User talk:Raine Valen/Archive 31.5

Ban
I was going to post a more substantial comment, but then I realized that "Don't be a dick" really sums up everything I would have said quite nicely (and concisely). &mdash; Defiant Elements   +talk  02:56, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Snap, 12 hours. I /afk the wiki for days at a time now (a behavior I'm sure many people like). I'll be on MSN Raine. ~Shard  [[Image:User Shard Sig Icon.png]] 03:00, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * And who, pray tell, do you feel that I've dicked upon? &mdash;  Raine Valen  [[Image:User_Raine_R.gif|19px]]  14:44, 9 Mar 2011 (UTC)
 * /bet ct all. →[ » Halogod User Halogod35 Sig.png  (talk)« ]← 14:46, 9 Mar 2011 (UTC)
 * Kinda thinking that it might have something to do with the sarcastic rant on John Stumme's page that was somewhat ill received, and the subsequent run in with Zeesber? That's my best guess at the moment, so who really knows? --Lania  [[Image:User Lania Elderfire pinkribbon.jpg]]21:25, 09 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I thought that it might be the post on John's page, except that, given the quite obvious sarcasm, everything I said was completely in agreement with him, as per his userpage – if it recently became possible to be a dick to someone by agreeing with them, I do wish that someone would have informed me of the change. I strongly doubt that this is the case, though.
 * Given the above, I, too, was left with the impression that it might have been the ordeal with Zes. I subsequently recalled a certain edit in which he explicitly stated that he was trolling, so that, too, seemed unfitting – if "being a dick" has come to mean "not banning a user for a bannable offense", again, I do wish that I had been informed.
 * As such, I'm left with the impression that there is something that I must have missed, because there are some glaring inconsistencies, from my perspective. &mdash;  Raine Valen  [[Image:User_Raine_R.gif|19px]]  21:38, 9 Mar 2011 (UTC)
 * Honestly, there are many ways to be a dick, and seeming to be nice can be one of them. In this case it was your post using a dev's talk page just to rip on some users. My semi-tacit approval was partially due to contemplating doing what DE did, but not quite getting around to it. --JonTheMon 21:51, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * So... let me get this straight.
 * You're saying that using a dev's talk page to paraphrase what said dev wrote on his own userpage is a bannable offense because I've indirectly personally attacked a group of people individually based on who they are, rather than attacking and debasing their arguments?
 * Have I got the gist of it, Jon? &mdash;  Raine Valen  [[Image:User_Raine_R.gif|19px]]  21:58, 9 Mar 2011 (UTC)
 * Raine, if you don't see why the comment itself was inappropriate, I'm not going to be able to quickly explain it to you. Also, it was you using John's talk page as a platform that was the issue; John can say what he wants, but putting such a questionable comment in such a place is the issue. --JonTheMon 22:09, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Jon, I think I've made it very clear that I do not agree with your assessment of that comment as "inappropriate" and, frankly, you haven't given a single reason (period – let alone valid) why, yet. If you'd like to restate your argument so that I may gain a proper understanding of your reasoning, it would be much appreciated.
 * Where, pray tell, should I directly respond to an edit that another user has made in their userspace, save the associated discussion page? Where do we make comments about things that directly pertain to a certain user (like, you know, this section), save the user-in-question's talk page?  I can't think of a more appropriate place; can you?
 * Was the comment "questionable", then? That seems odd, to me, because I didn't know that we outright banned and censored people over "questionable" edits without asking any questions.  Perhaps you meant to say something else, instead?  &mdash;  Raine Valen  [[Image:User_Raine_R.gif|19px]]  22:20, 9 Mar 2011 (UTC)
 * Come on, you're saying you didn't know that John's talk page has been a magnet of activity that we've been trying to monitor and keep down? Then you post something that in its tone and sarcasm is highly likely to cause more responses? Clearly I've been giving you too much credit. As to the post itself, Lania above summarizes it pretty well  'I think that sarcastic post not only read as a hostile act against all who disagree with Anet and their great update, but also an attempted negative characterization of anyone who thinks that "selling ingame advantage" is bad and horrible'  So, posting something like that in a highly visible area that has been under additional scrutiny get you this situation. --JonTheMon 22:29, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Do you mean to tell me that John's talkpage is, because of its popularity, no longer John's talkpage? Are you really saying that right now?
