Spoonwood, we need to have a talk.

DarkDrak · 2019-12-20 08:35:28

Spoonwood wrote:

I'm not happy that people feel annoyed, but I still rather have people feel annoyed and read more of the old threads which provide some context than just skip clicking through links. Why? Because they're more informed that way. And I think it's better to be informed and annoyed than uninformed and satisfied. At least for some things.

We get it. If you'd rather be annoyed but informed, than uninformed but satisfied, that's fine. But dont decide that for others, wtf? Our opinion on the matter is that we'd rather see a new thread with a link to an old one than a necroed old thread. Could you respect our opinion?

Also, i'd argue that people arent really getting more informed this way.
Firstly, those who want to inform them selves about an old thread will do so through the link: for them there's no benefit in necroing an old thread as opposed to making a new thread with a link.
Secondly those who don't want to inform themselves about the old threads either simply wont do it, or will read a bit and and drop it once they realize what's going on. Then they'll forget it all the next day.
The replies that people leave on the necroed threads are mostly shitposts. And the part that's made of honest opinions could very well be posted in a new thread instead.

I'm not desisting until i get you to promise to stop necroing threads. Im willing to discuss with you about it until the forums get nuked down. I'm gonna repeat myself way beyound the point where i sound like a broken record and i'll explain myself until you can understand and respect my point of view. I'm not asking you to make it yours, i'm asking you to respect it. Even if you disagree with it, which is fine, promise that you wont be necroing threads anymore.

DestinyCall · 2019-12-20 08:39:04

**three years later, the "don't necro threads" post is necro'ed, neither side willing to back down**

DiscardedSlinky · 2019-12-20 08:40:57

Maybe posts should be locked after like 6 months.

DarkDrak · 2019-12-20 08:44:15

FulmenTheFinn wrote:

Over at another forum I frequent, https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/in … tudio.720/, they ban people who repeatedly necro threads that have been inactive for over 30 days, and lock the necro'd thread. Why moderators aren't doing anything about someone repeatedly necroing over half a year old threads on this board is baffling.

Mods arent going to do anything until you report the issue to them with the report function. that's pretty much how moderation works. Nobody uses report function here, pretty sure most people forgot about its existence.

The whole point of this thread is because i dont want to settle it with reports, i want to settle it with a mature discussion.

Spoonwood wrote:

Honestly, to me it's baffling that you think that reviving old threads can't have any relevance to present concerns. Do you think every point got considered in long posts by Jason? Do you think that everyone spoke up, when some people, as they put it, 'don't want to get involved in the drama'? Do you think that all old issues somehow magically disappear and get resolved?
Honestly, it's also baffling to me that moderators do that. It's an imposition on the freedom of speech. And for what reason? Because people don't want to think about old issues still present in a new context?

You don't get it. The problem isn't about reopening old discussions, it's merely about the way of doing that. When we have something to say about old topics, we don't want to say them in the old thread, we'd like to post them in a new thread that's linked to the old one instead. The problem about necroing old threads is not that people want to forget those discussions forever, it's that they don't want to be tricked to open the thread all hyped up for something new and be left with disappointment.

StrongForce · 2019-12-20 09:25:42

Spoonwood wrote:

So, I don't just say 'BUMP!'. I usually have some opinion on what got said in one of those threads. So, I think there's some new discussion there. You want to say that what I write is no new information, I guess you can. But seriously, with the walls of text I sometimes write, you think there's nothing in there?

The problem is you necro posts with Jason as author implinging that this is something he is currently thinking about WICH IS FALSE INFORMATION

Necro other players posts or your own all you want. But a lot of players are here to find out what Jason is working on and you keep feeding us necros misusing Jason's name

Spoonwood · 2019-12-20 09:33:13

StrongFace wrote:

The problem is you necro posts with Jason as author implinging that this is something he is currently thinking about ...

There's certain issues that he brings up over and over again. So, I really wouldn't be so sure about that.

arkajalka · 2019-12-20 09:44:45

Most annoying thing in these necro threads is that you may read several pages of old information that is not even a thing nowdayes. Put some serious thought into an aspect that has been dug to a grave by recent updates before you realize that its a necro thread by spoonwood.

Can you just freaking paste a link to the old thread instead of bumping old ones up. This shit is making forums awfull to follow. Even considerring not reading most of the topics now cause its a waste of time. So freaking frustrating.

sigmen4020 · 2019-12-20 09:51:15

arkajalka wrote:

Most annoying thing in these necro threads is that you may read several pages of old information that is not even a thing nowdayes. Put some serious thought into an aspect that has been dug to a grave by recent updates before you realize that its a necro thread by spoonwood.
Can you just freaking paste a link to the old thread instead of bumping old ones up. This shit is making forums awfull to follow. Even considerring not reading most of the topics now cause its a waste of time. So freaking frustrating.

But he is doing us a favor lol:

Spoonwood wrote:

I'm not happy that people feel annoyed, but I still rather have people feel annoyed and read more of the old threads which provide some context than just skip clicking through links. Why? Because they're more informed that way. And I think it's better to be informed and annoyed than uninformed and satisfied. At least for some things.

Melea · 2019-12-20 14:38:19

Spoonwood wrote:

Look, I welcome other people stating their opinions.
Also, Lava, no I'm not doing what I've done merely to get some sort of rise out of people.
I'm not happy that people feel annoyed, but I still rather have people feel annoyed and read more of the old threads which provide some context than just skip clicking through links. Why? Because they're more informed that way. And I think it's better to be informed and annoyed than uninformed and satisfied. At least for some things.

Ok. I feel like this should be obvious, but....people don't like being annoyed. If you annoy them too much they will start actively avoiding you/your posts. Hell, the incessant thread necro-ing already means that I don't bother opening a front-page thread anymore if the "Last Post" area says Spoonwood.

A "People don't like X. But I know better than those people, 'X' is good for them! I'm gonna do it anyways." is an awful approach. It breeds hostility.

If someone is invested in your idea, they will click through to the relevant old thread for background info. If they're only somewhat interested maybe they won't. But forcing the issue by necro-ing old threads just means that people learn to ignore ALL your posts. You're trading "some people who check out my idea go on to read the old thread and 'get more informed'" (new thread + link) for "everyone gets incredibly annoyed and basically ignores posts by Spoonwood" (pervasive necro-ing) <-- here, many less people are "getting more informed" because now they're actively avoiding the annoyance.

Spoonwood · 2019-12-20 15:21:22

DestinyCall wrote:

Or perhaps it is because these forums have notoriously lax moderation.
...
When your audience stages an intervention, maybe it is time to consider changing your approach. Just saying ...

Nope. I've been over at the civ III forums for a very long time. Threads necroed from a long time ago, I'm talking years, aren't too uncommon. Such helps to keep things fresh. Additionally, tight moderation is often how minds get closed, not opened. Jason has already had a problem with not getting enough discussion and had that problem for a very long time. The people calling fo more moderation aren't looking to have better discussions, or if they are, they don't know how to have them, because better discussions require more perspectives AND reconsideration of old perspectives. And that means reading old threads sometimes.

Spoonwood · 2019-12-20 15:27:25

Melea wrote:

A "People don't like X. But I know better than those people, 'X' is good for them! I'm gonna do it anyways." is an awful approach. It breeds hostility.

I'm not trying to win friends. I'm trying to get people to think and take into more information.

Melea wrote:

If someone is invested in your idea, they will click through to the relevant old thread for background info.

Well, I don't want people just invested in my idea. I want people considering my ideas AND the other ideas from old threads where I read them. So, it sounds to me like I'm making the right call by reviving those old threads, since it gets people to consider other relevant ideas, not just my own.

Melea wrote:

But forcing the issue by necro-ing old threads just means that people learn to ignore ALL your posts.

I've revived old threads started by Jason. Do you really think they'll ignore what Jason said in the past? If so, that's their loss, not mine.

Melea wrote:

You're trading "some people who check out my idea go on to read the old thread and 'get more informed'" (new thread + link) for "everyone gets incredibly annoyed and basically ignores posts by Spoonwood" (pervasive necro-ing) <-- here, many less people are "getting more informed" because now they're actively avoiding the annoyance.

It doesn't look like it to me. People are talking about how I've done such. Also, JasonY bumped two of my old threads. One of them even has relevance to the current situation that I didn't realize.

arkajalka · 2019-12-21 01:28:24

Spoonwood wrote:

I'm not trying to win friends. I'm trying to get people to think and take into more information.

All you are doing is destroying the forums and pushing people out of here. Ridiculously hard to read now thanks to your one year old bumps.

Spoonwood · 2019-12-21 01:53:29

DarkDrak wrote:

We get it. If you'd rather be annoyed but informed, than uninformed but satisfied, that's fine. But dont decide that for others, wtf? Our opinion on the matter is that we'd rather see a new thread with a link to an old one than a necroed old thread. Could you respect our opinion?

I haven't been deciding for others. And I'm not capable of doing so either.

I respect your opinion. But, I get to choose my own behavior.

DarkDrak wrote:

Secondly those who don't want to inform themselves about the old threads either simply wont do it, or will read a bit and and drop it once they realize what's going on.

Ah, but in the later case where they read a little bit, they've informed themselves some more than before.

DarkDrak wrote:

The replies that people leave on the necroed threads are mostly shitposts.

I have seen comments with information in them in reply to necroed threads.

DarkDrak wrote:

I'm not desisting until i get you to promise to stop necroing threads.

Then it's clear that you don't respect my choosing things here. You want to force me to behave as you expect I should instead of leaving me free to decide how I do things. Necroing threads does not harm people in the slightest. People are capable of checking the dates or reading them. I will NOT be making any such problems. And you are a manipulative person who should learn to respect other people's choices even when you disagree with them.

DarkDrak wrote:

I'm gonna repeat myself way beyound the point where i sound like a broken record and i'll explain myself until you can understand and respect my point of view.

I already respect your point of view. I do not respect your controlling attitude. You are acting immorally by trying to impose how you think you should behave onto someone else. I am not.

DarkDrak wrote:

I'm not asking you to make it yours, i'm asking you to respect it.

No, you're not. You're asking me to conform to your set of expected behaviors.

DarkDrak wrote:

Even if you disagree with it, which is fine, promise that you wont be necroing threads anymore.

I won't be making any such promises. I will point out that you are a control freak who can't stand when someone acts outside of the box of expected behaviors of people.

I thought it was silly when Karl necroed some threads saying 'bump' or whatever it was. But I was willing to tolerate his behavior. In the end he gets to choose how he acts. You on the other hand, you don't have a clue about what tolerance is. Either that or you massively undervalue it.

Spoonwood · 2019-12-21 02:01:17

DarkDrak wrote:

The whole point of this thread is because i dont want to settle it with reports, i want to settle it with a mature discussion.

Please. You have insisted that I conform to your desires, trying to leave me no choice in the matter. That is not mature. That sort of behavior is the mark of a petulant child who must have their way, not a mature adult who can tolerate behavior from others that does not fit their own personal code of conduct.

DarkDrak wrote:

You don't get it.

I do get it. Your objections, in the end, are based on an emotional reaction, not reason. And thus since you won't try to deal with your emotional reaction or rethink it, you don't have the fortitude to tolerate behavior that you don't like.

DarkDrak wrote:

When we have something to say about old topics, we don't want to say them in the old thread, we'd like to post them in a new thread that's linked to the old one instead.

No, not we. You. Speak for yourself. And that you didn't do so, suggests that you might have a problem with honesty here.

DarkDrak wrote:

The problem about necroing old threads is not that people want to forget those discussions forever, it's that they don't want to be tricked to open the thread all hyped up for something new and be left with disappointment.

There is no trick. That a thread appears at the top ONLY means that the last comment there is the most recent. And that's all it's ever meant. If you've thought that it means that the thread was started the earliest, then you had a false expectation. And when you have a false expectation, the burden of responsibility falls on you.

karltown_veteran · 2019-12-21 02:07:19

What the hell Spoonwood? Of course we expect new threads at the top, because no one ever brings back old threads. No one sane, that is. Excluding you, the only person who has decided to bring back old threads.

Spoonwood · 2019-12-21 02:10:11

arkajalka wrote:

Most annoying thing in these necro threads is that you may read several pages of old information that is not even a thing nowdayes.

It's your responsibility to figure out the time of a statement, not someone else's responsibility. And dates do exist next to all comments.

arkajalka wrote:

All you are doing is destroying the forums and pushing people out of here.

On the contrary, Kinrany made a separate post after reading a thread I necroed https://onehouronelife.com/forums/viewtopic.php?id=8722. On the contrary someone revived my "On the Decline of Eve Camps" and there was more discussion about that issue after that necoring happened https://onehouronelife.com/forums/viewtopic.php?id=6845: On the contrary, others have revived old topics, INCLUDING YOURSELF, after I started necroing old threads: https://onehouronelife.com/forums/viewtopic.php?id=1139

You say that I'm pushing people out, but they have posted in response to my necros. And how are forums getting destroyed, when more has gotten discussed? Surely, you must be joking, or you haven't realized what you asserted there.

Spoonwood · 2019-12-21 02:12:02

karltown_veteran wrote:

What the hell Spoonwood? Of course we expect new threads at the top, because no one ever brings back old threads. No one sane, that is. Excluding you, the only person who has decided to bring back old threads.

The thread at the top has often NOT been the newest thread. People's comments have always pushed a thread to the top.

You can only reasonably expect that a thread at the top has the latest comment of all threads.

DarkDrak · 2019-12-21 10:53:26

Spoonwood wrote:

No, not we. You. Speak for yourself. And that you didn't do so, suggests that you might have a problem with honesty here.

No. Not me. Us. When i'm explaining my own reasons for not wanting to see necroed threads, then i speak for myself. But when i state that people would rather have new threads with link to the old ones, then it's not just me. There are several people who had asked you to do that. And i counted at least 10 who have expressed their annoyance on the matter.

Spoonwood wrote:

I have seen comments with information in them in reply to necroed threads.

I've seen them too. Which is why i went with "mostly" instead of "only". However The quantity of shitposts on necroed threads exceeds the quantity of useful information (after the thread was necroed, ofc). A problem that i fail to see on the threads that want to discuss old stuff by linking to it.

Spoonwood wrote:

I haven't been deciding for others. And I'm not capable of doing so either.

How so? I mean...

Spoonwood wrote:

DarkDrak wrote:
Secondly those who don't want to inform themselves about the old threads either simply wont do it, or will read a bit and and drop it once they realize what's going on.
Ah, but in the later case where they read a little bit, they've informed themselves some more than before.

Spoonwood wrote:

I'm trying to get people to think and take into more information. [...] I want people considering my ideas AND the other ideas from old threads where I read them.

Doesn't this basically mean that you decide, on their behalf, to read some of the old comments?

Spoonwood wrote:

You have insisted that I conform to your desires, trying to leave me no choice in the matter.

Spoonwood wrote:

Then it's clear that you don't respect my choosing things here. You want to force me to behave as you expect I should instead of leaving me free to decide how I do things.

I respect others as long as their words or actions are not disrespectful towards myself or others. And, as i had stated earlier, i find necroing to be just that. Disrespectful towards others. Especially when several people asked you several times to not do that, but you had continued regardless. So yeah, i'm not respecting your choise of disrespecting others. I respect your intent behind that. To inform people, to discuss with people. But the way that you choosed to do that, when reviving threads, rubs me the wrong way.

