Jump to content

Ok, real talk. Player/Alliance votes


Buorhann
 Share

Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, Buorhann said:

And I even stated that I don't give a !@#$ about this year's voting.  I started the discussion for next year, or did you miss that?

Nah I didn't miss anything. This is for next year's post, that's very good, we can all discuss and see how we can create a (near) unbiased situation for polls, but what happened to you before Inq votes started to come in? Why now?

And how do you see all those people who say there should be new polls and the votes by Inq members are invalid or we rigged the voting?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Bot said:

Nah I didn't miss anything. This is for next year's post, that's very good, we can all discuss and see how we can create a (near) unbiased situation for polls, but what happened to you before Inq votes started to come in? Why now?

I'm 35 years old working a HR job for a construction contract company that requires a lot of work before the holiday's hit.  While yes I do spend a lot of time on the forums, I don't pay attention to every single sub folder on the forum.  Let alone enough to catch up with the drama before I think "Oh hey, we should work on a solution to these problems if the community really wants it.  Let's see if we can have any discussion."

Apparently not.

 

As for your latter question, I've already stated that it's silly with their suggestions to make it invalid and/or restart them.

Also, @Bot, did you miss this little statement in the OP before you started pinning bias on me?

"(Otherwise stop complaining when alliances and their leaders are pushing their members to contribute in a vote, or push yours to do the same.  A lot of you are members of spheres/blocs that can very easily organize mass voting.   It honestly doesn't take much.)"

Edited by Buorhann
Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Buorhann said:

I'm 35 years old working a HR job for a construction contract company that requires a lot of work before the holiday's hit.  While yes I do spend a lot of time on the forums, I don't pay attention to every single sub folder on the forum.  Let alone enough to catch up with the drama before I think "Oh hey, we should work on a solution to these problems if the community really wants it.  Let's see if we can have any discussion."

Apparently not.

 

As for your latter question, I've already stated that it's silly with their suggestions to make it invalid and/or restart them.

Also, @Bot, did you miss this little statement in the OP before you started pinning bias on me?

"(Otherwise stop complaining when alliances and their leaders are pushing their members to contribute in a vote, or push yours to do the same.  A lot of you are members of spheres/blocs that can very easily organize mass voting.   It honestly doesn't take much.)"

lmao this is laughable. You were in the nomination thread when the nominations were going on and we are talking about the yearly awards sub-folder here, not any other.

That little statement is fine, what I find as a problem is, the way you are bringing it up. You'd have remained calm if it was TKR getting a lot of votes, I mean this is not the first time we are having this poll, it happens 2-3 times in the past, it's not like this is the first time and you missed your criticism because of your work

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Crazy idea, rather than !@#$ing about who is or isn't biased, how about you all just address the merit (or lack of merit) of the proposal one way or the other.

Its a proposal for next year anyway, by next year I doubt EMC/IQ will be a thing lmfao.

I don't think it will work as I already said, but if someone has a better idea they might as well say so otherwise maybe just say "no this is a bad idea don't do it" and move on?

lmfao

  • Upvote 3

XLL3z4T.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Sketchy said:

Crazy idea, rather than !@#$ing about who is or isn't biased, how about you all just address the merit (or lack of merit) of the proposal one way or the other.

Its a proposal for next year anyway, by next year I doubt EMC/IQ will be a thing lmfao.

I don't think it will work as I already said, but if someone has a better idea they might as well say so otherwise maybe just say "no this is a bad idea don't do it" and move on?

lmfao

Why shouldn't we talk about who is or isn't biased? The way a lot of people are reacting is disgusting to me, so I'm giving my opinions on why people are biased, esp if people are going to talk about restarting the polls just because they are not winning in a few categories.

About the proposals, we certainly can implement something solid, but can't accept if it's going to come up in a biased manner from someone. (Didn't I just reply to your post with a few proposals?)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, Buorhann said:

I would've said the same thing regardless of who was spamming what votes.  Hell, I would've spammed the votes myself and still created the same thread.  You can still hold a discussion on finding solutions for future voting threads while still being a paranoid forum troll or a honest legit voter.  Doesn't matter, and it doesn't detract from the purpose of the thread.

The fact you and the others who are constantly pointing this out, while there has been no bias shown otherwise, shows just how paranoid and/or pessimistic you guys are.  You're merely reinforcing the view some people have on you guys that you keep bringing up.

Hell, some of you, who have complained about rig voting in the past had prime opportunities to contribute or start up a discussion yourself.  I literally had a good conversation going, no bias, no alliance calling, no insults - but we get this.

"OH YOU WONT DO IT IF TKR WAS WINNING BUT I HAVE NO PROOF OTHERWISE TO SHOW THIS"

That's basically you right now.

I mean, look at the suggestions I stated myself.  I literally stated that we have a rep from each alliance (YES THAT INCLUDES YOU GUYS) to form a council of sorts to weed through the nominations.

If I was bias with my approach, why would I suggest such a thing?  Get over it.  Yes, I don't like IQsphere and this shit is reinforcing it, but I can approach people with no bias to hold a legit discussion on something that is meant to be community friendly on a neutral level.  I even supported your sphere through this drama shit telling people they can mass vote themselves to counter it or just get over it.  It's silly.  But yet I'm still bias.  Ok.

You know what, you're right and I apologize for getting out of line overreacting out of emotion. Like said though, the solution I offer is to do away with vote and issue awards based on factual stats over the course of the year. This would also require removing some of the awards and changing the names of some. Alliance with most/least new members of year x, alliance with most/least score growth of year x, most active owf poster, etc.. 

  • Upvote 3
  • Downvote 2

"I VM due to timezone differences" -Reuben Cheuk

 

timezoneVM.jpg.64e93c4270b92d26e0ac30572d9351eb.jpg 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Bot said:

Why shouldn't we talk about who is or isn't biased? The way a lot of people are reacting is disgusting to me, so I'm giving my opinions on why people are biased, esp if people are going to talk about restarting the polls just because they are not winning in a few categories.

About the proposals, we certainly can implement something solid, but can't accept if it's going to come up in a biased manner from someone. (Didn't I just reply to your post with a few proposals?)

I mean bias is inevitable in these kinds of votes, I think the point Bourhann was referring to is that last year sheepy kind of legitimized them so now they have a certain degree of impact its probably worth discussing a way to refine the awards system in general.

Also, bias has literally nothing to do with a proposal. Lets assume worst case scenario Bourhann is an evil biased hippo and hes only posting this because hes super salty he wasn't voted prettiest hippo of the year. What difference does that make to the actual proposal? Either its a good idea or its not, individual bias is ultimately irrelevant. Questioning his motivations is a waste of time then, since he'll just deny it and you'll go around in circles.

So basically you can either address what is good/bad about his proposal, provide a counter proposal, move on, or continue to accuse Bourhann of bias and get nowhere, I have no idea if you want to get anywhere or not but I figured i point it out anyway lmfao.

  • Upvote 4

XLL3z4T.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Sketchy said:

I mean bias is inevitable in these kinds of votes, I think the point Bourhann was referring to is that last year sheepy kind of legitimized them so now they have a certain degree of impact its probably worth discussing a way to refine the awards system in general.

Also, bias has literally nothing to do with a proposal. Lets assume worst case scenario Bourhann is an evil biased hippo and hes only posting this because hes super salty he wasn't voted prettiest hippo of the year. What difference does that make to the actual proposal? Either its a good idea or its not, individual bias is ultimately irrelevant. Questioning his motivations is a waste of time then, since he'll just deny it and you'll go around in circles.

So basically you can either address what is good/bad about his proposal, provide a counter proposal, move on, or continue to accuse Bourhann of bias and get nowhere, I have no idea if you want to get anywhere or not but I figured i point it out anyway lmfao.

Proposals can be biased, since you didn't quote, I assumed in general while giving that reply. Take Micchan's proposal for example, or Zeebrus for example, those are clearly biased, if you are going to see some votes as valid and others not.

Bias is inevitable, I agree. As for Buorhann, we can certainly discuss though, what I find striking (as I mentioned earlier) is the way he is bringing it up by remaining silent so far, which is what I've pointed out and he refused to acknowledge.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Bot said:

Proposals can be biased, since you didn't quote, I assumed in general while giving that reply. Take Micchan's proposal for example, or Zeebrus for example, those are clearly biased, if you are going to see some votes as valid and others not.

Bias is inevitable, I agree. As for Buorhann, we can certainly discuss though, what I find striking (as I mentioned earlier) is the way he is bringing it up by remaining silent so far, which is what I've pointed out and he refused to acknowledge.

I think you missed my point, which is not that proposals can't be biased, its that ultimately the bias is irrelevant. Either the idea is a good one or a bad one. The motivation/intention of the person proposing the idea only says something about that persons character, it says nothing about the actual validity of the idea.

Bourhanns motivations for proposing the idea are not a strike against the idea but again Bourhanns character assuming you are correct. A criticism of the idea would be something like "this won't eliminate bias and good luck getting alliances to form a consensus on anything".

What you are doing is fighting assumed bias with opposing bias rather than just telling him why his idea is a bad one.

  • Upvote 2

XLL3z4T.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Again to suggest that we should vote again because some people have voted "wrong" and people have missed out on their rightful award is arrogant and condescending to the voters. Who is the best ..... is subjective. If we make that awards based on objective/measurable outcomes like most members recruited or most cities built or again most damage dealt then the problem is eliminated. If we have a committee of delegates from each alliance you run into questions like why does a 10 person alliance have the same voting power as a 100 person alliance? Is the opinion of each 10 person alliance member 10 times more important?  I strongly feel that objective based awards is the best option.

Edited by Senatorius
Phone
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Senatorius said:

Again to suggest that we should vote again because some people have voted "wrong" and people have missed out on their rightful award is arrogant and condescending to the voters. Who is the best ..... is subjective. If we make that awards based on objective/measurable outcomes like most members recruited or most cities built or again most damage dealt then the problem is eliminated. If we have a committee of delegates from each alliance you run into questions like why does a 10 person alliance have the same voting power as a 100 person alliance? Is the opinion of each 10 person alliance 10 times more important?  I strongly feel that objective based awards is the best option.

While this is the easiest solution, it does kinda remove the community involvement element that makes these sorts of thing interesting. Personally I find the nomination period the most fun because you get to see individual perspectives of members of the community on most of the topics of the year.

 

  • Upvote 3

XLL3z4T.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, Bot said:

You'd have remained calm if it was TKR getting a lot of votes, I mean this is not the first time we are having this poll, it happens 2-3 times in the past, it's not like this is the first time and you missed your criticism because of your work

No, I wouldn't have, but you wouldn't know.  You're simply speculating it because of my opinion of you guys in the game.  I have shown nothing to you or said anything to you that proves your speculation even remotely correct.  Your argument is weak and you know it because the only thing you're falling back on is the timing of the thread (Even though I stated that this discussion would work towards next years).

I have, in the past, made fun of the voting myself while showing how easy it was to rig them.  So yes, I'm well aware of everything you're stating about it.

I get it though, you're more focused on being butt hurt that you cannot possibly contribute to the discussion beyond pointing out that some people have bias and therefore should be completely neglected out of the conversation, despite the fact that I literally had a very good constructive conversation started with someone whom I would normally be "biased against".

38 minutes ago, element85 said:

You know what, you're right and I apologize for getting out of line overreacting out of emotion. Like said though, the solution I offer is to do away with vote and issue awards based on factual stats over the course of the year. This would also require removing some of the awards and changing the names of some. Alliance with most/least new members of year x, alliance with most/least score growth of year x, most active owf poster, etc.. 

I really don't see a issue with this.  You're saying that we should base the rewards off of factual stats that we can pull, and eliminate the rest?  I would love to see some of the topics trimmed away or, at the very least, changed to be more definitive.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Sketchy said:

While this is the easiest solution, it does kinda remove the community involvement element that makes these sorts of thing interesting. Personally I find the nomination period the most fun because you get to see individual perspectives of members of the community on most of the topics of the year.

 

I can't argue with that or think of a way to keep that element without having a form of community bias also involved in the outcomes of the awards. If we have a system of polling peoples opinions on matters we can not reasonably object when the poll shows an opinion contrary to what is our own opinion. I can see how people can disagree with a result but can not understand how we feel that the result fails to reflect the views of the people who voluntarily choose to vote that way. 

