kalbaern wrote...
1) You were removed from the group because your only input was "Use a Linux Server and not Windows" and further, you constantly belittled any other suggestions. In short, you we're adding nothing productive to discussions and becoming a troll. It wasn't that any of us disagreed with you either. It was your belitlling tone and the refusal to accept that some PW Hosts/Admins couldn't convert to Linux. Some simply can't afford it, some simply are uncomfortable with the idea of using a platform they know nothing about and some folks just hate change. So our group provided the best possible solutions we could to meet as many of each others personal needs. The core difference being, the rest of saw no reason not to compromise if that's what another PW was requesting.
I was asked to join and to share my experience. I was practically greeted by a round of "burn the heretic linux user!" Nowhere in my posts did I call anyone any names, I simply advocated linux as the most sound choice when asked point blank such a question in the forum. I further expressed my distrust of bending the membership rule which started out as 'only server admins allowed membership' and was drowned in contrary opinion. I offered no further insights pending my own evaluation of the non-admin inductees, quite unwilling to share my lore with what could amount to a mole in the group. Again, I broke NO POSTED RULE, but, you caught me, red[hat] handed, I'm a linux user.
kalbaern wrote...
2) TSM Dude had indeed recieved several complaints from other in our group. We were actually on Skype together chatting when the decision to remove you was made. Yes, he'd asked me and I'd initially suggested he merely warn you instead. He pasted a link to your then latest post ... and I changed my mind and agreed with him and others that since you had nothing productive to offer and were becoming a mere troll that your absense was likely best.
Here you prove again, it went from 'please join us and obey the posted rules' to 'dis-agree with no-one and worship only at the font of Bill Gates sharing all your valuable lore quickly while we still have not voted you out.'
kalbaern wrote...
3) After removing you from the Forum, TSM Dude did PM everyone en masse to let them know and see if anyone thought removal too harsh of an option. Out of twenty-some folks, no one responded that you should be let back in.
Further reason why my esteem of each member plummetted.
kalbaern wrote...
4) The rule you broke was blantant trolling. Was it posted? No. Does forum etiquette on a forum whose members are mainly PW Admins really need such or shouldn't it just be common sense?
Trolling? Interesting that advocating what I was asked to advocate by the admin when he invited me to join is trolling.
kalbaern wrote...
5) No one outed you. No one came here or to other forums to bad mouth you. You were simply removed. It was you that began attacking the group at large after.
'bad mouth' implies I spoke falsely. Your own post agrees that exactly what I asserted did in fact happen. If the truth hurts, well, learn from it. Someone asked in this forum if there was a forum where an admin could share and recieve help in the area of securing a server, I responded with what I know of it.
kalbaern wrote...
6) Its not in anyway a "popularity" contest you lost. You lost the "civility" contest. Many of us in this group have apposing viewpoints and even dislikes for each other. We collectively set any issues aside though and stood together. All but one of us that is. You. You were banned from a forum you continually claimed you didn't need as your server was immune anyhow. Get over it already.
Please reference your own #2 above which is in direct conflict with this statement under #6.
At no point did I attack any individual, I advocated for linux as a first step. I never said 'I did not need' your forum, you put words in my mouth. The long and the short of it, they banned and maligned a fellow who had what they sought, a stable server.
The long post you made only agrees with my statement of fact. Me, I'm sticking with Linux. I in no way attacked anyone on that forum. I advocated based on my experience which I was asked to share when I was invited by the admin who later banned me exactly as listed.
kalbaern wrote...
7) Our group never claimed you were one of the "NWN Greifers". Some may have alluded that your harrassment here was just as bad, but no one ever claimed you were one of them.
Are you certain you speak for the whole group on that matter?
kalbaern wrote...
True, we not only allowed a few "Non-Admins" to join, we invited them to do so. They were all individuals that were well vetted and longstanding contributors to the NWN Community at large. No "rule" was broken. A rule was ammended to make exceptions for a few rare cases where the individuals invited would be an asset to both our group and the community as a whole.
Lastly, please drop the "cancer" comments. Its beneath you or so I'd hope. TSM Dude has left the NWN Community already anyhow. "His" was endstage and we're not likely to hear more.
It is always sad to see the community shrink, doubly so by means of the veil. Note again, I never targeted this guy, he ASSUMED I did - I used the reference of cancer because ALL OF US KNOW SOMEONE WHO HAS BEEN THERE and this was meant to point out the fallacy of the Soph. quote we were at that time discussing. Bear in mind, as 'cute' as some select quotes from ancient philosophers may sound, they have largely been disproven in the intervening centuries. Certainly in many cases we each can cite, now in the light of science, which disprove the very same quote. We are not, individually, wholly responsible for our condition; none of us were borne in a vaacuum - the vagarities of the world, including those we are at the time unaware of or unaware of the effects of (like say asbestos) weigh in on our lives, at times amounting to decisions made decades ago and by people thousands of miles away DO sometimes result in bad things happening. Taking time to connect the dots instead of presuming my statements 'attack' some individual because they are impacted by the 'bad thing happening' from my example (which is utterly unfounded) would have been a better choice.
Be well. Game on.
GM_ODA
Modifié par ehye_khandee, 13 octobre 2011 - 06:32 .