 * I've honestly grown tired of trying to get you to say something true or relevant, so I will put this bluntly: your arguments, thus far, have been full of shit. The reason you're bent out of shape is because my post was not kind.  Every other characteristic of my post has been allowed or embraced without issue – length, number of replies, relation to the contributor, and anything else you might classify it by.  But unkindness?  That's always been met with hostility (which, by the way, I find hilariously ironic).
 * I didn't break any policy by it's letter and you damn well know that, which is why you're evading every question; I've violated what you feel to be the spirit of GWW:NPA.
 * Well, Jon, the spirit of GWW:NPA is a very interesting topic, and I'll be glad to argue it with you. I'll even start!  GWW:NPA doesn't exist to stop people's feelings from getting hurt.  It exists because wikis run on consensus based on arguments, and, without GWW:NPA, derailing the arguments on which this entire wiki is based becomes easy: you call someone a "jew" or "fag" and, four times out of five, they drop their argument and flame you back; this dropping of arguments harms the process of garnering consensus, so GWW:NPA was born to prevent it.
 * GWW:NPA was NOT born to keep people's feelings from being hurt. People are sometimes wrong and they like to always be right, so feelings will be hurt when people's arguments are shot down based on the merits of those arguments – a post that tears apart people's arguments is going to hurt feelings, and there is zero problem with that, I think.  &mdash;  Raine Valen  [[Image:User_Raine_R.gif|19px]]  23:31, 9 Mar 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't recall actually invoking NPA, or else I would have said that. I merely said that it leans in that direction or makes implications towards that, which I consider mildly disruptive. And being disruptive is a (at discretion) a bannable offense. Do you deny that you were intending to troll users with that post? And the reason I keep bringing up the location of it is that a higher visibility page gets higher scrutiny. --JonTheMon 01:56, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * So it's (mild) disruption and trolling, then? I present to you the following:
 * To put it in a nutshell, relevant comments are not disruptive, by their own definition, regardless of the content. Unless your definition of "disruptive" is something along the lines of "causes a lot of edits in response to" (glad we made the right decision, then!)?  Indeed, that definition simply doesn't work:
 * If you truly believe what you are saying, your actions make no sense whatsoever.
 * Conveniently enough, I've already addressed your other point at length, as well:
 * Yes, I'd like to dispute your claim that I was trolling; I've outlined a couple of objective reasons above.   &mdash;  Raine Valen  [[Image:User_Raine_R.gif|19px]]  2:59, 10 Mar 2011 (UTC)
 * Conveniently enough, I've already addressed your other point at length, as well:
 * Yes, I'd like to dispute your claim that I was trolling; I've outlined a couple of objective reasons above.   &mdash;  Raine Valen  [[Image:User_Raine_R.gif|19px]]  2:59, 10 Mar 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'd like to dispute your claim that I was trolling; I've outlined a couple of objective reasons above.   &mdash;  Raine Valen  [[Image:User_Raine_R.gif|19px]]  2:59, 10 Mar 2011 (UTC)

If it was, that simply translates to a valid point raised and people being butthurt about facing it. If it is relevant, it has a right to be said. So it's not disruptive in the sense it should merit a block, it is disruptive in the sense that some people would rather not see it at all. Which is a form of censure, except not in its actual form. Raine was not behaving inappropriately per say, though others differ in that perspective. This was and is a nice scenario and it is perhaps better off put to rest. - Infinite - talk 00:55, 12 March 2011 (UTC) Yep. Plus I also think these conversations minus some of the irrelevant stuff should be saved somewhere for easy access. DE, Raine and others bring up very interesting points about relevance, disruption, and related topics about interpretation and perspectives on conversations. --Lania  01:11, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Alright, let's try to clear this up, shall we? You are, of course, more than welcome to contest whether or not my line of reasoning was legitimate, but for the sake of clarity, the following is a summary of my rationale: The conversation on John Stumme's page, in conjunction with the related conversation on Zesbeer's page, was indeed the impetus for the ban.  With that said, however, my assertion that your behavior was inappropriate and dickish was, at most, only tangentially related to whether it was an attack on anyone.  Similarly, the fact that you were obviously agreeing with Stumme's rationale is equally irrelevant (if not more so).  (Somewhat less tangential is the matter of whether or not your comment falls into the category of speech sometimes referred to as "fighting words," those designed specifically to provoke or incite others.)  However, co-opting another user's talk page for more or less the sole purpose of being obnoxious--I hardly think it possible to argue that your comment was actually constructive--does, in my opinion at least, constitute being a dick.  That holds true whether or not you're supporting the user in question; if you're not actually contributing to the debate in a meaningful fashion--if, in fact, you are coming pretty close to actively detracting from the debate--you probably shouldn't be posting.  And if we really want to get down to it, I'm less than positive that John would appreciate the manner in which you were supporting him, considering that he had already taken the time to write a far less juvenile, far more measured assessment of the arguments for/against various kinds of microtransactions.  Ultimately, for me, it comes down to a question of whether or not its acceptable to be disruptive/obnoxious simply for the sake of proving a point that could easily have been proved in a far less disruptive/obnoxious manner.  Obviously, my answer is no.  With all of that said, though, there is a reason that the ban was so short: namely, that I realize full well that it was a call that a lot of sysops probably would not have made and that your behavior, while inappropriate, was not so far gone so as to deserve anything resembling a substantial ban duration.  &mdash;  Defiant Elements   +talk  22:33, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * This. This, right here, is the only valid argument in that block of text.  We'll come back to this.
