TRANSMISSIONS FROM ARIZONA

[Cainad (dec.)]

The Landmine

Any large community is going to have a certain amount of 'history' (read: butthurt) among certain of its posters. There will be a certain amount of animosity lurking beneath the surface between these people. Or it could be a tired and super-old debate that only causes more problems than it solves whenever it rears its ugly head. Whatever. The point is that should you stumble upon what this is, you will almost certainly piss off certain members if you make any references to it, bring it up again or even ask questions about it.

Quick, someone target us! We're a prime trolling environment!

[East Coast Hustle]

this:

for what it's worth, i don't think giving someone else the power to do something for you that would make you break your word, constitutes as "keeping to your word".

while technically it may, it doesn't grant you any sort of moral high ground (IMO), because if you give your word again, who knows what sort of tricks you'll go through to not-quite-break-it-but-make-it-happen-anyway?

i just wanted to point out that, yes, technically you kept your word, but what is that worth? you say it's important to you to keep your word (same goes for Roger, btw), why is it important to you? is it (for you) still satisfactory if you're only technically keeping it?

apart from that (i'm truly curious about these technicalities surrounding "keeping your word"), i'm not gonna take a stance one way or another, because i think i've just seen the tip of the iceberg, and even that part is a fucking trainwreck.

and this:

I wasn't here for all that either. Basically, I feel that if you have an ongoing personality/style conflict with another admin, and you're the site owner, you're justified in saying "OK, you know what? This isn't working out, I need you to step down as an admin". Doing it in a straighforward way probably would have resulted in a public blow-up, but also in less loss of trust than doing it in a circuitous way that preserves your honor on a technicality only.

are both correct motorcycles. It didn't take me long to figure out that I handled this poorly, however, in my defense, I've never had to do this online before. It's much easier in a kitchen, where you can just tell your sous-chef to get packing before he sees the business end of your cleaver. For what it's worth, there is no one else here that would cause me to feel the need to be so duplicitous to solve a dispute; I hope my credibility with the rest of you is not irreparably damaged. It occurs to me that when you are the person who is ultimately responsible for the site, everyone else is, in a sense, both your boss and your guest since a one-man site would be very boring indeed (Cf: PD.org).

In short, I apologize to you all for "politicianing" in this place.

[Faust]

there should be a post by roger here. where is it? did you delete it roger?
last post showed up as roger.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

this:

for what it's worth, i don't think giving someone else the power to do something for you that would make you break your word, constitutes as "keeping to your word".

while technically it may, it doesn't grant you any sort of moral high ground (IMO), because if you give your word again, who knows what sort of tricks you'll go through to not-quite-break-it-but-make-it-happen-anyway?

i just wanted to point out that, yes, technically you kept your word, but what is that worth? you say it's important to you to keep your word (same goes for Roger, btw), why is it important to you? is it (for you) still satisfactory if you're only technically keeping it?

apart from that (i'm truly curious about these technicalities surrounding "keeping your word"), i'm not gonna take a stance one way or another, because i think i've just seen the tip of the iceberg, and even that part is a fucking trainwreck.

and this:

I wasn't here for all that either. Basically, I feel that if you have an ongoing personality/style conflict with another admin, and you're the site owner, you're justified in saying "OK, you know what? This isn't working out, I need you to step down as an admin". Doing it in a straighforward way probably would have resulted in a public blow-up, but also in less loss of trust than doing it in a circuitous way that preserves your honor on a technicality only.

are both correct motorcycles. It didn't take me long to figure out that I handled this poorly, however, in my defense, I've never had to do this online before. It's much easier in a kitchen, where you can just tell your sous-chef to get packing before he sees the business end of your cleaver. For what it's worth, there is no one else here that would cause me to feel the need to be so duplicitous to solve a dispute; I hope my credibility with the rest of you is not irreparably damaged. It occurs to me that when you are the person who is ultimately responsible for the site, everyone else is, in a sense, both your boss and your guest since a one-man site would be very boring indeed (Cf: PD.org).

