Rules Team Rulings - 22-APR-2013

Ohlmann wrote:

echiang wrote:

So we can't give Pascal credit or blame for this decision unless it actually was his ultimate decision.

Why do anyone would care ?

Maybe I was being too subtle. This was indirectly referring to the issue of transparency on how the VEKN works and the process with which rulings/bans are decided (bottom up? top down? independent committee? etc.)

Ohlmann wrote:

Nobody should care what Johannes or anyone else were thinking ten year ago. There is way too little context to know if the situation were the same in what you give, and even if it was, he can change opinion in ten year. In other word, your post don't really say anything about the current rule change but make you look like a manipulative jerk.

To be honest, I am happy to know it's not you who have taken the decision, seeing as that a lot of time you exclusively use your time to portray yourselve as a self-centered jerk and the PDF you released were ... less than inspiring.

Thank you for your input Ohlmann. You are certainly entitled to your opinion, as am I.

You can actually thank James Coupe for reminding me about that old discussion. If it wasn't for his reference about LSJ explaining the reasoning behind the DU ban, I wouldn't have remembered it, let alone brought it up.

I'm glad we can agree on something. I am also happy that I did not make the decision and had nothing to do with it.

echiang wrote:

You can actually thank James Coupe for reminding me about that old discussion. If it wasn't for his reference about LSJ explaining the reasoning behind the DU ban, I wouldn't have remembered it, let alone brought it up.

I correct my statement : you look like a needlessly smug selfless jerk.

I have no idea who is James Coupe at all, and you're the first one who started to fling names, and in the apparent goal to fling mud to people ; there is litteraly no other value to your post.

I sometime wonder if you're not trying to troll the forum.

Ohlmann wrote:

echiang wrote:

You can actually thank James Coupe for reminding me about that old discussion. If it wasn't for his reference about LSJ explaining the reasoning behind the DU ban, I wouldn't have remembered it, let alone brought it up.

I correct my statement : you look like a needlessly smug selfless jerk.

I have no idea who is James Coupe at all, and you're the first one who started to fling names, and in the apparent goal to fling mud to people ; there is litteraly no other value to your post.

I sometime wonder if you're not trying to troll the forum.

James Coupe = jamesatzephyr

James is a renowned and well-respected UK player who is known for his mastery of VTES rules (which are probably on par with Pascal's).

His post:

jamesatzephyr wrote:

Which more or less flies in the face of "wouldn't it be helpful if LSJ explained his reasoning"? He explained his reasoning for seat-switchers at some considerable length, and there is no "tweak" that would address those.

was my impetus for searching the Usenet archives for historical parallels.

Echiang is still more reasonable than people like peter bakija (mentioned some obscure person, too, yay!).

Reyda wrote:

did I mention anything about being not polite, ffs ?)

Not directly, no, but you used the word "rant," which connotes impoliteness, among other things. It often involves swearing. "Ffs."

Reyda wrote:

you can not deny the fact that there is suddenly an avalanche of posts from echiang. That's the only thing I am pointing here.

First of all, he has over 1500 posts. It's not like he's brand new to the community. Secondly, he's probably posting because he cares about the issue in question and people continue to make points that he feels need to be addressed. Third, that's not at all the "only thing" you're pointing out here: you're insinuating that his reasons for posting ("ranting") involve ulterior motives ("foul play").

Reyda wrote:

It's hard to say anything in this forum without being labelled a troll, really.

Try saying things politely.

Reyda wrote:

Where did I say "Echiang is a barbarian who mutilates grandmothers everywhere " ??

You described his post as "foul play."

Reyda wrote:

I just pointed a simple, actual fact : he does not post often, but here he's on a special ranting mode since the change of rules.

1500 posts.

Reyda wrote:

A single, long, argumented post would have been sufficient. I can't understand the "I post 5 times in a row so my opinion is suddenly very important" move.
Excuse me but where is this an ad hominem argument ?.

In the part where your tone - which is actually pretty audible to me - is sarcastic and demeaning, implying that the person you're imitating is a narcissist, an idiot, or both.

Reyda wrote:

I have nothing about Echiang. I don't even know him ! Maybe he's the kindest, more adorable person in the world, and gives to charity (then we are all pleased and need more people like him.)
What I see is a rant, wich may look a bit like a deliberate attempt to pass Pascal as incompetent. And I didn't even mention that. I was just suprised and a bit annoyed by all the posts he generated in a few hours.

Your irritation came through very clearly.

I think you'd be hard pressed to find any point at which Eric has described Pascal as incompetent. Asking for clarification on process doesn't imply that the people following said process are incompetent.

Reyda wrote:

(As an aside: the aggressive environment that this kind of post generates is really starting to bother me. I don't see any need for it, and I wish it were more routinely condemned.)

It's the same thing for me, mind you.

I'm sorry if you feel persecuted, but the language that you're using and the way that you're writing your posts strikes me as unnecessarily aggressive.

Reyda wrote:

I am ok with bringing old posts, especially to illustrate the fact that everyone can change his mind about a card or a certain aspect of a game.

But these are nearly 10 year old posts, and at that time, we could not predict that the game would be better without seat switchers. Time made us realize LSJ was not wrong -we the ranting players where. So I guess Echiang's demonstration kind of backfires in a way ?

I think you're really misunderstanding things. To speak for myself: I am entirely agnostic on Lilith's Blessing. I do not care if it is banned, reworded, or left alone. I don't use it much, and I don't see it used where I play. I don't particularly care about the tournament scene. I do, however, care about the process according to which cards are banned. I actually care more about explanations regarding the reason for banning: I like to know the logic behind things. I think that demonstrating that logic (and the process that informs it) helps an organization's transparency, granting it legitimacy. From my reading, Eric is asking for the same thing - an explanation of the decision rather than a reversal of it - which makes his reference to older posts perfectly legitimate.

Reyda wrote:

And to be fully honest : he quoted some "key" people like Johannes to prove his thoughts, and that is not a clever move in my opinion. At that time Johannes was not supporting a game nor a community.

That's precisely the point.

Reyda wrote:

His opinions were only theirs and did not engage other players I think. Anyway, it lokked a bit suspicious and I have the right to see it this way.

I guess you do, but you certainly don't have the right to accuse people of "foul play" or "suspicious" behaviour without incredibly good cause. I'm going to call you out for it, because it contributes to an atmosphere of intolerance.

Reyda wrote:

Why always bring this kind of stuff on the table when I disagree with someone ?

One last time: because of the style of your disagreement.

Ohlmann wrote:

echiang wrote:

You can actually thank James Coupe for reminding me about that old discussion. If it wasn't for his reference about LSJ explaining the reasoning behind the DU ban, I wouldn't have remembered it, let alone brought it up.

I correct my statement : you look like a needlessly smug selfless jerk.

I have no idea who is James Coupe at all, and you're the first one who started to fling names, and in the apparent goal to fling mud to people ; there is litteraly no other value to your post.

I sometime wonder if you're not trying to troll the forum.

Trolls don't post calmly and they don't carefully explain their reasons. They also don't refrain from responding to obvious provocation, like someone calling them "a needlessly smug selfless jerk," because trolls are interested in creating drama. I don't know a lot of trolls who are interested in the internal politics of volunteer organizations.