Quote:
Originally Posted by blackstarling
The guy had already not been honest once - saying he was offline after the trade. So why should I give 100% credence to anything else he says? At this point in the game, he was obviously trying to save face. If he played the victim it would be easier for him to meet me on an even level. (Notice that the first thing he did is say that the same had happened to him?) There is reason to believe that he probably worked up the drama a little bit in his favor. The main reason your statement is inaccurate is because you asked about the PEOPLE (not person) who harassed him. Well tell me who they were and I'll give you my honest opinion of them.
|
You yourself stated that you solicited PEOPLE (plural) to contact the trader after he had put you on ignore? You also stated that he put them on ignore too? People is more than one person, Harassing is what they did. Voila, like magic... AND you still didn't comment on the one person he mentioned in your screen shots, you're just awesome like that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by blackstarling
The whole RoC thing you guys keep bringing up is completely one sided which makes your argument kind of ridiculous. I don't believe I violated the RoC, nor do I believe that he did either. With that in mind - humor me for a moment. Why are you so willing to use rule #1 to say that I had caused him unwanted attention but so stoically refusing to use the same rule to say that he did not respect my right to enjoy the game and caused me distress? What came first, the chicken or the egg? If you want to use the rule, I'm okay with that, so long as you're not picking only the parts you like out of it to suit your point.
|
You don't believe that you drew unwanted attention to the player by naming him on the local channel and getting people to contact the scumbag who ripped you off, after he made it clear that he didn't want to talk to you (by setting you to ignore)? Gee... really? You think he wanted to be abused and threatened? He just used the ignore feature because he liked the abuse and was 'just playing hard to get'?
Now, where did he make a RoC violation? He made a trade with you, did NOTHING to scam you, and choose not to give you the money back that you had mistakenly given him?
Given him...
Yeah, ummm... if you felt upset about losing the money, and felt it limited your enjoyment of the game, then you should really blame the person who gave it away, namely you. He didn't have the right to abuse you (which you never mentioned him doing), harass you (which again, you didn't mention him doing), threaten you (again, he didn't?)... indeed he did NOTHING to you. The only bad thing that happened to you, you DID TO YOURSELF.
He was an ass, but he broke no rule that I can see.
Quote:
Originally Posted by blackstarling
If you look around (and the posts are still there) you'll see me thanking people who voiced their opposing opinions respectfully. Bad behavior that is commonly accepted to the point that it's expected and ignored is exactly the point that I'm trying to address. Why is it necessary that disagreement be delivered rudely? I believe that the goal of this sort of debate is to convince or be convinced. What I mean by that is if you disagree with me, tell me, tell me why I'm wrong, and convince me to change my stance. I'm not going to actively resist the change because I'm too embarrassed to give up my original stance. I have nothing to lose, and everything to gain if I'm wrong. If I'm wrong - I can become right! With that in mind however, I'm only going to accept arguments that are well founded. If you come at me with an aggressive approach highlighting only that you think I'm wrong and sprinkling in a few poorly supported statements... you're not likely going to get your point across. Even a good argument can get lost in the soup if you deliver it with too much irrelevant information. What is your purpose posting here? Do you want me to know that I'm wrong for wishing people would behave better online? What exactly are you trying to convince me of? If you keep that in mind while you're writing, you have a better chance of not losing a good point.
|
I'm not debating you, no, not at all. I'm just telling you that you're wrong. I couldn't give a toss whether you think people should behave better online, I don't care how you think people should behave, your opinions on such things are your own. I will, however happily point out the hypocrisy of you calling him a bad person and suggesting that he was violating the games rules, when the only rule breaking I saw was coming from you and your posse.
That is the point.
Quote:
Originally Posted by blackstarling
On the topic of disappearing posts: You're very quick to use the GW RoC against me so it's clear to see that you're willing to respect rules. Consider this - According to rule #2 of the Forum Rules and Guidelines "Flaming is the act of posting messages that are deliberately hostile and insulting. A troll is a person who posts inflammatory messages intended to cause a disruption in discourse and to provoke other members into hostility. We encourage discussion and healthy debate, and personal attacks are not warranted in either." Rule number 5 is also thought provoking. Do either of these definitions apply to any of you?
|
You brought the ROC up, I just laughed at how the RoC that YOU quoted seemed to bear no significance to the actions of the bad trader you had grievance with, but your own actions seemed directly contrary to the rules you were citing.
Respect rules? Me? I said no such thing, I merely pointed out YOUR hypocrisy in the matter.
I haven't flamed you, I haven't called you offensive names or otherwise attempted to insult you, nor have I lowered myself to immature remarks, calling you a "hater" or suggesting that you're "butt hurt".
The quotation marks are because I am quoting YOU.
All I have done is made a simple observation of your post, the actions you described and your very one sided interpretation of the Rules of Conduct that you posted to aid your case, when I saw them doing the exact opposite... you took issue and thus we are still discussing it, or you're ignoring questions, dancing side issues and avoiding points... maybe you call that debating, I don't know.