@Senori: Does your statement boil down to anything other than "#First World Problems"? It seems to be a classic example of the "Children Are Starving In Africa so who cares about this?" fallacy.
Although you are kind of right, nothing changes without pressure.
@Staff: Any discussion on that whole ombudsman group thing? Not that I'm really sure we should be asking our leaders to be forming a group specifically designed to patrol and police our, you know, leaders, but you guys do seem pretty enlightened when it comes to accepting your faults.
We have a thread in the Mod Lounge called "Lessons to Learn, Things to Discuss", where we discuss recent suggestions from the Community, and our own (tied to these events). We have a few other threads as well, and one of them is about Moderator feedback from non-mods.
We have a thread in the Mod Lounge called "Lessons to Learn, Things to Discuss", where we discuss recent suggestions from the Community, and our own (tied to these events). We have a few other threads as well, and one of them is about Moderator feedback from non-mods.
I think that's a great idea, even if the thread title is a bit too Mr. Rogers for my liking. Hopefully it continues to be a productive avenue of respectful and diligent discourse.
@Senori: Does your statement boil down to anything other than "#First World Problems"? It seems to be a classic example of the "Children Are Starving In Africa so who cares about this?" fallacy.
This isn't an "appeal to worse problems"; I'm just questioning your priorities. There are things at stake on MTGS; if they are truly desperately important to you, by all means, spend your time arguing them without effect. But remember; the stakes are so minuscule compared to the fun you could be having doing most anything else.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Sing lustily and with good courage.
Be aware of singing as if you were half dead,
or half asleep:
but lift your voice with strength.
Be no more afraid of your voice now,
nor more ashamed of its being heard,
than when you sang the songs of Satan.
This isn't an "appeal to worse problems"; I'm just questioning your priorities. There are things at stake on MTGS; if they are truly desperately important to you, by all means, spend your time arguing them without effect. But remember; the stakes are so minuscule compared to the fun you could be having doing most anything else.
You are talking to a group of people deeply engaged in an internet community and culture. You may not understand it but a lot of people do care deeply. These forums represent fun to a lot of members.
You are talking to a group of people deeply engaged in an internet community and culture. You may not understand it but a lot of people do care deeply. These forums represent fun to a lot of members.
QFT. I spend more time on MTGS than playing the game itself. And sometimes reading the forum is more fun than playing.
If the store owner says that I can't trade in the premises, I'll just go outside. If he says that I can't trade within 10m of his premises, I'll go to 11 meters. If he says that he doesn't want to see me trading, I will put a basket over his head and continue trading.
Yes, he's a local legend. He's only known to take his clothes off before he goes into the Ladies' Lockerroom. Nobody knows what he does in there because he's invisible, but it's almost certainly tons of masturbating.
If you're going to write a goodbye thread, then say what you have to say, and be on your way. If you're leaving because you're tired of the drama on a site, then don't lurk your own goodbye thread, and create more drama.
The mods have apologized enough within the first five pages than they could ever need to. I don't even have to read more than the five pages I read, since this "goodbye thread" is 25+ pages long. Given the content of the first five pages, I'm assuming it's chock full of more whining and arguments.
It's quickly becoming clear what the true purpose of this thread was.
It's quickly becoming clear that people shouldn't comment without reading the whole thread.
Right. TC says that he's leaving, then proceeds to not leave, and spends the next five pages complaining about mods. Then I read the last page, and see that people are still arguing with each other. Am I to assume that the other 20-something pages are full of civil, thought-provoking discussion?
Anyway, I'm not nearly as invested in this thread as some of you are, so I'll be off now. If there was in fact a separate issue that came out of this thread, then perhaps it should be discussed elsewhere, instead of in a thinly-veiled rant thread where someone attempts to get the last word in before they go. Cheers.
I think I speak for many for the responce to your post is a formal "LOLWUT?"
Just cause another purpose was spawned doesn mean it isnt valid. Just cause you feel you dont want to read means Nothing of value is here doesnt mean it isnt. I think before you make anymore comments about any side you should sit down and read more. And if its TLDR then simple be on your way. There is more on the site then this thread.
You are talking to a group of people deeply engaged in an internet community and culture. You may not understand it but a lot of people do care deeply. These forums represent fun to a lot of members.
