posted
I was hoping we could treat each other like the utter strangers we are and you react no differently to me than to anyone else.
It means if you would like to be the policeman of me, you must be the policeman of everyone on the board. Bean Counter. Yourself. King of Men. Tom. The teenagers. The scions. Everyone. You treat me no differently than you treat anyone else.
Should we put conditions? If either of us breaks the pact and brings up the past or says something snarky, then...what? A voluntary self-imposed exile? We appoint Noemon as the judge?
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
For pete's sake, kat. It's really not that hard. Don't act petty and nasty. If you don't, you won't have a problem with me. Or if you do, you can easily bring up this thread and I'll be extremely ashamed and disgraced.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, I do not agree with you being the self-appointed kat policeman. Peace means you treat me no differently from everyone. If you vigilante me, you must vigilante everyone.
Do you agree to the conditions?
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
1. If you would like to be the policeman of me, you must be the policeman of everyone on the board. Bean Counter. Yourself. King of Men. Tom. The teenagers. The scions. Everyone. You treat me no differently than you treat anyone else.
2. No bringing up past - address present behavior only.
3. Being civil and respectful to each other at all times.
If any of those are broken and Noemon agrees that it has been, then a self-imposed exile. Noemon can suggest a length.
These conditions? Agreed?
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Errr...you're using treat you no differently very strangely there. It's sort of like accuracy is making sure everyone has an equal weight given to what they say, regardless of the validity of their positions.
I certainly don't agree to that. I freely admit, by that definition, that I treat you differently from say KoM. That's because most other people do too. I've already made the point that I don't really like calling you when you do wrong. But no one else will. KoM, on the other hand...everyone jumps on him. There's no need for me to say anything there.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ooops, I guess you meant 2 & 3 to apply to you both, 1 is the only one that's Squick specific. Nevermind.
Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
(Condition 1 could not be mutual, so I read them as a list of what kat wanted from Squick. My mistake.)
Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Squicky, I do not agree to you being the self-appointed vigilante on kat. You should not take that upon yourself, and no one else has asked you to do so.
However, if the mod of this forum, Papa Janitor, agrees that you can be so, then you can.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not a self-appointed vigilante on kat. I don't follow you around waiting for you to screw up. I address people's behavior when I thin kthat it is important for me to do so. In your case, from my perspective, you have been one of the nastiest posters on the forum, but very, very few people ever seem to call you on it. I feel it is important for someone to address behavior such as yours, so I did when I came across it. Again, it is not personal, but rather based on your repeated poor behavior.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
This is getting ridiculous. Squick, there have been times when you've called kat on something and I've completely agreed with you; there have been times when she or someone else has called you on something and I've completely agreed with them. The reason people are using terms like "bloodbath" even though you claim to be completely uninvested is that every time this happens, it wrecks whatever other discussion had been going on in the thread at the time.
From where I'm sitting, even if you're completely right and kat's completely wrong in what you're both claiming about each other's behaviour in every single instance, calling each other out for poor behaviour has a destructive effect on the rest of the forum -- and, as you yourself admit, has absolutely no impact on how either of you conduct yourselves.
It's blatantly obvious to everyone with the possible exceptions of you and kat that this is detrimental to the functioning of the forum. It's gotten to the point where you continuing to harp on it "because no one else will" is beginning to look less like an attempt at public service and more like deliberate sabotaging of dialogue on this forum.
Years ago I got sick of discussing a particular topic here. The discussions were never fruitful and I always felt that their net value was negative. So, I just dropped it. I don't talk about that here any more, and as a consequence the net value I get out of my interactions on this forum increased, and I go on hiatus much less often. I don't think this is always the right course of action, but I do think that in the particular case of you calling kat on perceived or actual poor behaviour and you or kat debating the same, it's absolutely the best thing to do.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't treat everyone else in any one specifc manner. As I said, I make comments when I think they are important. If you want to make some sort of binding contract, I don't think I'm going to go along with your number 1. The other 2 are just fine though.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: In your case, from my perspective, you have been one of the nastiest posters on the forum, but very, very few people ever seem to call you on it.
