It's not necessary to ban dudes from a server for dumb shit.
VOTE KICK FIRST PLZ and if they don't get the hint after that, plz2kick/ban.
~archi
Dudes.....
- Max Rambone
- Ramboner
- Posts: 2662
- Joined: Thu Jun 11, 2009 5:55 am
- Reputation: 16
Dudes.....
Eventus stultorum magister.
-
- dude weighs like 90 pounds
- Posts: 3012
- Joined: Mon May 25, 2009 4:32 pm
- Reputation: -132
- Location: the great communist world of china
Re: Dudes.....
dude is an extremely conservative serveur administrator
And I'm pretty sure that kicking Revan for specjoining in a live pug to foil a rush is justified. Fucking faggot can go die in a fire.
And I'm pretty sure that kicking Revan for specjoining in a live pug to foil a rush is justified. Fucking faggot can go die in a fire.
Re: Dudes.....
who is banned?
- Max Rambone
- Ramboner
- Posts: 2662
- Joined: Thu Jun 11, 2009 5:55 am
- Reputation: 16
Re: Dudes.....
I'd like to think I admin the server the way Guard wants it admined or I wouldn't continue to get the rcon pass while others don't.Turky wrote:dude is an extremely conservative serveur administrator
And I'm pretty sure that kicking Revan for specjoining in a live pug to foil a rush is justified. Fucking faggot can go die in a fire.
Anyway, kicking is not banning and if revan was vote-kicked for spec-joining, then I suppose he deserved it.
~archi
Eventus stultorum magister.
-
- dude weighs like 90 pounds
- Posts: 3012
- Joined: Mon May 25, 2009 4:32 pm
- Reputation: -132
- Location: the great communist world of china
Re: Dudes.....
I'd like to think that just because you aren't doing anything to piss off Guard doesn't mean that anything that you wouldn't do as an admin is wrong.
The inverse of a statement isn't always true. So it's not that you're adminning it the way he wants it adminned, it's more along the lines of you not adminning it in a way that he doesn't want it adminned. Those two statements, however, are not synonymous. The latter is true, but taking the inverse of that statement (taking out the negative qualifiers "not" and "doesn't"), thus forming the former statement, does not guarantee it to still be true.
Logic fail, again.
The inverse of a statement isn't always true. So it's not that you're adminning it the way he wants it adminned, it's more along the lines of you not adminning it in a way that he doesn't want it adminned. Those two statements, however, are not synonymous. The latter is true, but taking the inverse of that statement (taking out the negative qualifiers "not" and "doesn't"), thus forming the former statement, does not guarantee it to still be true.
Logic fail, again.
- Roflraptor
- LoLdIn0
- Posts: 671
- Joined: Wed May 05, 2010 11:43 pm
- Reputation: -14
Re: Dudes.....
Lots of straw in that man.Turky wrote:I'd like to think that just because you aren't doing anything to piss off Guard doesn't mean that anything that you wouldn't do as an admin is wrong.
The inverse of a statement isn't always true. So it's not that you're adminning it the way he wants it adminned, it's more along the lines of you not adminning it in a way that he doesn't want it adminned. Those two statements, however, are not synonymous. The latter is true, but taking the inverse of that statement (taking out the negative qualifiers "not" and "doesn't"), thus forming the former statement, does not guarantee it to still be true.
-
- dude weighs like 90 pounds
- Posts: 3012
- Joined: Mon May 25, 2009 4:32 pm
- Reputation: -132
- Location: the great communist world of china
Re: Dudes.....
Not really sure how, nor am I sure if you know all the underlying themes here.Roflraptor wrote:Lots of straw in that man.Turky wrote:I'd like to think that just because you aren't doing anything to piss off Guard doesn't mean that anything that you wouldn't do as an admin is wrong.
The inverse of a statement isn't always true. So it's not that you're adminning it the way he wants it adminned, it's more along the lines of you not adminning it in a way that he doesn't want it adminned. Those two statements, however, are not synonymous. The latter is true, but taking the inverse of that statement (taking out the negative qualifiers "not" and "doesn't"), thus forming the former statement, does not guarantee it to still be true.
Archi is much more hesitant to kick or ban problem players than the other presently assigned admins, and the only possible relevant motive I can see for his reply is to justify that because he still has admin, he must be adminning it "the way Guard wants it adminned." Which is really too strong of a way to phrase it, since it indeed can lead one to think that anything Archi doesn't do is probably wrong. And given his self-righteous demeanor, for all we know, he could have meant exactly that. Something less misleading could be "the way Guard would/might like it to be adminned." But all that aside, Guard actually seems to be considerably more susceptible to ban people than Archi is.
This is, of course, assuming that the gist of Archi's post wasn't simply a smug/sleazy way of saying "I yews admin conservatively so I don't lose it." Because that'd just be a pointless and redundant post.
- Roflraptor
- LoLdIn0
- Posts: 671
- Joined: Wed May 05, 2010 11:43 pm
- Reputation: -14
Re: Dudes.....
I'm just saying, you rephrased it so that he was arguing that he was doing nothing wrong in order to keep admin and that this is what lead him to believe that he was using admin the way Guard wants it to be used.Turky wrote:Not really sure how, nor am I sure if you know all the underlying themes here.
Archi is much more hesitant to kick or ban problem players than the other presently assigned admins, and the only possible relevant motive I can see for his reply is to justify that because he still has admin, he must be adminning it "the way Guard wants it adminned." Which is really too strong of a way to phrase it, since it indeed can lead one to think that anything Archi doesn't do is probably wrong. And given his self-righteous demeanor, for all we know, he could have meant exactly that. Something less misleading could be "the way Guard would/might like it to be adminned." But all that aside, Guard actually seems to be considerably more susceptible to ban people than Archi is.
This is, of course, assuming that the gist of Archi's post wasn't simply a smug/sleazy way of saying "I yews admin conservatively so I don't lose it." Because that'd just be a pointless and redundant post.
When you say 'logic fail, again', you're attacking the position that he derived what he said through the yews of the illogical step you constructed. It's something you might have assumed he did but not something he has said he has done. Hence why I alluded to it being a straw man argument.
-
- dude weighs like 90 pounds
- Posts: 3012
- Joined: Mon May 25, 2009 4:32 pm
- Reputation: -132
- Location: the great communist world of china
Re: Dudes.....
http://www.jkasiege.com/phpBB3/viewtopi ... 388#p15381Roflraptor wrote:When you say 'logic fail, again'
Not sure what you thought I meant by it, but that's what I meant
- Roflraptor
- LoLdIn0
- Posts: 671
- Joined: Wed May 05, 2010 11:43 pm
- Reputation: -14
Re: Dudes.....
My post was just concerned with the logic fail part.Turky wrote:http://www.jkasiege.com/phpBB3/viewtopi ... 388#p15381Roflraptor wrote:When you say 'logic fail, again'
Not sure what you thought I meant by it, but that's what I meant