 |
| |
|
|
|
<center><table width=80%><tr><td><font color=000080 face="Verdana" size=2><font size="1">quote:
<img src=/forums/"/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1>
</font><font size=1>Originally posted by The Mad Monk on 05-10-2000 09:28 AM</font>
People are used to posting on anything that hits OT, and such a rule out of the blue could certainly be expected to be missed by some, ignored by others, and protested by still others.
<img src=/forums/"/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1></font></td></tr></table></center>aha! the right to post wherever you like, whatever you like over a small request of the moderator so that there is ordered discussion...
<center><table width=80%><tr><td><font color=000080 face="Verdana" size=2><font size="1">quote:
<img src=/forums/"/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1>
</font>those who honestly missed it, because there was no way to expect it.
<img src=/forums/"/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1></font></td></tr></table></center>they do know how to read dont they?
<center><table width=80%><tr><td><font color=000080 face="Verdana" size=2><font size="1">quote:
<img src=/forums/"/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1>
</font>As for your second comment, all that proves is that you're willing to support unlogical, nonsensical rules to a unjust extent. That is a hallmark of tyranny.
<img src=/forums/"/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1></font></td></tr></table></center>look at a another example: ghen is on his fifth login over the last week. should I stop disabling the logins he makes just because he keeps making them? that's the point of my phrase...
|
|
| |
|
|
Narck
|
 |
Houston, TX, USA
Apr 1999
time: 23:13
|
|
<center><table width=80%><tr><td><font color=000080 face="Verdana" size=2><font size="1">quote:
<img src=/forums/"/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1>
</font>the right to post wherever you like, whatever you like over a small request of the moderator so that there is ordered discussion...
<img src=/forums/"/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1></font></td></tr></table></center>Not a request, an order, punishable by vacation. An order that never had to have been made (is it really that important if a few ppl reply to an announcement?), and one that could have easily been avoided (by using the lock/unlock procedure). If that's too hard to do, then maybe the thread shouldn't have been posted at all.
I haven't said much about this issue and I'm not planning to, but I just want to say that I think both sides overreacted. However, it also is quite obvious (to me at least) that such a "not allowed to post here" thread was a big mistake. Threads are meant to be posted to, and if that's not the case they need to be locked.
Concludingly, one could say I also don't agree with the decisions made. I don't think we should make such a big deal out of it though. After all, this is still only an Off Topic forum of a game site and not real life 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Narck
|
|
Houston, TX, USA
Apr 1999
time: 23:13
|
|
<center><table width=80%><tr><td><font color=000080 face="Verdana" size=2><font size="1">quote:
<img src=/forums/"/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1>
</font><font size=1>Originally posted by Ming on 05-10-2000 11:26 AM</font>
And I have used the "don't post here line" before.
<img src=/forums/"/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1></font></td></tr></table></center>Ah ok, I never noticed that before, but I have no reason not to believe you. But what I really want to know is: are you still going to use the line in the future?
<center><table width=80%><tr><td><font color=000080 face="Verdana" size=2><font size="1">quote:
<img src=/forums/"/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1>
</font>But, everybody seems to ignore the fact that people were actively TELLING other people to post to it.
...
But it's all OUR fault...
<img src=/forums/"/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1></font></td></tr></table></center>No, not everyone says that, I, as well as a fair number of others, state that both sides overreacted, and were at least partly to blame for the final result. I also think this whole thing is blown way out of proportion.
No matter, perhaps it's time to stop the debate  Perhaps it's time to stop blaming each other of what happened. It happened, now it's done, let's all move on to discuss more positive things 
<font size=1 face=Arial color=444444>[This message has been edited by Narck (edited May 10, 2000).]</font>
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
<center><table width=80%><tr><td><font color=000080 face="Verdana" size=2><font size="1">quote:
<img src=/forums/"/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1>
</font><font size=1>Originally posted by Ming on 05-10-2000 11:26 AM</font>
But, everybody seems to ignore the fact that people were actively TELLING other people to post to it. People were creating double log ons, just so they could post to it again, and again, and again! But it's all OUR fault...
Yeah, right.
<img src=/forums/"/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1></font></td></tr></table></center>
1) Not everybody ignores this fact.
2) And you have to be joking if you want people to believe that (mainly) infantile posters' creation of DL's was the direct cause for you not locking the thread earlier.
You're one of the most manipulative people I've ever come across, and I mean it. You pick on people, promote your own ego and twist the facts in ways that are so obvious it sometimes makes me laugh out loud in disbelief. This is only the latest example.
But I won't argue that you hold a strong position at these forums, so please keep it up and make me laugh some more.
Twenty-something bonafide logons posted to that thread, and you could have shut it down anytime but you chose not to. People who posted have to accept their punishment, but you have to take responsibility for not closing it down sooner, and for making the stupid rule in the first place.
