A Possible Change In The Rules - RatSkep tangent

[Kristie]

I don't mean that every single member of Ratz likes the drama there are exceptions. It's not even necessarily just an issue of drama-loving actually. The main issue is that a lot of the Ratz clique have never recovered from the 2008 schism. The chips on the shoulders of some members here are so large it's a wonder they can walk upright.

If anyone comes here with a grievance about RatSkep.... there are a number of members here who almost have an immediate orgasm from the sheer excitement of it all.


It's a shame more of you don't have the attitudes that Pappa and FBM have shown in this thread.

Yes the same clique with chips on theirs shoulders that welcomed us when RDF went tits up, some folk have short memories.

We only welcomed you because we knew you'd bring drama.

[Pensioner]

I don't mean that every single member of Ratz likes the drama there are exceptions. It's not even necessarily just an issue of drama-loving actually. The main issue is that a lot of the Ratz clique have never recovered from the 2008 schism. The chips on the shoulders of some members here are so large it's a wonder they can walk upright.

If anyone comes here with a grievance about RatSkep.... there are a number of members here who almost have an immediate orgasm from the sheer excitement of it all.


It's a shame more of you don't have the attitudes that Pappa and FBM have shown in this thread.

Yes the same clique with chips on theirs shoulders that welcomed us when RDF went tits up, some folk have short memories.

We only welcomed you because we knew you'd bring drama.

[starr]

Starr,

I am baffled that you cannot see how instead of putting the blame on our forum this might be a good opportunity to reflect on the ruleset of RatSkep.

The people that come here to complain about the forum you hold so dear do this because they feel they can't get a honest ruling from RatSkep staff. No matter what forum they would do this, ours or any other forum, the feeling towards RatSkep by those users would not be any different.

I'm not saying you should change the rules, but at least take an honest and objective look at them. And listen to what these other members have to say.

I'm baffled by the number of incorrect assumptions you've made in your post.

[leo-rcc]

I'm baffled by the number of incorrect assumptions you've made in your post.

Ah, then you have no problem dispelling these assumptions. I gave you every opportunity to do so already.

And you can cut out the smileys, they are not very good disguises.

[charlou]

Starr,

I am baffled that you cannot see how instead of putting the blame on our forum this might be a good opportunity to reflect on the ruleset of RatSkep.

The people that come here to complain about the forum you hold so dear do this because they feel they can't get a honest ruling from RatSkep staff. No matter what forum they would do this, ours or any other forum, the feeling towards RatSkep by those users would not be any different.

I'm not saying you should change the rules, but at least take an honest and objective look at them. And listen to what these other members have to say.

I'm baffled by the number of incorrect assumptions you've made in your post.

How about explaining the baffling, incorrect assumptions in this post (in bold):

I don't mean that every single member of Ratz likes the drama there are exceptions. It's not even necessarily just an issue of drama-loving actually. The main issue is that a lot of the Ratz clique have never recovered from the 2008 schism. The chips on the shoulders of some members here are so large it's a wonder they can walk upright.

If anyone comes here with a grievance about RatSkep.... there are a number of members here who almost have an immediate orgasm from the sheer excitement of it all.


It's a shame more of you don't have the attitudes that Pappa and FBM have shown in this thread.

[Hermit]

...there are a number of members here who almost have an immediate orgasm from the sheer excitement of it all.

Please don't get too excited now. rEvolutionist and cohort had things well and truly in hand for quite a while before you joined the discussion, though apparently any solution is yet to come.

Bit of a nerve to describe us as orgasmically excited about Ratskep drama when this thread was foisted on us via derailment of another - funnily enough concerning exploration for a rule change in this forum - thread by a former RDF MarkI /RDF MarkII moderator. Before we knew it, Ratzkep members who have not posted here for months piled in to douse Gallstones' little fire with petrol, and now you are adding ethanol by accusing us of - what exactly? Having to rely on Ratzkep for our dose of drama? Get real! We have Gertie, Lozzer and many others to supply us with the home grown stuff.

Why don't all of you who seem to only post here when someone from Ratskep imports an issue to Rationalia emulate Made of Stars and ozewiezeloose, and simply confine your postings to the forums you are more comfortable with? You'd be surprised how small this - now almost 700 post-long - derail would have been by the time it petered out. rEvolutionist's absence alone would have probably cut it down by a quarter.

[charlou]

...there are a number of members here who almost have an immediate orgasm from the sheer excitement of it all.