Spoonwood wrote:

Your objections, in the end, are based on an emotional reaction, not reason. And thus since you won't try to deal with your emotional reaction or rethink it, you don't have the fortitude to tolerate behavior that you don't like.

I am an emotional person, yes. No, i normally do tend to consider my emotions under a logical perspective. No, i do tolerate behaviors that i don't agree with. As long as they aren't being blatantly annoying. In which case, why would i tolerate them? And what about you? Do you define yourself a logical person? In which case, do you rethink your logical reactions under an emotional perspective? Do you have the fortitude to compromise with behavior that you don't like?

Spoonwood wrote:

You have insisted that I conform to your desires, trying to leave me no choice in the matter. That is not mature. That sort of behavior is the mark of a petulant child who must have their way, not a mature adult who can tolerate behavior from others that does not fit their own personal code of conduct.

Frankly, i can say the same about yourself. You're insisting to make everyone conform to your desire of accepting necro threads, leaving nobody a choice in the matter, aren't you? I'm trying to reason with you. I'm trying to find a compromise. One where you get to realise the intent behind those actions, without being annoying to others. What i want is a win-win scenario. What about you?

Spoonwood wrote:

And you are a manipulative person who should learn to respect other people's choices even when you disagree with them.

I'm trying to reason with you by defending my point of view and explaining it further until you can understand it. I think you have noticed by now, but im trying to mimic your own way of defending your ideas when people disagree with them. I thought it would be a way of discussion you'd enjoy. But if you find my way of doing things to be manipulative and controlling, then im afraid you should take a moment of deep self reflection.

Spoonwood wrote:

There is no trick. That a thread appears at the top ONLY means that the last comment there is the most recent. And that's all it's ever meant. If you've thought that it means that the thread was started the earliest, then you had a false expectation. And when you have a false expectation, the burden of responsibility falls on you.

You basically use the fact that others have false expectations for the threads that they see on the front page. You use that to achieve your goal to get people to inform themselves on old topics. A noble goal, ok. But that's literally what tricking others means. That's literally what manipulation is.

Spoonwood wrote:

You are acting immorally by trying to impose how you think you should behave onto someone else. I am not.

But you are. You very clearly are.

Spoonwood wrote:

Necroing threads does not harm people in the slightest. People are capable of checking the dates or reading them. I will NOT be making any such problems.

Right here. You're trying to impose on people the attitude that you think they should have towards necroed threads, despite people telling you clearly that that's not what they think about it.

Spoonwood wrote:

I respect your opinion. But, I get to choose my own behavior. [...] I already respect your point of view.

Yeah, ok, it's true, you get to choose your own behavior. I also have no problems believing that you do have respect for my point of view as an idea that's different from your own. But this is not like respecting the point of view of a non-smoker but remaining a smoker yourself. This is like respecting the point of view of a non-smoker but smoking in their face regardless. If that's the behavior you choose, then we still have a problem.

Spoonwood wrote:

I do not respect your controlling attitude.

I know, it's really hard to respect the controlling attitude of others, when you have one yourself. I don't respect yours either. But try to work with me here.

Spoonwood wrote:

I will point out that you are a control freak who can't stand when someone acts outside of the box of expected behaviors of people.

I'm really just the kind of guy who hates it when others smoke in my face. And who thinks that most problems can be resolved with a dialogue and some proper explanations. That if you let people know that what they're doing is posing an inconvenience to you, they'll understand, we can find a way for them to do w/e they wanna do without tormenting others and everyone will win. That's pretty much who i am.

Now, i'm gonna point out that you're a narcissist who doesn't care if their actions inconvenience others. This whole discussion made me realize it pretty clearly.

I'm sorry that i failed to be mature in this discusison. I really tried. In my defence, you have prooven yourself to be a very immature person aswell, Spoon.

FulmenTheFinn · 2019-12-21 12:07:17

Tbh I just yesterday noticed Spoonwood's join date and post count. On average he's made ~6 posts per day since he joined 318 days ago. Maybe not staring at the forum all the time would do you some good, Spoonie.

Spoonwood · 2019-12-21 12:10:13

DarkDrak wrote:

Spoonwood wrote:
No, not we. You. Speak for yourself. And that you didn't do so, suggests that you might have a problem with honesty here.
No. Not me. Us. When i'm explaining my own reasons for not wanting to see necroed threads, then i speak for myself. But when i state that people would rather have new threads with link to the old ones, then it's not just me. There are several people who had asked you to do that. And i counted at least 10 who have expressed their annoyance on the matter.

Nope, not us. You. You and whoever else agrees with you at most. I'm your audience here sir or ma'am. So, it's not 'we' or 'us'. It's 'you'.

DarkDrak wrote:

I've seen them too. Which is why i went with "mostly" instead of "only". However The quantity of shitposts on necroed threads exceeds the quantity of useful information (after the thread was necroed, ofc). A problem that i fail to see on the threads that want to discuss old stuff by linking to it.

People are responsible for their own posts. I haven't been shitposting. I am not responsible for those shitposts. The shitposters are.

