EeHee2000
-
Posts
788 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by EeHee2000
-
-
There's a significant difference between discussing architecture and discussing religion.
Irrelevant, churches are a cross between the two, not one or the other. There's no need for correction here, I'm certain you know what he was getting at.
Now, on to discuss the merits of this rule. Whose judgement shall we use on what usage of the word (or other words) is allowable? If the person says their intent is pure but others are offended, we just have to let them say it because? Can only gay people use the word to describe themselves or others? What happens when a straight person refers to someone as gay? How are we supposed to know the intents of every utterance. Sure, we can *try* to gather from the conversation, but then that leads to staff subjectivity which I know a few of the people in this thread have been trying to remove.
There really isn't a strict guideline that can be used to determine what judgement should be used, as you cannot determine a players intentions; only their actions.
I think the current way we handle the matter is fine, but we need to dial it back a few notches on how we react when 'gay' is mentioned, because the main problem people appear to be having with it is that it's being enforced too strictly, to the point where it only serves to complicate matters rather than resolve them.
-
3
-
-
Likely 420scoper once I've edited the profile nice and clean.
-
AYY, CS:GO
-
jahcnace sux
-
Overall it's been run pretty damn nicely, but listing exactly what event it is that we're entering before you display the word to type for entry would be nice, for consistency.
I'd also like to see the kits being varied up, and if that's a no-no it'd be really great to see Instant Health 2 splashes rather than Instant Health 1 drinking potions, just to add to the combat.-
1
-
-
I'll likely be taking a look at this, looks baller from that footage.
-
1
-
-
Is it possible that when you feel you'll get nowhere or that who you're talking to will say no you act up because you don't see any point in trying to be nice to help your cause?
If I felt that I'd get nowhere with what I was doing I wouldn't have bothered to talk to the Heads in the first place, don'tcha think?
-
2
-
-
So let me get this straight. You guys have a problem with being labeled "toxic" or "that group of players" but when we tell you why or tell you that certain things arn't helping your case, you just tell us "to bad" and to "deal with it and get over it". You want us to change our views but you refuse to change what influences those views.
Not so much the fact that we're being called toxic (most of us couldn't give a shit about being called names) but rather the fact that it means that our opinions are far less valid than the average user's, and that by some strange superstition we're always considered to be "trolling". I wouldn't say that we act that way at all either, me writing this exact post is evidence of that.
-
1
-
-
The biggest problem I see as a cause of this 'toxic' thing is the way that people make their arguments, suggestions, rebuttals, or whatever the post of the time may be.
Rather than countering ideas and giving alternatives, or simply stating a difference of opinions and trying to back up why that difference exists, many discussions on subjects of actual substance quickly devolve into personal attacks, sometimes with the original post. A difference in ideas leads to insults on a person's level of intelligence and a lack of legitimacy. This isn't limited to 'toxic' players from what I've seen; more often than not, that seems like a lable used by both sides of an argument to delegitimize the other perticipant.
Yeah, it's pretty fucking irritating to bring up a suggestion to a Head Admin and have them be on the defensive about it from the get-go and try to think of ways I could be incorrect rather than consider what I say without a bias.
About four times in a row I've been ignored by Head Admins because of this and it's pretty fucking irritating to have someone in the highest position of power just completely refuse to listen to what you have to say.
-
3
-
-
The 'allahu akbar you fucking twat' signature, on the other hand, I don't really understand. It doesn't really work as a joke, and it's obviously not meant to be taken seriously... so what's the point? The impression I get from it is that there can be no purpose other than to invite a negative reaction from people. Again, I'm not going to tell people they can't have a certain signature. That's not my place. But I am going to see something like that and draw conclusions about the maturity (or lack thereof) of the person who owns it. You can accuse me of not having a 'thick enough skin' to ignore the signature, but the missing link there is that the signature doesn't offend me. What it does do is to provide a useful yardstick by which to gauge the kind of maturity I can expect from the player.
I'm not saying you're wrong, but I wouldn't say it's to get a negative reaction from people. Some people find it funny whereas others go as far as to alert staff that it offends them.
Realistically anyone who takes a signature like mine seriously and/or determines to any degree how mature people are from such a small thing probably wouldn't agree with me on many things, judging from past examples; just wanted to put that out there.
-
2
-
-
Yeah, Speccy, it's pretty great.
-
ayy
lmao -
They'd be pretty fucking baller for decorating bases with on Survival and PvE, and they'd just be all around great for décor on Creative.
I beg for these.-
1
-
-
be careful what you wish for lad :^)
-
10
-
-
Jchance, I expect you to disregard this as I'm one of those 10 'toxic' players you refer to. That's fine.
The fact of the matter is that the way people are determined to be 'toxic' here is by word of mouth, and it's served to split people apart very efficiently, to the point where players are expecting Head Admins to disregard what they say. Would you not agree that there's something wrong with that? The amount of arguing that happens on these forums about every single little tidbit out of place is immense, and we're all guilty of it, toxic and non-toxic alike.
I think we've associated the word 'toxic' with a very specific group of players, without much regard for as to whether those players are trying to be toxic; it seems like it's implied that everyone who is toxic is a troll and troublemaker, which is certainly not the case.
Instead of treating those who you view as toxic to be nothing but a bunch of circlejerking twits trying to ruin nerd.nu, start actually considering what we say. Yes, I know that's going to be difficult, but I believe in you.
Another problem I'm finding is that once people determine you to be toxic, every single thing you say from then on is irrelevant or an attempt to cause trouble; leaving no chance for redemption of any sort, which is rather fucking irritating. Irritating enough, might I add, that myself and others have even gotten alts in the past to try and start fresh.
