew the only reason he was posting it was because he doesn't like Shar... but still, his comment wasn't out of line or trolling. It was a legitimate question, even if coming out of a dislike of Shar. But the mods are fairly busy and I'm not going to openly question individual choices like that that they make.
But the overall policy itself... that is something I do think should be questioned, if they are truly planning to outlaw discussion about IPO's. The entire point of the discussion forum is discussion and if pointing out potential scams is made against the rules then I will be through with this forum. Excessive moderation is always worse than too lax of moderation. The level of moderation has been fine as of late... better to let a little extra flaming than to censor useful comments imo.
Tho I have a feeling this thread will be squished, even tho I'd agree with Akita's semantic argument.
Tanking Setups Compared
Stacking Penalty / Resists Explained |
Adrimar
|
Posted - 2007.10.20 01:32:00 -
[22]
Three points I would like to make:
First: There is a fine line between a post in which the poster wishes to inform the public of the possible dangers of an IPO plan and a trolling type of post whose main point is to cause damage to the reputation of the person who is managing the IPO. My personal view is that Taikun cannot in one thread complain about flaming posts and trolls and then go into another thread and post pretty much the same thing that has been posted in the first thread and expect it to be allowed to stand. Add to this that the first thread was a fairly bad IPO (perhaps even scam) and I can say only this: You just cannot have it both ways, Taikun.
Second: The post of the moderator was put there by him because the mods are overworked during their restructuring. It is meant as a warning so that people play by the rules and hopefully reduce the workload of the mods.
Third: A seperate forum with no moderation? Yeah, friggin' right that will work. Where do you people live, in some kind of wonderland? At some point moderation will be implemented or only the people who have accounts will be allowed to post. Those whose posts are not liked by the admins will have their accounts/access removed and then you have moderation. It might even degenerate into only those who already have a standing within the group or those who are friendly to the website owner are allowed to have a voice. Remember, somebody is going to be holding the key to that forum. Here we know who has it and it is ultimately the owners of the game we play and who (should/try to) apply the rules fairly to everyone.
|
Shar Tegral
|
Posted - 2007.10.20 01:33:00 -
[23]
Originally by: Dark Shikari You cannot justify moderation of someone's views because you disagree with them. If they express them in a rulebreaking fashion, such as trolling or personal attacks, only then can their posts be removed.
Intention is also an important aspect. Are they intending to foster discussion, or be a troll?
However, the most important thing is that nobody with a major vested interest in the specific topic can judge someone commenting on it to be a troll unless they are way, way beyond the line. It takes a separate observer to clear up the gray area.
I'm glad you are in perfect agreement with what I said. Or perhaps you think I'm a moderator in disguise and I deleted his posts? (It's unclear because what you've posted is pretty much in line with what I said but you quoted me which can imply counter argument.) And so that we are clear about one thing: I'm saying that Taikun is not unbiased in his views and has consistently tried derailing or trolling me specifically. That this particular issue he is trying to present as thorny and problematic is not at all. Simply put, he was wrong no matter how clever a face he tries to put on it. He got caught and now he's trying to do the forum whine his way out of it. There is a fine line between discussion and trolling. But that doesn't mean trolling can't be bloody well obvious too. Heck, Taikun is scarily predictable. A post will be either about how crappy something CCP is(or is not) doing, it'll be some flamebait at myself, or it'll be some flamebait at Shadarle. So, I restate, this particular instance isn't a problem with moderators. It is a problem with moderation... the moderation Taikun should demonstrate. IMHO, this thread is clear: It's a failed attempt at drama bomb. And, with that being said, I'm outta here.
It's A GIRL!!!!! |
Adrimar
|
Posted - 2007.10.20 01:33:00 -
[24]
Originally by: Shadarle I must say that I didn't see a real problem with Taikun's post in Shar's thread. Sure, I knew the only reason he was posting it was because he doesn't like Shar... but still, his comment wasn't out of line or trolling. It was a legitimate question, even if coming out of a dislike of Shar. But the mods are fairly busy and I'm not going to openly question individual choices like that that they make.