DarkDrak wrote:

Spoonwood wrote:
I haven't been deciding for others. And I'm not capable of doing so either.
How so? I mean...

I don't click links for others or read via other eyes. They make the choice to read or not, or whether or not they find value in reading.

DarkDrak wrote:

Doesn't this basically mean that you decide, on their behalf, to read some of the old comments?

Nope. They get to decide whether or not to read my comments and other comments.

DarkDrak wrote:

Spoonwood wrote:
You have insisted that I conform to your desires, trying to leave me no choice in the matter.
Spoonwood wrote:
Then it's clear that you don't respect my choosing things here. You want to force me to behave as you expect I should instead of leaving me free to decide how I do things.
I respect others as long as their words or actions are not disrespectful towards myself or others. And, as i had stated earlier, i find necroing to be just that. Disrespectful towards others.

You're wrong. You get to choose to read or not.

DarkDrak wrote:

Especially when several people asked you several times to not do that, but you had continued regardless.

Yeah, so what? I get to decide how I behave. They can ask, and I can say no.

DarkDrak wrote:

So yeah, i'm not respecting your choise of disrespecting others.

Right, so you can't control what I say, thus you try to shame me by saying that I'm being disrespectful. You're a control freak who can't stand when people act in ways that you don't like.

DarkDrak wrote:

I respect your intent behind that. To inform people, to discuss with people. But the way that you choosed to do that, when reviving threads, rubs me the wrong way.

That's your problem, not mine.

DarkDrak wrote:

Spoonwood wrote:
Your objections, in the end, are based on an emotional reaction, not reason. And thus since you won't try to deal with your emotional reaction or rethink it, you don't have the fortitude to tolerate behavior that you don't like.
I am an emotional person, yes. No, i normally do tend to consider my emotions under a logical perspective. No, i do tolerate behaviors that i don't agree with. As long as they aren't being blatantly annoying. In which case, why would i tolerate them?

Right. You have a problem with tolerating negative reactions. You bear the marks of an intolerant control freak who bases things on their emotions not reasons.

You being annoyed is YOUR emotion. It is not a reason. It is not enough for you to try to change someone else's behavior, especially when that person has not agreed to you changing that behavior. Your emotions do not give you a right to dictate how others should act.

DarkDrak wrote:

And what about you? Do you define yourself a logical person?

It doesn't matter what I think of myself. I get to decide how I act.

DarkDrak wrote:

In which case, do you rethink your logical reactions under an emotional perspective?

lol... emotional reasoning is fallacious in general.

DarkDrak wrote:

Do you have the fortitude to compromise with behavior that you don't like?

Oh look, you can throw a word like fortitude around when you're not getting your way. Grow up. Learn some tolerance. Learn to let others behave as they will, even if you don't like it or if their behavior annoys you.

DarkDrak wrote:

Spoonwood wrote:
You have insisted that I conform to your desires, trying to leave me no choice in the matter. That is not mature. That sort of behavior is the mark of a petulant child who must have their way, not a mature adult who can tolerate behavior from others that does not fit their own personal code of conduct.
Frankly, i can say the same about yourself. You're insisting to make everyone conform to your desire of accepting necro threads, leaving nobody a choice in the matter, aren't you?

Pretty sure I haven't said anywhere that shouldn't be free to criticize me. So, no.

DarkDrak wrote:

I'm trying to reason with you.

No, you're not. If you were trying to reason with me, then you'd be open to me rejecting your call for how I act in the future. You're trying to control me.

DarkDrak wrote:

I'm trying to find a compromise.

No. You already said above that you won't be satisfied if I rejected your calls to change.

DarkDrak wrote:

One where you get to realise the intent behind those actions, without being annoying to others.

I do and have realized my intent, thank you.

DarkDrak wrote:

What i want is a win-win scenario.

No, you don't want any such thing. You want me to lose, because you want me to behave in way that you have dictated, and because you have dictated such.

DarkDrak wrote:

What about you?

I want you to grow up. And learn to not to try to control others. And tolerate them. And accept that you will probably feel annoyed when thinking about their behavior sometimes. And I want you to respect their choice.

However, I am not optimistic that you will do so ever, especially not in the foreseeable future.

DarkDrak wrote:

Spoonwood wrote:
And you are a manipulative person who should learn to respect other people's choices even when you disagree with them.
I'm trying to reason with you ..

No, you're not. Were you trying to reason with me, you would be leaving things up to my choice. And you aren't seeking to do that.

DarkDrak wrote:

... by defending my point of view and explaining it further until you can understand it. I think you have noticed by now, but im trying to mimic your own way of defending your ideas when people disagree with them.

If you have been, you've done a piss poor job. Nowhere to my knowledge have I ever said that people don't get to make their own choice regarding some matter.

DarkDrak wrote:

I thought it would be a way of discussion you'd enjoy.

No, not discussion. Not really. Discussion involves an honest and open exchange of views. You've clearly been trying to lecture me and shame me into the mold in which you believe I should behave.

DarkDrak wrote:

But if you find my way of doing things to be manipulative and controlling, then im afraid you should take a moment of deep self reflection.

Oh really? People can check the dates of threads that I've necroed. They can not read the comments in those threads. They don't have to click anything. Each of those is THEIR choice.

