Chêvouÿx

I nearly died from laughter. Edit: Also, we all know now where Cranks has been on the internet lately...

Congratulations to both! Although, is it just me, or are the Brits taking over the community?

Well, if you really want to...

Allow me to rewrite that passage without sarcasm: You say you have a life and can't read my messages? I've been working outside in the blazing humidity and was still able to read everything you've said. And you said I have no life.. hah.

I was doing yardwork. Working outside = busy = life. Sigh.

It's not a massive story on infractions. In fact, where did you get the idea that I linked my criticism to giving infractions? Have you been missing my entire point here? I explained earlier how my argument has developed and how Jake's infraction has something to do with subjective decisions. You need to read before you write, sir. Honestly though, if I wanted to start something, would it not have already boiled into something bigger than it is? Just like the "argument" between Soulkeeper and me earlier this month, these past few pages of this thread began as an open comment to Mick's own comments. It's not my fault that Mick's responses often consist of one-liners and image macros, while yours consist of the lack of reading what I've actually said. It's pretty poor practice to ignore the other party whilst having a disagreement. If you couldn't care less, why'd you reply in the first place? And as far as my "appeal to the higher administration" thread in February, the thread was silly. In retrospect, it was an emotional response that stemmed from the lacking of more maturity. People learn from their mistakes and move on. Obviously, you yourself can't move on. So I ask you again: if you couldn't care less about what I've said in this thread and think I'm a total twat, why did you reply in the first place? It's pretty fishy when people tell me I'm stupid, then turn around and start doing onto me what they criticize and complain about. In the name of Mick: http://www.motifake.com/image/demotivational-poster/0805/flaming-flamers-demotivational-poster-1211925547.jpg

Have you been doing yardwork in the blazing humidity today? No life.. hah. And when did I say that I don't care about the higher-ups having more work? Constructive criticism and observations aren't lack of the ability to sympathize or understand. Perhaps you should read what I have to say before pointing fingers where blame doesn't belong.

I'd ask you a question, but your current avatar does that job for me—and it shows the same expression that's currently on my face in reference to your aimbot skills.

My reply that has absolutely no hole in it whatsoever:

I haven't been talking about whether he spams all the time. The fact of the matter is that Jake posted something that was as useful as Mick's posts and got an infraction. No matter the importance of the infraction, it was done simply because Mick was being a douche rather than a responsible CA. Meaning, aren't CAs supposed to be mature and role-model how the higher-ups want this community to behave at least half of the time? But, y'know what, lemme do this in a easy-to-read format: --- Mick hands out infraction because he simply doesn't like Jake, which is disappointment #1 in how members who're ranked higher than SAs are technically supposed to be good role-models most of the time (according to what I've seen from the BDs' expectations). I make a response to Mick, saying that he is as much a retard as those he insults. The statement is the warrant for my claim to his hypocrisy. Mick replies to me and essentially says that no one in the community cares about my opinion. He also "pulls rank" on me, explaining how he knows better and that I'm clueless. Disappointment #2. I again reply. I note how he cares a lot about my replies because he keeps reply to me; I describe how his argument of his joining date holding more authority and better knowledge is flawed; I point out that the infraction was silly and for self-entertainment, not for a legitimate reason. Disappointment #3. Caution and Mick reply with posts that are clique-orientated and have no value in the conversation besides subtle trolling. Disappointment #4. You (Psyche) comment on my ability to play L4D2 and Alien Swarm and comment on how my stand on infractions (and, for that matter, Jake's infraction from Mick) is misplaced because infractions haven't ever been taken seriously. I replied to you (Psyche) and said it seemed ironic to me that SAs would be punished for giving out unjustified infractions whereas Mick never has been punished for the same action(s). I make another post that's in conjunction with the above point. This post links the previous argument in that it's hypocritical for SAs to be punished for "action A" while higher-ranked people aren't punished for the same action. You offer to stop the conversation, showing lack of interest while also telling me to relax. I continued the conversation. I made a statement about wanting an admission (which is explained in the post) from the higher-ups. This statement was in conjunction from #8 of this list: "#8" noted hypocrisy in treatment differences between CAs+ and those below. The request for the admission was in reference to the hypocrisy statement: if the higher-ups admit that they make decisions subjectively (thus breaking their past statements that things are almost always objective), then the clique that exists "up there" and that has immunity will finally be recognized publicly. --- The infraction was an example of how Mick is excused from his constant misbehavior. The fact that he's constantly excused is an example of how certain people within "the clique" get immunity and subjective treatment. The subjective treatment means biased and influenced decisions, which contradict previous statements by the higher-ups. If the higher-ups admit to the subjectivity, then it'll be publicly understood why misbehavior continues to thrives within the leadership positions of this community.

My pillow side has been on the cold side. But for a long time, I and many other have only asked for one thing: the admission that many decisions in this community are subjective and biased and greatly influenced by personal connections, and are not always objective in the slightest. Edit: Not only an admission from a higher-up, but it'd also be nice if people would stop saying things like "community decisions are almost always objective, fair, and straightforward".

Note that I've edited my earlier post. I do want to reiterate though: It's not the infractions that are my complaint. My complaint is the hypocrisy within a system that claims to be objective and fair.

Brilliant response, Mick. I implore that you do the same. --- Edit: I didn't know that I was crying or complaining. Pardon that text doesn't display emotion. Nonetheless, I do find it ironic that it's okay to hand out forum infractions without justification when Mick (or, for that matter, other CAs) does so, but when SAs or below do that, it's a big deal and is listed as "spamming infractions".

You obviously give a shit about what I write, otherwise you wouldn't bother to reply. I mean, if you didn't care, why would you feel the need to bash me? Joining date also has nothing to do with someone's authority or intelligence. After all, if it did, how did TCP join this community after you and still manage to obtain BD status whilst you yourself are still a CA? Moreover, there are several people in this community who joined before you who have significantly more intelligence than you. Example? The fact that none of the higher-ups have ever had your gall and poor punctuation skills to even post in this thread (let alone the many others) in order to insult other community members. And until a higher-up tells us otherwise, your infraction to Jake was done in entertainment for yourself and your clique, not for proper disciplinary reasons. If CAs aren't allowed to hand out punishment, then why are you? Are you some special case in the system that's allowed to do nearly anything you please? You, sir, are suffering a severe case of hubris.

Yeah, 'cause giving Jake an infraction for "spamming advertisements" when he said something as relevant (for this thread) as you is definitely not making you look like a retard. I mean, who's ever heard of CA's being able to discipline admins? Also, I again post this, though it's for you this time, Mick. --- I ask you the same question.

Richard Dawkins.

There are so many people around me who smoke (or have smoked) weed, especially my peers at school who don't do sports. I'm too much of a wuss to smoke weed because it's illegal, but if they legalize it, I'd probably smoke regularly just to loosen up when I'm stressed. I'd rather stay addicted to the high I get when running than a new addiction to marijuana, but that's also personal preference. If only people weren't so afraid of change...

Major dislike. I not only prefer the older version, but this newer view takes a good two seconds longer to load. Maybe my computer is super old and slow, but I want the old version back. :/