This is quite obvious, given that people here are more upset about this event, than the people in my town being upset about our actual school shooting 2 months ago. Seriously, if I came to work and everyone was acting like people did over this, I'd have to take a vacation week.
This is akin to picketing outside the school and insisting teachers & dean of students resign over the incident, and putting the parents on trial. Its their fault, right? They didn't handle it appropriately. They didn't do what they could to prevent the issue. They've lost their moral compass. Anyone involved should stand down immediately.
Take as many down with you as you can.
Perfect time to dump all grievances on the staff.
Perfect time to call out any staff members you don't like.
Put the character and morals of staff members on trial.
Use all previous events and incidents to support the witch hunt.
Post IM's and private messages to support the above cause.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
"Personal attacks" redirects here. For the Wikipedia policy, see Wikipedia:No personal attacks.
An ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"), short for argumentum ad hominem, is an attempt to negate the truth of a claim by pointing out a negative characteristic or belief of the person supporting it.[1] Ad hominem reasoning is normally described as a logical fallacy.[2][3][4]
We have a thread in the Mod Lounge called "Lessons to Learn, Things to Discuss", where we discuss recent suggestions from the Community, and our own (tied to these events). We have a few other threads as well, and one of them is about Moderator feedback from non-mods.
I've been pondering this point for a while (and thank you for your quick and helpful response), but I've yet to come up with a way to proceed. As I said before, it's questionable to have a leadership setting up its own leadership-watching committee, and as has been pointed out in this thread quite a few times it's also rather Wine in Front of Me: we simply have no way of knowing that suggestions are receiving their due account. The flip side seems likewise unsavory: a user-hosted ombudsman/watchman group runs an entire gamut of risks, ranging from clique-ish collusive behavior using its influence (or just brute-forcing) to run unpopular (at least to them) staff out of Dodge; to the members of that group being unfairly targetted by staff (pretty much the two polar opposite situations, there). Therefore it seems to me that compromise is in order: the idea that sticks in my head most readily is a voluntary invite-only area visible only to "members" and staff, similar to several areas already in place, but with the express purpose of providing insight into staff/user discussion, and with the agreement that conversation inside that are may be taken outside of that area for general user discussion in the case of issues big enough to warrant it, unlike other restricted-view areas of the site. Users willing to take on the extra work would not be restricted from joining for any reason, although I'd think after enough problems arose with a particular member they could be voted out or sumptin.
The only big problems with this solution that I can see are A) the member group has to be large enough to be self-sustaining, and B) as the whole idea would be to keep sundry drama from filling up public spaces, some users with valid complaints would be simply unaware that the place existed.
I've been pondering this point for a while (and thank you for your quick and helpful response), but I've yet to come up with a way to proceed. As I said before, it's questionable to have a leadership setting up its own leadership-watching committee, and as has been pointed out in this thread quite a few times it's also rather Wine in Front of Me: we simply have no way of knowing that suggestions are receiving their due account. The flip side seems likewise unsavory: a user-hosted ombudsman/watchman group runs an entire gamut of risks, ranging from clique-ish collusive behavior using its influence (or just brute-forcing) to run unpopular (at least to them) staff out of Dodge; to the members of that group being unfairly targetted by staff (pretty much the two polar opposite situations, there). Therefore it seems to me that compromise is in order: the idea that sticks in my head most readily is a voluntary invite-only area visible only to "members" and staff, similar to several areas already in place, but with the express purpose of providing insight into staff/user discussion, and with the agreement that conversation inside that are may be taken outside of that area for general user discussion in the case of issues big enough to warrant it, unlike other restricted-view areas of the site. Users willing to take on the extra work would not be restricted from joining for any reason, although I'd think after enough problems arose with a particular member they could be voted out or sumptin.
The only big problems with this solution that I can see are A) the member group has to be large enough to be self-sustaining, and B) as the whole idea would be to keep sundry drama from filling up public spaces, some users with valid complaints would be simply unaware that the place existed.
If the discussions within this restricted area can be brought to the forums as a whole, why can't the staff simply share them with the forum in the first place? In other words, what would be the benefit of this group/area compared to the current Community Issues setup where users can post their concerns publicly and staff can address them publicly?
If the discussions within this restricted area can be brought to the forums as a whole, why can't the staff simply share them with the forum in the first place? In other words, what would be the benefit of this group/area compared to the current Community Issues setup where users can post their concerns publicly and staff can address them publicly?
It creates a buffer.