DarkDrak wrote:

You basically use the fact that others have false expectations for the threads that they see on the front page. You use that to achieve your goal to get people to inform themselves on old topics. A noble goal, ok. But that's literally what tricking others means. That's literally what manipulation is.

Perhaps that's what manipulation is. Perhaps not also. It really doesn't matter. Even if I were being manipulative, what you described is not what controlling is. You said I was being manipulative and controlling. And since people can choose otherwise, and I've emphasized that, I haven't been controlling.

DarkDrak wrote:

Spoonwood wrote:
You are acting immorally by trying to impose how you think you should behave onto someone else. I am not.
But you are. You very clearly are.

Oh look, you can't even reason there. All you can do is repeat a phrase.

DarkDrak wrote:

Spoonwood wrote:
Necroing threads does not harm people in the slightest. People are capable of checking the dates or reading them. I will NOT be making any such problems.
Right here. You're trying to impose on people the attitude that you think they should have towards necroed threads, despite people telling you clearly that that's not what they think about it.

Pretty sure I was only talking to you DarkDrak. I haven't been saying that to everyone whining saying something like "OMG SPOONWOOD NECROED THREAD! I NEED A KNIFE AND A VICTIM TO MAKE AN ENDSTONE!"

DarkDrak wrote:

Spoonwood wrote:
I respect your opinion. But, I get to choose my own behavior. [...] I already respect your point of view.
Yeah, ok, it's true, you get to choose your own behavior.

Right. I will necro or not necro a thread in the future as I see fit. And it won't surprise me if I will see fit to necro some thread in the future.

DarkDrak wrote:

But this is not like respecting the point of view of a non-smoker but remaining a smoker yourself. This is like respecting the point of view of a non-smoker but smoking in their face regardless.

Nope. My necroing a thread does not have long-term physical effects on you or anyone else.

DarkDrak wrote:

If that's the behavior you choose, then we still have a problem.

No, you will have a problem. You will have a problem, because you can't tolerate behavior that you don't like. You can't stand when you tell someone to do something, and they refuse to do it. Again, grow up. Learn that you can't control others.

DarkDrak wrote:

Spoonwood wrote:
I do not respect your controlling attitude.
I know, it's really hard to respect the controlling attitude of others, when you have one yourself.

Nice try, but I've pointed out multiple times that people get to choose to read the threads that I've necroed or not. They should have the ability and right to choose also as to what they read.

DarkDrak wrote:

I don't respect yours either. But try to work with me here.

No, I have no interest in "working" with you, since you won't respect my freedom to choose as I see fit.

DarkDrak wrote:

Spoonwood wrote:
I will point out that you are a control freak who can't stand when someone acts outside of the box of expected behaviors of people.
I'm really just the kind of guy who hates it when others smoke in my face.

A necroed thread does not have phsyical effects on your body. It's just a bunch of text.

DarkDrak wrote:

And who thinks that most problems can be resolved with a dialogue and some proper explanations.

*laughs* you think my behavior is a problem that needs a solution, not a choice that I'm making. Get a clue. People's behaviors are not a matter of mathematics like that.

DarkDrak wrote:

That if you let people know that what they're doing is posing an inconvenience to you, they'll understand, we can find a way for them to do w/e they wanna do without tormenting others and everyone will win.

Nope. You're talking about you getting to decide how someone else should act, and then wanting to declare that everyone has won to bury that someone else had lost/given up on being their own self.

DarkDrak wrote:

Now, i'm gonna point out that you're a narcissist who doesn't care if their actions inconvenience others.

Pretty sure I was hoping that others would read something, because of my necros. Pretty sure I'm willing to accept that people will think less of me, because of that. Were I some sort of narcissist, I would be wanting their approval. So, you're wrong, or at least you can't infer it from my necros and my response to critics.

Also, even you calling such an 'inconvenience' is a joke. People can check the date of necroed threads and scroll to the first post. That takes like a few seconds. People usually go through more inconvenience when they stop at a traffic light. A lot more inconvenience.

DarkDrak wrote:

I'm sorry that i failed to be mature in this discusison. I really tried. In my defence, you have prooven yourself to be a very immature person aswell, Spoon.

Perhaps so. Perhaps not though also. I could care less as to whether I'm mature or not. Why does it matter? I will be as I will be. Oh and hey, you're the one who ended with an insult here. Perhaps you should consider what that means about you, not me.

Last edited by Spoonwood (2019-12-21 12:18:38)

karltown_veteran · 2019-12-21 14:18:15

Spoonwood wrote:

karltown_veteran wrote:
What the hell Spoonwood? Of course we expect new threads at the top, because no one ever brings back old threads. No one sane, that is. Excluding you, the only person who has decided to bring back old threads.
The thread at the top has often NOT been the newest thread. People's comments have always pushed a thread to the top.
You can only reasonably expect that a thread at the top has the latest comment of all threads.

Perhaps they are a 12hr old thread, but they would still be relevant news. Never have I seen a 6month old thread until you did it. Twice.

DarkDrak · 2019-12-21 16:01:24

Spoonwood wrote:

Nope, not us. You. You and whoever else agrees with you at most.