Pretty much the definition of trolling, no?
|
Shadarle
|
Posted - 2007.10.20 01:38:00 -
[25]
Edited by: Shadarle on 20/10/2007 01:38:10
Originally by: Adrimar
Originally by: Shadarle I must say that I didn't see a real problem with Taikun's post in Shar's thread. Sure, I knew the only reason he was posting it was because he doesn't like Shar... but still, his comment wasn't out of line or trolling. It was a legitimate question, even if coming out of a dislike of Shar. But the mods are fairly busy and I'm not going to openly question individual choices like that that they make.
Pretty much the definition of trolling, no?
No, not in my mind anyhow. Trolling is bringing unrelated topics up, attacking someone for no reason related to the post, etc. Bringing up a topic related to the discussion at hand is not trolling. Just because you don't like someone doesn't mean you can no longer disagree without it being trolling. A real question is a real question.
Tanking Setups Compared
Stacking Penalty / Resists Explained |
Adrimar
|
Posted - 2007.10.20 01:46:00 -
[26]
Originally by: Shadarle Edited by: Shadarle on 20/10/2007 01:38:10
Originally by: Adrimar
Originally by: Shadarle I must say that I didn't see a real problem with Taikun's post in Shar's thread. Sure, I knew the only reason he was posting it was because he doesn't like Shar... but still, his comment wasn't out of line or trolling. It was a legitimate question, even if coming out of a dislike of Shar. But the mods are fairly busy and I'm not going to openly question individual choices like that that they make.
Pretty much the definition of trolling, no?
No, not in my mind anyhow. Trolling is bringing unrelated topics up, attacking someone for no reason related to the post, etc. Bringing up a topic related to the discussion at hand is not trolling. Just because you don't like someone doesn't mean you can no longer disagree without it being trolling. A real question is a real question.
We will agree to disagree. My personal opinion is that there was a personal attack on Shar, though it was wrapped in a warning that he, as a person, was not fit to manage an IPO. Together with the fact that he wanted to post only because he did not like Shar does move it from a question into the IPO (though I fail to remember there being a question, it was more of a statement) over into the troll area.
|
Shadarle
|
Posted - 2007.10.20 02:07:00 -
[27]
Originally by: Adrimar
Originally by: Shadarle Edited by: Shadarle on 20/10/2007 01:38:10
Originally by: Adrimar
Originally by: Shadarle I must say that I didn't see a real problem with Taikun's post in Shar's thread. Sure, I knew the only reason he was posting it was because he doesn't like Shar... but still, his comment wasn't out of line or trolling. It was a legitimate question, even if coming out of a dislike of Shar. But the mods are fairly busy and I'm not going to openly question individual choices like that that they make.
Pretty much the definition of trolling, no?
No, not in my mind anyhow. Trolling is bringing unrelated topics up, attacking someone for no reason related to the post, etc. Bringing up a topic related to the discussion at hand is not trolling. Just because you don't like someone doesn't mean you can no longer disagree without it being trolling. A real question is a real question.
We will agree to disagree. My personal opinion is that there was a personal attack on Shar, though it was wrapped in a warning that he, as a person, was not fit to manage an IPO. Together with the fact that he wanted to post only because he did not like Shar does move it from a question into the IPO (though I fail to remember there being a question, it was more of a statement) over into the troll area.
It was indeed an attack on Shar... but that is exactly what anyone who is launching an IPO should expect. Shar has attacked people directly himself and usually they deserve it. I see nothing wrong with attacking someone as long as your attack is merited. In this particular case it seemed to be a valid complaint raised.
I am arguing this even tho Taikun and I obviously dislike each other and I currently have invested 6 billion of my isk with Shar. I don't base my positions based on the person making them but on the content of their posts. In this very rare case I don't think Taikun was wrong. I think that may have happened only once before so it's quite rare, but it doesn't mean it can't happen occasionally.