The Rorshachs come to Moddy McStaffer, telling them that they need to work on X, Y, and Z. The buffer works here to protect Moddy McStaffer from having his/her name dragged through the mud in public, and preventing a domino accusation effect (where other people chime in relentlessly with their opinions further disgracing Moddy).
Then, when Moddy McStaffer decides that he is willing to change X and Y but not Z, the buffer here protects the Rorschachs: they are able to table the idea of changing Moddy's behavior Z without looking like they're allowing the staff to get the upper hand to the public. It's basically the same reasoning why employee reviews are held in private: it's personal stuff that doesn't need to be dragged in front of everyone, and it helps engender a free exchange of viewpoints.
The purpose of the transparency clause is, of course, simply to protect the various members of all classifications to be able to contest charges brought against them or whatever without having to seek permission first (also to prevent people who don't know any better from accidentally breaking a non-disclosure agreement). There's no real reason to keep it secret except most of what's being discussed simply isn't worth bringing to the public eye.. the juicy stuff would be the only things that would have to be.
It creates a buffer.
The Rorshachs come to Moddy McStaffer, telling them that they need to work on X, Y, and Z. The buffer works here to protect Moddy McStaffer from having his/her name dragged through the mud in public, and preventing a domino accusation effect (where other people chime in relentlessly with their opinions further disgracing Moddy).
Then, when Moddy McStaffer decides that he is willing to change X and Y but not Z, the buffer here protects the Rorschachs: they are able to table the idea of changing Moddy's behavior Z without looking like they're allowing the staff to get the upper hand to the public. It's basically the same reasoning why employee reviews are held in private: it's personal stuff that doesn't need to be dragged in front of everyone, and it helps engender a free exchange of viewpoints.
The purpose of the transparency clause is, of course, simply to protect the various members of all classifications to be able to contest charges brought against them or whatever without having to seek permission first (also to prevent people who don't know any better from accidentally breaking a non-disclosure agreement). There's no real reason to keep it secret except most of what's being discussed simply isn't worth bringing to the public eye.. the juicy stuff would be the only things that would have to be.
Maybe I'm just cynical or resistant to change, but this just seems to create an additional barrier between the users and the staff and further divide the user base. Under this system, if User Y has a problem, rather than going directly to the moderator as our system currently prescribes (via PM, or Staff Inbox, or Helpsesk), he instead goes through a panel of his peers who then channel his point to the staff. Or he joins the panel and raises the point himself. In either situation, I see no added benefit compared to the system we currently have in place. From my perspective, we have many channels that users can take advantage of to express their concerns. I believe we should focus more on encouraging use of these channels (many of which are underutilized, such as the Staff Inbox) rather than creating new ones.
Thanks for the lesson in Latin, professor. However, there are a few things that I'd like to point out to you.
First, "ad hominem, which is short for argumentum ad hominem, does not mean "the man". "The man" in Latin is "homo". (Which means "similar", roughly, in Greek, if my understanding is correct.) Instead, argumentum ad hominem should most directly and conveniently be translated as "an argument by way of the man". Which is quite different than "arguing the man".
I've taken two years of formal Latin classes. Et tu?
Second, part of what you said is correct. To wit:
A simplification on my part which Belgareth has helped to clarify. Congrats on your two years of formal Latin classes btw, I've taken none, but somehow I still know what "et tu" mean, and have apparently the same understanding of "argumentum ad hominem" as you do, speaking from a strictly translation based perspective. Since you appear throughout your post to be interested in my formal achievements in academia, you'll be excited to hear that I had 4 years of formal spanish training! Pero no te preocupes, yo prefiero hablar Ingles o latino, en lugar de espanol.
El Harkius.
s, perhaps, a better example, pointing out that a person is a known pathological liar and, therefore, a bad witness in a court of law, is not an argumentum ad hominem, despite the fact that you are arguing with respect to the source. The information involved is relevant in discrediting the argument, despite the fact that it only involves the person's characteristics. If, however, said witness is a prostitute, then saying that he/she is a known liar would be misleading, inaccurate, and fallacious.
Right, but you didn't give this example. Your example re: Hitler is actually argumentum ad hominem. This example is much more proper. I mean you obviously know what argumentum ad hominem is, but the example you gave of Hitler was incorrect dear sir.
Harkius
I have two years of formal logic training at the university level. I was a Moderator for the Debate section of this website. What are your logical credentials?