And for the whole Bourhann bias thing I to am biased (we all are) but his proposal that we try to find a method of improving our voting system for the 2018 elections is worthwhile. I don't know how to improve it as limiting voting will not improve it in my opinion but the discussion is worth having

  • Upvote 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The whole bias thing are people perceiving it as of now, when I mentioned the discussion for solutions would be for later.  Even the initial suggestions I had while talking to Edward was more inclusive than exclusive by having a rep from each alliance in the Top 15 (Or Top 20 if people prefer, it's a discussion afterall).  It's just an annoying thing that some want to clutter this thread with due to not having anything else to say.

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Sketchy said:

I think you missed my point, which is not that proposals can't be biased, its that ultimately the bias is irrelevant. Either the idea is a good one or a bad one. The motivation/intention of the person proposing the idea only says something about that persons character, it says nothing about the actual validity of the idea.

Bourhanns motivations for proposing the idea are not a strike against the idea but again Bourhanns character assuming you are correct. A criticism of the idea would be something like "this won't eliminate bias and good luck getting alliances to form a consensus on anything".

What you are doing is fighting assumed bias with opposing bias rather than just telling him why his idea is a bad one.

How come bias is irrelevant, esp if it's about opinion polls? It's going to decide the outcome, since it's based on everyone's perspective and opinions. It is relevant and if we are going to have some rational discussion on the topic, we need to first act neutral, not biased, that's the first requirement.

How do you define good one or a bad one in this scenario? If it's biased against you, you'd definitely call it as a bad one.

Kindly check below for a reply for your second para.

1 hour ago, Buorhann said:

No, I wouldn't have, but you wouldn't know.  You're simply speculating it because of my opinion of you guys in the game.  I have shown nothing to you or said anything to you that proves your speculation even remotely correct.  Your argument is weak and you know it because the only thing you're falling back on is the timing of the thread (Even though I stated that this discussion would work towards next years).

I have, in the past, made fun of the voting myself while showing how easy it was to rig them.  So yes, I'm well aware of everything you're stating about it.

I get it though, you're more focused on being butt hurt that you cannot possibly contribute to the discussion beyond pointing out that some people have bias and therefore should be completely neglected out of the conversation, despite the fact that I literally had a very good constructive conversation started with someone whom I would normally be "biased against".

I really don't see a issue with this.  You're saying that we should base the rewards off of factual stats that we can pull, and eliminate the rest?  I would love to see some of the topics trimmed away or, at the very least, changed to be more definitive.

There are just two (or three of you consider a tie) outcomes that can come out of this poll. One is, TKR getting the usual awards or the other thing is, Inq getting our members to vote. This is my point, try to understand it, till you saw the Inq votes, you didn't say anything, you were posting in the sub-folder of PnW awards, so what were you thinking so far? Were you thinking that, just like last year TKR members will vote for TKR and everyone will remain calm and TKR will get all awards?

In addition to the above, this is not the first time such a poll is happening, we all knew what happened in previous polls, so it's not really a secret how the poll works, yet you didn't mention a word till you saw the outcome.

Oh don't mistake me, I can very well contribute if the discussion is really civil and rational (I haven't seen such discussions so far on forums involving Inq by a EMC fellow, esp from you, thats another case), but I'll point it out when someone is going to put up some statements full of bias against our alliance, I don't see anything wrong in it.

We can have rewards based on actual stats, for sure. I can help out my best if someone is going to collect huge sets of data and I'll be open for a discussion if that happens in a decent environment.

Edited by Bot
corrections
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Holy hell dude.  There is something legit wrong with you.  I'm not going to keep rehashing stuff that is pretty much irrelevant to this thread's purpose.

3 minutes ago, Bot said:

We can have rewards based on actual stats, for sure. I can help out my best if someone is going to collect huge sets of data and I'll be open for a discussion if that happens in a decent environment.

Cool.  We'll keep it in mind then, but until we get to that point, as a community we have to reach a compromise on how to approach it and what criteria would make us all happy or content with.

Personally, I'd like to hear more ideas from others as there's only a few here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Buorhann said:

Holy hell dude.  There is something legit wrong with you.  I'm not going to keep rehashing stuff that is pretty much irrelevant to this thread's purpose.

This is how you usually respond, so I'll leave at this stage.

1 minute ago, Buorhann said:

Cool.  We'll keep it in mind then, but until we get to that point, as a community we have to reach a compromise on how to approach it and what criteria would make us all happy or content with.

Personally, I'd like to hear more ideas from others as there's only a few here.

Great

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Bot said:

How come bias is irrelevant, esp if it's about opinion polls? It's going to decide the outcome, since it's based on everyone's perspective and opinions. It is relevant and if we are going to have some rational discussion on the topic, we need to first act neutral, not biased, that's the first requirement.

Kindly check below for a reply for your second para.

Okay so clearly yet again you've missed the point of what I was saying for the final time I'll try to illuminate it for you.

If your goal is literally just to smear Bourhanns character than fine w/e carry on. 

If your goal is to object to the proposal, then actually address the proposal and its flaws not the perceived motivation behind them (or atleast do both).

If your goal is to actually constructively propose ideas and arguments for improving the voting system, then object to the proposal and counter with your own.

Arguing about bias doesn't serve to further the argument, you'll just be arguing about it over and over and nothing constructive will come about it.

Not sure how you could have so completely misunderstood my posts lmfao. I was pretty clear.

  • Upvote 4

XLL3z4T.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Sketchy said:

Okay so clearly yet again you've missed the point of what I was saying for the final time I'll try to illuminate it for you.

If your goal is literally just to smear Bourhanns character than fine w/e carry on. 

If your goal is to object to the proposal, then actually address the proposal and its flaws not the perceived motivation behind them (or atleast do both).

If your goal is to actually constructively propose ideas and arguments for improving the voting system, then object to the proposal and counter with your own.

Arguing about bias doesn't serve to further the argument, you'll just be arguing about it over and over and nothing constructive will come about it.

Not sure how you could have so completely misunderstood my posts lmfao. I was pretty clear.

Why shouldn't I address the motivations behind it? (I'll do both, yeah, but not without pointing out this one) I mean, if a group of people are going to make ads boasting how honorable they are from an opinion polls in the previous year and they are butt hurt this year and say things that "some votes shouldn't be considered", thats what I was talking about. regarding the actual proposal, I'll be up for it, as I've said before. Regarding Buorhann, I was questioning the timing of his posts, about how he never reacted to old polls or how he didn't react to this poll before Inq votes started to come in, but yeah we are past this stage now, no point in arguing about it if you are not going to address it directly.

I didn't misunderstand your post, you said in your previous post that bias is irrelevant and I disagreed. I mean, TKR was reacting differently to the polls last year than now, some people are even going to an extend of saying absurd things, there is nothing wrong in bringing it up.

Edited by Bot
corrections
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In Bourhann's defence I believe that the suggestions were for the 2018 awards and not this one. If this is correct then he is attempting to make sure the timing does not have an impact on the outcome. I also think that attributing Bourhann's desire to change the system as self serving is equivalent to some EMC's (and others) members attributing IQs success in awards as an inability to understand the issue. Attributing values or opinions to others is usually speculation.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Bot said:

Why shouldn't I address the motivations behind it? (I'll do both, yeah, but not without pointing out this one) I mean, if a group of people are going to make ads boasting how honorable they are from an opinion polls in the previous year and they are butt hurt this year and say things that "some votes shouldn't be considered", thats what I was talking about. regarding the actual proposal, I'll be up for it, as I've said before. Regarding Buorhann, I was questioning the timing of his posts, about how he never reacted to old polls or how he didn't react to this poll before Inq votes started to come in, but yeah we are past this stage now, no point in arguing about it if you are not going to address it directly.

All the other people !@#$ing (who I disagree with just to be clear) are not Bourhann. Normally people respond to what a person says not what other people say.

You questioned his motives, he said he wasn't biased, you said he was, he said he wasn't. He addressed your response directly and then you both argued over whether he was lying which is a completely redundant argument. I suggested you both move on and just discuss the proposal.

22 minutes ago, Bot said:

 

I didn't misunderstand your post, you said in your previous post that bias is irrelevant and I disagreed. I mean, TKR was reacting differently to the polls last year than now, some people are even going to an extend of saying absurd things, there is nothing wrong in bringing it up.

I said bias was irrelevant to a proposal not in general. You really aren't great at context are you. Let me quote myself to save time.

2 hours ago, Sketchy said:

Also, bias has literally nothing to do with a proposal. Lets assume worst case scenario Bourhann is an evil biased hippo and hes only posting this because hes super salty he wasn't voted prettiest hippo of the year. What difference does that make to the actual proposal? Either its a good idea or its not, individual bias is ultimately irrelevant. Questioning his motivations is a waste of time then, since he'll just deny it and you'll go around in circles.

