Octopus Overlords

gellar wrote:Fact of the matter is, people are always going to have issues with everyone's moderating/supervising/managing/etc... style.

Not me. I love everything that all of the mods and admins do.

One of the points that gellar is trying to bring across, is that through all this, some people take whats said on here WAY too seriously. For christ sakes its an internet forum. Its not your life. Some of the people react around here like someone else came up and punched their mom, raped their kitten and burnt their house down.

Everything I type up is with a certain levity, and to watch people get wrapped around the axel about a post is amusing. If you can't take a joke, what fun is that?

Gotcha. As long as you (and by "you" I mean everyone you're referring to with the word "we") understand what that does to your message, have at it.

~Neal

The Meal wrote:I agree with your sentiments. If folks have issues, we want to hear the gripes. But my original point, the one you took issue with, was me saying that the manner of that griping is going to affect how it's received. *Making fun* of someone's style is not going to get you the same ears as polite discussion.

~Neal

Yes, I have to say poking fun is the only way #GG'ers have of effectively expressing themselves, sadly

RunningMn9 wrote:

gellar wrote:Fact of the matter is, people are always going to have issues with everyone's moderating/supervising/managing/etc... style.

Not me. I love everything that all of the mods and admins do.

Hey RM9, you've got something brown on your nose.

Ronin wrote: Some of the people react around here like someone else came up and punched their mom, raped their kitten and burnt their house down.

All of which is taught in Marine Officer Training

Ronin, I understand what you're getting at, too. As forum staff, however, we've definitely got our hands tied with regards to just blowing off the things folks are saying. It's much easier to "clean up the mess" if we take things folks say more seriously than they intended, as opposed to making errors on the other side of the equation (taking the things folks say as being humor when they're trying to be serious). This is only a concern for staff however, and the things you're saying apply to everyone.

Everyone on *both sides* of the issue, mind you. It's a webforum. Will your children get hurt if the mods don't tell you they had IP matches, personal information fits, and screaming diatribes from the perps before they ban someone?

~Neal

RunningMn9 wrote:

gellar wrote:Fact of the matter is, people are always going to have issues with everyone's moderating/supervising/managing/etc... style.

Not me. I love everything that all of the mods and admins do.

Dude I was saying in general, not just GG/OO. And you hate your job. I win.

gellar

Ronin wrote:For christ sakes its an internet forum.

Rightly or wrongly - not everyone shares that cavalier attitude about the joint.

For some people, and I'm not pointing fingers - there is a difference between "an internet forum", and "OUR internet forum".

And thus there is friction when there is trouble on the grill, and some people can only chime in with STFU pictures (I'm looking at you CSL, although I'll forgive you because you posted it in the Tony73 thread where he admitted to being TylerDurden during his "apology" ) or "It's just an internet forum, shut up and stop your whining."

I can recognize that you guys (again referring to whatever group you are referring to) really don't give two shits. Some people do - what more can I say?

gellar wrote:Dude I was saying in general, not just GG/OO. And you hate your job. I win.

gellar

Dammit - you got me there.

I don't expect you to be responsbile for anyone else and I don't think this was a Nappy pissing post. I do think it has been "a lot of people setting a poor tone to get worse" thread. I pointed your post out only because of the wording I saw that started a tone. Before Slambie's post which kind of took all of the veils off of the hostility, I counted 13 post with jabs that were not friendly or at all not were they intended to be "simple" criticisms. So I guess I disagree, I don't think the tone was more than civil before Slambie arrived. I don't think you flew off the handle, and perhaps you are right the Slambie could be pinned as the first.

But by the very first response you get:

Someone here just got Peacedogged.

I don't think that's an attempt to be civil. At best it's an attempt to get laughs at the forum with an inside joke. At worst it is meant to be an attack on PD. Levity here would require that PD openly knows what the joke is and participates in the jocularity.

If you think that there was no attempt at hostility or to get rise out of your fellow posters before Slambie posted, then I guess we just really see the boards differently and if the entire opinion of the boards moves to one that thinks that this is the enviornment that we want to exist in, then I end up taking my own adivice. I ought go away.

If you think that there was no attempt at hostility or to get rise out of your fellow posters before Slambie posted, then I guess we just really see the boards differently

Mortis, seriously, read my post. I wasn't saying that. What I was saying was that that may very well be the case, but that isn't MY responsibility.