You'll have to define for me what you mean by "Two years of formal logic training at the university level". I only say this because you present this as if it's some grandiose accomplishment or field specific expertise, but I'm pretty sure I also have that so before I claim to be your equal on the terms of "formally trained in university level logic" I just would like a clarification.
Also, do we really need to get into how being mod of mtgs debate sub-forums isn't exactly something to flaunt as if it makes your logic any more sound?
Harkius
you're simply incorrect. Which is why I didn't say that. That's a layperson understanding of the fallacy, and it is inaccurate to the point of uselessness.
Right, that is a layperson simplification of the fallacy. It's really not that inaccurate. It's less inaccurate than your Hitler analogy, that's for sure. I noticed you trying to make a large criticism of the use of ad hom in this thread, and while I agree that the phrase was thrown around in improper context quite a bit, I felt it necessary to offer further clarity in lieu of your poor example. I don't mind phrasing myself in laymans terms considering not everyone on this website has "two years of formal logic training at the university level" like you do Celcus.
I'm going to ask everyone to get back on topic (which at this point is, I suppose, airing your grievances with the staff, and sharing your ideas on what we can do to improve), and not make it the ad hominem explanation thread. Additionally, I'd like you to keep the trolling to a minimum.
Maybe I'm just cynical or resistant to change, but this just seems to create an additional barrier between the users and the staff and further divide the user base. Under this system, if User Y has a problem, rather than going directly to the moderator as our system currently prescribes (via PM, or Staff Inbox, or Helpsesk), he instead goes through a panel of his peers who then channel his point to the staff. Or he joins the panel and raises the point himself. In either situation, I see no added benefit compared to the system we currently have in place. From my perspective, we have many channels that users can take advantage of to express their concerns. I believe we should focus more on encouraging use of these channels (many of which are underutilized, such as the Staff Inbox) rather than creating new ones.
The problem is, not all problems are best addressed that way. The perfect example is with attitudes; there have been a few rather high-profile examples (such as in this thread) of the userbase having a problem with a staffer's attitude and bringing it up in the helpdesk sets the staffer on defensive, while at the same time inviting dogpiling, neither of which are conducive to change. The Staff Inbox, while I admire it greatly, has the opposite problem: since it's basically an adjunct of the Staff Lounge it's subject to an air of secrecy.
I mean, don't get me wrong: I'm perfectly willing to accept that a Rorschach cave isn't the best answer to this problem, or even if there really is a problem to be addressed, I was mostly just trying to get the ball rolling because otherwise we were just going to apparently sit around and argue
A) Latin
B) Proper use of debate rhetoric
C) Whether this thread deserves to exist.
Can I ask why kpaca keeps saying Harkius? Wasn't he a member too?
He does it to troll Harkius, because Harkius is known for always typing his name at the end of every post he makes. Thus explaining the troll warning kpaca got.
I'll get back to this thread in a bit when I'm done with my botany class, as I definitely have some things to say that actually pertain to the topic at hand.
Its obvious that certain segments of the administration (and membership) wished Kijin to be demodded and just used this incident as an excuse to finally do it. It is abundantly clear that some of the staff of MTGS don't view each other as contemporaries or equals but as school yard rivals, kicking sand in each other's faces in a public forum rather than working things out in private.
The more I read these posts I was thining the same thing. They were building a case against him, and then use any excuse to remove him as a mod. Just my thoughts.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Although you are kind of right, nothing changes without pressure.
@Staff: Any discussion on that whole ombudsman group thing? Not that I'm really sure we should be asking our leaders to be forming a group specifically designed to patrol and police our, you know, leaders, but you guys do seem pretty enlightened when it comes to accepting your faults.
I think that's a great idea, even if the thread title is a bit too Mr. Rogers for my liking. Hopefully it continues to be a productive avenue of respectful and diligent discourse.
This isn't an "appeal to worse problems"; I'm just questioning your priorities. There are things at stake on MTGS; if they are truly desperately important to you, by all means, spend your time arguing them without effect. But remember; the stakes are so minuscule compared to the fun you could be having doing most anything else.
Be aware of singing as if you were half dead,
or half asleep:
but lift your voice with strength.
Be no more afraid of your voice now,
nor more ashamed of its being heard,
than when you sang the songs of Satan.