I wonder why it hasn't occured to someone as bright as you, Squick, that there's an explanation for that besides the one you've settled on. I don't think kat gets a free pass to be nasty. I think that well-liked posters (a category I count kat firmly in, whether or not she agrees) do get some leniency, but I very rarely see really poor behavior go by unremarked upon.
I personally have gotten in several spats with kat, here and elsewhere, when I felt she acted poorly (the feeling was mutual, as I remember). So have KarlEd and TomD, to name a few. The difference between the three of us and you is that we've mananged not to let those disagreements color our interactions from there on out. Kat, for her part, has done the same.
Posts: 5462 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I'm not a self-appointed vigilante on kat. I don't follow you around waiting for you to screw up. I address people's behavior when I thin kthat it is important for me to do so. In your case, from my perspective, you have been one of the nastiest posters on the forum, but very, very few people ever seem to call you on it. I feel it is important for someone to address behavior such as yours, so I did when I came across it. Again, it is not personal, but rather based on your repeated poor behavior.
Delicious, delicious contradiction.
Now please proceed with dismissing my remarks on the grounds that I am a shambling kat-zombie.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dude, I like you, but why won't you let it die? You're like some kind of unstoppable posting cyborg from the future. She already agreed to start over with you. It's already pretty clear that that's all that you're getting. Let it go, man.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't see that as a contradiction at all, Rakeesh. It seems to me that Squick is saying that he feels obligated to police certain behaviors when he sees them and when no one else does. I also don't think that posting something to the effect of "Aha! You hypocrite, you!" is helpful.
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:every time this happens, it wrecks whatever other discussion had been going on in the thread at the time.
Did it do so here? Because, as far as I could tell, there was a conversation continuing that I was also taking part in. And, from my recollection, this happens in a lot of the threads.
Also, if you want to throw accusations at me, could you back them up? That's what I've started out asking, and it apparently still hasn't sunk in.
I get that this is detrimental to the forum. I don't think that this is my fault or that the solution of I should back down is a fair one or one that is ultiamtely good for the forum either.
If you see where I've called kat on things and agreed, why didn't you call her on them? That would be my much preferred solution. Am I responsible for no one else ever calling her on things?
I don't think you get this. I think kat has often been a very nasty, destructive poster. She has often been so directly to me, including a period of some months where she just followed me around posting insults not connected to the discussion at all. And yet no one says anything about this. She deletes posts and threads and people attack me when I say that she should have done that.
I watched Leto do serious damage to this forum because you people let him and even stuck up for him. I see the same thing, to a lesser extent, giong on with kat.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hmmm. You know, I'm not sure! I suppose she'd best not leave me on my own initiative long enough to find out!
----------
This effort at reconciliation, or at least polite conversation, is doomed the way it stands. Kat believes there has been bad behavior on both sides, and offers to change hers if Mr. Squicky will change his.
Mr. Squicky, on the other hand, asserts that the bad behavior is entirely one-sided, invited, and in fact needed by the community. He denies his behavior was ever wrong, will not agree to change it, and refuses to apologize for it.
I suppose it's not doomed, necessarily. If Kat-the person who has been one of the meanest, nastiest, most awful people on the forum for years now, according to Mr. Squicky-agrees to, without any promises, change her ways, Mr. Squicky will graciously agree to stop criticizing her.
Given that Mr. Squicky believes those things about Kat, who here believes he actually expects this to go anywhere? Not me. This is a sham. Kat is making a genuine effort, and you're spitting in her face, Mr. Squicky. Excellent work, hero!
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:a period of some months where she just followed me around posting insults not connected to the discussion at all.
I remember that. I'm sorry. It was not productive and I shouldn't have done it. My life was a mess and I was horribly depressed. I have apologized for this before.
It was also FOUR YEARS AGO! Dude, time to let it go.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:I don't see that as a contradiction at all, Rakeesh. It seems to me that Squick is saying that he feels obligated to police certain behaviors when he sees them and when no one else does. I also don't think that posting something to the effect of "Aha! You hypocrite, you!" is helpful.
