There are no GreekChat rules

[Imthachamp]

Can somebody do a SparkNotes on decadence's post for me?

[bethany1982]

Greek Chat is just like life. When it comes to the rules, all people are created equal. Some, are just a little more equal than others.

[GeekyPenguin]

Originally posted by Cluey
Wow!

Kath, I just have to give you props for the most non-insulting attack ever.

She was just saying you are long-winded

Maybe that means something else on the other side of the pond???

And KSig RC: that was great! You should go into SparkNoting.

[kddani]

Originally posted by decadence
I presumed that was what she meant in her uncalled for attack, yes mu_agd.

ummmm...... yeah..... like you've never made an "attack" uncalled for. What was said was certainly less insulting than your last post in the Random thread:

Woooaaahh!!!! Who peed in your cheerios this morning!??! Or do you need a hot water bottle, some Midol, chocolate and a great big hwug

[decadence]

Sigh.

Originally said by KisgRCL: CHAPTER ONE: "the erudition"
Richard sucks up, by making the most salient point possible: there are, in fact, rules to the site! and they're even enforced!!! Never mind that this ignores the actual point; strawmanning has always been an effective way of throwing an argument.
Lost me a little. The actual point IS rules/bans etc. the thread title IS a sarcastic "There are no GreekChat rules". The 1st post IS about breaking of rules and bans. As my post said "... <Administrator quote> we don't even enforce some of the rules strictly since this is a site for adults which is taken into consideration", which I posted to explain my point not every rule must be enforced to the nth degree at all times to make for a happy community when it's mainly adults there.

CHAPTER TWO: "the sermon"
Richard proceeds to ask Rudey to keep the dirty laundry behind closed doors - which is exactly the opposite of how a mature community handles things
No KsigRC, a mature community brings it up at the appropriate opportunity and place. As opposed to a thinly veiled post in this thread, another post in the Random thread etc etc. It's been said by the GC admin staff (mods etc) that contacting them directly is most appropriate for this sorta thing. Even if it was brought up here though it could have been done without: describing specific people so we could all tell who the thread had been started about?

- and then accuses the vast majority of members of being hypocritical in their attacks on certain posters, using a tired cliche and setting the irony meter into the red zone.
No 'he' does not accuse the vast majority of members of anything. I used the word many to just state that no doubt lots of members at one point or another post stuff which could be technically against a rule. No doubt I do/have. I also used the word many as I was being vague since I didn't want to go listing names as I didn't want to single people out unkindly and unecessarily.

CHAPTER THREE: "the false prophet"
We then move into the "solutions that wouldn't really work" portion of the presentation. Here he discusses things that work at other sites, but doesn't apply them to the situation at hand (which, in Richard's defense, was never made clear for the masses).
Hmm, you have missed the point I was making there (another reason why such a supposed translation offends me - that & that it's a mildly hurtful thing to do). I was commenting on the WIDER point made by the thread that all the GC "staff" can do is ban a user - for that user to just re-register (referred to as churning in 1st post). There's all sorts of options for the site administrators and I was just pointing something out and suggesting that the first post was flawed in its suggestion "churning" was the only option; and that getting cocky would not do people any favors.

---
P.S GeekyPenguin, I got what you meant just fine first time .

[kddani]

how many times does it friggin' need to be said that the only person who can ban anyone is JOHN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!????????????!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Mods have no power such as that. Yeah, we can suggest it, but doesn't mean that he'll do it. Don't try to put the blame on the mods.

[Cluey]

decadence,

I mean this is the politest manner possible. Just because you have more words in your argument, does not mean that you are right.

Would you rather have people just ignore your replies or ask for a synopsis in order to reply to your argument?

[lovelyivy84]

It's also really, really true.

ETA: They are not incomprehensible, but just long winded and far from concise. You could say the same things with half the words.

Originally posted by decadence

But to post a message "Can somebody do a SparkNotes on decadence's post for me? " which suggests my postings = impenetrable without being "translated" is rude and personally insulting.

[GeekyPenguin]

Originally posted by kddani
how many times does it friggin' need to be said that the only person who can ban anyone is JOHN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!????????????!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Mods have no power such as that. Yeah, we can suggest it, but doesn't mean that he'll do it. Don't try to put the blame on the mods.

Amen! If I was allowed to ban people, we'd be missing most of the Republican sector of GC.

[lovelyivy84]

On topic of Rudey's original post, here's something you won't often hear me say:

He is ABSOLUTELY right. People who are banned just come back again and again and again. SO what is the point of the banning in the first place? The only thing that works is for them to be completely ignored, and that's not something that GCers seem to be any good at (yours truly included).

[decadence]

Kddanni: Originally posted by decadence
I presumed that was what she meant in her uncalled for attack, yes mu_agd. . ummmm...... yeah..... like you've never made an "attack" uncalled for.

Well it was offensive to me Kddanni to say what effectively amounts to while a person is standing there saying "uh yeah does anyone here speak english???? can anyone translate????". I found the implication that my communication skills were so entirely flawed as to require translating uncalled for, excuse me!

Quote 2: What was said was certainly less insulting than your last post [...this was a post responding to a foaming at the mouth post ...] in the Random thread:
Woooaaahh!!!! Who peed in your cheerios this morning!??! Or do you need a hot water bottle, some Midol, chocolate and a great big hwug

Well Kddanni, you've deleted the smiley's in this out of context quote so there's less chance of it being taken in the spirit it was meant, isn't there.

------------------------------
Cluey, I only gave my opinions. They're just that - might be right, might be wrong. "Would you rather have people just ignore your replies or ask for a synopsis in order to reply to your argument?" -see above for why I made the 'uncalled for' remark I did; as I said earlier I'm happy to try and clarify if someone asks. If it comes down to posts like the one I commented on of course reading something like that isn't nice, no.

[GeekyPenguin]

Actually Richard, I use SparkNotes when I am too lazy to read something long. For example, I would rather read the SparkNotes to Phaedo than Phaedo itself. My post was referring to the fact that your post was unnecessarily long-winded, and I wanted a synopsis.

[decadence]

lovelyivy84: It's also really, really true.
ETA: They are not incomprehensible, but just long winded and far from concise. You could say the same things with half the words.

I don't know if statements "the same things could be said with half the words" and "I could say the same things with half the words"... are both true . I do the best I can, inevitably I'm not going to be liked by everyone; that's life.

[Dionysus]

be nice yall

[Peaches-n-Cream]

What did I miss that inspired Rudey's post?

decadence, I won't speak for anyone else. In my opinion, your posts are just so long that I tend to skip over them including the one is this thread. Brevity is the soul of wit. Know it, learn it, live it.