You are talking to a group of people deeply engaged in an internet community and culture. You may not understand it but a lot of people do care deeply. These forums represent fun to a lot of members.
QFT. I spend more time on MTGS than playing the game itself. And sometimes reading the forum is more fun than playing.
The mods have apologized enough within the first five pages than they could ever need to. I don't even have to read more than the five pages I read, since this "goodbye thread" is 25+ pages long. Given the content of the first five pages, I'm assuming it's chock full of more whining and arguments.
It's quickly becoming clear what the true purpose of this thread was.
What was the purpose of it?
Right. TC says that he's leaving, then proceeds to not leave, and spends the next five pages complaining about mods. Then I read the last page, and see that people are still arguing with each other. Am I to assume that the other 20-something pages are full of civil, thought-provoking discussion?
Anyway, I'm not nearly as invested in this thread as some of you are, so I'll be off now. If there was in fact a separate issue that came out of this thread, then perhaps it should be discussed elsewhere, instead of in a thinly-veiled rant thread where someone attempts to get the last word in before they go. Cheers.
Just cause another purpose was spawned doesn mean it isnt valid. Just cause you feel you dont want to read means Nothing of value is here doesnt mean it isnt. I think before you make anymore comments about any side you should sit down and read more. And if its TLDR then simple be on your way. There is more on the site then this thread.
This is quite obvious, given that people here are more upset about this event, than the people in my town being upset about our actual school shooting 2 months ago. Seriously, if I came to work and everyone was acting like people did over this, I'd have to take a vacation week.
This is akin to picketing outside the school and insisting teachers & dean of students resign over the incident, and putting the parents on trial. Its their fault, right? They didn't handle it appropriately. They didn't do what they could to prevent the issue. They've lost their moral compass. Anyone involved should stand down immediately.
Only that was real and actually happened.
Take as many down with you as you can.
Perfect time to dump all grievances on the staff.
Perfect time to call out any staff members you don't like.
Put the character and morals of staff members on trial.
Use all previous events and incidents to support the witch hunt.
Post IM's and private messages to support the above cause.
*sings* To the left to the left - Everything you own in a box to the left!
My Buying Thread
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
Attack the character, to refute the characters argument. Like saying, shes a crack ho, how can her testimony even be taken seriously.
(I used that example in reference to a murder trial here in Cleveland last year.)
My Buying Thread
I've been pondering this point for a while (and thank you for your quick and helpful response), but I've yet to come up with a way to proceed. As I said before, it's questionable to have a leadership setting up its own leadership-watching committee, and as has been pointed out in this thread quite a few times it's also rather Wine in Front of Me: we simply have no way of knowing that suggestions are receiving their due account. The flip side seems likewise unsavory: a user-hosted ombudsman/watchman group runs an entire gamut of risks, ranging from clique-ish collusive behavior using its influence (or just brute-forcing) to run unpopular (at least to them) staff out of Dodge; to the members of that group being unfairly targetted by staff (pretty much the two polar opposite situations, there). Therefore it seems to me that compromise is in order: the idea that sticks in my head most readily is a voluntary invite-only area visible only to "members" and staff, similar to several areas already in place, but with the express purpose of providing insight into staff/user discussion, and with the agreement that conversation inside that are may be taken outside of that area for general user discussion in the case of issues big enough to warrant it, unlike other restricted-view areas of the site. Users willing to take on the extra work would not be restricted from joining for any reason, although I'd think after enough problems arose with a particular member they could be voted out or sumptin.
The only big problems with this solution that I can see are A) the member group has to be large enough to be self-sustaining, and B) as the whole idea would be to keep sundry drama from filling up public spaces, some users with valid complaints would be simply unaware that the place existed.
If the discussions within this restricted area can be brought to the forums as a whole, why can't the staff simply share them with the forum in the first place? In other words, what would be the benefit of this group/area compared to the current Community Issues setup where users can post their concerns publicly and staff can address them publicly?
It creates a buffer.
The Rorshachs come to Moddy McStaffer, telling them that they need to work on X, Y, and Z. The buffer works here to protect Moddy McStaffer from having his/her name dragged through the mud in public, and preventing a domino accusation effect (where other people chime in relentlessly with their opinions further disgracing Moddy).
