Because we play from a different rule book

[Deleted]

So I just saw that patrick edited my post in the PS2 emulation thread.

For anyone who is interested, it only said that "I am serious too." So basically, I was just saying that I am serious about supporting good grammar, which isn't an insult to anyone as far as I can see. Pat said that 'No more comments on this', I personally think that the subject had already changed and as such the comment was not about that matter anymore and had really no relation to the insults earlier in the thread. Yes, it started from there, but evolved into something else.

See, the thing is that I would understand if any of the earlier posts had been edited or deleted, they were the insulting ones, but no, leave those intact but edit the one that actually isn't. I guess supporting good grammar is not allowed in here anymore.

The best part of the thread is that patrick himself participated in the insults first in the same post, and only after that chose to put a stop to it. If anything, that takes away quite a bit of admin's credibility. I smell hypocrisy. A good admin is supposed to lead by example, not by thunderbolts and ban threats.



Additionally, I should say that I debated with myself about whether to post, pm patrick or some other, longer standing admin. But I felt that everyone should know what the post actually said, didn't want to go behind anyone's back, and I also felt like publicly calling patrick's admin behaviour into question.

So this is me publicly calling patrick's admin behaviour into question.

I also realize that this will probably earn me somekind of a boot in the behind, but it's for good cause!

[patrickp]

The point of my calling a halt to the 'have a go a frog' thing was not because I thought no-one should criticise him, Mika - after a dumb post like that, he deserved it - but because I thought there had been enough said and it was time to put an end to it. For one dumb post, frog had had more than enough insults, I think.

And, considering that my post before yours had said "As I said, that's enough. No more comments on this, and I'm serious," it's fairly obvious that your saying "I am serious too" was intended as a challenge to what I had said. In no way did what you said imply that you were "serious about supporting good grammar."

TBH, I see your posts as being deliberately confrontational. You've been a useful member of the forum for a long time, and I have great deal of respect for you, but I also have respect for other forum members, even including frog, and there are places I have to draw the line.

[Deleted]

You assumed that it was intented as a challenge, but it wasn't. I don't have a reason to challenge you in any way. Maybe you know something about me that I don't?

I personally thought it was obvious that I was serious about grammar, perhaps the banner I posted in the above post would have been well placed in that post back then.

I'm only confrontational when I feel that I have been wronged in some way.

[miretank]

This is not a good time for a joke right? :/ Not even the black chicken one? :\

[patrickp]

No, miretank, I don't think it is.

herra said:

... I don't have a reason to challenge you in any way...

Then why this thread?

[Deleted]

It was a reference to the earlier posts. You know, because you thought that I was challenging you there, and so I said that I didn't have a reason to do so.

Now on the other hand, I feel like I do, thus this thread. Do I really have to be so specific, or are you just misunderstanding me on purpose?

[patrickp]

No, Mika, you said in this thread that

... I don't have a reason to challenge you in any way...

The fact is, you keep trying to change things to suit yourself. An administrator justifiably told you to stop doing something and you continued doing it. Because of that, TheCloud felt it necessary to lock what had been an interesting and productive thread. You keep trying to twist words and put the blame on other people, but the bottom line is that you were the person who tried to keep criticising a fellow member after being told to stop.

[Deleted]

It's only ironic that a simple grammar mistake (present vs past tense, don't vs didn't) from me is the only thing that you seem to see.

Your facts couldn't be farther from the truth. You apparently thought I was still criticising a fellow member when infact I was not. You assumed something and acted based on that assumption. Your justifications were made under false pretenses.

I'm not trying to twist any words, my only mistake appears to be the holes I leave in my posts, leaving room for assumptions like yours.

[patrickp]

For someone who claims that the reason he was still posting after being told to stop was

serious about supporting good grammar

I don't think that weak excuse stands up, Mika. Once again, you're trying to twist what was actually said.