 * I am very glad that you did not decide to wear the guise of "policy" in this case, and I respect you more for it. This, however, is not an argument at all.
 * This relates to the first excerpt, and will be addressed subsequently.
 * When something is said for the sole purpose of generating disruptive feedback, we appropriately call it "trolling" and ban for it. I present to you, for consideration, the fact that any relevant response to that post is not disruptive feedback, because it is as fully germane (indeed, to the same issue that's been smeared all over the associated talkpages of everything related to it) as the original post.  Hence, when you say,, I can't associate any value with your use of the word "disruptive".
 * "Obnoxious" is horribly subjective. What's more, your labeling "being obnoxious" as the "sole purpose" of said post is, frankly, inane – you have no method of determining the sole purpose of anything, and basing sysop actions on that is far worse than things I've gotten flak for, I believe.  My explicit labeling of that post as a satire (you obviously read Zes's talk page, so you had to have seen that); the overt, "theatrical" sarcasm; or perhaps even my long history of not trolling the entire wiki for kicks should have been a strong hint that the intent was largely humour (with the smallish part of my intent being to simultaneously debunk every possible argument against functionality-via-mictotransactions – which I also have an extensive history of), but you chose to ignore that and make judgments based on your, what, feelings?  It is for this reason that, when you say,, I can't associate any value with your use of the word "obnoxious".  What happened to objectivity?
 * This, I think, is very much related to that first quote, which I said I'd discuss at length, later; this seems an appropriate time for that.
 * When we get down to it, the crux of the issue is that you don't think it would have been appreciated. While the fact that you believe that John might not have appreciated it might have been very strong grounds for a discussion with me about what particular brands of humour John appreciates, or perhaps for a draft of a policy relating to not using talkpages for things that their associated users would not appreciate, I don't find the course of action that you decided to pursue to be the logical course, given the circumstances.  &mdash;  Raine Valen  [[Image:User_Raine_R.gif|19px]]  23:31, 9 Mar 2011 (UTC)
 * And that, unfortunately, is what makes Defiant Elements a much stronger sysop. You were a dick. You got called out for being a dick. Stop trying to wikilawyer all the ways it might have been alright - you were still a dick and you got banned for it. Suck it up and learn from it. Don't try to pretend it's alright. - Auron 09:45, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Further up, I asked to whom I was being a dick; no one bothered to answer. As far as I can tell, the best reasonable answer is that I'm being a dick to an unnamed subsection of the userbase defined by their arguments.  I addressed this above, too; summarily, people get butthurt when their arguments are shat on and this is normal and okay.
 * Disruption is bannable, but I've clearly explained why there's no possible way to support the claim that it was disruptive. Trolling is bannable, but I've clearly explained why evidence strongly suggests that the post is not a troll post (it's entirely based on discretion, of course, but I'd like to believe that discretion is based on evidence).
 * I haven't, however, done anything to explain how I haven't hurt feelings or offended people, because I have done those things. What I'm at a loss for, though, is the point at which offending people while addressing their arguments became bannable.  There is one outstanding claim that it's not the content, at all, but rather an unnecessarily mean delivery that you've taken issue with.  If that is the case, again, there is no strong precedent for that (hey, Auron, read your post!) and no strong reasoning given as to why that precedent should be set.
