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
Eventus stultorum magister.
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.
Eventus stultorum magister.
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.
Roflraptor wrote: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.
Lots of straw in that man.
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.
Roflraptor wrote:When you say 'logic fail, again'
Turky wrote:Roflraptor wrote:When you say 'logic fail, again'
viewtopic.php?f=4&p=15388#p15381
Not sure what you thought I meant by it, but that's what I meant
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests