Originally posted by SeitseYou claimed that Phlabibit was protecting me when that was clearly not the case because there wasn't even anything he'd need to protect me from. You dragged me into it, so don't complain when I reply. As for your "crime", I think Phlabibit is overreacting, but I also really dislike when people make it look like someone said something they didn't say, no matter whether they change a quote or pretend that someone had a post removed (although in most cases of misquotes, the original isn't far away, and it's therefore easy to see what the misquoter is up to).
Ok, so NOW it is 2 against 1, I see.
Pfff... the bunch is cornering me.
Originally posted by NordlysHere you go Nordlys, here is what Phlabibit said. He was ready to fight to protect you. A member of his clan. Right or wrong. There are those that believe Phlabibt is indeed biased. Like you, I am one of them when it comes to his Modding. Which is the reason why members of his clan and friends of members of his clan are treated different. If you can't see that it is true, it is because you don't want to see it. If he removes posts of someone from his clan as he claims, he never seems to make it public like he does others. he just says you have no idea what I do behind the scenes. Which is true. He keeps it quiet, depending on who it is. Double standards. Buddy buddy brown nosing, rec, rec. This isn't a personal attack it is just an observation.
You claimed that Phlabibit was protecting me when that was clearly not the case because there wasn't even anything he'd need to protect me from. You dragged me into it, so don't complain when I reply. As for your "crime", I think Phlabibit is overreacting, but I also really dislike when people make it look like someone said something they didn't say, no matt ...[text shortened]... he original isn't far away, and it's therefore easy to see what the misquoter is up to).
Originally posted by rbmorris
Beef with Noodles? I thought maybe you had a problem with Nordlys.
I was ready to fight! I'm not a wrestler, I squash the beef!
P-
Originally posted by cashthetrashOr perhaps when I erase posts by people in my clan, or send them warnings they don't run out to the public forums and act like the sky just fell.
Here you go Nordlys, here is what Phlabibit said. He was ready to fight to protect you. A member of his clan. Right or wrong. There are those that believe Phlabibt is indeed biased. Like you, I am one of them when it comes to his Modding. Which is the reason why members of his clan and friends of members of his clan are treated different. If you can't ...[text shortened]... em with Nordlys.
I was ready to fight! I'm not a wrestler, I squash the beef!
P-
P-
1 edit
Originally posted by Seitsecoming in late on this one... I'm not goping ot get involved in the bickering, but will answer your question:
And I alerted you, hoping that Belgian Freak, for example, receives
my alert...
yes, I would agree that making it look like another poster has had a post removed and then responding to that 'removed' post is not a good idea. Why? Because, using this case as an example, you made it look like Ice Cold said something so unacceptable about Nordlys that it had been modded. Therefore anyone reading your post, especially Nordlys, will assume that Ice Cold was bad mouthing her.
Why is this different from editing the 'quote' box in other ways. IMO it's worse. If you'd changed Ice Cold's message to say "Nordyls is a "insert insult" then you'd have your post modded too. It's worse because if you had just changed the comment then people could look back and see that Ice Cold never said what you quoted. But because you made it look like Ice Cold's post had been removed then people will assume that he really said something so bad it was modded.
Basically, changing the quote box in this way is stiring trouble for other users, so shoudl be avoided. I appreciate that you did not intend for it to be any more than a joke, but the likelyhood for it to cause trouble it quite high
Regards
BF
[edit] to remove accidental bold
Originally posted by belgianfreakSo what about the 1st one moded, BF?
coming in late on this one... I'm not goping ot get involved in the bickering, but will answer your question:
yes, I would agree that making it look like another poster has had a post removed and then responding to that 'removed' post is not a good idea. Why? Because, using this case as an example, you made it look like Ice Cold said something so una ...[text shortened]... se trouble it quite high
Regards
BF
[edit] to remove accidental [b]bold[/b]
If in the 2nd one, as I agree, Ice Cold stands badly because of me,
what is the 'crime' in the 1st one moded?
There is where the double standard of Phlabibit is evident and your
opinion reinforces this.
I want to make very clear that I consider Phlabibit's moderating
biased and defective, dis-encouraging for RHP current and
prospective users and, therefore, a damage for the growth of this
website.
Originally posted by SeitseBut you have the word "Dildo" on your avatar, so that make you even 😛
So what about the 1st one moded, BF?
If in the 2nd one, as I agree, Ice Cold stands badly because of me,
what is the 'crime' in the 1st one moded?
There is where the double standard of Phlabibit is evident and your
opinion reinforces this.
I want to make very clear that I consider Phlabibit's moderating
biased and defective, dis-encouraging for RHP current and
prospective users and, therefore, a damage for the growth of this
website.
Originally posted by Seitseit is difficult to see in the mod records because I can only see the post that was removed and not what was quoted (or, considering the theme of this disagreement, what was not quoted). However, for teh text of your post I would deduce that:
So what about the 1st one moded, BF?
1) you had pretended that lordhigh had posted something that had been removed
2) that your post then suggested that lordhigh's post had been removed because he was insulting another user
3) your post then reitterated lordhigh's insult (that he never made) by saying "you shouldn't say X about Y".
If I'm wrong about any of these deducitons, or I'm refering to the wrong post (it's the only other post I can see that you've had hidden recently), I'm sorry.
However, if I am right, your post and its' use of the "the post quoted has been removed":
1) framed lordhigh of saying something insulting that he didn't say
2) insulted another user by 'repeating' the 'rumours' that lordhigh never posted
Based on this, I would say that your post was removable for either of these two reasons, especially if the insulted user took offence.
If your complaint is based on the fact that the insulted user was a mod then look at it this way - if any user alerted a post like that and objected to the insult then it would be removed. The only difference when it is a mod is that the gap between alert and removal is shorter because the alert happens when a mod is on line.
I may be taking the wrong thread on this, but hopefully I've explained my thoughts based on what I can see.
Regards
BF
Originally posted by belgianfreakI meant the first one, which addressed nobody (not like the 2nd, which
it is difficult to see in the mod records because I can only see the post that was removed and not what was quoted (or, considering the theme of this disagreement, what was not quoted). However, for teh text of your post I would deduce that:
1) you had pretended that lordhigh had posted something that had been removed
2) that your post then s ...[text shortened]... hopefully I've explained my thoughts based on what I can see.
Regards
BF
addressed 'lordhigh'😉 and, thus, cannot be framed in the case of the
2nd, thus demonstrating the double standard.