Shar has himself mentioned he doesn't care what others think of him, so it is totally fair to question if that means he would scam people as he wouldn't care what they thought of him if he did. I obviously trust him enough as I invested in him and Benvie, but I don't see why others can't raise this question. I don't think it will stick as he is relatively well respected on these forums, but it is still fair to bring up.
Tanking Setups Compared
Stacking Penalty / Resists Explained |
Shar Tegral
|
Posted - 2007.10.20 02:29:00 -
[28]
Originally by: Shadarle I see nothing wrong with attacking someone as long as your attack is merited.
Shar has himself mentioned he doesn't care what others think of him, so it is totally fair to question if that means he would scam people as he wouldn't care what they thought of him if he did.
Which is a complete misconstruing of my words. Quote: I'm not some well renowned PVP'er/ Pirate/ Role player blah, blah, blah. I'm just well known for speaking my mind, and the truth as I know it, without any regard for anyone feelings, respect, or even my own survival. In that regard I'm just as bad as most of the worst pirates in the game. I don't give a rat's ass about the community's opinion of me. I do what I do because it is what I want to do regardless of (un)popular opinions or any trends or fads. The prime thing that I bring to any situation I'm involved in is: Honesty.
To delete everything else in this paragraph but "I don't give a rat's ass about the community's opinion of me" and try to use it as an admission on my part that I'm untrustworthy, a person Taikun has viciously attacked on these fourms in the past, is not a valid question into my character, the project, or anything specifically on topic. It is flamebait. Sadly, some of you people are validating this troll thread of his simply because he posted a "potentially" reasonable situation first. But I was wrong. Taikun knows you guys better than I do. This is a successful drama bomb and you've all been played.
It's A GIRL!!!!! |
Rhiraven
Gallente The Scope
|
Posted - 2007.10.20 02:47:00 -
[29]
Shar, I realize that in this particular case, this was a direct attack to you. Whether or not you believe the attack to have merit, or to be justified, it shouldn't be a stretch to see how this can directly affect the next attack YOU direct at an honestly deserving target.
If you reread his post objectively, but replace every instance of 'Shar' or 'Shar Tegral' with 'Rhiraven', would it still look as bad to you? I don't think it would.
Identity and personalities do not have anything to do with forum moderation. The moderator should be reviewing threads objectively against unwavering criteria, not simply deleting anything possibly, remotely offensive from every reported thread.
Also, and this is the most important point:
Taikun did not post this topic immediately after his posts were moderated. There were two additional moderations that were questionable at best directly proceeding it, also levied by Jacques, that took place before he let this thing rip.
|
Shar Tegral
|
Posted - 2007.10.20 02:59:00 -
[30]
Originally by: Rhiraven If you reread his post objectively, but replace every instance of 'Shar' or 'Shar Tegral' with 'Rhiraven', would it still look as bad to you? I don't think it would.
Actually you are quite wrong. Originally by: Rhiraven Identity and personalities do not have anything to do with forum moderation.
Your statement is the formula for flame baiting and griefing. Past history between parties is profoundly connected. For if we decide to strip everything of context... then we've really removed anything worth saying. Hostile or not. Like I've said elsewhere, this kind of thinking is fine for theoretical pondering. Excellent in a classroom or controlled experiment. In practice, it is juvenile and totally irresponsible. It permits abuse as a standard, as the standard!, instead of as an aberration to be dealt with.
It's A GIRL!!!!! |
|
Rhiraven
Gallente The Scope
|
Posted - 2007.10.20 03:14:00 -
[31]
We don't have an all-knowing overlord who knows our posting history on this board, Shar, so if our not-so-benevolent moderator simply sides with whichever character portrait he recognizes it will be worse than no moderation at all.
You think Jacques knows the past history of you and Taikun? Please. You're not that naive, and you know the guy deleted the post without thinking about it because it "looked offensive" to him.
You don't strike me as the kind of person who tiptoes around people's "feelings" and is afraid of "offending" someone, and you're coming dangerously close to brown-nosing the forum moderation here because the side of the debate you're on is so radically different from your standard values.
