Eyes on Final Fantasy Forums > Reference > General Archive > April Fool's Forum > What did We Learn?

[Raistlin]

I couldn't resist...

Originally Posted by Loony BoB

Hey! I said pretty much the same thing Big D said ages ago! Nobody loves the Daniel...

No you didn't.

You were the one that told me originally, and said you weren't going to bother looking through the thread to tell me what was and wasn't quoted. *smacks BooBy*

[Loony BoB]

Yeah but I never said we made fun of you or anything! Well, not making fun of your entries, anyway. I'm sure I said it was only so we could keep up with things! Big D just said it in a pretty way because he's a very pretty person.

[Raistlin]

Originally Posted by Loony BoB

Yeah but I never said we made fun of you or anything! Well, not making fun of your entries, anyway. I'm sure I said it was only so we could keep up with things! Big D just said it in a pretty way because he's a very pretty person.

And I said, and still do say, that that was abusing the permission I granted you. My obvious intention, in context, was for you to quote my entries in the interest of promoting Staff discussion on rules/regulations/runnings of the board in past entries which a good portion of Staff can't see. NOT to keep tabs on me in order to facilitate your joke - that was not for EoFF, but for the personal agenda of the Staff. It was not to help EoFF, but to help Staff members keep tabs on me for their prank. It was ignoring my comments in LJ which specifically said not to discuss the entries with anyone that couldn't see them. Anyone who was not willing to abide by that should have asked for removal.

Ok, now. I'm done discussing this - if you want to continue trying to somehow justify going behind my back, you can catch me on AIM.

[ShlupQuack]

This is unfair. I said a lot of the things D said, but I don't have access to the staff forum anymore so I couldn't be more specific. Everyone "abused" the permission you gave based on that quote (and one more somewhere in the same thread, I believe), yet I'm the only one at fault for it.

I have said so many times that it was wrong to discuss your private entries. I told you I wasn't trying to convince you it was right; I was trying to get you to see that it wasn't just everyone being mean, they thought you had granted permission, and they thought you wouldn't care. You don't have to forgive anyone for posting things you didn't want to be posted. It doesn't have to be black and white: You either forgive everyone completely or continue to be angry. You can understand what happened and still be angry about it.

I don't even know what to say. I know we're done discussing it, but I'm just hurt that everything I say you automatically argue against and now that D's said the same thing I said, he's "addressing the actual problem and not making up stupid excuses."

There's no reason for me to care anymore anyway. I don't know if anyone on staff wants to be defended by me anyway, so from now they're on their own. I wash my hands of all of it.

[Raistlin]

Bah, ok:

You also said things like:

I don't see how you can be so pissed when it's not like any staff member did anything that you didn't say we could do.

And continually defended that you didn't do anything wrong.

But you are mistaking my anger - how can I be angry at you when you didn't even have access to those entries?

[ShlupQuack]

It's not that you were pissed, it's that you were so pissed. Like you didn't care what actually happened; you just know something happened and you were pissed as hell. I didn't think that was fair of you.

I don't recall saying no one did anything wrong. I said continually that you do indeed have the right to be angry, I just didn't feel that your level of anger was fair. And I don't think it's fair to take that line and quote it and leave out right after that when I said, "Yes, I realize you do have a right to be upset that your locked entries were, a couple of times, quoted, but the level of how pissed you are, along with the fact that you don't even know what we discussed and to what extent, is completely over the line."

I realize it was Bleys' LJ entry and not yours, but the fact that all these people got a big "smurf you" and you seem to agree with that based on something that was supposed to be a joke is just mean, and these people don't deserve it.

EDIT: And I should also mention, since you seem to feel that I'm a hypocriate for "accusing" you of loving to argue while I'm also arguing, that duh I like to argue. I only bring it up when arguing with you that you love to argue because you should know that when you're trying to sell that "I care about EoFF" crap I'm not buying it for a second. I don't doubt you care about EoFF, sure, but there's nothing you could do to convince me you care about EoFF nearly as much as you care about arguing.

And that's okay. I obviously care about arguing more than EoFF too. I care about EoFF on two levels: (1) I care about the people who go to EoFF. If EoFF were gone, these people still exist, so I don't really care if the message board is here or not. (2) The only reason EoFF's demise would bother me is because it belongs to my friend. So as long as it's sucessful, he and his hot wife get money for it. That's it.

Just so we're clear.

