Don't feed the trolls man... they come out when Riot sleeps. Just smile to yourself as you see the troll for what it is.

And, if you'd read the CONTEXT surrounding my quotations, you'd see that I do it intentionally. It adds to my point. It's not merely a copy/paste response -- as Riot did to me (which you would have realized had you read my first post).

Thanks for your irrelevant input, though.

I did read your first post... Obviously. I quoted it back to you to show your hypocrisy.

Your first post:
I DON'T WANT TO HEAR ABOUT WHAT RIOT SAYS!!!

In another post:
HERE'S WHAT RIOT SAYS!!!

Not a problem.

In the future I would suggest that you don't tell people what they can or can't do on the forums.

Like I said, read the context. Don't take one sentence out of context and assume you comprehend the INTENDED meaning behind the singular sentence.

"Improvements ARE possible. Why stop looking for them and just spam "IT WORKS. RIOT SAYS IT WORKS. LET'S BELIEVE AND FOLLOW WITHOUT ACTUALLY CONSIDERING OTHER INSTANCES AND IDEAS." Don't post here unless you're willing to think and consider improvements/alternatives. Don't respond here unless you're willing to read my post for understanding. Don't respond here if you're going to copy/paste a response (as Riot seems to enjoy doing)."


Now, if you would. Please reread the entire paragraph. Now, read it again. Ok, got it?

No where did I state "I don't want to hear what riot says." I questioned those who I see respond on other peoples threads that claim "It works because Riot says it does." Additionally, as I consistently stated throughout my post, I at least partially --possibly highly-- believe in the system. I just wish there was more consistency.

Essentially: I requested that people not post on here if they weren't willing to state reasons. Don't just put out blanket statements, they don't truly "do" anything. I don't mind people quoting Riot. Quote Riot. But, if you're going to do so, state why how you're using the quotation.

I appreciated Shiister's comments. At least he put thought into them. Sure, they were somewhat derogatory at times, but at least he put forth rationality and examined some of what I questioned. Yours, on the other hand, merely took what you thought I claimed, twisted it, then used it for your own agenda.



P.S. Obviously I can't make anyone do anything. Nor do I believe that I can. I was merely hoping to weed out people like you from this thread. Obviously, I failed tremendously.

Yep.

I don't recall anyone ever making that stance. Unless of course they were banned and still have a cob stuck up their bum.

You came off as a holier than thou type of person. I'll chop you down to the rest of us. Or attempt to at any rate. I took issue and addressed that..

*shrugs*

You rubbed me the wrong way. It happens. Who knows, maybe it wasn't even your fault. I'm far from perfect. But given your last sentence.... I don't think I was wrong at all.

Errr, what? The section that you quoted doesn't actually say that Riot is obligated to respond to feedback, or even read it. All it says is advice on how to provide it. I believe Riot does read it, and usually doesn't respond, but that in no way contradicts this section.


The section you quoted is about retaliating in chat or quitting, not about reporting. The two sentences just before your quote make this clear.

Ummm... most of the time, yes. You can. You imply that you shouldn't, here, but present no actual argument that it's a bad idea.

Yeah, I would have punished that case. The Tribunal will never be perfect, and I'd prefer it to produce more cases like that and fewer of the opposite error.

So, those were all of your actual questions. You went on and on about how you wanted your questions answered, but I think you may have actually forgotten to ask them.

No... I know I'm not "holier" than anyone. But, I'm glad that you enjoy "chopping" those down whom you perceive believe they are. I just try to speak clearly (which I don't always do). I know I tend to be a bit sarcastic, but that really has nothing to do with "holiness."

I don't know why my last sentence means you were right. In fact, your first response was to something you perceived, but I actually never said. Maybe because you felt like I was "telling" you what to do. If you don't like being told what to do, obviously you'll perceive/respond in an overtly negative way. I truly apologize if you felt like I was telling you - or anyone - what to do... that was not my intention. It was more of a plea for people to either: a. Take the time to actually read what I was saying and put thought into responding; or: b. Don't respond at all.

Alrighty, I've stood by and watched this go on for a bit and I figure I should throw in my two cents. The first statement I would like to make is in regards to YouShallSeppuku, in that you have a different interpretation of the Code. That isn't inherently bad, I mean it takes all sorts in the community to establish what our moral compass is, whether they be more strict or lenient in their judgement. However, you are expected to act in a manner that the community as a whole sees as acceptable, and while your interpretation of the SC is much more lenient than the community, you are expected to behave in the manner the community interprets it. Let us take a real life example, where I do not believe that the US Constitution states an "seperation of church and state" that applies to states (not the federal) that has been the law of the land since a number landmark cases. I could point out a number of state religions that existed. However, while I might argue that that is not what the Constitution means, if I were to become a legislator, I would still be expected to act in a manner of what legal precedent had been already determined. I could campaign against that interpretation, but I must do so in a legal manner.

Your abuse of the Tribunal by "spam punishing" isn't a legal manner. Now, I won't compare it to a say, the domestic terrorism of certain far-right/far-left groups, as that is extremely disproportionate, but you are attempting to undermine the justice system by stacking jurors. Your argument with Shiister and gnfhnf has pretty much centered around the point where you believe others should act as your interpretation, and they think you should act in theirs. Now, they are in the majority. I am a member of their majority. We should respect your right to have a minority opinion. However, it is dishonest to attempt to manipulate the Code beyond the spirit of it. Riot has stated that the spirit of the code is "don't be a jerk". You saying that you should be allowed to insult others is twisting this spirit and ignoring it.

I disagree with your assessment of "frequently". Does it happen? Yes. Does it happen frequently? No.


edit: bah, got suckered into responding to a troll. you win this round!