User:Relyk/sandbox/forsrs

You can fucking talk about the actually topic instead of bitching about ArenaNet. Ridiculous stuff like "I disagree with you so I won't listen to your issues" on a wiki. Making sure to fill this with all the fucks I give. This isn't siding with Ishmael, I already had my own problem with what Claret was posting, I didn't bother bringing it up until Ishmael made a deal out of it. Last couple posts from Auron and Armond, who obviously know what the fuck is going on. I love Claret, but the wiki is the wrong place for taking a last stand against the powers that be.

Auron

I hate to have to remind other users to stop their witch hunts. Polite dissent is fine; I'd go so far as to say it's encouraged. It's kind of how wikis work. Claret's messages weren't spammed, weren't vandalism, and it certainly wasn't in bad faith. Every user is entitled to have their own view, and is equally entitled not to be needlessly harassed about it on their talk page. Claret's views are obviously not those the majority hold, and calling a developer out on their failures is accusatory. And that's fine. We aren't the accusatory-comments-police. We aren't the stamp-out-any-negative-opinion-of-ANet police. Our job is to maintain and protect the wiki project - that is the goal above all else. Now ask yourselves - is pestering Claret maintaining the wiki project? Are you doing some really beneficial shit here, making mountains out of molehills and trying to bully a user into not speaking their mind just because the message might be "accusative?" Is this really a benefit to the wiki project? -Auron 15:17, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

---

"I hate to have to remind other users to stop their witch hunts"

When did this become a fucking witch hunt? Ishmael points out to Claret she sounds accusatory on the topic of events that never trigger. She's posted such on various talk pages, not just a single user talk page. And the user talk page was discussing events, so don't get me fucking started about user talk pages not being a damn forum where you can say whatever you want without having to listen to anyone else on the site.

"It's kind of how wikis work. Claret's messages weren't spammed, weren't vandalism, and it certainly wasn't in bad faith. Every user is entitled to have their own view, and is equally entitled not to be needlessly harassed about it on their talk page."

Good to know, too bad you call it a witch hunt when one user suggests that another user they don't need to spend every moment they get to complain about ArenaNet designing horrible events are along the lines thereof.

"Claret's views are obviously not those the majority hold, and calling a developer out on their failures is accusatory."

What fucking majority? No one on the fucking site disagreed with her when she brought it up. In fact, some people agreed with her in discussion. That's a fucking red herring. You don't take that and go "Now ask yourselves - is pestering Claret maintaining the wiki project"; what the fuck does that have to do with any of the conversation? Ishmael was pestering Claret (You're allowed to pester users) about bringing up the topic even after ArenaNet has responded and bitching about serves no purpose in any discussion anymore. Also, let's "mountains out of molehills" and completely blow out of proportion what Ishmael stated by saying he is "trying to bully a user into not speaking their mind just because the message might be "accusative?"" because that was not the fucking issue at all. That's simply repeating what Claret was doing and complaining about the wiki when it has no fucking relevance to what's being discussed.

It became a "fucking" witch hunt when multiple users posted multiple times on a single user's talk page in an attempt to bully that user into not speaking their mind. Again, I'll reiterate; the user in question was not disruptive, was not vandalizing, and posted criticism in good faith. Telling that user to stop or to tone it down is completely unacceptable. There is no other way to put it. It's not your job to censor other users' valid and tasteful criticism. You had no reason at all to be posting on her talk page, and especially not to tell her not to post anything slightly accusatory of ArenaNet. When you did it anyway, it became a "witch hunt." Nobody was enforcing policy; nobody was helping the wiki project. You were simply singling out another user and harassing them in the hopes that they'd stop posting comments you didn't like. That has never been acceptable on a wiki, and I am frankly disgusted that not only did you and Ishmael do it, you're now trying to defend it. Absolutely disgusting.

"don't get me fucking started about user talk pages not being a damn forum where you can say whatever you want without having to listen to anyone else on the site"

I hate to be the guy using logic here, but uh... that's precisely the idea you're violating here. That user was posting on a more or less public wiki page - less public than mainspace pages obviously, but still "public" due to the nature of the wiki. And guess what you're trying to do? Get her to stop posting because you disagree with her message. I don't care that it's a public or private "forum" or any of that shit; I merely have a problem with your behavior, Ishmael's behavior, and your detestable defense of your bullying. Swearing a lot isn't going to strengthen your argument, oddly enough - you still bullied another user and that's still not okay. Trying to invent arguments I haven't made doesn't work, either; it's called a strawman.