In short, I apologize to you all for "politicianing" in this place.

But then you said:

3. Anyone who reads about how I chose to handle the situation and thinks "OMG, what an underhanded dick!" is probably destined for a life of burger-flipping or medical data entry. Anyone who knows how the world actually WORKS will understand exactly what it's like to be put in that situation and to have to try to handle it in a manner that will be least damaging to all parties involved. It's called "realpolitik", and it's supposed to be effective. It is not, necessarily, supposed to be fun or make you popular with the weekend lunch crowd.

http://dolphin.esosoft.net/erisbarandgrill.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=8686&pid=224023#pid224023

13th post on page, 3rd paragraph

So I guess you aren't sorry, are you, ECH?  No, it seems that - by your own words - you think that everyone you are "apologizing" to is a sap.  But I am sure you meant your apology...Technically.

And I am sure they are all safe from any further abuses...technically.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

there should be a post by roger here. where is it? did you delete it roger?
last post showed up as roger.

I hit the wrong button, and had to redo it.

Goodbye, again.

[Lies]

Oh maaaaaaaan.

[Triple Zero]

[ this and this ] are both correct motorcycles. It didn't take me long to figure out that I handled this poorly, however, in my defense, I've never had to do this online before. It's much easier in a kitchen, where you can just tell your sous-chef to get packing before he sees the business end of your cleaver.

i can understand that. good that you're admitting you handled it poorly.

For what it's worth, there is no one else here that would cause me to feel the need to be so duplicitous to solve a dispute; I hope my credibility with the rest of you is not irreparably damaged. It occurs to me that when you are the person who is ultimately responsible for the site, everyone else is, in a sense, both your boss and your guest since a one-man site would be very boring indeed (Cf: PD.org).

In short, I apologize to you all for "politicianing" in this place.

no.

if you're saying "i would only to this to Roger, but never to any of you guys, honest", that isn't really going to cut it if you want to restore your credibility to me.

let me first point out that you don't particularly owe me any kind of explanation, as i'm just this guy with an opinion, okay, an opinion of you, one that may be slowly shifting, but this is foremost between you and Roger.

in fact, pretty much the only way i see out is you settling this dispute with Roger.

because that would prove to me, that even if you slip up again in the future and apply "machiavellian realpolitik" to anyone on this board, you're able set things straight again.

so what is it, "handled it poorly" or "realpolitik" ?

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Be warned, 000:  He has now started trying to dig up my personal life, like that Tentasticle guy did.  There's no guarantee he won't do the same to anyone else who pisses him off.

He's lost his mind entirely.  Just thought I'd give you a heads up.

[Rev. St. Syn, KSC (Ret.)]

No finger pointing, but srsly.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

No finger pointing, but srsly.

I'll have you know that I'm a model G.

[Jasper]

It's pretty clear to me that ECH isn't the best person to be in a position of influence with the Administration, for having been caught lying to our faces about his actions and motives, misappropriating the trust of the forum.

The idea of allowing a "Shadow Admin" is as inconceivable to me here on PD as it is for my country.  I don't consider it a good option.

I propose that a new and impartial admin be in place.  I'm not sure about the rest of the crew, but I don't feel like placing my trust of the site into whoever feels like seizing control at any given time.

[Faust]

Thats me! I am the one who seized control.

I have emailed akk and evt about the position.

[Jasper]

Well done you.  How about we actually decide on someone to admin now.

[Faust]

Well done you.  How about we actually decide on someone to admin now.

we wait for all the fighting to be over before making any drastic, heat of the moment changes. There is no rush on this.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Well done you.  How about we actually decide on someone to admin now.

we wait for all the fighting to be over before making any drastic, heat of the moment changes. There is no rush on this.

I'm done, so long as ECH doesn't feel the screeching need to continue.

Don't wait on me.