Why not? With the exception of no one calling him on it, I'm applying the exact same reasoning Mr. Squicky does, Jon Boy.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I haven't had time to read much of this thread today. I'm not going to be online from now until early next week, or at least not enough to be participating on any of the forums to any great degree. So, nope, haven't forgotten about this thread, but I don't have time to post anything in it.
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Squicky, it seems like your main concern is that no one ever calls me on things.
I can tell you, I do get called on it. Absolutely. In fact, this entire attempt is a result of some thinking prompted by someone calling me on it a few weeks ago. It isn't public, but it happens. There is more to this world than is posted on the forums.
There is no need for you to be the vigilante. I assure you, there are people who already fill that job.
What do you need to be assured of this enough to take yourself off the task? I am not comfortable with you taking on that task, and if your goal is to make sure someone does it and as long as it is done you happy, then knowing someone else is doing should satisfy. Is that right? What do you need to be assured of this?
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rakeesh: You honestly think that comment was helpful to the discussion at hand? Even if you think Squick is wrong, doing the same thing (from your perspective) and then saying, "But I'm just doing what he's doing!" does nothing to help reconcile the two of them.
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
kat, In order for it to have an effect on the forum as a whole, it needs to be done on the forum. The observed conduct doesn't just have effect on the people involved, but also on the people watching. For example, because I dont' see anyone call you on it, I call you on it. Other people reda it and think that this is a forum where such behavior is acceptible.
I don't do private emails for things like this for this reason.
---
quote:I remember that. I'm sorry. It was not productive and I shouldn't have done it. My life was a mess and I was horribly depressed. I have apologized for this before.
It was also FOUR YEARS AGO! Dude, time to let it go.
You misunderstand my point in bringing this up. You, as you admitted, were doing this blatantly and for some time. During that time, no one ever said a thing to you. I don't really care about what you were doing. I didn't care at the time. But the fact that no one said anything was, to me, extremely telling about the members of the forum.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Noemon called me on it, Squicky. That's why I stopped. Maybe it is time for you to reasses.
There is no popularity contest. I am not running for office and you're the free press. There's just a large conversation among friends, and it is being disrupted. No one is being fooled because everything is in the open. No one is crowning me prom queen in part because no one would but mostly because there is no prom queen. There is nothing but the conversations, and this grudge from years ago is disrupting it.
What do you need in order to let this go?
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Did he? He didn't do this in any place where I could see it. And it's not like he's coming forward with it now to say "Hey, you know, Squicky's got a point." Whereas it seems like all the members of sakeriver are over here in masse attacking me.
---
What do you mean, what do I need? Have I been unclear at all?
quote:For pete's sake, kat. It's really not that hard. Don't act petty and nasty. If you don't, you won't have a problem with me. Or if you do, you can easily bring up this thread and I'll be extremely ashamed and disgraced.
I'm not the one keeping this alive. I'm just responding to what is being said. Have I been taking new opportunities to being up things unconnected to what peopel are challenging/accusing me of? I don't see it. Are you saying, as everyone sees to be sayng "You should back down while people keep making unsupported accusations at you."?
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
Boon
unregistered
posted
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: But the fact that no one said anything was, to me, extremely telling about the members of the forum.
So..umm...I choose not to get involved in these squabbles. Am I one of the "members of the forum" you're referring to?
IP: Logged |
posted
Squicky, privately contacting a friend to discuss his or her perceived misbehavior is widely seen as being not just acceptable but recommended. I can't imagine that your protest can change that.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Did it do so here? Because, as far as I could tell, there was a conversation continuing that I was also taking part in. And, from my recollection, this happens in a lot of the threads.
The thread has gone from being about Conservapedia to being about you and kat. So, yes, it did do so here.
quote:Also, if you want to throw accusations at me, could you back them up? That's what I've started out asking, and it apparently still hasn't sunk in.