 * As to wikilawyering (woo, tangents!): hi, I've already waited out the block. We've already established that I couldn't care less about verbatim policy, and none of my arguments are based on it.  We've disagreed about your use of "wikilawyering", before: I looked it up, last time; perhaps you ought to, now.   &mdash;  Raine Valen  [[Image:User_Raine_R.gif|19px]]  15:13, 10 Mar 2011 (UTC)
 * Preface: I am happy to continue this debate or to let the matter drop. I'm also happy to continue it by some other medium (email, etc.) if that would render it less disruptive.  Being as Raine is the aggrieved party, I will let her decide how she would like to proceed.  For the time being, however, I will continue to do my best to address her concerns.  Also, I'd like to apologize for the somewhat delayed response.  This conversation has been moving quite rapidly, and I'm afraid my schedule simply doesn't allow me to keep up in the way that I'd like to.  With that said…
 * Fair enough. You are correct to say that my language overreached, and I freely withdraw the characterization "sole purpose."  However, the core of my argument remains unchanged.  If someone writes a post with the intention of being humorous and with the intention of debunking someone else's claim, but they violate, say, NPA in the process, we would ban them, whether or not the intention of their comment was to attack the other person in question.  Obviously, the situation we're currently dealing with is far less clear-cut, but the issue of intentionality, while sometimes relevant, is not necessarily so.  It is perfectly possible to be unintentionally disruptive.  It is, perhaps, more relevant in attempting to judge the severity of the infraction, but I've already stated that the reasoning behind the short block length was that I judged the severity to be only minimally sufficient to warrant a block.
 * No, I'm afraid you're wrong on that. Appreciation is irrelevant.  If this had simply been a matter of my thinking John wouldn't like it, I would have left it for him to decide how he would respond (whether he would simply archive it, whether he would ask for it to be moved elsewhere, etc.).  Disruption/trolling are by far the more pertinent issue in this case.  Which brings me to my next topic.
 * First off, topical relevance is not a defense. Consider, for example, the behavior of someone like The Scythe Has Fallen (and the ban that s/he ultimately received for the disruption that s/he caused).  It wasn't a question of whether or not his/her posts were topically relevant or whether those posts were intended to generate negative feedback, nor even really whether the feedback that they generated was negative; no, it was far more fundamental than that: it had to to do with the fact that his/her approach to communication was simply unacceptable.  Not I'm not saying that you're doing the same thing, I'm merely attempting to illustrate a point.
 * Second off, given that we (by which I mean you) have already established that it is impossible to know the sole purpose of anything, it's apparent that we need some other gauge in order to determine whether or not an action is disruptive/trollish/obnoxious--they're all more or less intended to convey the same meaning. So what, you may ask, was the determining factor that I employed.  The answer is necessity.  This factor manifests itself in two ways.  First: Was the post necessary to begin with?  The answer here is a resounding "no".  John had already made a functionally identical argument as far as debunking the claims of the opposition was concerned.  But that fact in of itself is not sufficient.  As you yourself have highlighted, you were agreeing with him; what's the harm in that?  This brings me to the second manifestation of the necessity factor, namely: given that the post contributed little or nothing that was new to the debate, was the post unnecessarily inflammatory?  That is: did your post go beyond simply being unhelpful?  Here is where I made a judgment call.  I determined that you had behaved in a fashion that crossed the line from "unhelpful" into the domain of "disruptive".  And yes, I fully admit that it involved a level of subjectivity, but subjectivity alone does not render the actions of a sysop invalid.  We make judgment calls (both as normal users and as sysops) all the time.  The hope is not that our actions will always be objective, but that our subjective actions will ultimately be vetted by the community.
 * Sorry again for the delay. &mdash;  Defiant Elements   +talk  19:53, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * This is acceptable, though I don't necessarily agree with it: it seems that you did, indeed, think the matter through based on reasonable solid premises from your perspective (mine differs, of course, but I do not believe that yours is invalid; more on that later). Thank you for taking the time to respond.
 * For curiousity's sake, where do you draw the line between "unhelpful" and "disruptive"? As I have said, I would base a judgment on a post's or topic's disruptiveness based on its relevance to an issue – for example, a post that says "Empathy takes almost no skill to use, and so should be nerfed" on a feedback page regarding Empathy (or in a discussion elsewhere where such a comment would be relevant) is not, in my eyes, disruptive, though it may be inflammatory to certain parties as a consequence of its relevant content.
