|
|
Post by Napoleon Bonaparte on Sept 28, 2016 9:46:37 GMT
but no group has any power except for the moderators  That's totally false. The pioneers have the power of seniority. We can say that we have been here the longest and thus are most qualified. It is simple!  well in that case saltin is the oldest AND the most powerful (as he made the site and is an admin) |
|
|
|
Post by Ivan Kolev on Sept 28, 2016 9:50:50 GMT
That's totally false. The pioneers have the power of seniority. We can say that we have been here the longest and thus are most qualified. It is simple! well in that case saltin is the oldest AND the most powerful (as he made the site and is an admin) That is correct, but that still means the rest of us pioneers are the most senior (Except kanue, as I believe he is also a pioneer) |
|
|
|
Post by Monty :D on Sept 28, 2016 14:17:40 GMT
but no group has any power except for the moderators That's totally false. The pioneers have the power of seniority. We can say that we have been here the longest and thus are most qualified. It is simple! Long live the Pioneer Master Race. |
|
|
|
Post by Napoleon Bonaparte on Sept 28, 2016 14:31:10 GMT
That's totally false. The pioneers have the power of seniority. We can say that we have been here the longest and thus are most qualified. It is simple! Long live the Pioneer Master Race. lol, moderator master race is best! |
|
|
|
Post by Desophaeus on Sept 28, 2016 14:52:19 GMT
well in that case saltin is the oldest AND the most powerful (as he made the site and is an admin) That is correct, but that still means the rest of us pioneers are the most senior (Except kanue, as I believe he is also a pioneer) Then those with the most "qualifications" who achieve the least in developing a measure of maturity is the biggest failure. Surely if someone spent so much time on this forum for so long, he would've learnt to mature at some point? I'm just saying that senority cuts both ways, not just qualifications alone but also disqualifications as well. |
|
|
|
Post by Napoleon Bonaparte on Sept 28, 2016 15:12:29 GMT
That is correct, but that still means the rest of us pioneers are the most senior (Except kanue, as I believe he is also a pioneer) Then those with the most "qualifications" who achieve the least in developing a measure of maturity is the biggest failure. Surely if someone spent so much time on this forum for so long, he would've learnt to mature at some point? I'm just saying that senority cuts both ways, not just qualifications alone but also disqualifications as well. okay people, let's all be chill and nice alright? |
|
|
|
Post by Jean-Luc Picard on Sept 28, 2016 16:36:42 GMT
I expected someone to get Salty, but I did not expect it to happen like this.
|
|
|
|
Post by Washington on Sept 28, 2016 16:53:52 GMT
I expected someone to get Salty, but I did not expect it to happen like this. neither did I |
|
|
|
Post by Mountbatten on Sept 28, 2016 16:57:51 GMT
I expected someone to get Salty, but I did not expect it to happen like this. Whos salty? |
|
|
|
Post by Desophaeus on Sept 28, 2016 16:58:49 GMT
Guys... guys... you're missing the point. It's more of "Really, people? If someone is 'more' qualified in being a mature member for so long, then surely the opposite has the equal relevancy?". I'm surprised nobody was thinking logically of that corollary. The basic point is, if one way of this thinking isn't true, then the prior said statement isn't true either on the other end of the spectrum. I would say both ends of this corollary is not true, simply put. I don't really agree with the idea of the level of his qualifications has to do with a member's duration on a forum. I would say it's more based on how the time spent on the forum should determine the qualifications of the member. While it's true that it's very possible for a long-standing member has plenty of contributions done during a very long duration (one could accomplish quite a lot in a whole year). And also... Trust tends to be granted toward members who has been around for a long time more easily than a member who just had joined very recently; this trust is really supposed to be a measure of the contributions themselves building up across a time period rather than the simple duration of the time itself. Anyhow, I'm sure after this explanation, things are all clear now and we probably were really saying this "Oh yeah, of course, it's the performance we really are talking about in here all along." But excuse me for being sarcastic and blunt in my tone, I don't need to apologize for thinking logically in here. My hands are clean on this one. (To anyone who happens to be offended, well lol) |
|
|
|
Post by Mountbatten on Sept 28, 2016 17:09:34 GMT
Guys... guys... you're missing the point. It's more of "Really, people? If someone is 'more' qualified in being a mature member for so long, then surely the opposite has the equal relevancy?". I'm surprised nobody was thinking logically of that corollary. The basic point is, if one way of this thinking isn't true, then the prior said statement isn't true either on the other end of the spectrum. I would say both ends of this corollary is not true, simply put. I don't really agree with the idea of the level of his qualifications has to do with a member's duration on a forum. I would say it's more based on how the time spent on the forum should determine the qualifications of the member. While it's true that it's very possible for a long-standing member has plenty of contributions done during a very long duration (one could accomplish quite a lot in a whole year). And also... Trust tends to be granted toward members who has been around for a long time more easily than a member who just had joined very recently; this trust is really supposed to be a measure of the contributions themselves building up across a time period rather than the simple duration of the time itself. Anyhow, I'm sure after this explanation, things are all clear now and we probably were really saying this "Oh yeah, of course, it's the performance we really are talking about in here all along." But excuse me for being sarcastic and blunt in my tone, I don't need to apologize for thinking logically in here. My hands are clean on this one. (To anyone who happens to be offended, well lol) I think a lot more than I say. To avoid conflict |
|
|
|
Post by Desophaeus on Sept 28, 2016 17:16:23 GMT
Guys... guys... you're missing the point. It's more of "Really, people? If someone is 'more' qualified in being a mature member for so long, then surely the opposite has the equal relevancy?". I'm surprised nobody was thinking logically of that corollary. The basic point is, if one way of this thinking isn't true, then the prior said statement isn't true either on the other end of the spectrum. I would say both ends of this corollary is not true, simply put. I don't really agree with the idea of the level of his qualifications has to do with a member's duration on a forum. I would say it's more based on how the time spent on the forum should determine the qualifications of the member. While it's true that it's very possible for a long-standing member has plenty of contributions done during a very long duration (one could accomplish quite a lot in a whole year). And also... Trust tends to be granted toward members who has been around for a long time more easily than a member who just had joined very recently; this trust is really supposed to be a measure of the contributions themselves building up across a time period rather than the simple duration of the time itself. Anyhow, I'm sure after this explanation, things are all clear now and we probably were really saying this "Oh yeah, of course, it's the performance we really are talking about in here all along." But excuse me for being sarcastic and blunt in my tone, I don't need to apologize for thinking logically in here. My hands are clean on this one. (To anyone who happens to be offended, well lol) I think a lot more than I say. To avoid conflict Understandable... This though... I had to get something off my chest on this topic. I've expressed sufficiently of how I felt about this at this point now. You're right about the general idea of keeping things to oneself, rather than to be aired out in the open. |
|
|
|
Post by Ivan Kolev on Sept 28, 2016 18:36:37 GMT
I think a lot more than I say. To avoid conflict Understandable... This though... I had to get something off my chest on this topic. I've expressed sufficiently of how I felt about this at this point now. You're right about the general idea of keeping things to oneself, rather than to be aired out in the open. Well, next time, you should not express your point in a way which can offend someone...which you did. Anyway, lets avoid further saltiness. I just want to say this. |
|
|
|
Post by Singlemalt on Oct 3, 2016 7:57:24 GMT
.org/image/zaa5j7qqn/]  [/url] |
|
|
|
Post by Napoleon Bonaparte on Oct 3, 2016 8:01:39 GMT
This is not the meme thread |
|