Stating that I've agreed with you on some occasions and with kat on others is hardly "throwing accusations." Are you asking me to dig through the forum archives and come up with an instance where I thought you were rude? I don't have to look far: Dagonee's post on the last page (12:54 PM, about a third of the way down the page) is an example. I agree with his assessment of that string of quotes.
quote:I get that this is detrimental to the forum. I don't think that this is my fault or that the solution of I should back down is a fair one or one that is ultiamtely good for the forum either.
It doesn't matter whose fault it is, or that you think you simply dropping it would be unfair. What matters is that you're in a position to singlehandedly stop it, by simply doing nothing. I think that you stopping would be less detrimental to the forum than you continuing as you have done, regardless of kat's actions.
quote:If you see where I've called kat on things and agreed, why didn't you call her on them?
Because it was always obvious that it wouldn't help. To date, despite various people's efforts, no way has been found to defuse a spat between you and kat once it begins. This will be the last time I try; if it happens again, I'm just going to stop reading the thread.
Further, there have been times where you weren't involved when I thought kat or someone else was out of line. Sometimes I call the person on it, sometimes I don't. Sometimes I do it in public, sometimes in private. There are a lot of factors, ranging from the state of the discussion, to how tired I happen to be feeling. That goes for everyone whose posts I read.
quote:That would be my much preferred solution. Am I responsible for no one else ever calling her on things?
No. You're responsible for you calling her on things. It's also worth noting that, as you are not a moderator here, it would behoove you -- and any of us who would call someone else out for poor behaviour -- to use as light and infrequent a touch as possible. That's one of the reasons I call other people on stuff as rarely as I do: it is not, in point of fact, our place to do so.
quote:I don't think you get this.
I do, actually. No snark intended -- I really do get it. Also, on the whole, I like you and often agree with your posts on issues other than this one.
quote: I think kat has often been a very nasty, destructive poster. She has often been so directly to me, including a period of some months where she just followed me around posting insults not connected to the discussion at all. And yet no one says anything about this. She deletes posts and threads and people attack me when I say that she should have done that.
Yes, I get all of this. I think you don't get that I'm not attacking you. I'm saying that this is getting in the way of you contributing to this community and indeed in the way of this community discussing anything when the two of you are involved.
quote:I watched Leto do serious damage to this forum because you people let him and even stuck up for him. I see the same thing, to a lesser extent, giong on with kat.
I don't think Leto did serious damage to this forum. The only person who I would say has done damage to this forum that even begins to approach the level of "serious" is Cedrios.
I don't think any single poster has the kind of power over the community that you're attributing to kat, let alone to Leto. That's why I think you calling kat on perceived poor behaviour whenever you see it is, in the aggregate, a greater negative than letting it slide, even if you're right every time -- I don't think kat has the power you attribute to her, even if she's as destructive as you think she is.
quote:Whereas it seems like all the members of sakeriver are over here in masse attacking me.
I see at most two posters who could arguably be attacking you. The rest of the people involved in this discussion are trying to end it and prevent future reocurrances. Added: Your problem, I think, is that you interpret any criticism of your actions as an "attack."
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Can someone be the policeman of me? I need watching. I do.
You know, I really try. But there are only so many hours in the day. And now that you post outside of business hours . . . well, I think we're going to have to budget for an assistant for me.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
He did, at the time. You can tell, because I stopped.
Squicky, are you looking for an outpouring of public vindication of you and a unanimous condemnation of me? It's never, ever going to happen. That is never going to happen. People aren't like that and Hatrack isn't like that. BALDAR didn't get universal condemnation. You'll be waiting for forever, and you'll be miserable all the while.
It is not acceptable for you to appoint yourself as my personal monitor. Step down, kid. There are other people on the job. It isn't your job, four-year-old hurt notwithstanding.
Have you really been hurting about that for four years? I'm so sorry. I shouldn't have done it, and I apologize.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:To date, despite various people's efforts, no way has been found to defuse a spat between you and kat once it begins.
Aw, twink, ScottR and Noemone have both stopped me from comments on the forum, and other people have stopped with comments off.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
