User talk:Raine Valen/Archive 32

I wish...

You would stop using such formal speech when you put your defensive hat on. It just makes you seem condescending. elix Omni 05:11, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

This. ^ 205.206.23.50 05:13, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Formality ≠ Logic -- Oiseau | 05:46, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Wouldn't a defensive hat be a helmet? --BriarThe Spider 06:09, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Not all classes can equip helmets. elix Omni 06:10, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I find that clarity increases with specificity, and that clarity is necessary for proper logical discourse; this is especially true when people seem to be missing the point, already. I mean, take the converse: sarcasm begets claims of "you're trolling everyone's faces off".

Also, it's hard to avoid apparent condescention when saying, basically, what equates to "you are all wrong and I am right" or "you're full of shit". — Raine Valen 15:25, 10 Mar 2011 (UTC)

Is it really possible on a wiki where consensus determines everything that everyone except you is wrong? elix Omni 15:42, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

If consensus could not be wrong, that would be a good point. Unfortunately, it is very possible for the majority of people to agree on the wrong thing. — Raine Valen 16:19, 10 Mar 2011 (UTC)

The alternative to following consensus is being Karlos. Up to you, I guess. -Auron 16:24, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Well that's certainly a very one-dimensional way of looking at things. — Raine Valen 16:34, 10 Mar 2011 (UTC)

...or how about both sides just drop it. --Lania 16:37, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

There's nothing to drop. Also, please don't interrupt conversations if you have nothing to add. Thanks in advance.

@Raine - look at Karlos' contributions. He thought he was the only one who knew how to do X, and so even though consensus disagreed, he was going to do X his way anyway. You don't know better than the entire rest of the wiki. In the infinitesimally small chance that you do, the wiki is still benefited most by following consensus. Ignoring consensus because of your ego is a one-way trip down Karlos lane. -Auron 16:46, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

While leafing though that, I came across the following, regarding "ban anyone the IRC channel suggests":

"I disagree with this move and have reverted. This article is satirical commentary on the Guild Wars Wiki and thus belongs in the Guild Wars Wiki namespace. Unless a policy is made to restrict the contents of this namespace, or unless general consensus feels it doesn't belong, it should stay where it is. —Tanaric 00:36, 22 September 2007 (UTC)"

"Agreed. -Auron 00:37, 22 September 2007 (UTC)"

Hi; what? — Raine Valen 17:07, 10 Mar 2011 (UTC)

More in the vein of your original post, though, I've find it remarkable that the "entire rest of the wiki" (which equates to 6 of the 19 contributors on this page) has reached this consensus, and yet cannot seem to put forth a reasoned counterargument to my reasoned opposition. When you say things like, "You don't know better than the entire rest of the wiki. In the infinitesimally small chance that you do, the wiki is still benefited most by following consensus. Ignoring consensus because of your ego is a one-way trip down Karlos lane" but don't or can't support any of the claims therein ("rest of the wiki", "you don't know better", "infinitesimally small", "because of your ego"), I can't say that I'm at all compelled to take your post to heart. — Raine Valen 17:12, 10 Mar 2011 (UTC)

@Auron. You really thought that bringing something as contentious as Karlos into the discussion in a way that rehashes the same argument that Felix, Jon, and DE has made is going to help resolve things? Maybe it would have worked for you if you were doing the same thing Raine was doing, but I think we've all established that Auron and Raine are nothing alike.

@Everyone. I think DE, Jon, Auron, and Raine are great sysops and are great users. That said... I think placing the ban on Raine for something that is in a very roundabout way an attack on a group people was a bad move. A Ban would have worked for other users, but this particular ban just made things worse because it only amplified Raine's "WTF did I do?" thought. If it was Auron that was banned for trolling (like he has been in the past) then it would have worked because he'd know what he was doing... and when Auron was banned, it was for much much more than what Raine did. I still don't think what Raine did was right or even acceptable as a sysop, but at the same time, a stern warning would have worked much much better, with a lot less drama IMO.

