Arguing is a good thing, if no one ever argued or complained no progress would be made.
And the arguments that yield the most emotional responses are those you're afraid are right.
I don't know what I'm talking about? That's bloody hilarious coming from you.
And you are twisting both my words and those guidelines to an extent that it's not worth bothering, you can't get it through your head, you don't know what the hell you're talking about.
ghe mods were repeating their arguments and I was simply counter-arguing those points, which involved me repeating
I was in the right forum but the topic drifted to a feedback and constructive criticism section topic, that is extremely common in M2M
Absolutely nothing I said in that thread was derogatory, however, there were many derogatory comments (whiney little bitch, attention whore) etc directed at me. I can't believe you site "there are problems with how the moderation team works. You can't possibly think it's perfect." as derogatory and disrespectful. Are you kidding?
Damn you really are stupid.
EDIT: Oh, I forgot to add once again you've made no effort to counter my previously made points in the beginnings of this topic. Case closed, no wonder why no-one will debate anything with you: Because you're an ignorant and stubborn girl. It's like that time you thought fats were calories. Haha.
the mods were repeating their arguments and I was simply counter-arguing those points, which involved me repeating
so the mods broke that guideline by repeating
and I have responded to those same points so many times, you're just repeating the same arguments which you claim is against the rules
There may be more but I can't believe at this point I've wasted as much time on this already as I have.
And once again I'll add the fact that you didn't respond to my rebuttals, but that's probably just because you know you're wrong or won't admit to it.
no, because I wanted to argue and they didn't. 1) I didn't misuse it after I learned what it was. 2) it's the duty of any sl to answer e-helps and be supportive and whatnot, but the mod is appointed to help the forum in more ways than that. They've written a lot of their own "policies" and I think they could use some improvement. 3) Show me this derailing a topic rule. 4) I'm not attention whoring, I know myself better than you do. I can feel the smoke coming out of your nostrils
1) I didn't misuse it after I learned what it was.
2) it's the duty of any sl to answer e-helps and be supportive and whatnot, but the mod is appointed to help the forum in more ways than that. They've written a lot of their own "policies" and I think they could use some improvement.
3) Show me this derailing a topic rule.
4) I'm not attention whoring, I know myself better than you do.
I can feel the smoke coming out of your nostrils
1) Which took you a while, but I never said you did after you learned what it was.
2) Not tech SLs, they can't reply to eHelps. But believe it or not moderators are also, shockingly, support leaders and hence can and will reply to eHelps when they can. That is also part of their duty as moderators because they still remain SLs for a good reason. See the list of the most supportive members. There are quite a few moderators on both the overall and weekly list. They do contribute. If you think they can use improvement then suggest it in the correct forum in a new topic not a topic that had been segued into another point.
3) "These are generally high-traffic forums, so please pay attention to the subject matter of your posts, and check that it still relates to the topic and forum to which you are posting." link - How much clearer can it get?
4) Whatever, I'll move on because you continue to not understand.
Well then you're wrong about yet another thing. And I like that you still haven't responded to some of the lengthy points I made.
As a team it is but not as individuals. The ones in that topic clearly didn't want to so they should have stepped off. 1) I didn't understand what the rule was at the time, I was confused as to what derailing was. 2) The mods aren't professionals, they're volunteers and the reason they're here is supposed to be to help the rest of the forum function well. They've somewhat abandoned this duty in exchange for following the rules in a way easiest to them at any cost to the rest of the forum. 3) Do you know how a discussion works son? There's no rule that a non-support topic can't stray from it's original point. 4) Personal attacks are the cheapest kind of argument. you've said so yourself. that has nothing to do with my OP and you're clearly just trying to stray my topic. I'm not enraged. You are.
1) I didn't understand what the rule was at the time, I was confused as to what derailing was.
2) The mods aren't professionals, they're volunteers and the reason they're here is supposed to be to help the rest of the forum function well. They've somewhat abandoned this duty in exchange for following the rules in a way easiest to them at any cost to the rest of the forum.
3) Do you know how a discussion works son? There's no rule that a non-support topic can't stray from it's original point.
4) Personal attacks are the cheapest kind of argument. you've said so yourself. that has nothing to do with my OP and you're clearly just trying to stray my topic.
I'm not enraged. You are.