"too bad you call it a witch hunt when one user suggests that another user they don't need to spend every moment they get to complain about ArenaNet designing horrible events are along the lines thereof."

Except it wasn't one user, and it wasn't merely a suggestion; it was repeated harassment that held no benefit to the wiki project as a whole. Claret has made hundreds, if not thousands of edits so far. How many have been slighting ArenaNet? 10? 5? Less? Get a grip; that doesn't warrant a multi-user wall of text "suggestion" to stop opining about ArenaNet.

"What fucking majority?"

Uh, the majority of Guild Wars 2 players. Maybe you aren't aware, but I've been a vocal dissident of Guild Wars 2 since years before it came out - I can tell you first-hand that the majority not only don't agree with vocal dissent, but actively try to silence it through various means simply because they don't agree with it. It happened on GWW; it happened on forums; and I'm seeing the beginnings of it here.

"That's a fucking red herring."

Erm... in an argument about censorship it's completely relevant. You can't pretend the wiki exists in a bubble - obvious anti-ANet censorship trends are precisely the crux of this issue.

"what the fuck does that have to do with any of the conversation?" (re: maintaining the wiki project)

That has everything to do with this conversation. When you are bullying a user to stop speaking their mind, you damn well better be doing it for the betterment of the wiki; if you are not, you are simply bullying the user, which equates to nothing more than wiki disruption. That's been a bannable offense for years now.

"Ishmael was pestering Claret (You're allowed to pester users)"

Ishmael is a sysop of this wiki. When he goes to a user's page to tell them to stop doing _____, his word carries weight because of his position, even if he's not explicitly issuing a sysop warning. So Ishmael "pestering" a user, not for the benefit of the wiki but as part of a personal issue he has, is far less okay than an average user doing it. If he had just brought up his suggestion to the user and left it at that, it would have been fine; it wouldn't have been a witch hunt. But his continued posting, plus your continued posting, well after the section had lost its value as a "suggestion" put a really sour taste in my mouth. When you do that kind of stuff and it isn't for the benefit of the wiki, all it's doing is harming the wiki and its users, and that is Not Okay™.

"even after ArenaNet has responded and bitching about serves no purpose in any discussion anymore."

I hate to bash your starry-eyed idealism, but companies aren't perfect. You know the best way to get them to fix something that's broken? KEEP BRINGING IT UP. Being vocal about it and bitching about it is often the only way to effect change, especially in an MMO dev or any other huge company. Look at Microsoft and their recent Xbone reveal. They had a lot of anti-consumer policies in place, and people hated it. You know what they did? They bitched about it. Loudly. For a week. Without letting up. You know what happened? Microsoft (Microsoft!) reversed their policies and removed the used game restriction and the online-connection DRM. Do you know what would have happened if users brought it up one time and then didn't mention it again? ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. Microsoft would have released the Xbone with all its anti-consumer devices in place. Trying to pretend that not mentioning something that's still broken has no effect is not only provably wrong, it's insulting to the intelligence of anyone that's ever interacted with a MMO dev before.

"Also, let's "mountains out of molehills" and completely blow out of proportion what Ishmael stated"

Nobody has made mountains out of molehills except you guys. Ishmael started the section fine. At that point, the "issue" was a molehill. After continued posting and harassment with no purpose or benefit, you and Ishmael escalated the issue into a mountain. You did all that work for me; I'm merely pointing out what you did.

"by saying he is "trying to bully a user into not speaking their mind just because the message might be "accusative?"" because that was not the fucking issue at all."

That's precisely what the issue is. If he had left it off at a suggestion, it would not have been an issue; his continued harassment and your additions to that mess are where the problem lies.

"That's simply repeating what Claret was doing and complaining about the wiki when it has no fucking relevance to what's being discussed."

Again, wrong. A case of multi-user harassment on a wiki talk page is always relevant to the wiki. It's my job as a sysop to police users; and what you both did to Claret is unacceptable. It went far beyond a "suggestion," and as I have said multiple times, that is what I have a problem with. You both were bullying her to silence her opinions, and doing so out of a personal disagreement with what she was posting.