Oh, and RM9, please refresh my memory...what was your opinion during the R&P split again? 8)

Rightly or wrongly - not everyone shares that cavalier attitude about the joint.

For some people, and I'm not pointing fingers - there is a difference between "an internet forum", and "OUR internet forum".

The "it's just an internet forum" vs "it's just OUR internet forum" argument doesn't seem to come up all that much (it did during the split, natch). I think, though, that this place can be those two things simultaneously.

The former argument can be important on an individual level. If, for example, an individual gets really testy about something, I'd argue it could be easier to take a temporary step back (and that might just be 10 minutes) when remembering this component of the equation. You can be personally invested in this place and still recognize this, I think.

The latter argument matters on an individual level, though that varies from person to person. On the community level, though, there can be no denying it. It is in fact "our internet forum". Even if their isn't any actual ownership, it is a place people have a vested interest in.

Napoleon wrote:Oh, and RM9, please refresh my memory...what was your opinion during the R&P split again? 8)

Wow, I'm glad you asked.

My initial response was "meh" because I didn't pay too much attention to WHY it was done or HOW it was done. But at the time, I really didn't care that it was done.

In retrospect, I think it was a mistake because I think that shuffling off a group of people to the back room is only going to reinforce the idea that they're different from the people in the rest of the house. Factions are bound to form in that environment.

But, as to my opinion DURING the split (and not on the mechanics of the split itself) - I thought that the behavior of a distressingly large number of posters fell into what I'll call the "-Lord Ebonstone-" variety.

And I found that most of it was rooted in those posters thinking "it's just a fucking internet forum, stop crying" vs. the posters that were thinking "this is OUR fucking internet forum, and the way this went down is bullshit, and the way some of you are turning on these posters like rabid dogs is downright shameful".

And I hold grudges, what can I say?

Oh, and just in case Unbreakable is still in #gg, let him know that since he lost the personal wager, I'll expect my money now.

What I was saying was that that may very well be the case, but that isn't MY responsibility.

Concurred. I thought that is also what I said. But I know typing is often too sloppy, so that may not have been clear.

RunningMn9 wrote:

Napoleon wrote:But, as to my opinion DURING the split (and not on the mechanics of the split itself) - I thought that the behavior of a distressingly large number of posters fell into what I'll call the "-Lord Ebonstone-" variety.

How about "Third Agers?"

Napoleon wrote: also, come on people. If unbreakable IS tony, he'll have figured out by now who ratted him out. And even if he isn't, all signs point to Tareeq who knows unbreakable's adress from the whole bookdeal thing. It's not exactly rocket science, and this forum isn't exactly big enough to hide a thing like that.

For your information, Napoleon, I did know that Unbreakable was tony72 before I read it here, but the mods came to that conclusion based on independent evidence which did not come from me. I will not pretend that I am fond of the guy, for reasons which are on view for all to see. Nonetheless I assure you that the conclusion was reached without my help.

As to how I knew, well, you're a lawyer in training, Napoleon (or have you graduated? If so, congratulations and welcome to the club!). If you're planning to engage in the Dutch equivalent of litigation, may I introduce you to the most valuable investigative tool that has ever been invented?

The truth is out there.

It took me ten minutes to confirm that Unbreakable is tony72, as well as to learn a number of other interesting things which I will never share. I use google and I've gotten good at it, because for simple matters it saves me money that I used to spend hiring private investigators.

And this was a simple matter. Unbreakable IS tony72. You can confirm that for yourself with the right search string in three clicks, if you pick the right three.

Incidentally, none of us has any privacy. Scary, isn't it?

Edited for punctuation and a missing "I", and edited yet again for a typo in the editing description, of all places.

I found the info!
http://netmusic.com/web/track.aspx?t_id=1000935253

Eduardo X wrote:I found the info!
http://netmusic.com/web/track.aspx?t_id=1000935253

$0.89 PER TRACK!?!?!? WTF?

Eduardo X wrote:I found the info!
http://netmusic.com/web/track.aspx?t_id=1000935253

That is classic. Only $0.89 for 9 seconds of some pimpin' guitar tunes.