 * However, as you've stated, our opinions on this matter differ; what is yours? &mdash;  Raine Valen  [[Image:User_Raine_R.gif|19px]]  17:32, 11 Mar 2011 (UTC)
 * Isn't it possible for a post to be both relevant and disruptive? I think you're saying no, but I'm not sure if I interpreted it accurately. -- pling User Pling sig.png 18:03, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Indeed, I am saying no. &mdash;  Raine Valen  [[Image:User_Raine_R.gif|19px]]  18:08, 11 Mar 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think it makes sense to apply a hard and fast standard like: a comment is disruptive only if it is not relevant. Let's consider, for a moment, the example you've raised.  A group of users are having a discussion about Empathy.  User X joins the discussion and says, "Empathy takes almost no skill to use, and so should be nerfed."  Although you're correct in saying that the users involved in the debate could potentially be offended, there are at least three things that are noteworthy about such a comment: a) it is relevant, b) it is potentially a meaningful contribution to the debate (not in any hugely substantive way, but if no one else has advanced a similar claim, then it could still be a meaningful contribution), and c) it is worded in a straightforward, but by no means particularly inflammatory fashion (as opposed to, say, "It should be patently obvious to anyone with even half a brain that Empathy should be nerfed because it takes almost no skill to use" or to some direct violation of NPA).  Given that those three things are true, I would by no means ban User X, even if the other people involved in the debate were offended.
 * Now let's consider a slightly different scenario. A group of users are having a discussion about Empathy.  User X joins the discussion and says, "Empathy takes almost no skill to use, and so should be nerfed."  Every time that anyone responds, User X simply reposts, "Empathy takes almost no skill to use, and so should be nerfed."  Regardless of how many times User X does so, his comment continues to be relevant to the debate, and thus satisfies Criterion A.  However, since the comment ceases to contribute meaningfully to the debate the second time that it is posted, it fails to meet Criterion B.  If he repeats himself a sufficient number of times, we might well say that his behavior is unnecessarily inflammatory, and thus violates Criterion C.  At this point, User X should be probably be warned or banned.
 * Obviously, the scenario above is kind of inane, but it does, I think, straightforwardly demonstrate why relevance is not sufficient in of itself to determine that a post is not disruptive. &mdash;  Defiant Elements   +talk  19:05, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * So a comment must be both relevant and constructive to be considered non-disruptive (or not unnecessarily disruptive, at any rate)? I think that that is sensible.
 * I do not agree with your interpretation of "constructive" in this particular case, but I do see your point and respect it. I do not think that I would be able to convince you that my post was constructive (though I would try, if it might entertain you), nor do I believe that you would be able to do the converse; in either case, it is a moot point, as the judgment has already been made and carried out.  This does not bother me.
 * Thank you, again, for your time and insight. &mdash;  Raine Valen  [[Image:User_Raine_R.gif|19px]]  22:45, 11 Mar 2011 (UTC)
 * "Isn't it possible for a post to be both relevant and disruptive?"
 * Isn't it possible for a post to be both relevant and disruptive? I think you're saying no, but I'm not sure if I interpreted it accurately. -- pling User Pling sig.png 18:03, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Indeed, I am saying no. &mdash;  Raine Valen  [[Image:User_Raine_R.gif|19px]]  18:08, 11 Mar 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think it makes sense to apply a hard and fast standard like: a comment is disruptive only if it is not relevant. Let's consider, for a moment, the example you've raised.  A group of users are having a discussion about Empathy.  User X joins the discussion and says, "Empathy takes almost no skill to use, and so should be nerfed."  Although you're correct in saying that the users involved in the debate could potentially be offended, there are at least three things that are noteworthy about such a comment: a) it is relevant, b) it is potentially a meaningful contribution to the debate (not in any hugely substantive way, but if no one else has advanced a similar claim, then it could still be a meaningful contribution), and c) it is worded in a straightforward, but by no means particularly inflammatory fashion (as opposed to, say, "It should be patently obvious to anyone with even half a brain that Empathy should be nerfed because it takes almost no skill to use" or to some direct violation of NPA).  Given that those three things are true, I would by no means ban User X, even if the other people involved in the debate were offended.