Yeah, that's clearly what i meant by "us". You had to go a lot out of your way to misinterpret it in a way where you were a part of it.

Spoonwood wrote:

DarkDrak wrote:
I've seen them too. Which is why i went with "mostly" instead of "only". However The quantity of shitposts on necroed threads exceeds the quantity of useful information (after the thread was necroed, ofc). A problem that i fail to see on the threads that want to discuss old stuff by linking to it.
People are responsible for their own posts. I haven't been shitposting. I am not responsible for those shitposts. The shitposters are.

Here i'm talking about the efficacy of a necroed thread vs that of a new thread + link. I'm not pinning shitposts of others on you? Again, you had to go out of your way to misinterpret it like that.

Spoonwood wrote:

I don't click links for others or read via other eyes. They make the choice to read or not.

You had literally admited that when you necro a thread, you do it 'cause it ends up with more people reading the old posts. By accident, not choise. That's like, your very giustification for why you would prefere to necro instead of new+link. You're contradicting yourself here.

Spoonwood wrote:

DarkDrak wrote:
Especially when several people asked you several times to not do that, but you had continued regardless.
Yeah, so what? I get to decide how I behave. They can ask, and I can say no. [if you don't like the way i act] That's your problem, not mine.

I hope that you do realize that if you keep doing that, you'll lose the respect of a lot of people.

Spoonwood wrote:

Right. You have a problem with tolerating negative reactions. You bear the marks of an intolerant control freak who bases things on their emotions not reasons.

Not really. I'm just a normal guy who can't stand it when others shit in their soup and then pretend like it's all ok. That's about it. You on the other hand... you need to chill a bit. You're getting a bit too aggressive and defensive at the same time.

Spoonwood wrote:

You being annoyed is YOUR emotion. It is not a reason. Your emotions do not give you a right to dictate how others should act.

I'm not choosing to feel annoyed though. There's a reason behind that feeling. And your emotions and your logic doesnt give you a right to dictate how others should act either..? Yet, you expect people to change their ways and start looking for dates of a post before reading it, so they wont end up wasting their time.

Spoonwood wrote:

It doesn't matter what I think of myself.

No. It does matter. That's literally one of the very few opinions about yourself that really matters. The others being those of people you care about.

Spoonwood wrote:

DarkDrak wrote:
In which case, do you rethink your logical reactions under an emotional perspective?
lol... emotional reasoning is fallacious in general.

So you don't. And yet you expect others to rethink their emotional reactions under logical perspective. This has to be a joke.

Spoonwood wrote:

[No, you aren't trying to reason with me or to find a compromise or to find a win-win scenario. You only want me to lose and have it all go your way.]

To be clear, in this situation i view "new thread + link" as a compromise between "necroing threads" and " letting old discussion die".

Spoonwood wrote:

If you have been, you've done a piss poor job.

You think so? I think i'm doing a good job though. Now my comments are huge walls of text with lots quotes that state points that another person has made and the texts in between having the only purpose of invalidating the quote that it is under. It's actually a pretty neat format for arguments, now that i tried it.

Spoonwood wrote:

DarkDrak wrote:
But if you find my way of doing things to be manipulative and controlling, then im afraid you should take a moment of deep self reflection.
Oh really?

Yes, really. This isnt even as much about the necriong stuff as it is about how you decided to take this discussion. What it started with, it was basically people asking you to stop necroing. Then it went on with explaining the reasons as to why we would ask you that. Look at it now. Insults and accusations. Though, tbh, i sorta expected it to end up this way.

Spoonwood wrote:

Perhaps that's what manipulation is. Perhaps not also. It really doesn't matter. Even if I were being manipulative, what you described is not what controlling is. You said I was being manipulative and controlling. And since people can choose otherwise, and I've emphasized that, I haven't been controlling.

You really don't realise where you've been controlling? Allow me to explain. People who click necroed threads are interested in the argument, mainly 'cause they think it to be something new. So they end up reading the comments. Nobody checks the dates because most people who check things regulary expect the top threads to be new. That's really a fair expectation to have imo. Then people progeed to read the comments. 'Cause obviously they were interested in the subject. Then they realize it's old news and either skip to the last comment or abbandon the thread alltogether. While by seeing a link to an old thread in a new one they would choose wether to see old news or not, by bumping a necroed thread directly you took that choise of theirs away. They ended up reading old comments anyway. By accident, not by choise. Which, as stated above, is the reason you would prefere necroing over the other method. Basically you do that to make them read old comments regardless of their choise.

Spoonwood wrote:

Oh look, you can't even reason there. All you can do is repeat a phrase.

Oh look, somebody is answering to my wall of text before reading it. I literally had the reasoning in the quote right under.

Spoonwood wrote:

DarkDrak wrote:
Spoonwood wrote:
Necroing threads does not harm people in the slightest. People are capable of checking the dates or reading them. I will NOT be making any such problems.
Right here. You're trying to impose on people the attitude that you think they should have towards necroed threads, despite people telling you clearly that that's not what they think about it.
Pretty sure I was only talking to you DarkDrak. I haven't been saying that to everyone whining saying something like "OMG SPOONWOOD NECROED THREAD! I NEED A KNIFE AND A VICTIM TO MAKE AN ENDSTONE!"