NOTE: Tareeq is HARDCORE. Don't cross him. He can probably prove that Peacedog is tony72.

Tareeq is hardcore. That explains why he seems so familiar. Whoops. I think I said too much.

Tareeq wrote:

Napoleon wrote: also, come on people. If unbreakable IS tony, he'll have figured out by now who ratted him out. And even if he isn't, all signs point to Tareeq who knows unbreakable's adress from the whole bookdeal thing. It's not exactly rocket science, and this forum isn't exactly big enough to hide a thing like that.

For your information, Napoleon, I did know that Unbreakable was tony72 before I read it here, but the mods came to that conclusion based on independent evidence which did not come from me. I will not pretend that I am fond of the guy, for reasons which are on view for all to see. Nonetheless I assure you that the conclusion was reached without my help.

Very well, I stand corrected. At any rate, getting the information from you would've been a very good way of proving that Tony=Unbreakable=Tony=Peacedog (wait, did I not understand one of the previous posts?) and an avenue I might have explored myself.

As for your google comment, I could have indeed tried to find this information, and I thank you for this valuable tip. That would infer me being interested whether or not Tony=Unbreakable=Tony=RunningMN9 (damn...another misunderstanding?) which I'm not.

Thankfully, I won't be doing as dirty a work as criminal law or even dirtier, divorce law (eek!) but the gentle, caring field of Administrative law. I'm sure google will again be an enormous asset there, but not as big as you make it out to be! Not graduated yet, but that will happen within the next three months. (This is incidentally the reason for my high posting ratio the last couple of days. It was that, or studying Environmental Protection Law )Want me to mail you the babelfished version of my final thesis? I'm sure it'll end up hilarious that way

A babelfished version of a final thesis most likely written in legalese? That would almost have to be COMEDY GOLD, JERRY!!

I just read this whole thread. I conquered Spain in less time than that last night(and didn't use any nukes!).
Carry on.

Time for the official scoreboard:

Thread rating system

Excessive drama: 105%
Snarky snippiness: 37% (better than usual, nice work)
Good use of satire: 21%
Humor: 15% (good save near the end of page 5)
Actual factual information: 9%

OVERALL RATING: 73% EXCESSIVE

Thank you, and carry on.

noun wrote:Time for the official scoreboard:

Thread rating system

Excessive drama: 105%
Snarky snippiness: 37% (better than usual, nice work)
Good use of satire: 21%
Humor: 15% (good save near the end of page 5)
Actual factual information: 9%

OVERALL RATING: 73% EXCESSIVE

Thank you, and carry on.

Now *this* is the type of work we're gonna need for the front page. We'll have our talent scouts contact you momentarily.

Well done.

~Neal

This thread is fascinating.

For the record, I don't harbor hostility for anyone on these boards. Good lord, why would I even bother. Speaking my mind does not equate to "I don't like you," it never has. I did however think that it was past time for some straight talk, a reality check if you will.

Were my comments insulting? Of course they were, but no more insulting than the hundreds of comments posted in the GG forum on a daily basis....And that's what you need to be focusing your energies on (that's a global "your" not a finger pointing "your" for those keeping score at home).

slambie wrote:Were my comments insulting? Of course they were, but no more insulting than the hundreds of comments posted in the GG forum on a daily basis....And that's what you need to be focusing your energies on (that's a global "your" not a finger pointing "your" for those keeping score at home).

Shit, I lost count.

That does it. I propose we ban everyone and that this site should only be used for the composition of hymns to the octopi lords, and the occasional recipe sharing.

I'm terribly disappointed in you.

noun wrote:That does it. I propose we ban everyone and that this site should only be used for the composition of hymns to the octopi lords, and the occasional recipe sharing.

Tacos

1.25 lb. sashimi grade tuna
2 large ripe avocadoes
2 tomatoes
1 small red onion
1 small white onion
1 large jalapeno pepper
2 small lemons
8 oz. colby cheese
8 oz. monterrey jack cheese
1/2 tsp. ground cumin
1 tsp. ground chipotle pepper
1 tsp. salt
1 tsp. freshly ground black pepper
olive oil
8 taco shellls (blue corn preferred for aesthetic reasons)

Peel avocadoes, then remove all meat from the pit, dicing meat into "smallish" cubes.

Dice tomatoes and onions.