I have to watch my wording very fucking carefully to ensure that people such as tobylane and twilexis don't further transform my words into the most offensive things possible, I can't bring up any ideas/suggestions/issues to Head Admins because they believe I'm a troll, and the only reason I wasn't fucking censored to the favour of someone that really fucking dislikes me yesterday is due to the most recent SAdmin username.-
3
-
-
It isn't necessarily something that's widespread; for example, buzzie71 is handling the appeal of ASHtheBass quite nicely, but in other ban appeals staff have given underhanded and sarcastic responses, with it becoming something of a pattern for certain staff.
Also, just as a side note, I feel as if this thread is about to go into 'off-topic' territory, and that's fine. This is obviously a matter linked to many of the other problems nerd has and I wouldn't assume we can get very far whilst staying on-topic; so far it feels as if we've made no progress at all, as it's been tobylane and I bickering with eachother for half a page.-
1
-
-
If an admin said that you shouldn't have said dickhead, then yes a simplistic but safe rule would be to not say dickhead, including nicknames. When you learn the ability to have a sensible way of playing around near the edge of the rules then do so if you really must (but don't stay there all the time), but I don't think you're there yet.
So you're saying that whatever an admin deems to be correct is correct regardless of possible biases? Thanks, tobylane.
For the last fucking time, the username 'oi_dickhead' is not skirting the rules. I don't give a shit if you think otherwise, your opinion on the matter is as devoid as you regard everything I say, with good reason.
-
2
-
-
There is a impossible to measure thickness of skin that I believe the admins have determined. Because it's impossible to measure it's a "I'll know it when I see it" thing. Below this, a person could be told you were harsh but not too much. Over this line they could be told you were too harsh, don't do that again. You can have your own line, but you should only live by it in communities you set the rules for.
I still consider this on topic, because what I think is toxic is people making up their own standards of acceptable behaviour and the outcomes of that.
In the bold/underlined text, you're essentially saying that I should no longer say the word 'dickhead' as an admin removed my post that retorted to twilexis' in the thread before this one, yes?
I wouldn't necessarily say that my words are working against me either, it's just that due to me being who I am, people go to painstaking lengths to draw out the smallest little nitpickings that they deem incorrect or offensive.
For the most part the rest of your post actually makes sense, which is nice to see.
-
It's the admins prerogative to create, keep and use the don't be a dick rule. You're disagreeing with that. You're wanting there to be a rule against rude names on IRC if we don't want you to use them in a rational conversation. It's basic decency.
No, I'm not wanting there to be a rule against that, I'm wanting people to not take stabs at the smallest little incidents and go out of their way to take offense to anything and everything I say and do.
People need to get thicker skin if the username 'oi_dickheads' is something that frightens and scares them; them not having said thick skin is not my issue, and it should not be treated as such.
I won't bother to respond to you anymore as your wording implies that should I disagree with you I'm automatically deemed incorrect, which is childish at best.
You answered none of my above questions, funnily enough.
-
Eehee you don't have the right to say what you want so say it in a nice way. If (perspective) you are being so unproductive in trying to get your point across we can assume you don't care about the point and just want to be angry. You're wasting time and relative dimension in space just to be angry, so that is why you get told to shut up, or get silenced. Once you are being productive, getting your point across in a non-antagonistic way, it'll be fruitful and you will be better for it.
Yes, I do have the right to say what I want to say. Fuck you.
How am I being unproductive? In what way does my supposed unproductivity mean that I don't care about the topic? How does this mean that I 'just want to be angry'?
How am I wasting time? Where have I been told to shut up in this thread? How can I be productive like yourself? How am I being antagonistic?
All these questions and I can't really think of many answers for them; enlighten me, but try to refrain from getting the topic locked.
-
removed
-
Just to clarify, tobylane, I'm not a 'problem', I'm someone with opinions that differ largely from yours. If you view that sort of person as a 'problem', I'd suggest you take your leave as those 'problems' don't have any solutions to them.
-
1
-
-
Tobylane,
The person in question wasn't staff, if you haven't picked up on that.
I'm not trying to correct anything, I'm voicing a fucking opinion, which I don't even seem to be allowed to do anymore thanks to people like yourself.
There's plenty I agree on with the current SAdmins, and they don't inaccurately use the word 'toxic' - why, a couple of them once very nearly fit into the seemingly very wide boundary of the word itself. Huh, funny that, I agree with people that don't overcompensate to prove other people wrong.
The username 'oi_dickhead' is not toxic, that much should be clear. If you can't accept that I can't do much about it.
However, charging into a thread pulling chat logs out of your arse about the smallest little tidbits that you and you alone take a small amount of offense to in order to prove someone else wrong out of spite due to a confrontation that happened well over two months ago - that, if anything, is toxic.
-
1
-
-
You say we should stop doing whatever it is that makes us look like an ass, but then you see that yesterday I was called 'toxic' in IRC by someone who then used a brand new alt account to bring up logs of me doing nothing other than suggesting a new channel for Mumble, and to top it off my response to that particular post (which was so tame, might I add, that I didn't even screenshot it for fear of it being removed) was removed/hidden, yet the person stirring shit in that thread didn't have their post removed; not to mention that the thread was later locked due to them.
What?
No, sorry, that doesn't look like a possibility, given those circumstances.
Once people start using the word correctly, then yes, we'll be able to follow those instructions.
However, as I said, when I'm being censored no matter what I say, it's a no-can-do.-
5
-
Jachnace sux part 2.
in General Discussion
Posted
cna u stop haras me nwo???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????