OOT WGA Threads

[.Alex.]

[ QUOTE ]
The rules pretty clearly state that if you don't understand them, DON'T START THREADS. I don't think there's anything particularly confusing about them, though. I doubt you read them thoroughly at any point, you probably just skimmed them AFTER your thread got locked. So this thread is pointless because we spent a good bit of time answering these questions in a clear set of instructions that you totally ignored. Furthermore, it's pointless because nobody even got banned, several threads on the subject continue to exist, and you clearly aren't going to be satisfied with any answer anyway.

[/ QUOTE ]
I may not have read this version until after my post, but I've certainly read several of the previous iterations in the two years I've been posting there. I'm fully aware of the linktarding rule and so on, but I thought I added enough for it to be good enough to stay. Apparently I was wrong. I don't know why you think I'm not satisfied. Even though you argue in the most insulting way possible, you got the point across. Remember, if someone had explained to me that the lack of content was the issue in the first place, there would have been no need for this thread.

[ QUOTE ]
Also for someone who is so up-in-arms about these threads and improving the forums, you don't seem to care too much about the strike. You haven't posted in the Lounge thread or in the new OOT one.

[/ QUOTE ]
I've read both of them and learned a lot. Since when do you need to post in every thread that you find useful.

See it's funny. Aside from maybe one line in the OP, I've been fair, rational, and given you every chance to explain yourself. You can't go a single post without making an unfounded accusation, a baseless judgment about my intent, or just taking a cheap shot at me. Yet I'm the bad guy.

[RunDownHouse]

.Alex.,

"Apparently I was wrong. I don't know why you think I'm not satisfied."

Maybe because you keep posting things like, "Waaaaaah, why did you lock my post?"

"Even though you argue in the most insulting way possible, you got the point across."

Maybe the OOT mods thought they didn't get the point across because you keep posting things like, "Waaaaaah, why did you lock my post?"

"Since when do you need to post in every thread that you find useful?" There's an appreciable difference between posting "in every thread you find useful," and not bothering to: educate yourself on a very common issue, and, having achieved such education, write an OP that can go somewhere. Your OP may as well have been a link to the IMDB page of "An Inconvenient Truth," and the title, "Is global warming for real?"

"Remember, if someone had explained to me that the lack of content was the issue in the first place, there would have been no need for this thread."

If you mean, "If the mods had been more communicative in the ban PM, there would have been no need for this thread," I'd probably agree. If you mean, "if someone had explained to me that the lack of content was the issue in the first place," well, I'm pretty sure it happened in the first eleven posts of this thread.

[NT!]

What RDH said.

Also,

"I may not have read this version until after my post..."

...so you made a bad post, complained that it got locked, then went back to look at the rules to justify your position. Guide to crappy ATF posting, chapter 1: Post-hoc OOT rules interpretation for crybabies.

[.Alex.]

[ QUOTE ]
"Apparently I was wrong. I don't know why you think I'm not satisfied."

Maybe because you keep posting things like, "Waaaaaah, why did you lock my post?"

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm not the only one who pointed out that the PMs plus the first half of the thread were full of contradictions and inconsistency. Now that that has gotten cleared up to an extent, I feel much better.

[ QUOTE ]
write an OP that can go somewhere. Your OP may as well have been a link to the IMDB page of "An Inconvenient Truth," and the title, "Is global warming for real?"

[/ QUOTE ]
That's a terrible analogy, and you know it. For one thing, global warming is a topic that has already been debated endlessly and is unlikely to lead to a productive conversation, while this is an new issue with constant breaking news and little existing analysis. You really don't think that thread would have lead to a good discussion?

[ QUOTE ]
What RDH said.

Also,

"I may not have read this version until after my post..."

...so you made a bad post, complained that it got locked, then went back to look at the rules to justify your position. Guide to crappy ATF posting, chapter 1: Post-hoc OOT rules interpretation for crybabies.

[/ QUOTE ]
Guide to crappy debating, chapter 1: Taking a sentence out of context and mischaracterizing it, while ignoring the actual points.

See I can do it too, but these kinds of tactics are what derail threads and waste everyone's time. To actually address your argument though, the OOT rules haven't really changed much over time, so I think my understanding is better than the majority of posters'. YOU went to the rules to justify your position. I just responded by saying that "no effort" isn't clear.

[NT!]

[ QUOTE ]
Guide to crappy debating, chapter 1: Taking a sentence out of context and mischaracterizing it, while ignoring the actual points.

[/ QUOTE ]

How is it 'taking it out of context' to point out that you didn't bother to read the rules until after you posted? You admitted this yourself. It's exactly the point of my post, you came here to bitch and moan about how the rules were enforced without even knowing the rules. Most of your posts in this thread reflect that.

[ QUOTE ]
See I can do it too, but these kinds of tactics are what derail threads and waste everyone's time. To actually address your argument though, the OOT rules haven't really changed much over time, so I think my understanding is better than the majority of posters'.

[/ QUOTE ]

lollllllllllllllll so in a thread where it has been pointed out repeatedly that you don't understand the rules, you are claiming that you understand them better than most OOT posters?

lollllllllllllllllllll

hold on

lollllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll llll

[XXXNoahXXX]

NT!,

to be fair, simply not understanding the rules of OOT doesn't rule out the possibility that he knows them better than most OOT posters.

[.Alex.]

[ QUOTE ]
How is it 'taking it out of context' to point out that you didn't bother to read the rules until after you posted? You admitted this yourself. It's exactly the point of my post, you came here to bitch and moan about how the rules were enforced without even knowing the rules. Most of your posts in this thread reflect that.

[/ QUOTE ]
I know the gist of the rules very well. If the semantics of the rules aren't clear and are important, then that should be corrected.

[ QUOTE ]
lollllllllllllllll so in a thread where it has been pointed out repeatedly that you don't understand the rules, you are claiming that you understand them better than most OOT posters?

[/ QUOTE ]
I bet that the majority of OOT posters would have allowed my thread to stay.