Chop jalapeno pepper lengthwise, remove seeds and chop halves finely.

Mix the vegetables just prepared in a bowl, adding juice of the lemons. Refrigerate at least one hour. This will form your salsa for the tacos.

Mix salt, black pepper, cumin, and chipotle to form a rub for the tuna (feel free to adjust proportions to taste but use sufficient quantity to cover the tuna for a rub).

Grate cheeses, mix, and refrigerate.

Remove any skin from tuna, and dice into "mediumish" cubes with a knife. Rub tuna cubes with the spices until finely coated.

In a skillet, heat olive oil over medium high heat until bottom of pan is coated. Add tuna cubes and sear on all sides, approx. 5 minutes.

While cooking tuna, place shells in a 400 degree oven to heat. Remove from the oven when tuna is prepared.

Immediately add tuna to the shells as a first layer of filling, then add the salsa mixture, then top with grated cheese.

Side dishes as desired. Saffron rice and a salad would be nice.

Someone funny make an erotic "Tareeq sure knows the ins and outs of fish tacos!" style joke, please.

I believe your sig takes care of that, Mr. Nodens.

Tareeq wrote:I believe your sig takes care of that, Mr. Nodens.

Hey! My sig is not funny. It is valuable career advice given to me by a nigh-omnipotent being and his big brother, SuperHiro. I take it very seriously.

But you can still remove all my meat from a pit and place it in your fish taco, anyday. Just don't forget the cumin.

slambie wrote:This thread is fascinating.

For the record, I don't harbor hostility for anyone on these boards. Good lord, why would I even bother. Speaking my mind does not equate to "I don't like you," it never has. I did however think that it was past time for some straight talk, a reality check if you will.

Were my comments insulting? Of course they were, but no more insulting than the hundreds of comments posted in the GG forum on a daily basis....And that's what you need to be focusing your energies on (that's a global "your" not a finger pointing "your" for those keeping score at home).

The reality check burns my eyes so much, I can barely stand to look at it. I'll go run and inform #gonegold right away that we need to reform (I assume, after all, that it was #gonegold that you directed this reality check at).

gellar wrote:

The Meal wrote:So it would be unfair for me to say that there is a significant segment of #gonegolders who do not care for Peacedog's moderation style, and if folks *do* say negative things about his style, that they're just being jackasses for the fun of it?

No... that's definitely fair. There's truth to most of those definitions, but they are done in jest. Of course, always truth in jest.

Fact of the matter is, people are always going to have issues with everyone's moderating/supervising/managing/etc... style. It's just life, can't please em all. If PD and staff believes this is the right way to run things, then for fuck's sake, continue to run things that way. If members of #gg think it's crap, then they should continue to bitch about it. That's the way life goes.

In the end, I don't think PD is going to change things, and I don't think #gg is going to stop poking fun and laughing. And I especially don't think either side could give two shits what the other side thinks. Neither is that dumb .

gellar

I think Meal is just jealous that he doesn't have a nick name. Maybe that's because MHS hangs around at #gg and everyone is too chicken to do it

loc-nar wrote:I just want to go on record as saying that since I public stated that I don't believe Unbreakable is Tony72, I have guaranteed the existence of damning evidence to the contrary.

Loc, please start giving me your football picks so I can bet on the opposite. Thank you, sir.

Mookee wrote:Loc, please start giving me your football picks so I can bet on the opposite. Thank you, sir.

Among other things, I would hope that Unbreakable admitting his identity in IRC tonight was enough evidence to sway any remaining Undecideds.

RunningMn9 wrote:Among other things, I would hope that Unbreakable admitting his identity in IRC tonight was enough evidence to sway any remaining Undecideds.

Serious?

- Ash

RunningMn9 wrote:

Mookee wrote:Loc, please start giving me your football picks so I can bet on the opposite. Thank you, sir.

Among other things, I would hope that Unbreakable admitting his identity in IRC tonight was enough evidence to sway any remaining Undecideds.

I think his admission proves that he's a liar, but other than that... it proves that... GO SOX!
He actually was telling the truth on some stuff, and it seemed so outrageous that it couldn't be true.
That's the stuff that's always almost true, it seems.

I did get a response from a community member that helped lead me to believe who he is. I appreciate that a lot.