Come on let us hear you take that responsibility, eh?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
The Mad Monk
|
 |
of Ice Cream
Mar 2000
time: 23:13
|
|
Legman, I'm not convinced that Ming's failure to close the thread earlier was due to a lack of will; it may have been due to a lack of presense. If you look at the thread, Ming stopped posting Friday night, and did not post again until he closed the thread on Saturday night; Markg did all but one of the post/bannings after that. While Ming did comment on several threads before closing that one, it appears that none of those comments appeared, again, before Saturday night.
In short, I think Ming took the day off.
I'm all for voicing your displeasure (Lord knows, I've done it enough in this thread), but if you're going to take a shot, be sure you're aiming at the right target.
edit: grammer.
<font size=1 face=Arial color=444444>[This message has been edited by The Mad Monk (edited May 10, 2000).]</font>
|
|
| |
|
|
|
just to be clear
MattHiggs-Faboba : Ming
ghen : MLeonard
Atahualpa-Fight Like A Brave : MarkG
Sir_Crusader- : Ming
I left after FLAB, Ming was online for some time already...
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Just as I expected, no taking responsibility for anything there.
I'm well aware that Ming wasn't online the whole time this went on thank you, but I'd hoped for some kind of explanation as to why it wasn't closed down earlier - and why the stupid rule about not posting was set up to begin with.
Ming has stated repeatedly that he monitored the development of the posting in that thread via ICQ... so why didn't he act?
And you might as well cut the manipulative crap with me Ming, it won't get you anywhere. I've got you pretty much figured out on this one.
---
"... and many consider me important." -Ming, 05.09.2000
Edit: Quote corrected and verified
<font size=1 face=Arial color=444444>[This message has been edited by Legman (edited May 10, 2000).]</font>
|
|
| |
|
|
|
The rule about not posting to a thread has worked in the past you say. Granted, it has, but not much more than 3-4 times as I recall it. And each time I've seen it more as some kind of macho stunt from you, "HEY! I'M IN CHARGE HERE!", than a sensible rule that was called for in the situation at hand. But still, it has been applied before. Noone has questioned that, so what's your point?
Yeah, you've said that both sides were being stubborn, but have you explained why the thread wasn't closed much sooner? No, you've evaded that question the whole time, despite the fact that many posters have wondered and openly asked. Do you mean to say you weren't online between Friday night and Saturday night? Please answer this as directly as you can manage.
The reason I brought up the ICQ was that you have tried to launch "the secret ICQ-plot" as some kind of justification for keeping the thread open, implicitly hinting that you monitored the events without interfering. But if you say you didn't monitor it, I haven't much of a case on that point. Only trouble is, you don't say it directly...
I'm not trying to be manipulative, and you know it. I'm merely raising these questions in a harsh and straightforward way, and you don't like that, do you?
I ignore no facts, but you're not supplying any facts on why you didn't close the thread much earlier. Isn't it about time you explained that?
---
"... and many consider me important." -Ming, 05.09.2000
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ming
|
|
First... you say you aren't being manipulative, but you use in your signature a quote taken out of context to "attempt" to embarass me. The full quote was "Yeah, so true Mao. It's kind of funny. At work, I'm an officer of the company, and many consider me important. Here, I'm just an unpaid lackey..." This was in response to Mao's question if I was a corporate lackey.
Nice try...
Next, you said: "The reason I brought up the ICQ was that you have tried to launch "the secret ICQ-plot" as some kind of justification for keeping the thread open, implicitly hinting that you monitored the events without interfering."
And where did you read this? I never said anything of the kind. You are just changing the facts in an attempt to support your bad argument. I didn't bring that up until after the fact... and that was because the conversation with Matt Higgs happened the next day. Maybe you should go back an reread it... and check the dates and times of my comments. Then you would see that I implied nothing of the sort.
And as far as being on line during that time... Do I need to repeat myself. I was playing golf and then took a nap. Did I close the thread first thing upon waking up... No. As I said BEFORE, I was stunned on what had happened.
MarkG was already involved, and he hadn't closed it... so I took some time to figure out what the heck was happening. We were VERY busy shutting down the double log ons. After that, I closed down the thread.
Could I have closed it down a few hours earlier... yes... but by then, it didn't really matter. It had been going on for longer than 24 hours.
And last... your comment " And each time I've seen it more as some kind of macho stunt from you, "HEY! I'M IN CHARGE HERE!" That is just your opinion. I posted threads like that to inform people of rule changes, just like in this situation. You are welcome to believe what you want, but next time... look at the facts instead of just making them up to suit your needs... just like your signature line...
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
You always accuse people of not knowing the facts or not being able to read English when they don't agree with you Ming. That's a sad story alltogether, but it isn't my point right now.
I'll provide one example of a post of yours where it seems to me that you're implying that the ICQ was going on real time. It's from the thread "Last night, penalties" here in the Apolyton Forum:
"Well, as I stated on the other page, He (MattHiggs, Legman's remark) ICQ'ed me wondering if he had earned the "The Village Idiot" title yet. He claimed he "led" the revolution, and spent hours getting people to post."