1) Well clearly now you do. That question was also answered in your topic, though even there you continued to misuse the word and even in PMs with me.
2) Wow, you clearly don't understand their roles. They are volunteers, but as such when you fill out the moderator application form you agree to a few things, one of which being to enforce the guidelines that are present in order to maintain decorum on the forum. They do help in the rest of the forum, well I've seen a lot of them do so and even in eHelp replies. But you've seemed to come out on a tangent, this time ranting about the moderators rather than the rules. This seems to be common with you. You also ignored what I had to say in my previous 2) comment about time and efficiency. Nicely done.
3) Yes there is. It's called derailing a topic when you stray away from the original intent, which what you did actually in your 1st complaint topic. You veered from asking why the topic was locked to discussing policy. There's a reason there are separate forums for feedback and for asking moderators questions. You failed to understand this.
4) I made a point that you liked attention, it was a well placed comment. That was that, you've continued to perpetuate this point. Stray the topic? Do you know what that means? I made a one line remark amongst 4 whole other paragraphs to explain why you're wrong, most of which you've ignored like in your other topic.
Haha, me enraged? Nah, this is just a minor nuisance.
Quote: from Its Bearsy Bitch at 9:28 pm on Aug. 28, 2008 Because maybe they don't want to, so they don't have to. some different ones can instead. 1) I'm trying to make positive changes, that's why I made two topics about it. 2) I don't want to be the exception, and my argument was a lot more than that. Go back and read some of what I had to say, the current policy is more efficient for the mods but not for the members. 3) Oops. Ok sorry I put the topic in the wrong forum, you could have moved it. 4) I'm not. Normally when people say "This discussion is over" it's followed by them storming off angry, so I figured you meant you weren't talking to me anymore. If they didn't want to, maybe they wouldn't. But seeing as how you addressed the moderators it's their job to help answer your question - which it was. They shouldn't have to leave it to the other moderators merely because you're not pleased with the answer that you're getting. No doubt you'd receive the same response from the other moderators. Not to mention that they have other things to do as well, not just reply to a whining member. 1) If you were serious about change you'd make a topic explaining the 'problem' with this rule that you have and perhaps what you suggest can be done about it. Your first topic was asking why the topic was locked, and that was answered. You then tried to debate the actual rule, when that wasn't really the original intent of the topic (nor would it allow other members and moderators to understand what you're debating purely from the title and hence contribute more). 2) So you propose that a change be made which will take up more time for the moderators? That's really not how it works here on in the real world. You have to learn to compromise, nothing's perfect. The moderators are the ones that enforce the rules, so they have to find a moderation style that is both effective and time efficient. If you change the policy to your idea it may be better for the members, but even then it would take a lot longer and perhaps some topics might not be covered simply because there isn't enough time. 3) No, because the topic was placed well. The original question was answered and placed in the correct forum. But you brought up something completely different - talking about the policy - which doesn't belong in that forum. If you wish to be able to effectively hear what other moderators and users have to say, make a new topic for that purpose not effectively derail your own topic to another discussion point. The title also wouldn't explain what you were debating either. You can't just feed off the result and pipe it into the same topic when your topic had the question (reason for locking) answered. 4) You most definitely are, but obviously attention whores don't think they are themselves. I will do, because I'd rather waste my time than have you enraged at no-one else answering thus trying to fuel further your stupid point. Plus it's a waste of a moderators time repeating what I can say when they have other things to do.
Because maybe they don't want to, so they don't have to. some different ones can instead. 1) I'm trying to make positive changes, that's why I made two topics about it. 2) I don't want to be the exception, and my argument was a lot more than that. Go back and read some of what I had to say, the current policy is more efficient for the mods but not for the members. 3) Oops. Ok sorry I put the topic in the wrong forum, you could have moved it. 4) I'm not. Normally when people say "This discussion is over" it's followed by them storming off angry, so I figured you meant you weren't talking to me anymore.
1) I'm trying to make positive changes, that's why I made two topics about it.
2) I don't want to be the exception, and my argument was a lot more than that. Go back and read some of what I had to say, the current policy is more efficient for the mods but not for the members.
3) Oops. Ok sorry I put the topic in the wrong forum, you could have moved it.
4) I'm not.
Normally when people say "This discussion is over" it's followed by them storming off angry, so I figured you meant you weren't talking to me anymore.