Then, when Moddy McStaffer decides that he is willing to change X and Y but not Z, the buffer here protects the Rorschachs: they are able to table the idea of changing Moddy's behavior Z without looking like they're allowing the staff to get the upper hand to the public. It's basically the same reasoning why employee reviews are held in private: it's personal stuff that doesn't need to be dragged in front of everyone, and it helps engender a free exchange of viewpoints.
The purpose of the transparency clause is, of course, simply to protect the various members of all classifications to be able to contest charges brought against them or whatever without having to seek permission first (also to prevent people who don't know any better from accidentally breaking a non-disclosure agreement). There's no real reason to keep it secret except most of what's being discussed simply isn't worth bringing to the public eye.. the juicy stuff would be the only things that would have to be.
Maybe I'm just cynical or resistant to change, but this just seems to create an additional barrier between the users and the staff and further divide the user base. Under this system, if User Y has a problem, rather than going directly to the moderator as our system currently prescribes (via PM, or Staff Inbox, or Helpsesk), he instead goes through a panel of his peers who then channel his point to the staff. Or he joins the panel and raises the point himself. In either situation, I see no added benefit compared to the system we currently have in place. From my perspective, we have many channels that users can take advantage of to express their concerns. I believe we should focus more on encouraging use of these channels (many of which are underutilized, such as the Staff Inbox) rather than creating new ones.
El Harkius.
Right, but you didn't give this example. Your example re: Hitler is actually argumentum ad hominem. This example is much more proper. I mean you obviously know what argumentum ad hominem is, but the example you gave of Hitler was incorrect dear sir.
Harkius
You'll have to define for me what you mean by "Two years of formal logic training at the university level". I only say this because you present this as if it's some grandiose accomplishment or field specific expertise, but I'm pretty sure I also have that so before I claim to be your equal on the terms of "formally trained in university level logic" I just would like a clarification.
Also, do we really need to get into how being mod of mtgs debate sub-forums isn't exactly something to flaunt as if it makes your logic any more sound?
Harkius
Right, that is a layperson simplification of the fallacy. It's really not that inaccurate. It's less inaccurate than your Hitler analogy, that's for sure. I noticed you trying to make a large criticism of the use of ad hom in this thread, and while I agree that the phrase was thrown around in improper context quite a bit, I felt it necessary to offer further clarity in lieu of your poor example. I don't mind phrasing myself in laymans terms considering not everyone on this website has "two years of formal logic training at the university level" like you do Celcus.
Harkius.
A simplification on my part which Belgareth has helped to clarify. Congrats on your two years of formal Latin classes btw, I've taken none, but somehow I still know what "et tu" mean, and have apparently the same understanding of "argumentum ad hominem" as you do, speaking from a strictly translation based perspective. Since you appear throughout your post to be interested in my formal achievements in academia, you'll be excited to hear that I had 4 years of formal spanish training! Pero no te preocupes, yo prefiero hablar Ingles o latino, en lugar de espanol.
Warning for trolling issued.
-Sene
Also, bye bye Kijin, will you still stay around?
The problem is, not all problems are best addressed that way. The perfect example is with attitudes; there have been a few rather high-profile examples (such as in this thread) of the userbase having a problem with a staffer's attitude and bringing it up in the helpdesk sets the staffer on defensive, while at the same time inviting dogpiling, neither of which are conducive to change. The Staff Inbox, while I admire it greatly, has the opposite problem: since it's basically an adjunct of the Staff Lounge it's subject to an air of secrecy.
I mean, don't get me wrong: I'm perfectly willing to accept that a Rorschach cave isn't the best answer to this problem, or even if there really is a problem to be addressed, I was mostly just trying to get the ball rolling because otherwise we were just going to apparently sit around and argue
A) Latin
B) Proper use of debate rhetoric
C) Whether this thread deserves to exist.
He does it to troll Harkius, because Harkius is known for always typing his name at the end of every post he makes. Thus explaining the troll warning kpaca got.
I'll get back to this thread in a bit when I'm done with my botany class, as I definitely have some things to say that actually pertain to the topic at hand.
Harkius posted in this thread.
I hope Kijin will stay on the site at least, his blog posts would be dearly missed.
Amazing sig by
GobboElysiumKCW,TFE,god_child,Harkius,DalkonCledwin,Arnnaria,Rianalnn, Gaea's Regent our sig main man!Join the EXODUS
The more I read these posts I was thining the same thing. They were building a case against him, and then use any excuse to remove him as a mod. Just my thoughts.