But I take it from your recent post that it wasn't the case, so I stand corrected. My misinterpretation of your earlier comments, apparently.
But that annoying quote I put in my sig isn't taken out of context at all. It just goes to show what kind of miserable human being you are Ming... When someone seriously states "... and many consider me important.", it doesn't matter what context it is in - it's just pathetic anyway you look at it. I don't think I'm the only one who sees it that way either.
I'm not going to argue with you anymore, as your continuous word-twisting and superciliousness make it impossible to have any kind of fruitful debate with you.
But take note that not everyone consider you important, allthough many do...
---
"... and many consider me important" -Ming, 05.09.2000
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Yes, I do. And despicable as well. But I said I'm not going to argue with you. Having trouble reading are we?
I'm not backing out because "my argument falls apart". Now how classic is that? But you're welcome to your opinion.
---
"... and many consider me important." -Ming, 05.09.2000
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Really I gotta disagree with everyone calling this place a business. I would be insulted too.
I seriously doubt it if Mark and Dan make enough money to even cover their costs. The heart and soul of the site has always been a fansite, built upon their love for the game. They put so much hard work into this site,m and everyone takes it for granted. This isn't their full time jobs.
Regardless, for what they are putting into this site, I guarantee they aren't getting back nearly enough for their efforts.
Mark and Dan you might take it as a compliment sometimes the way people look at the site. For instance, remember when some newbies come on and start blaming you guys for things that are in the game? Implying that you work for Micrporose or Activision. That only speaks for the quality of the site, when people think an army of workers spend their days maintaining the site.
And another thing. Civ designers come here because they know the high quality of decency and class that Apolyton is known for. Every time somebody does some stupid crap like go invading some other site, using Apolyton's name, it looks bad upon Apolyton. And they ultimatley put the site's reputation at risk. I doubt if the Civ designers and programmers would come here if such high standards were not maintained. So these stunts are the equivalent of rioters who burn down their own neighboorhoods.
I think alot of people forget, that once upon a time, there was no Off Topic. This was Civ only. Just going off-topic in a thread was grounds for penalties. Alot of us requested an Off Topic, and they were generous to create one for us, knowing full well the potential risks and administration nightmares it might create. And now alot of people take it for granted, like it's their God given right to post there.
People, stop taking for granted all the sweat and hours that Mark and Dan put into the site.
This disrespectful attitude is the equivalent of someone building a free community center in their backyard, and then you all going into it and *****ing about how it's run.
I know it's more fun to imagine them being some big, bad corporation, but that's just not the case.
Bottom line is that this is two guys WORKING THEIR ASSES off to build something special.
Cut them some ******** slack.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
<center><table width=80%><tr><td><font color=000080 face="Verdana" size=2><font size="1">quote:
<img src=/forums/"/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1>
</font><font size=1>Originally posted by Derek on 05-10-2000 08:31 PM</font>
Everything Derek said here
<img src=/forums/"/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1></font></td></tr></table></center>
Only want to say I couldn't put it any better, tnx Derek.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Thank you, Derek {BIG GRIN}, and everyone else who has voiced their support thus far. It really means a lot.
----------------
Dan; Apolyton CS
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
CyberShy
|
 |
Delft, The Netherlands
Mar 1999
time: 06:13
|
|
Yes yes yes yes !
that's 100% true !
Thanks a very big load to Markos and Dan !
This site is really amazing, and running very good !
Well, since the good words all have already been spoken, I'm going to say some other words now 
Eventhough Markos and Daniel indeed do this for free, even might lose money on it etc. etc. and do a great volunteer job, we might not forget that:
- they're nothing without 'us'
- they do have BIG fun in it ! it's not a pain for them to do it (am I right ?)
- they have a position in the civ-society, they can be proud on that, but should know it brings responsibility with it.
It's too easy to say "They give it all to us thus they can do whatever they want"
I mean, look at the number of 'registered people' at the forum. almost 6000.
Apolyton Civilization site has a function around the civ community. And Dan and Markos do get paid, not with money, but with a great position. The opportunity to have interviews with their idols, they receive correspondance from corporations like Microprose and Firaxis.
In fact it should be like this:
- we should know that Markos and Daniel do it for free, don't earn anything with it.
- they should know their responsibilities to the civ world.
Thus to be short, I think there's not wrong with some complaining if we feel like they don't use their responsibilities right.
I think there's nothing wrong with that.
to ghen I can only say that I concider this from his side like saying "CS, I can't fight your very good theist arguments anymore thus I took a vacation for weeeeeks so I don't have to face those scary facts anymore !"
thanks ghen, for admitting that there's a god ! If you still think there's no God, reply here (of course with your own nickname ! I mean, everyone can create a "ghen's 6th dl" nick
To Markos / Dan, I really appreciate your work ! I hope you guys can place my critics in the right context !
CyberShy
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:13.
Apolyton Time is 00:13. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
10-05-2000 18:41
|