 * Now let's consider a slightly different scenario. A group of users are having a discussion about Empathy.  User X joins the discussion and says, "Empathy takes almost no skill to use, and so should be nerfed."  Every time that anyone responds, User X simply reposts, "Empathy takes almost no skill to use, and so should be nerfed."  Regardless of how many times User X does so, his comment continues to be relevant to the debate, and thus satisfies Criterion A.  However, since the comment ceases to contribute meaningfully to the debate the second time that it is posted, it fails to meet Criterion B.  If he repeats himself a sufficient number of times, we might well say that his behavior is unnecessarily inflammatory, and thus violates Criterion C.  At this point, User X should be probably be warned or banned.
 * Obviously, the scenario above is kind of inane, but it does, I think, straightforwardly demonstrate why relevance is not sufficient in of itself to determine that a post is not disruptive. &mdash;  Defiant Elements   +talk  19:05, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * So a comment must be both relevant and constructive to be considered non-disruptive (or not unnecessarily disruptive, at any rate)? I think that that is sensible.
 * I do not agree with your interpretation of "constructive" in this particular case, but I do see your point and respect it. I do not think that I would be able to convince you that my post was constructive (though I would try, if it might entertain you), nor do I believe that you would be able to do the converse; in either case, it is a moot point, as the judgment has already been made and carried out.  This does not bother me.
 * Thank you, again, for your time and insight. &mdash;  Raine Valen  [[Image:User_Raine_R.gif|19px]]  22:45, 11 Mar 2011 (UTC)
 * "Isn't it possible for a post to be both relevant and disruptive?"
 * "This was and is a nice scenario and it is perhaps better off put to rest"
 * No. A discussion ends when people are no longer interested in it, which already seems to be the case. And neither of them make any interesting points at all, I can easily be relevant and disruptive at the same time. -Cursed Angel File-User Cursed Angel Signature3.jpg 13:11, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Your capabilities of doing so put aside; Raine was not being disruptive (unless sarcasm in an opening post is considered diruptive, in which case we'd have to block a lot more users, a lot more often). The fact that DE raised was whether it was also relevant. In light of the whining per every new update, I think it actually was. Though as I stated before, this may not have been the most tactful approach to state things. And whoever resorted to the term wikilawyering in this/these discussion(s) failed to realize that Raine was not breaking any policies (afaik), not even Don't be a dick. Raine was just being sarcastic but correct.
 * Oh, that's the second time in two days I hurt Auron's feelings. Going strong like bear. - Infinite - talk 06:31, 15 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Flawless Victory. Counter-Terrorists win. →[ » Halogod User Halogod35 Sig.png  (talk)« ]← 03:46, 10 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Here's something to add to DE's initial comment: "Don't be anal." &mdash; δ(x) 23:08, 9 March 2011 (UTC)


 * If indeed the objectionable nature of Raine's bannable offense was fanning a debate on a terse subject, on a page that is currently getting a lot of attention, I'd ask you to consider that Raine likely has as many people 'watching' her page, if not more, than John, even at the moment of this Merc debate - and that maybe the result has proven now countermand to the goals of the Sysop team. -- Oiseau | User_Oiseau_Melandru.jpg 00:40, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I find it hilarious that all of this started simply as an Ironic counter Argument to a nearly Anonymous user. Isn't it funny how everyone seems to have their own set of rules they have to follow and that absolutely nothing (in relation to the rules) seems to be standardized on this wiki? -- Briar    The Spider  03:10, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * What I find hilarious is how you've avoided a perma this long. You were a massive troll when I frequented this place, and I'm sure I wouldn't have to look far through your contribs to see more trolling. How have you survived auron? -- Tha Reckoning User- Tha Reckoning Another Sig.png 03:49, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * By being Awesome.-- Briar  User Briar Sig 3.jpg  The Spider  03:59, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Briar has paid my protection fee. [[Image:User_Felix_Omni_Signature.png]]elix Omni 05:07, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Speaking of that, how have you survived Auron? Someplace there's a quote of him saying he's wanted to ban you forever too xD -- Tha Reckoning User- Tha Reckoning Another Sig.png 06:31, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Over the course of many centuries we became friends. [[Image:User_Felix_Omni_Signature.png]]elix Omni 07:16, 10 March 2011 (UTC)