That is not okay on this wiki. That is not acceptable behavior. Bullying another user to scare her into not posting is wiki disruption, and if it happens again I will take sysop action to rectify the situation. -Auron 03:34, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Auron, you have taken this whole thing so completely out of proportion and context that it's not even worth reading or replying to what you wrote, because it wouldn't be address the original issue at all. Just take a look back at the alleged "witch hunt" - who were the ones that posted walls of text? It certainly wasn't Relyk or myself. —Dr Ishmael 03:54, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Corner. Ten minutes. Both of you. Now. -- Armond Warblade 04:25, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Again, Ishmael, because you're obviously too dense to appreciate it the first or second times. You made an accusation of being "accusative". I replied in a line or so. Relyk jumped in with the implication that I criticised ANet frequently. It takes time and logic to refute damn fools and you and Relyk are acting like the same. If you can't admit that you had no business saying what you did, then you have a serious problem. I WILL NOT be bullied by the likes of you. I have had experts try and fail, quite frankly you're a rank amateur. I gave you the opportunity to drop this matter more than once but no, your precious egos just couldn't let it drop.

Here we go. You are lying, Relyk is lying. Relyk: "Claret has been complaining about it in almost every post." A damn lie. Ishmael: "It may be opinion, but when you repeat it every chance you get, it becomes accusatory". Another damn lie. Where is this list of my criticisms of ANet? If it's "almost every post" and "every chance you get" then you should have no problem producing such a list. Last time I grumbled about something not being documented, a list appeared within minutes. For hours I have been saying, show me a list. There is none. You're wrong and you don't have the sense or good grace to admit it.

What do you want from me, to work like a busy little peon documenting stuff but never voicing an opinion that you don't like? Should I roll over and grovelingly apologise whenever you and your crew doesn't like something? Should I accept all your criticism with thanks and an increased sense of humility? Yeah, sure. This isn't your wiki. It's mine too. Just because you are a valuable member does not give you the duty or right to try to pressure people to your way of thinking in non-wiki matters. And, again, as it seems a difficult concept to get through to the bunch of you, criticism of ANet, unless it's disruptive, is not a wiki relevant matter. Next time you feel the inclination to make a gratuitous comment regarding me, take a deep breath and ask yourself what your motive is. --Claret (talk) 04:32, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

@Ish: "the other person kept posting, so obviously I had to keep posting to last word her!" Sorry that doesn't fly with me. She's new and persistent (and because of this, I posted a warning about it on her talk page); if either party was going to be the better person and simply drop it, it should have been the sysop with years of wiki experience. Her not dropping it is not an excuse to keep bullying, and never has been. She's obviously not going to drop it; she's being told she can't post her opinion on public pages because it might offend reality or something. She's not violating policies or causing any serious issues. Once it became apparent neither party was making progress, both parties should have dropped it. Instead both parties continued to one-up the other for no reason other than to extend an already long-dead discussion. Both parties have been warned about it. -Auron 04:42, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Claret

I grew up as a female MD in the days when we were less than 15% of the new graduates. I wanted a career in hospital medicine. If I had given an inch (or centimetre) when someone confronted me then I would never have got (gotten to Americans) where I am today. I avoid confrontation until it's inevitable. But when I feel unjustly accused of something by a cabal of ANet apologists then, by God, I'm going to react. Being unpopular by standing up for yourself against the mass is not being confrontational. Being confrontational is looking for trouble. It's hypocritical to confront someone and then accuse them of being confrontational.

(1) Guild Wars 2 is software.

(2) all software ships with bugs - every single bit

(3) observably all MMO developers seem to spend little time fixing boring stuff, like minor bugs, spelling and grammar eg the Text error pages.

(4) there is a perfectly acceptable explanation from ANet that some of the seemingly bugged events are not bugged but population dependant and that they will - sometime - retune these. Bit late IMHO.

(5) there are multiple bugged events that are patently obviously NOT population dependant. Any list would be long.

(6) There's a easy solution for ANet, publish a list of "population dependent" events. It's easy - really - information stops speculation.

(7) Publish a list of "known bugged" events. Again, it's easy, again, information stops speculation.

As for the people who feel so inclined to confront me. I refer you to [[1]], particularly the line regarding Ad hominem arguments.

If I am having a conversation with someone on their user talk page then that conversation is between us. If someone wants to interject, fine. But otherwise it's crassly stupid to take a comment out of context and to start throwing accusations around. And then act "Oh, my, aren't you being unreasonable" when the person answers your criticism.

