Continuation of The Ler Argument

Discussion in 'Archive' started by slydessertfox, Mar 13, 2012.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Kali The World's Best Communist

    Member Since:
    Mar 13, 2012
    Message Count:
    1,168
    Likes Received:
    1,065
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Which is silly, because the only reason we did that with Che is because the pacing of his posts versus Stalin's approval to take action against him was so skewed.
    Yeah but that doesn't help my argument.
  2. Chelsea366 Retired Moderator

    Member Since:
    Feb 13, 2011
    Message Count:
    6,865
    Likes Received:
    1,923
    Trophy Points:
    183
    Location:
    Gensokyo
    So you admit to saying outright false things on that issue just to make me look bad and help your argument.
  3. pedro3131 Running the Show While the Big Guy's Gone

    Member Since:
    Feb 13, 2011
    Message Count:
    3,949
    Likes Received:
    633
    Trophy Points:
    183
    Location:
    Tempe, Az
    I would suggest we did it more so that one particular outburst didn't result in such an accumulation of points as to result in a permanent ban. However, that's really my own personal motivation and no one can say if that's what we were all thinking at the time. And yes, the fact that Ler wasn't "pardoned" on account of mod bias doesn't really support your argument
  4. Kali The World's Best Communist

    Member Since:
    Mar 13, 2012
    Message Count:
    1,168
    Likes Received:
    1,065
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It's not entirely false. I considered disputing the policy on insults and hate speech at the time, and I think I made a comment to that effect in the Mod's Corner, but your obstinance prevented it from going any farther. You certainly defended him on all accounts, and now claim his apology absolves him of any wrongdoing.


    Well that's the unfortunate truth hiding behind it all then, huh? It's not that Ler didn't break the rules, it's that you didn't want him banned for it.
  5. Unillogical Ex-Admin

    Member Since:
    Feb 6, 2011
    Message Count:
    1,259
    Likes Received:
    230
    Trophy Points:
    109
    Location:
    London
    Right I will respond to you Kali, but this may be my last response, the reason being is partly because I have been advised to do so & partly because I feel I have made the justifications I need to & the majority of people are in agreement with me for the most part, since that is my only aim to give across the truth as I see it, to point out flaws in both your argumentation in order to persuade not so much you, but the people in the dark or on the fence over to my side of the fence which I of course feel is the correct side, as well as to defend myself from what I feel are false accusations about myself & other staff members. Thank you for replying in any case.

    Factions are defined not by people as you suggest but by ideas, you & Ler have something in common, namely strong opinions that are opposed to each other. But if this was simply a disagreement between you & Ler there wouldn't be factionism at all, since factions are made up of multiple people with something in common, in this case ideas. Those ideas and those members don't change or go away by you leaving, so when I say you are not a major cause, what I mean is that your leaving wont remove the strong opinions of the others who disagree with you, nor those of the people who agree. Now maybe your and Ler's disagreements were the original cause of factionalism, that does not make you the entire sustaining force however, since either of you are just part of a group of like-minded people, a drop in the ocean if you like. Even if your an entire glass of water, there's still a lot more water in the ocean.

    I don't support Ler because I have a distaste for what you say, I support Ler because I feel your criticisms of him are unjustified. I don't like to talk about Ler in a public forum like this because it's frankly rude but you & I have had conversations regarding Ler & other members & we've agreed, because the point is reasonable, we agreed that his defence was not good enough & warned him, I have frequently said when reports about your debates had come flying in that 'you can both be as bad as each other'. Namely that when Ler has acted in the exact same way you have acted I have been critical not just of you, but of Ler as well. Now it might be true that I have been more critical of you in the past, but you were a moderator & I felt as a moderator you had more responsibility to act better. If you say something negative about (for current affairs sake) Kony, like that he was responsible for 9/11 I will defend Kony against that false charge, I am 'defending Kony', that doesn't entail that I also would defend him against kidnap charges. To parallel this with the Ler situation you are accusing me of defending Kony of kidnap when in truth I am only defending him from 9/11. Don't say false things about Ler & I wont defend him.

    I'm not interjecting myself into arguments just to oppose you, I'm injecting myself into arguments partly because you bring me into them by criticising decisions & attitudes of the Staff & because I feel that I can rebut you, I feel I can demonstrate that you are wrong & that your arguments are unfounded. You are making arguments against the very way the site operates & I feel that is to do with me. Also because I have debated with you many times before, I know how you argue, I feel I am in the perfect position to argue against you & I'm of course not the only one, IronChin gave a rebuttal that was excellent. Essentially I am arguing with you because you are wrong. Trust me I would much rather be agreeing with you, but you just don't saying anything I feel is true.

    You know what, I want a detailed response, the fact that an underhanded deal was made leaves a foul taste in my mouth. When I say I don't care I mean I do not care about the deal being upheld. I didn't 'force myself in to take a pop at you'. How arrogant are you? I responded because your post was clearly false, brought the running of the site into question, brought MY & other staffs judgements into question, the reason I left out the bits to do with Stalin is that I acknowledged that parts of what you said clearly were nothing to do with me. I haven't heard a detailed explanation or justification of the reason this deal even exists & by all means, William has given a very brief explanation which I don't feel is satisfactory as yet. By all means push for a response, be my guest.

