what's with all the clowns ?

  • Thread starter Thread starter shayno
  • Start date Start date
Monkey Man said:
Quote from another thread today:


Ironic dude. Remember our "debate" the other day?

You accused me of knowingly allowing breaches of the rules until I edited one of them in response to your suggestion, which I felt was legit and added clarification.

Had I not been suffering the initial symptoms of food poisoning and actually been on-my-game, I'd not have panicked and instantly gone onto the back foot to defend myself after you accused me of wilful dishonesty.

Either you didn't see my later posts where I pointed out the fact that the rule you said I hadn't been following was simply a clarification requested by another member within the past week and one that I added purely as a heads-up / rough guide to the new membership by way of an edit, or you were intentionally gaslighting me.

I've chosen to assume the best - that you weren't aware of the fact that it was only a days-old edit and that your accusation, which I took as referring to the past year and a half, was therefore patently-false and that any impression of gaslighting was circumstantial.

Some members called for an apology to me. I don't care that you didn't offer one, 'cause yet again, I gave you the benefit of the doubt, figuring that you might've missed the updated info.

To sum up:
Don't worry about apologising; I just want to make sure that you're aware of the fact that you'd assumed that the few-days-old tweak, which was a quick edit made by-request 'cause new members had no idea how things worked WRT the use of pics and other info posted by "victims", was never an official rule. I'd been playing things "by ear" the previous 18 months, deleting names and pics upon-request without question and it had worked just-fine; those who were here were able to discern the lie of the land therefrom. New members? Different story, hence the edit.

Cheers mate. If you read all this, thank you!
Click to expand...
TL,DR

Someone complained to you about a rule violation that was perpetrated against them. You cited the rule incorrectly. I pointed out you didn’t understand the rule correctly. You changed the verbiage of the rule to be in agreement with your interpretation. That is what happened. You had explanations and reasons for why it was ok…but that is what happened.
 
T.V. said:
TL,DR

Someone complained to you about a rule violation that was perpetrated against them. You cited the rule incorrectly. I pointed out you didn’t understand the rule correctly. You changed the verbiage of the rule to be in agreement with your interpretation. That is what happened. You had explanations and reasons for why it was ok…but that is what happened.
Click to expand...
I thought you like to read?
 
T.V. said:
TL,DR

Someone complained to you about a rule violation that was perpetrated against them. You cited the rule incorrectly. I pointed out you didn’t understand the rule correctly. You changed the verbiage of the rule to be in agreement with your interpretation. That is what happened. You had explanations and reasons for why it was ok…but that is what happened.
Click to expand...
Yes, I cited what was written incorrectly 'cause, as you explained, I didn't get the wording right.

changed the verbiage of the rule to be in agreement with your interpretation
Click to expand...
No!

I changed the verbiage to be in agreement with the rule; it just hadn't been written down anywhere, hence its very-recent (last week) appearance upon-request.

Man, you say TLDR and then continue with this circular-reasoning bullshit based upon a lie. Get the facts straight. At this point you're trolling... IMHO.

T.V. said:
I do. I don’t need to waste time reading a long winded excuse as to why a rule wording was changed mid-complaint to favor @Monkey Man ‘s interpretation.
Click to expand...
It was changed according to your language advice, which I agreed with. Thank you for pointing the specifics out to me.
 
Monkey Man said:
Yes, I cited what was written incorrectly 'cause, as you explained, I didn't get the wording right.


No!

I changed the verbiage to be in agreement with the rule; it just hadn't been written down anywhere, hence its very-recent (last week) appearance upon-request.

Man, you say TLDR and then continue with this circular-reasoning bullshit based upon a lie. Get the facts straight. At this point you're trolling... IMHO.


It was changed according to your language advice, which I agreed with. Thank you for pointing the specifics out to me.
Click to expand...
You changed the rule after you received a complaint. Adding the word “express” changed the rule. There is no way to spin it. That is what happened.
 
No, I changed the wording after you pointed out to me that it didn't capture the rule accurately. The rule has always been the same - request an image or post be removed / edited if you're not-happy. Simple, you'd think. Has worked just-fine for 18 months.

It was an "innocent" (naive) mistake on my part to nonchalantly use the term "express" when I quick-fire added the rule several days beforehand. This was done, as I've explained many times, in response to someone's seeking answers, trying to determine the lie of the land. There'd been a lot of this due to the influx from TGP.
 
T.V. said:
Adding the word “express” changed the rule.
Click to expand...
I didn't add the word!

It was there in the quick-fire response I made days earlier.

You showed me that it didn't in fact express the rule properly, hence why I added the "implied" stuff to it.
 
I'm now considering dumming it down.

Might change the wording to reflect how it's always been implemented anyway - if someone's not-happy, say so and we'll remove it, whatever it is.
 
Monkey Man said:
No, I changed the wording after you pointed out to me that it didn't capture the rule automatically. The rule has always been the same
Click to expand...
This doesn’t make any sense. You don’t see that? Changing the word changes the rule AS IT IS UNDERSTOOD. Sure, maybe you intended the rule to mean something it didn’t. And after the conversation, you realized in order for the rule to mean what you intended, it needed to be altered. But if membership is operating under the assumption the rule is intended as written, they don’t know they have no recourse.

You should have enforced the rule as written, then changes the wording to reflect what you originally intended.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top