Or you might just dislike Taikun so much you can't think straight?
|
Shar Tegral
|
Posted - 2007.10.20 03:17:00 -
[32]
Listen I know that you are annoyed with me at the moment. I do respect that and I'm not going to push on that issue as I respect you more than this troll is worth. However let me show you why context is so important. (As Adrimar pointed out.) Originally by: Shadarle I was merely saying that it is not unfair to believe someone could read that into it.
This, in a vacuum, is a fair statement. However not long after Taikun stated that my credibility was questioned by "others" (Note others) which he later spun into self admission... he posted that he did not think me a scammer in response to Miss Fiona. And that is what this is about. Trolling can be done by constantly aggravating a conversation or debate simply for the fun value of it. Or the annoyance value of it. And, I'm disappointed in those who don't get it. Very.
It's A GIRL!!!!! |
Dark Shikari
Caldari Imperium Technologies Firmus Ixion
|
Posted - 2007.10.20 03:29:00 -
[33]
Edited by: Dark Shikari on 20/10/2007 03:28:53 Posting in someone's threads because you don't like them is fine as long as you have a valid point to make that relates to that thread.
For example, if I disliked ISSO, for example, it would not be wrong for me to constantly bring up things that I think ISSO is doing wrong in their threads, even if they asked me to stop repeatedly.
However, if I couldn't come up with anything they did wrong or real criticism (beyond months-old talking points), then posting in their threads would be wrong.
23 Member
EVE Video makers: save bandwidth! Use the H.264 AutoEncoder! (updated) |
Rhiraven
Gallente The Scope
|
Posted - 2007.10.20 03:29:00 -
[34]
I believe that his comment was too close to the line to be deleted. Whether or not it was trolling is arguable, and I don't think utterly erasing something 'arguable' is acceptable.
|
Shar Tegral
|
Posted - 2007.10.20 03:29:00 -
[35]
I'm going to publicly state this so there is no misunderstanding: I AM AN IDIOT.The power of the op is that the postings in question have been deleted. But alas he, and I, forgot the wonder of Eve Search. I consign the op to epic failure.
It's A GIRL!!!!! |
Taikun
Gallente Serenity Prime Praesidium Libertatis
|
Posted - 2007.10.20 03:33:00 -
[36]
Originally by: Shar Tegral However not long after Taikun stated that my credibility was questioned by "others" (Note others) which he later spun into self admission... he posted that he did not think me a scammer in response to Miss Fiona.
And that is what this is about. Trolling can be done by constantly aggravating a conversation or debate simply for the fun value of it. Or the annoyance value of it.
And, I'm disappointed in those who don't get it. Very.[/justify]
Well get ready to be your disapointed in yourself.
I posted I was surprised that other would invest in your IPO given your self description within the IPO and the speculative nature of the investment.
This comment came after you told someone to 'go to hell'. Albeit a case of mistaken identity, but it goes along way to understanding the management style of the fund manager.
I didn't say not to invest. I didn't say you were pulling a scam. I pointed out 3 things which I thought was incompatable with a sound investment.
1. Your own personal description of yourself. 2. Your reaction to an invester and the language used,. 3. The speculative nature of the IPO.
I did this on page three, after most if not all of your shares were already sold. It was done because of the specific event of you attacking a potential investor. I found that intersting and was speculating upon it.
Whan another fool posted your IPO was a scam your dead right I basically told him they were full of ****. There is not double standard there. No secret agenda. No attack Shar at any given opportunity.
This is bigger than just your sense that I am 'out to get you'. IPO discussions constitue a signifigant portion of this forums traffic. Pleanty of people come here to read specifically ther comments made by many of us to guage if an investment is worth of their hard earned isk.
The second we start to limit discussion on those endevours this game loses some thing pretty substantial.
Taikun -----------------------------------
For lack of a better word ladies and gentlemen... Greed is good. |
Shadarle
|
Posted - 2007.10.20 03:36:00 -
[37]
I've just re-read the thread, in full (no moderation), on eve-search and I can say that I have to completely change my position on the matter.
I will come right out and say I was wrong, Taikun most definitely was trolling.