    That wasn't why I responded, I responded because you made clearly false points, asserted conclusions that didn't follow & if you really just want an answer from Stalin you would have messaged him on Skype. You made it public to try to persuade people to your line of thinking, to discredit William as well perhaps. I think the reason your so keen to question my very involvement in this entire debate, the pin it down to a petty feud is because you want to remove the substance from my arguments by questioning my involvement itself. Know this, I am not sitting here playing devils advocate. I am not lying or even stretching the truth in order to make my arguments seem more impressive, and sure I possibly even get more enjoyment pointing out holes in your argumentation than with someone else because of the arrogance with which you assert your opinions, but to do so, there still needs to be holes in your arguments for me to point out. Don't concern yourself with why I am here, concern yourself with responding to my points which everyone can see have substance. Lastly most of your posting isn't even to do with Stalin directly but with Ler & those are the bits I responded to. Once again Ironchin also gave a response so it's not that big a deal.

    'never get a real response' - just skype him, right now. He'll respond. Then record it, or keep the messages, make them public but don't try and blame me for your lack of a response. If you asserted everything you did with out a piece of evidence in sight to back it up, if you hadn't falsely called the judgement of staff into account then I wouldn't have responded & the intended target would have given his response (if your logic to why he didn't is even sound).

    Then why didn't you say that at the time, since your public post was clearly for everyones benefit. Your word is not enough Kali, you need to back it up with evidence. Now it may be true that Ler was responsible for Stalins doubt about Matt, but Ler didn't cause Matt to not be who he said he is & pointing this simple fact out doesn't change the fact that Matt being a moderator & also not being who he said he is would have inevitably led to the outcome it did. Any other member could have pointed it out, it could have been me, Chelsea or anyone else & would you still be calling it a witch-hunt. I mean especially in hindsight it seems obvious. I imagine everyone thought at some time that Matt's character was a statistical improbability, I know I did..

    Moving on, I'm sorry for not using quotes, I might go back and reiterate the points but not tonight before I go to bed.

    Okay you assert that we agree that Ler is not fit to be a tribune. I'm afraid we don't. I don't think that. Yes there are things we agree upon, I think that members are over-sensitive. But I don't think the tribune position is the big deal you seem to. Sure I wouldn't give it to anyone I felt would abuse their powers in the panel but Ler hasn't. That doesn't mean I would or wouldn't vote for him but the only criteria I think should result in being not allowed the position is abuse of power with regards to for example locking posts wrong, general trolling etc.

    Now Ler might influence my opinions but the only power he has to do so is by providing me with arguments that fit my rational framework, which we've suggested in length in the mods corner is a pragmatic one. Everyone no matter who they are has the power to influence my decision, but the ways in which they do so are limited. The insults rule is supported by me not just because of Ler but moreso by the likes of Toast & Link, don't get me wrong I think they are great guys & characters that make the site a fun place but imagine 1oo Toasts without an insult rule, I don't think that would be much of a community. There needs to be a line.

    & as I have repeatedly said, if someone makes a bad argument attack it to your hearts content, if you shatter someones argument so bad they throw themselves off a building I wouldn't care. That is the essence of a debate, arguing about ideas, but there is no need to repeatedly go against the person with strong personal insults.

    Here's what I feel the issue is, both you & Ler are the same. What I mean is that what you believe seems to be an integral part of who you are, disagreements about ideas then seem to become personal disagreements. When I see you two argue it feels like the Cold War. I really don't, I have beliefs, I'll argue for them, but they aren't that important, they're not integral. I have debated for hours on politics with people who share beliefs such as Ler, such as You & we have walked away still liking each other, still friends because at the end of the day, there just disagreements & sometimes you have to agree to disagree, especially if you don't have the same base axioms.

    Kali if you want your answer go to Stalin direct. My opinions are not run by Ler. Chelsea as she has repeatedly said is the same. I honestly am not here to debate with you because I don't like you or have an issue, it's purely because I feel I am in a good position to respond & that your points need a response especially because of the accusations against the staff. Now sure because I do have issues with your tactics because I feel you are intellectually dishonest at times I will be inclined to point out such things, but what matters to me is that my arguments have substance which I think they do.

    What I think this should be is a overall community where people can have a good debate & a lighthearted banter. I'm of course going to go with ideas that lead me there. I think a rule against insults allows for both these things & I feel that allowing free reign turns debates into insult fests with little or not substance & banter into people just shouting abuse at each other. I don't feel you have demonstrated evidence that Ler has this power & influence you ascribe to him, you accuse me of letting my opinions of you or what you say influence me against you but I feel that the same claim can be made about you with regards to Ler.