[Big D]

I'd just like to add that the whole April Fool's plan allowed for a huge amount of discussion of rules and policies. That was an extremely valuable part of the whole affair. People got fired up over something they saw as being 'unjust', so they had some strong ideas and made damn sure they got heard. These ideas were taken onboard by staff; we didn't ignore/laugh at all the discourse that was going on.
Take, for example, this thread. The topic is a serious one; one I felt actually deserved to be addressed. The only reason it's in the AF Archive is because we (the staff) used that thread as a battleground to start confronting each other and having public arguments. Staff actually do disagree over issues like that; we just took our disagreement to extremes rather than being understanding like we normally would. Whenever members' reactions were quoted, it gave the whole of staff some bloody fine insight into what rules and ideals actually matter to members, and what issues are seen as less important. Gauging the level of reaction being generated was integral to all of this.

[Raistlin]

Well, since we've completely kidnapped this thread, I guess it can't get much worse. So:

I don't recall saying no one did anything wrong.

But you did try to somehow turn it around that I was wrong for getting mad about it.

I said continually that you do indeed have the right to be angry, I just didn't feel that your level of anger was fair.

Then where is the line drawn? Is there a certain predefined point where I'm suddenly wrong for being bad? I don't think so - some of you betrayed a trust, and I got mad. I didn't even do anything as a result of my anger - I didn't cuss anyone out, I didn't make a thread about it, I didn't block everyone from my LJ, I didn't make a long dramatic LJ entry, I didn't make a dramatic thread and leave EoFF forever. I still even maintain that Bleys is overreacting - just that he has the right to do so. So please, tell me what it is that I'm doing that makes me so wrong, how I'm overreacting.

And I don't think it's fair to take that line and quote it and leave out right after that when I said, "Yes, I realize you do have a right to be upset that your locked entries were, a couple of times, quoted, but the level of how pissed you are, along with the fact that you don't even know what we discussed and to what extent, is completely over the line."

I asked BoB what was discussed, and was never told. I thought I had the right to find out what was said about my locked LJ entries, and which parts were quoted/talked about, but I guess not.

I realize it was Bleys' LJ entry and not yours, but the fact that all these people got a big "smurf you" and you seem to agree with that based on something that was supposed to be a joke is just mean, and these people don't deserve it.

I never said anything about Bleys saying "smurf you," and I obviously don't agree with him since I've stayed on a pretty good basis with most of the people he said that to. And I don't think it's fair that you automatically say I agree with everything Bleys does just because I sided with him on the points he made, which were all pretty damn good points - seeing that they swayed me from being avidly against Bleys to being sympathetic of him.

EDIT: And I should also mention, since you seem to feel that I'm a hypocriate for "accusing" you of loving to argue while I'm also arguing, that duh I like to argue. I only bring it up when arguing with you that you love to argue because you should know that when you're trying to sell that "I care about EoFF" crap I'm not buying it for a second. I don't doubt you care about EoFF, sure, but there's nothing you could do to convince me you care about EoFF nearly as much as you care about arguing.

I hate arguing. I love to debate - I could debate evolution or philosophy or psychology for hours, because with debating you learn something. You don't learn anything from arguing(that's the distinction I put on it, anyway). You don't learn anything from arguing, and it serves no purpose. We were arguing in our LJ, and I dreaded checking it, because I knew I was going to feel obligated to say something, when I didn't want to. I left FG because of all the arguing - FG was not worth putting my energy into; I did not care enough about FG to argue for it. I did not leave EoFF with all of this arguing, because I still care about it. Until my level of frustration exceeds my level of commitment to the place, I will continue to stay and argue for it.
Arguing sucks. It's frustrating and has a tendency towards drama. I've tried to stay out of this thread to avoid that, because I know if I read anything here, I'll feel obligated to respond.

And that's okay. I obviously care about arguing more than EoFF too. I care about EoFF on two levels: (1) I care about the people who go to EoFF. If EoFF were gone, these people still exist, so I don't really care if the message board is here or not. (2) The only reason EoFF's demise would bother me is because it belongs to my friend. So as long as it's sucessful, he and his hot wife get money for it. That's it.

And that's the biggest reason I did not like you as an administrator.

I'd just like to add that the whole April Fool's plan allowed for a huge amount of discussion of rules and policies. That was an extremely valuable part of the whole affair. People got fired up over something they saw as being 'unjust', so they had some strong ideas and made damn sure they got heard. These ideas were taken onboard by staff; we didn't ignore/laugh at all the discourse that was going on.

I'm not saying all of Staff felt the way Shlup did. But what does that have to do with anything?