And you'll note I said that's enough in the original thread; that quite clearly referred to your claims to be criticising grammar as well as the other comments aimed at frog. And, even if you were criticising frog's grammar, that's still an attack on him. Yet you continued even after I made it quite clear you should stop.

I really don't know why you're continuing this discussion: you're quite clearly in the wrong and making yourself look more dishonest and stupid with every post.

[Ultima]

patrickp: I really don't want to be the one taking sides here, but from my point of view, it seems that (maybe this time) you read a bit too deeply into Mika's post. Admittedly, I haven't been around as much lately as I should be (Real Life™ getting in my way), so I might be a bit out of the loop, but if we look at Mika's last post in that thread before the edited post, he was talking solely about grammar, which extended from the comment about his own post (not about frog's). If the edited post indeed simply said "I am serious too," it might be too much to say that he's continuing the bash on frog.

Now, I'm not disagreeing with patrickp's decision to stop the discussion then and there (which is all he was trying to do). As I said in my post in that thread, I would've stopped the bashing if no one else did.

Mistakes happen, and they get even the best of us (sometimes, especially when we've got a strong/heated opinion on the matter at hand). This finger-pointing about twisting words is (from my less-involved, cool-headed point of view) all a misunderstanding because neither of you want to step back from your different interpretations about what happened.

To sum up my convoluted ramblings...
- It seems to me like patrickp might've interpreted Mika's post incorrectly (as I'm not seeing much of a transgression from Mika's posts).
- patrickp was not trying to say "no joking allowed." As I see it, everyone was joking in response to frog (right...?), but there's a limit to everything, including how far a joke can/should run for before it runs stale and is no longer a joke.

I don't know myself whether I would (or wouldn't) have done the same exact thing had it been me in patrickp's shoes, but again, it all looks like a big misunderstanding to me (no hipocrisy involved here), and if my conclusion is correct, then all I can say is: let bygones be bygones.

All of that said, I must make this final comment: this surely is a weird "squabble" I've walked in on on my return. Forum politics FTL!

[Deleted]

The voice of reason.

Once again patrick, I am not trying to twist what was said. The only thing that I have changed/corrected, is one grammatical error on my part. Ultima said it better than I ever could.

ultima said:

if we look at Mika's last post in that thread before the edited post, he was talking solely about grammar, which extended from the comment about his own post (not about frog's)

patrickp said:

And, even if you were criticising frog's grammar, that's still an attack on him.

But that's just it. I wasn't criticising frog's grammar anymore, one post was well enough. At that point it was all about general grammar support, rather than an attack against anyone in particular.

patrickp said:

you're quite clearly in the wrong and making yourself look more dishonest and stupid with every post.

And an attack against my person is quite the low blow, which just doesn't really help you at all.

[Gamesoul Master]

I wasn't going to say anything, but I've been watching this all develop and I've just sort-of been shaking my head.

Basically, I pretty much agree with what Ultima said. There are valid points on both sides, but this has gotten a bit out of hand. You guys are both respected members here, so I'm really hoping that you two can just get past this... :/

[Firehawke]

Please excuse me from sticking my nose in where it probably isn't desired, but a combination of too much Phoenix Wright these last few days, and a visit to this forum have led me to stick my nose in places it certainly shouldn't be.

I do believe Ultima and GM have stated my perspective in this fairly well. I'm.. firmly of the belief there's no point to debating facts when this whole thing hinges on perspective.

Anyone found guilty of a supposed-- yet not yet proven-- crime would want to defend themself-- it's human nature, and yet it's also seen as support of attacking the moderator. Conversely, the initial posting DID come across badly and CAN be taken in direct attack of the moderator. There are points to both sides, but.. nevertheless, it's all perspective. You're BOTH right in describing how you state things.

Maybe I just have too much faith in human nature, but I can't read that as an attack on you, patrickp. Either way, you're well within your moderative rights to stomp on something, but I would urge you to look at this with a little more restraint. I just.. can't see this in the light you're purporting it to be.