@Raine. Digging up the past in that manner will never help resolve things. The culture in GWW was quite different in 2007 than it was now, and there is a lot that was okay back then that isn't okay anymore. I think we understand your arguments and views but I also think that a lot of people here won't ever accept your reasoning about this subject matter. Why don't we leave it as... Some people agree with you, and some people don't agree with you, and just leave it as it is, or else this entire conversation/drama/arguments is going to go down a path where someone is going to get hurt. --Lania 17:59, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

""A Ban would have worked for other users, but this particular ban just made things worse because it only amplified Raine's "WTF did I do?" thought. If it was Auron that was banned for trolling (like he has been in the past) then it would have worked because he'd know what he was doing... and when Auron was banned, it was for much much more than what Raine did. " - whether the target agrees with the block is irrelevant to whether or not the block is applied. Also, Auron may have done "much much more", but his block was "much much" longer, as it should be, because blocks scale according to their severity. -- pling 18:21, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, the culture is quite evidently different; remember how Karlos was wrong about everything? While I am very curious about the shift in philosophy, my current arguments are not related to that.

Honestly, I don't expect Jon or Auron to agree with me. Quite likely, DE will not, either. I don't mind. What I do mind, though, is that no valid reason has been given for that disagreement. Jon's not even bothered to present a case with any reasoning; DE's not made a second response; Auron's also elected to say lots of things and include little support for their validity.

I've asked many questions and received few answers; that bothers me, when, ostensibly, we're supposed to be thinking things through beforehand. — Raine Valen 18:40, 10 Mar 2011 (UTC)

This is usually the point where people stop reading the walls of text and start repeating themselves. If you have specific questions you want answered, start a new section, keep it concise, and maybe we'll get somewhere. elix Omni 12:28, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

I also wish that people would stop calling someone "dick" when that person doesn't even have one. Just seems kinda odd to call a girl/woman "dick" cuz it sounds like people imply "manly dyke" instead. Not that "Bi---" or "Cu--" would be acceptable. I know that's sometimes the easiest way to get your point across, but at the same time that kind of name calling just seems counterproductive against some people. --Lania 16:05, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh and don't say that you can be a dick without having one... --Lania 16:06, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Don't be such a vagina. elix Omni 16:14, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

LOL. --Lania 16:26, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

tl;dr someone summarize please.--TahiriVeila 18:46, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I'll let Raine speak for herself, but I believe the eclipsing motive for all this is that several Sysops are attempting to convince Raine that she should accept the reasoning of her last ban as a product of "dickishness" - which is the best I can define the arguments put forth in favor so far. And therein, Raine, being Raine, is working to eek a discourse from those members in support of her ban, which has so far gotten nowhere. -- Oiseau | 18:51, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

So, essentially, just another shitstorm b/c the admins at GWW are boring drones who blindly enforce the letter of the rules without considering the situation or the spirit of the rules? Sounds like I didn't miss much.--TahiriVeila 18:54, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Except that this time there's no actual policy to enforce and no precedent or valid arguments for the action taken. So it's a special shitstorm. — Raine Valen 18:57, 10 Mar 2011 (UTC)

Gonna go to class. Dunno why you bother with these shitheads Raine. Decisions on GWW work the same way they do on PvX, you get in with the circlejerk or you get fucked. GWW admins are just too proud to acknowledge that. They're not going to become rational, so just fuck with their heads and lol when they get all worked up. It's worked pretty well for me so far.--TahiriVeila 18:59, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh hey I'm gonna let you all know where I'm going. Call an indefinite number of people shitheads. Bring up PvX, use the word circlejerk and go off about how I'm a successful troll that get people mad.

Oh hang on a second.

No.

If I hadn't been blocked at the time, I'd opposed Raine's adminshp, wouldn't had done anything but just sayin. A little unprofessional when you're actually tryin to stir up shit. Knowing we've lost a couple arenanet people already, it's enough with people like Briar and iIr camping the page for new sections to write dumb shit in already.

And a big medal for Lania, the shitposter of today. -Cursed Angel 20:11, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

LolUMad?. As for this being a shitstorm... many are familiar with the concept of White-Knighting but I think there's an equal and opposite reaction that could be described as "Black-Knighting". And I don't think Wyn, Raine, or Linsey would have had nearly as much infighting oover their positions all these years if it wasn't for such a phenomenon. I think we still have a ways to go as a culture. --ilr 22:22, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Aww CA don like me none. I haz teh sadz --BriarThe Spider 22:43, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Hey, love.

I actually did read it all, for some reason. I'm even going to post a reply from my phone even though it hates wiki, since apparently you're just that special.