Please don't get too excited now. rEvolutionist and cohort had things well and truly in hand for quite a while before you joined the discussion, though apparently any solution is yet to come.

ahehehe

[Robert_S]

Bit of a nerve to describe us as orgasmically excited about Ratskep drama when this thread was foisted on us via derailment of another - funnily enough concerning exploration for a rule change in this forum - thread by a former RDF MarkI /RDF MarkII moderator. Before we knew it, Ratzkep members who have not posted here for months piled in to douse Gallstones' little fire with petrol, and now you are adding ethanol by accusing us of - what exactly? Having to rely on Ratzkep for our dose of drama? Get real! We have Gertie, Lozzer and many others to supply us with the home grown stuff.

Actually, I'm still treating this thread as an indirect commentary about that proposed rule change here at Rationalia.

[starr]

Ah, then you have no problem dispelling these assumptions. I gave you every opportunity to do so already.

And you can cut out the smileys, they are not very good disguises.

A Ratz mod is telling me to cut out the smileys..... wtf?????

[leo-rcc]

Ah, then you have no problem dispelling these assumptions. I gave you every opportunity to do so already.

And you can cut out the smileys, they are not very good disguises.

A Ratz mod is telling me to cut out the smileys..... wtf?????

And again evading.

And read it again, it says you CAN, not you must. But it's not hiding your passive aggressive tone very well so why bother?

[maiforpeace]

maiforpeace, I have no axes to grind with you, and I have no intention of getting into any conflict with you. However, I am curious why you choose to single me out, of all those who have posted on this thread, for your comments.

Actually, I do think that I have offered something quite constructive when I suggested that those at ratskep cop to their irrational actions and welcome those folks back that they were so quick to get rid of. That truly would be a constructive and compassionate thing to do, and I seriously doubt they will do it. So it goes...

THat's what I'm freakn talking about! ANd I keep seeing this kind of thing all the time in the other forum and now here, and that makes my stomach turn. Why has Lamont's post been singled out? I'm really sick about this. It's not even funny, I'm just disgusted.

And don't EVEN try to tell me that's not what you've done. I'm not blind.

Kiki - that was not a warning. If it had been an official warning from me as a moderator, it would have been in blue. I was making a comment to Lamont as a member - and, for the record I will never warn anyone officially without first conferring with the staff. And as Tig pointed out, please read through the thread before you jump to conclusions.

Also, out of respect for LC, why don't you let him address this (which he already did). He has stated several times that he doesn't need others to fight his fights and decide what's best for him.

[Bella Fortuna]

Indeed. Lamont's post was not 'singled out,' it was merely replied to.

[Hermit]

Actually, I'm still treating this thread as an indirect commentary about that proposed rule change here at Rationalia.

We do have a perfectly good thread for such commentary. Care to resume discussing it in the thread where this topic was initiated, rather than in this internecine quarrel?

[charlou]

But it's not hiding your passive aggressive tone very well so why bother?

True.

[kiki5711]

maiforpeace, I have no axes to grind with you, and I have no intention of getting into any conflict with you. However, I am curious why you choose to single me out, of all those who have posted on this thread, for your comments.

Actually, I do think that I have offered something quite constructive when I suggested that those at ratskep cop to their irrational actions and welcome those folks back that they were so quick to get rid of. That truly would be a constructive and compassionate thing to do, and I seriously doubt they will do it. So it goes...

THat's what I'm freakn talking about! ANd I keep seeing this kind of thing all the time in the other forum and now here, and that makes my stomach turn. Why has Lamont's post been singled out? I'm really sick about this. It's not even funny, I'm just disgusted.

And don't EVEN try to tell me that's not what you've done. I'm not blind.

Kiki - that was not a warning. If it had been an official warning from me as a moderator, it would have been in blue. I was making a comment to Lamont as a member - and, for the record I will never warn anyone officially without first conferring with the staff. And as Tig pointed out, please read through the thread before you jump to conclusions.

Also, out of respect for LC, why don't you let him address this (which he already did). He has stated several times that he doesn't need others to fight his fights and decide what's best for him.

Ok, I appologize mai. But Lamont is not the only one I stick up for. I don't like to see anyone being ganged up on unfairly and I speak up for anyone in that position.

I didn't agree with CJ banning, I didn't like Dory being attacked for his decision, I didn't like JayG not getting a chance to settle in, and there's always other things, but I just like things to be fair for everyone equeally.