1) If you were serious about change you'd make a topic explaining the 'problem' with this rule that you have and perhaps what you suggest can be done about it. Your first topic was asking why the topic was locked, and that was answered. You then tried to debate the actual rule, when that wasn't really the original intent of the topic (nor would it allow other members and moderators to understand what you're debating purely from the title and hence contribute more).
2) So you propose that a change be made which will take up more time for the moderators? That's really not how it works here on in the real world. You have to learn to compromise, nothing's perfect. The moderators are the ones that enforce the rules, so they have to find a moderation style that is both effective and time efficient. If you change the policy to your idea it may be better for the members, but even then it would take a lot longer and perhaps some topics might not be covered simply because there isn't enough time.
3) No, because the topic was placed well. The original question was answered and placed in the correct forum. But you brought up something completely different - talking about the policy - which doesn't belong in that forum. If you wish to be able to effectively hear what other moderators and users have to say, make a new topic for that purpose not effectively derail your own topic to another discussion point. The title also wouldn't explain what you were debating either. You can't just feed off the result and pipe it into the same topic when your topic had the question (reason for locking) answered.
4) You most definitely are, but obviously attention whores don't think they are themselves.
I will do, because I'd rather waste my time than have you enraged at no-one else answering thus trying to fuel further your stupid point. Plus it's a waste of a moderators time repeating what I can say when they have other things to do.
Quote: from Its Bearsy Bitch at 9:15 pm on Aug. 28, 2008 If they don't want to see my complaints, they're free to look at other topics. I'm not pissed, I was countering their points and explaining why the rule should change. they didn't listen to any of my arguments. I'm not seeking attention, I'm making my argument to better LW. oh this discussion is over? Then I suppose you're not going to reply to this because that would mean you're talking to yourself.You asked the moderators a question, why the hell would they not respond? 1) Yes, you are annoyed, otherwise you wouldn't have made two topics about it. 2) Your countering consisted of: "The policy is shit, I want it changed". You're not going to be the exception right now. if a policy change were to occur, your topic lock wouldn't suddenly get lifted (unless it was retroactive which I doubt). 3) If you want to suggest a better idea or give feedback, then do it in Feedback and Constructive Criticism, not in the M2M forum. That's not what it's for. You were asked why your topic was locked, and that was explained. That is not the place to debate policy or suggest new ideas. 4) In my opinion you are seeking attention. Any normal person would have read their reasoning, understood and lived with it. If they still have a problem they would have made a new topic in F&CC to get the response from the community and the moderators on the policy and not just your case. Yet you pretty much ignored what they had to say and kept using the same argument when your topic was just about the reasoning behind the locking. I meant that the discussion behind the reasoning. You just don't get it do you?
If they don't want to see my complaints, they're free to look at other topics. I'm not pissed, I was countering their points and explaining why the rule should change. they didn't listen to any of my arguments. I'm not seeking attention, I'm making my argument to better LW. oh this discussion is over? Then I suppose you're not going to reply to this because that would mean you're talking to yourself.
I'm not pissed, I was countering their points and explaining why the rule should change. they didn't listen to any of my arguments.
I'm not seeking attention, I'm making my argument to better LW.
oh this discussion is over? Then I suppose you're not going to reply to this because that would mean you're talking to yourself.
1) Yes, you are annoyed, otherwise you wouldn't have made two topics about it.
2) Your countering consisted of: "The policy is shit, I want it changed". You're not going to be the exception right now. if a policy change were to occur, your topic lock wouldn't suddenly get lifted (unless it was retroactive which I doubt).
3) If you want to suggest a better idea or give feedback, then do it in Feedback and Constructive Criticism, not in the M2M forum. That's not what it's for. You were asked why your topic was locked, and that was explained. That is not the place to debate policy or suggest new ideas.
4) In my opinion you are seeking attention. Any normal person would have read their reasoning, understood and lived with it. If they still have a problem they would have made a new topic in F&CC to get the response from the community and the moderators on the policy and not just your case. Yet you pretty much ignored what they had to say and kept using the same argument when your topic was just about the reasoning behind the locking.
I meant that the discussion behind the reasoning. You just don't get it do you?
706 users online 
222999 members 855 active today Advertise Here
706 users online 222999 members 855 active today Advertise Here
aFallenAngel
You have 1 new message.