I stick by what I said on msn: John's talk page should not be treated like a normal user's. I don't think your post was particularly appropriate, but I also don't feel it was out of place. At most, I'd say you shouldn't have made a new section for it, but that's only tangentially related, I guess.

I don't want to say you didn't deserve to have action taken against you, since your post was not srs bsns, but there's also little precedent for it so far.

Like I said on msn: I think the devs should have two talk pages and two "new messages" things - one for casual chit-chat and one for serious questions. (Feedback would, of course, stay where it is.) Failing that, I agree that posts for the sake of posting, like yours, shouldn't happen. Most of your argument that John is different from other devs and thus can handle wiki like a hobby fell apart when he asked if his presence was a burden after your post was moved.

-- Armond{{Bacon}} 21:42, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Wait, did John actually threaten to leave the wiki because of you pointing out that they're selling advantages? Good lord. Is Anet's policy for their employees to "rage quit" when faced with something that's true but unfortunate? Karate Jesus 15:00, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

No, John felt embarrassed by people who censor negative feedback of quality. At least, that is what someone in his position would be. Being greeted by a wall of happy faces and some moved topics when you look for feedback would make anyone feel suspicious. Koda 17:16, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Raine was actually agreeing with John. He wasn't sure if his being there caused drama/badstuff. -- pling 18:33, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Sarcasm does not work on teh interwebs. Wow, I quote mined Raine without even knowing it. Koda 21:46, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

"Sarcasm does not work on teh interwebs."

Lies and/or slander. Morphy 10:29, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

As per Morphy, sarcasm actually does transfer over the internet. It doesn't transfer if you don't understand it, though (very often the case). - Infinite - talk 14:35, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

The question of sarcasm is sarcasm, obviously--Neil • 14:58, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

"Sarcasm doesn't work as well on the internet?"

Is that satisfactory? Are we going to be picking bones in eggs again? — δ(x) 22:29, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Sarcasm works as well as the audience. — Raine Valen 1:34, 14 Mar 2011 (UTC)

The audience is selected by the poster. — δ(x) 03:03, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

The audience is actually selected by both poster and readers. - Infinite - talk 11:41, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

The audience is a lie. --pling 11:42, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

This whole conversation...is a lie. (dunno what this is about tbh) InfestedHydralisk 18:17, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

The audience is a cake. --Boro 19:17, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Delicious audience. — Raine Valen 19:08, 20 Mar 2011 (UTC)

TFL;dr

^ what's with the massive butt hurt/QQ wall? Looks pretty stupid, you're not allowed to your opinion anymore raine! ;) Wiki can be such a dud sometimes yo! --Silven 09:34, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw this bad craziness going on when I came back. It's adorable in a sad, "what do you people spend your time doing" way. –Jette 12:24, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I think people took your rhetorical question seriously raine. All i got out of reading the wall is good job on setting precedence for comments on feedback pages. you're such a carebear :)--Relyk 10:15, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

HEY THERE FELLOW WHITE KNIGHTS. SHOUT OUR CREED!!!! IF WE DEFEND HER, SHE WILL SLEEP WITH US!!!!!!!! NO REALLY, SHE WILL! --The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.68.107.132 (talk).

That's how it works, obviously. — Raine Valen 19:01, 20 Mar 2011 (UTC)

Mad IP

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

Is Mad

nowai! --Silven 20:52, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I swear Silven, you have to be that guy that raged at me in AC for being a noob and not knowing how to cancel a Dhammer by dropping the hammer out of invo. I still firmly believe this is a hoax, based on the fact that I've never been able to make it work. -- Tha Reckoning 05:21, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

By SWAPPING it from inventory. You've never seen a ranger on obs cancel cripshot? — Raine Valen 13:44, 25 Mar 2011 (UTC)

Can't that be done with mashing the esc button? --Boro 14:10, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

No. The devs decided that canceling attack skills should be a pain in the ass, but cancelling spells should be part of normal gameplay. I GUESS NO ONE HAD RANGERS CAMPING THEIR DEV HAMMER WITH DSHOT DURING BETA. — Raine Valen 15:52, 25 Mar 2011 (UTC)

Vote for me...

Duran Duran is srs bsns, I need your vote! My facebook, the links are plastered all over it.--*Yasmin Parvaneh* 02:45, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

<3 Ty for the vote love!--*Yasmin Parvaneh* 06:21, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

— Raine Valen 19:02, 20 Mar 2011 (UTC)