So you can keep harping on about how biased Bourhann is, or you can provide constructive arguments about the actual topic and not Bourhann. If you don't pick up what I'm putting down this time I'll add you to my ever growing list of "Don't talk to this person unless you feel like tormenting the intellectually challenged for amusement".

  • Upvote 3

XLL3z4T.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Sketchy said:

All the other people !@#$ing (who I disagree with just to be clear) are not Bourhann. Normally people respond to what a person says not what other people say.

You questioned his motives, he said he wasn't biased, you said he was, he said he wasn't. He addressed your response directly and then you both argued over whether he was lying which is a completely redundant argument. I suggested you both move on and just discuss the proposal.

Didn't you read the previous post? We moved on, you are bring it back now for some reason. Also, you are spinning it in your own narrative. I pointed out his timing, he said he was busy and didn't have time to check that sub-folder, I said he already posted in that same sub-folder, then we decided to move on, as this kind of discussion won't lead to anywhere.

3 minutes ago, Sketchy said:

I said bias was irrelevant to a proposal not in general. You really aren't great at context are you. Let me quote myself to save time.

 

So you can keep harping on about how biased Bourhann is, or you can provide constructive arguments about the actual topic and not Bourhann. If you don't pick up what I'm putting down this time I'll add you to my ever growing list of "Don't talk to this person unless you feel like tormenting the intellectually challenged for amusement".

So if someone is going to propose that new members shouldn't be allowed to vote or members who are not active in forums shouldn't vote, that doesn't matter? This particular suggestion came because Inq members are not active in forums. And I don't care about your list.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Bot said:

Didn't you read the previous post? We moved on, you are bring it back now for some reason. Also, you are spinning it in your own narrative. I pointed out his timing, he said he was busy and didn't have time to check that sub-folder, I said he already posted in that same sub-folder, then we decided to move on, as this kind of discussion won't lead to anywhere.

So if someone is going to propose that new members shouldn't be allowed to vote or members who are not active in forums shouldn't vote, that doesn't matter? This particular suggestion came because Inq members are not active in forums. And I don't care about your list.

The suggestion that IQ members could not vote was not Bourhann's. I do think it is unfair to tell someone they can't vote but Bourhann did not suggest it

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Bot said:

Didn't you read the previous post? We moved on, you are bring it back now for some reason. Also, you are spinning it in your own narrative. I pointed out his timing, he said he was busy and didn't have time to check that sub-folder, I said he already posted in that same sub-folder, then we decided to move on, as this kind of discussion won't lead to anywhere.

So if someone is going to propose that new members shouldn't be allowed to vote or members who are not active in forums shouldn't vote, that doesn't matter? This particular suggestion came because Inq members are not active in forums. And I don't care about your list.

We literally just had a discussion about it and now suddenly it moved on? Spinning what narrative? I'm literally trying to get the topic onto a more constructive path so it has some actual positive results if at all possible.

As for your second post, no it wouldn't be okay because that would be a bad idea, which is literally my entire point, bias is irrelevant  to an idea because something is either a good idea or a bad idea, WHY a person proposes an idea has no bearing on whether or not that idea is a good proposal or not. This point seems continuously fly right over your head. You seem to have issues with basic comprehension.

Anyway I'll cut my losses and just ignore you in the hopes other people who understand context and have basic comprehension skills and actual proposals fill up the gaps.

 

  • Upvote 3
  • Downvote 1

XLL3z4T.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Senatorius said:

The suggestion that IQ members could not vote was not Bourhann's. I do think it is unfair to tell someone they can't vote but Bourhann did not suggest it

Oh come on, I said I was questioning his timing of this post and why he didn't say anything on previous occasions.

 

4 minutes ago, Sketchy said:

We literally just had a discussion about it and now suddenly it moved on? Spinning what narrative? I'm literally trying to get the topic onto a more constructive path so it has some actual positive results if at all possible.

Can you just check the old posts before posting new ones?

5 minutes ago, Sketchy said:

Anyway I'll cut my losses and just ignore you in the hopes other people who understand context and have basic comprehension skills and actual proposals fill up the gaps.

Fine, good day !

  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Jax locked this topic
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and the Guidelines of the game and community.