Taikun started off in the thread directly questioning Shar's trustworthiness and then later in the thread told Fiona that he did not believe Shar would scam.
He even stated he had no intention of investing. So it wasn't even his own personal interest involved. And he contradicted his own statements against Shar, showing he didn't believe the very things he said.
The only explanation, imo, is that he was just trying to smear Shar with his initial posts. But he found it even easier to hit Fiona than to continue hitting Shar. So I stand corrected having read the actual post again.
Tanking Setups Compared
Stacking Penalty / Resists Explained |
Shar Tegral
|
Posted - 2007.10.20 03:39:00 -
[38]
Originally by: Taikun The second we start to limit discussion on those endevours this game loses some thing pretty substantial.
I redirect you to this Taikun. You've gotten to much of my free time with this attack on a moderator who did the right thing. Just because censorship could happen does not mean it did. I.e. Just because some cops are bad does not mean we don't need them. Desperately.
It's A GIRL!!!!! |
Rhiraven
Gallente The Scope
|
Posted - 2007.10.20 03:40:00 -
[39]
I read Taikun's post as saying that he would not be investing in your IPO because he did not trust you to objectively deal with investors in a manner that he sees fit, because of your history of holding personal grudges.
I can understand that. Is it acceptable to deny someone business in a third party's public trade venture because the person securing the investment has a grudge with that someone?
There is a valid point of discussion there, and it was a serious point of contention, not a troll post.
|
Rhiraven
Gallente The Scope
|
Posted - 2007.10.20 03:44:00 -
[40]
Originally by: Shadarle Taikun started off in the thread directly questioning Shar's trustworthiness
He questioned Shar's conduct directly, over a direct, specific incident, and advised others that he believed this would happen again.
I reiterate, I do not think this is a worthless post.
|
|
Shar Tegral
|
Posted - 2007.10.20 03:50:00 -
[41]
Edited by: Shar Tegral on 20/10/2007 03:51:42
Originally by: Rhiraven Is it acceptable to deny someone business in a third party's public trade venture because the person securing the investment has a grudge with that someone?
Coming from you, in fairness asked, I'd answer this directly. Even if Taikun had, in fairness, asked I would have answered this directly. (You only need read the thread to see that I was trying to respect him and not for the first time.) The answer is: Yes. No one should be forced to do business with someone they find objectionable. We may suspect that the reasons are intolerable to us as a society but without invading the privacy of one's mind we can never know. And even then, we would still have no right to pass judgment or require that person to do business in the face of his own objections. At the time, that Taikun is pointing out, I mistook a person as being a Corp mate, or potential alt, of Miss Fiona. My response was appropriate and my refusal to do business was not inappropriate. That it was in error warranted an apology by me and was freely given. (Truly I'm embarrassed over that gaffe.) But having conviction to stand by a reasonable position does not make my character in question. The error was quite plain to see in it's honesty. This was not some unwarranted position to take nor any other spin job Taikun may put on it. (You'll note he never bothered to post until after I made that gaffe.) But to answer your question: You have no right, nor does anyone else, to force me to work with anyone I don't want to work with. In real life, this may mean I exercise my right by quitting my job. To force me to stay would be slavery. Thus the point is academic, I don't have to accept money from someone I can't stand. I won't tank the project just because someone I can't stand acquires shares in my project. One is my choice, the other is just wrong.
It's A GIRL!!!!! |
Rhiraven
Gallente The Scope
|
Posted - 2007.10.20 03:59:00 -
[42]
I guess if the post had been worded slightly better, we wouldn't be talking about it right now. I'm just adept at seeing the possible reasoning behind ******** forum posts.
I do greatly enjoy this godawful anonymous forum, so keep that in mind when considering my anti-moderation policies.
Personally, I would deal with people I dislike regardless of past history if I've nothing to lose by doing it, and would sell shares to Fiona. Personally, I have no problem with someone else who would not.
However, I also have no problem with anyone who would take great exception on either side of that fence, and find the whole situation worth discussing, and unworthy of moderation.