If it is contextually useful, in my opinion not yours, to make negative statements about ANet then I will continue to do so. As I wrote before, if you don't like it, tough. --Claret (talk) 15:57, 5 July 2013 (UTC)--Claret (talk) 15:54, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

"I grew up as a female MD in the days when we were less than 15% of the new graduates. I wanted a career in hospital medicine. If I had given an inch (or centimetre) when someone confronted me then I would never have got (gotten to Americans) where I am today. I avoid confrontation until it's inevitable. But when I feel unjustly accused of something by a cabal of ANet apologists then, by God, I'm going to react. Being unpopular by standing up for yourself against the mass is not being confrontational."

What the fuck is with ArenaNet apologists? No one is fucking defending ArenaNet that they shouldn't be fucking criticize ArenaNet for anything. No one said any fucking time Claret posted about ArenaNet not fixing bugs she should shut up about it because they are fixing the problem and therefore can't mention it. No, not until Ishmael points out that "accusatory" tone (Have to quote this for emphasis like Auron) isn't needed that it suddenly makes everyone a fucking apologist (I had to look the damn word up).

"Being unpopular by standing up for yourself against the mass is not being confrontational. Being confrontational is looking for trouble. It's hypocritical to confront someone and then accuse them of being confrontational."

First of all, there's no mass of Anet apologists. They're all on the official forums. Of course being confrontational invites trouble, the world is full of fucking drama of people confronting each other. The difference is you can confront someone without being confrontational. I have no problem if people are, but it obviously upsets people like Claret more, which Ishmael apologizes for (sort of out of context). The wiki isn't a school in hospital medicine and you aren't a female MD, we can confront each other if we have misgivings calling it a "witch hunt" by a "cabal of Anet apologists" (that fucking word).

"As for the people who feel so inclined to confront me. I refer you to [[1]], particularly the line regarding Ad hominem arguments."

No one called you a "fucking whore" or "dipshit retard who bitches about nonsense" attacking you or your character, No Personal Attacks wasn't relevant to any of the posts. Maybe you believe you are being attacked, which is being completely melodramatic about it and whoever gets the impression you are needs to getting a fucking dose of life.

Armond

Well said, Claret. I would like to remind people that, for certain issues, if questions aren't asked, answers are never found. ANet would love it if everyone ignored their bugs and design problems - I haven't played in a while, but from what I can tell, elementalists are still bad to the point of being unplayed except by someone who shares my love of the class - so if these things are to be fixed, they need to be discussed. On the flip side of things, that doesn't mean a disproportionate amount of discussions should be about the bugs and flaws of GW2 - this is a documentation wiki, not a bugs and balance wiki, after all. I don't think that's what Claret's been doing, though.-- Armond Warblade 16:27, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

"Well said, Claret. I would like to remind people that, for certain issues, if questions aren't asked, answers are never found." Start of with agreeing with Claret before making any points, good work. Then let's make an entire ambiguous statement people could interpret any way they want. For certain issues (My balls being blue), if questions aren't asked (Why the fuck are they blue), answers are never found (Why fuck didn't I go to the doctor? Now I have no balls).

"On the flip side of things, that doesn't mean a disproportionate amount of discussions should be about the bugs and flaws of GW2 - this is a documentation wiki, not a bugs and balance wiki, after all. I don't think that's what Claret's been doing, though."

She's not discussing the "bugs and flaws of GW2", which we cover just fine by simply pointing them out on the talk page and leaving a bug note on the article. She's bringing up bugs or issues (Which I am so fucking grateful for), then complaining about how ArenaNet hasn't fixed them yet. The "how ArenaNet hasn't fixed them yet" is completely irrelevant to anything related to the articles or discussion. You can have an agenda and keep it out of fucking discussion, it makes it easier to discuss things with bringing up how much you don't like something. I don't mention how much a fucking hate Gem Store formatting when I add an item or how fucking retarded objects are designed when I respond to pages about certain objects or the object infobox. I thought Ishmael asking Claret to avoid an accusatory tone was way fucking better then me asking her to shut up about it so we can spend time discussing wiki-related topics before I go over to Reddit and read about people complaining about shit.

lol, my balls are only blue cos I haven't gotten out in 3.5ish years -- Armond Warblade 20:53, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

You and me both--Relyk ~ talk < 21:03, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

← moved to User talk:Claret