    I'm still interested to hear a compelling account of how Ler is apparently pulling the strings because I don't feel I've got one yet. I look up but I cannot see the puppetmaster if you will.

    edit: I've read it through quickly, corrected a couple of errors but there are undoubtedly still more, it seems to be readable though & I'll pin it down to tiredness.
    SPQR and Chelsea366 like this.
  6. Skyicewolf City States Godmod Patrol

    Member Since:
    Feb 13, 2011
    Message Count:
    1,666
    Likes Received:
    247
    Trophy Points:
    93
    Location:
    Las Vegas
    Uni, I bestow upon you the Skyicewolf's Honorary Knights Cross.

    The Rewards of this include:

    This post
    A Place in my Signature.
  7. Unillogical Ex-Admin

    Member Since:
    Feb 6, 2011
    Message Count:
    1,259
    Likes Received:
    230
    Trophy Points:
    109
    Location:
    London
    My life is apparently complete!
    Vulcan200x likes this.
  8. Skyicewolf City States Godmod Patrol

    Member Since:
    Feb 13, 2011
    Message Count:
    1,666
    Likes Received:
    247
    Trophy Points:
    93
    Location:
    Las Vegas
    'Apparently?'

    This is the highest award anyone can possibly receive, anywhere in the Universe.
  9. ironchin Well-Known Member

    Member Since:
    Jun 20, 2011
    Message Count:
    773
    Likes Received:
    320
    Trophy Points:
    104
    Location:
    Melbourne, Australia
    If anyone wants the post I made regarding Kali that Uni just mentioned, it's at the bottom of the first page of this thread. I don't really feel the need to respond again, a lot of what I said there applies here. The irrational, delusional and crazy bit. The following quote (which he also used variations of multiple times) illustrates this quite well for those who are getting confused.
    Heh. You're funny. If you had any trace of esteem before, you surely don't have any now.
    Unillogical likes this.
  10. thelistener Well-Known Member

    Member Since:
    May 2, 2011
    Message Count:
    868
    Likes Received:
    344
    Trophy Points:
    123
    Location:
    finland
    Could somebody please tell wtf is happening? what's up with @ComradeLer etc???????

    (I did read the OP and the link in it.)

    btw only thing I like about kali, or these days "you rang" is he's profile picture..
  11. esac1122 Team Fortress 2 Branch Head

    Member Since:
    Feb 15, 2011
    Message Count:
    1,159
    Likes Received:
    197
    Trophy Points:
    103
    Location:
    Beep boop son
    ComradeLer is running for tribune and has done some less than savory things in the past
    Kalalification is trying to stop ler from winning and has done some less than savory things in the past.
  12. thelistener Well-Known Member

    Member Since:
    May 2, 2011
    Message Count:
    868
    Likes Received:
    344
    Trophy Points:
    123
    Location:
    finland
    Yea I get that.. But what has comradeler done?
  13. esac1122 Team Fortress 2 Branch Head

    Member Since:
    Feb 15, 2011
    Message Count:
    1,159
    Likes Received:
    197
    Trophy Points:
    103
    Location:
    Beep boop son
    He said some stuff people didn't like or agree with.
  14. thelistener Well-Known Member

    Member Since:
    May 2, 2011
    Message Count:
    868
    Likes Received:
    344
    Trophy Points:
    123
    Location:
    finland
    ok thanks
  15. Lighthouse Well-Known Member

    Member Since:
    May 14, 2011
    Message Count:
    3,459
    Likes Received:
    465
    Trophy Points:
    143
    Location:
    The nearest Strip Club!


    Replace the word Britney with ComradeLer.

    LEAVE Britney LER ALONE.
    GeneralofCarthage likes this.
  16. General Mosh Citystates Founder!

    Member Since:
    Feb 14, 2011
    Message Count:
    5,310
    Likes Received:
    668
    Trophy Points:
    193
    Location:
    Scattered to the 4 corners of Earth
    Which is a stupid reason for a lynch mob, doncha think?
    thelisener likes this.
  17. Lighthouse Well-Known Member

    Member Since:
    May 14, 2011
    Message Count:
    3,459
    Likes Received:
    465
    Trophy Points:
    143
    Location:
    The nearest Strip Club!
    I am sorry, I should have asked this earlier but what is the " Ler Argument "
  18. The Shaw Rawnald Gregory Erickson the Second

    Member Since:
    Jul 25, 2011
    Message Count:
    5,426
    Likes Received:
    1,033
    Trophy Points:
    243
    Location:
    New York
    Some people think he shoudn't be allowed to be tribune.
    But it's over, so shut up about it.
    Vulcan200x likes this.
  19. Vulcan200x Well-Known Member

    Member Since:
    Mar 25, 2011
    Message Count:
    1,540
    Likes Received:
    171
    Trophy Points:
    94
    Location:
    Unknown
    Yup he going to win and thats going start a shitstorm..
  20. Chelsea366 Retired Moderator

    Member Since:
    Feb 13, 2011
    Message Count:
    6,865
    Likes Received:
    1,923
    Trophy Points:
    183
    Location:
    Gensokyo
    Not if people act mature about it. Which is asking a lot for these forums I know. However Ler has won and so has Shaw. Anyone who doesn't like that will just have to deal with it.
    UnitRico and Vulcan200x like this.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

Facebook: