Quote:oracle Wrote:TheBigBasicQ Wrote:Oracle you suck at being an admin.
Is that right. Just because you can't get your way?.
There you go again. All I did was suggested. Do you consider that as trying to get ones way?
You wrote, as stated above, "Oracle you suck at being an admin". What is that suggesting? You suggested a larger size, and I said that that wasn't nessecary (though if you read what I wrote I never said that it wouldn't be changed, it was just MHO), and you, instead of trying to reason with me, told me that I "sucked". Think about it :roll:
Quote:TheBigBasicQ Wrote:oracle Wrote:TheBigBasicQ Wrote:Oracle you suck at being an admin.
Is that right. Just because you can't get your way?.
There you go again. All I did was suggested. Do you consider that as trying to get ones way?
You wrote, as stated above, "Oracle you suck at being an admin". What is that suggesting? You suggested a larger size, and I said that that wasn't nessecary (though if you read what I wrote I never said that it wouldn't be changed, it was just MHO), and you, instead of trying to reason with me, told me that I "sucked". Think about it :roll:
I have tried reasoning with you, Oracle. But I am sorry to say that you live in some kind of a dream world of your own so you cant understand my post. Let me just interpret it for you.
Quote:Nice, I like these rules =D. But you must add some tolerance in the avatar rules. For example the size shouldnt be 100x100 exactly. A little tolerance of say 10% should be allowed. A persons avatar shouldnt be disallowed or disapprove cuz its 101x101pix 
.
I wasnt asking for the avatar size to be increased. All I was asking was a little bit of flexibility. Is that hard to understand?
TBBQ: Its better to determine a set size than have a tolerance. Because someone has a 151px avatar then someone has a 161px avatar and it increases.(slippery slope). Although it isn't a major thing, its just easier to have a set size. Which is 150.
It's sad to see how fast a little disagreement can turn into a rather
hot argument...
...Whith the risk of being seen as a picky person considered I must say:...
...Please cool it down guys
And wildcard I have no problem with this rules but where lies the change?
Quote:And wildcard I have no problem with this rules but where lies the change?
There were only a few changes to the rules but nothing too major. These are now the official rules, but I don't see it effecting most people as 99% already post/behave like the rules set out.
Were these always the rules?
Personally, I find the "don't argue with the specific admin who warned you" rule kind of...wierd.
I find being forced by policy to go behind an admins back to complain to his peers sort of....sneaky and underhanded. It's the sort of thing I'd rather avoid at the best of times. I mean, right now I'm pming oracle about something. Am I arguing with him? Undoubedly. I disagree with him. It happens. Do I think that my complaint is important enough to bring others into our discussion? Not really. I know this isn't a democracy and all, but even kings listen to advice, and even gods listen to prayer. As a result, I'm talking with him. Removing this first step would be counterproductive, in my view, to conflict mediation, and would also tie up administrators with minor disgreements; something I don't think either users or admins really want.
You misunderstand the rules... I haven't warned you so your contact with me is most welcome, however if I got angry and warned you then if you talked back to me I may see that as arguing, see?
AKA if you don't like what oracle says, you just gotta accept that, swallow your pride, and accept the blatant slap in the face he's given you. :barf:
That rules doesn't mean you can't discuss the problem, but you may not get a decent response/result; if you don't you can go to another admin who can be more objective.
*reads between the lines*
So basically, admins are allowed to insult/berate/degrade the users? That's not very cool.
Going to another admin to solve the problems caused by the admin in question is pretty silly, I think. I think it'd be more appropriate if the admin in question would just be more civil and just in the first place, and not act like such a freakin' heavy. Honestly, it's not even necessary. However, since even the admins are human, they get upset from time to time too, and aren't going to ever be 100% unbiased, fair, and just. So, being able to involve another admin in these cases is at least a step in the right direction towards a better set of policies. WC, I sincerely hope you never turn into a tyrant, because under these policies, you could easily terminate a whole bunch of users' loyalties should your mind happen to slip and you do something catastrophic. Realize that with the way things run here now, it is very easy to upset the fragile balance, and with the way things are right now, the balance is already off and it's going to take some work to restore it. And restoring it isn't going to be as simple as just going around shutting people up, locking their threads after getting the last word stuffed in their face, or banning people who disagree with the admins. I'm glad you've opened these rules up to the opinions of the public, and hopefully you'll take the user input seriously because like I always say...the users are your forum. And that is just that. Period.