I guess the end point of this discussion is, "Taikun, for the love of God put more effort into your posts".
Still, there were other moderation fumbles external to that post that made my blood boil.
|
Shar Tegral
|
Posted - 2007.10.20 04:11:00 -
[43]
Originally by: Rhiraven I guess if the post had been worded slightly better, we wouldn't be talking about it right now. I'm just adept at seeing the possible reasoning behind ******** forum posts.
Hey, I enjoy your posting and I enjoy most people here. I think this thread is an epic fail though as it challenges some things better off left alone most days. What is that you say? That the person on the other side of that monitor is someone who may not take your perceptions of what you wrote. Be it me, a player, or someone else like a moderator. But it will be judged and where judgment does happen, with penalties, one should be wise about it. And perhaps willing to be contrite if you are wrong or told you are wrong. Mind you that when a post is delete there is no issued warning. If a warning had been issued the post would have been edited for content, an email received by Taikun with the contents there in, and he could've challenged it. I'm quite familiar with this process mind you. This whole thread is simply about the fact that he didn't like it. He didn't get penalized in any other way.
It's A GIRL!!!!! |
Rhiraven
Gallente The Scope
|
Posted - 2007.10.20 04:14:00 -
[44]
You might think it's a small thing, but it goes right up my ass when one of my posts gets moderated
|
Shar Tegral
|
Posted - 2007.10.20 04:23:00 -
[45]
Originally by: Rhiraven You might think it's a small thing, but it goes right up my ass when one of my posts gets moderated
LOL, there are people here who are privy to the emails I've made to the moderators in the past. I don't think it it is light at all. But I was recently pointing out to someone a certain aspect of younger people. "I guess people need to experience injustice first hand to realize why it should be avoided if possible. Endured if not." Injustice is injustice, no dispute. But sometimes, without realizing it, we scream and holler for injustice to come around the block, down the street, and to land square upon our own heads. I know I did and in realizing that fact I've learned to be philosophical about past affairs. Even my own gaffes.
It's A GIRL!!!!! |
|
ISD Rauth Kivaro
ISD STAR
|
Posted - 2007.10.20 04:33:00 -
[46]
Locking this post for trolling, if you wish to discuss such matters do so in a civil fashion, not with subject lines claiming a forum has been closed.
forum rules | [email protected] | Our Website
|
|
Taikun
Gallente Serenity Prime Praesidium Libertatis
|
Posted - 2007.10.20 04:34:00 -
[47]
Originally by: Shar Tegral However not long after Taikun stated that my credibility was questioned by "others" (Note others) which he later spun into self admission... he posted that he did not think me a scammer in response to Miss Fiona.[/justify]
I just picked up on this Shar.
You sure you read my statement correctly?
Originally by: "Taikun" As it was said by another posters. This seems to me a high risk, high speculative eventure with a questionable backer. Others are welcome to see differently and quite obviously do so.
The others I refered to were those 'others' who do not agree with my assessments.
Was this what you refered to when you typed :
Originally by: "Shar" I am an idiot
If so, it was another misunderstanding. Oh well. You're not having the best of luck.
But that was in another thread. This on is about 'anti-competitive' posts in IPOs.
I suggest that the market forums need a additional rule first allowing IPOs to exist here, and the right to conduct free flowing dialouge within them. We don't need a new set of rules to govern them either.
A troll would be a blanket statement with no evidence or factual basis.
"This is a scam" would be a troll.
However, if I posted a pick of the same IPO manager caught with a raven under contract as a navy raven and stated their IPO is "likely to be a scam". That wouldn't be.
Both can be argued as being anti-competitive but the latter even you can agreee is important for IPO discussion.
The existing rules should suffice when 'moderating' IPOs and the slow introduction of ill-defined rule termonology scares me. It's like the blanket crime 'enemy of the people'. It means whatever those who run things to mean and open to selective enforement. Not healthy.
Taikun
-----------------------------------
For lack of a better word ladies and gentlemen... Greed is good. |
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 :: [one page] |