...Pretty sure you went a bit beyond "only talking" here. Regardless... weren't you necroing the threads aswell, with this reasoning?

Spoonwood wrote:

Right. I will necro or not necro a thread in the future as I see fit. And it won't surprise me if I will see fit to necro some thread in the future.

I mean, yeah, i know. Everyone on the forums has that power. Perhaps i went a bit too far asking you to promise to renounce to that power. Really, though, what i really want is to be able to open top threads without having to be suspictious about wether it's a new upgrade inc. or a 1 year old discussion.

Spoonwood wrote:

DarkDrak wrote:
But this is not like respecting the point of view of a non-smoker but remaining a smoker yourself. This is like respecting the point of view of a non-smoker but smoking in their face regardless.
Nope. My necroing a thread does not have long-term physical effects on you or anyone else.

What do you mean "Nope"? Yep, it does cause the same short term mental annoyance.

Spoonwood wrote:

No, you will have a problem.

Man, i'm a simple person. An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth. If i'm having a problem and you're the cause of it, then you'll end up having a problem with me being the cause of it. It's really simple mentality that i have. Can we just..... avoid the problems?

Spoonwood wrote:

Nice try, but I've pointed out multiple times that people get to choose to read the threads that I've necroed or not. They should have the ability and right to choose also as to what they read.

Yes and i've pointed out multiple times that it's not at all how it works in reality. So what i said stands.

Spoonwood wrote:

A necroed thread does not have phsyical effects on your body. It's just a bunch of text.

But it has a mental effect of wasting some time reading old stuff that i had already read. And a mental effect of annoyance.

Spoonwood wrote:

Pretty sure I was hoping that others would read something, because of my necros. Pretty sure I'm willing to accept that people will think less of me, because of that. Were I some sort of narcissist, I would be wanting their approval. So, you're wrong, or at least you can't infer it from my necros and my response to critics.
Also, even you calling such an 'inconvenience' is a joke. People can check the date of necroed threads and scroll to the first post. That takes like a few seconds. People usually go through more inconvenience when they stop at a traffic light. A lot more inconvenience.

Pretty sure you didn't care at all wether they wanted to read those necros or not. All that mattered to you was that they would probably end up doing it. Pretty sure that a narcissists likes approval but would never inconvenience themselves to get it.
And you implying that necroing isn't being an inconvenience regardless of what others say has to be a joke. People now literally started looking at first comment's post date 'cause they're alert for necro threads.

Finally

Spoonwood wrote:

I could care less as to whether I'm mature or not. Why does it matter? I will be as I will be. Oh and hey, you're the one who ended with an insult here. Perhaps you should consider what that means about you, not me.

Spoonwood wrote:

Oh look, you can throw a word like fortitude around when you're not getting your way. Grow up. Learn some tolerance.

Spoonwood wrote:

Right, so you can't control what I say, thus you try to shame me by saying that I'm being disrespectful. You're a control freak who can't stand when people act in ways that you don't like.

This is really hilarious to hear from someone who has filled up his previous comments with insults. You gotta chill down a bit. For real. In the end, we're all buddies here who enjoy the same game.

Spoonwood wrote:

I want you to grow up. And learn to not to try to control others. And tolerate them. And accept that you will probably feel annoyed when thinking about their behavior sometimes. And I want you to respect their choice.
However, I am not optimistic that you will do so ever, especially not in the foreseeable future.

That's funny. I also want you to grow up. And to learn to not take opinions and discussions as personal attacks. And to not see requests as an attempt to control you. And to learn to come to terms with others instead of forcing your way through everything. And to respect their choice.

And I too start to realize that it's probably too optimistic of me to hope for those things.

I'm not trying to control you. Or to shame you. I'm trying to change your mind, yeah. But what I'm really trying to acomplish is be able to open the forums without the fear of seeing necro threads.
Also, i wanted to argue with you one time. Believe it or not, you're really fun to argue with.

testo · 2019-12-21 16:15:54

Come on, you are all a bunch of dickheads for harrasing Spoonwood. It´s not like he is harming anyone.

DestinyCall · 2019-12-21 16:35:24

testo wrote:

Come on, you are all a bunch of dickheads for harrasing Spoonwood. It´s not like he is harming anyone.

Actually, I think DarkDrak has been exceptionally patient and tried very hard to explain their position to Spoonwood in a clear and reasonable fashion. I don't think it is accurate to describe their posts as dickish or harassing. As someone who has past experience trying to change Spoon's mind on a topic he believes in, I am quite sympathetic. It is a singular challenge, bordering on the impossible.

Some of the other posters have not been that mature in expressing themselves, but I think that they are getting rather annoyed by Spoon's inappropriate behavior, so I can understand if they act out a little in response. I don't think they are helping, but I can understand their frustration.

sigmen4020 · 2019-12-21 16:38:35

This discussion has grown well beyond the point of usefulness. I would also have liked for Spoonwood to have taken the compromise, but at this point it’s very clear that he isn’t gonna change his mind on this.

So can we please stop talking about necroed threads already?

These discussions are beginning to clog up the forum more than Spoons necros ever did.

One Hour One Life Forums

#26 2019-12-20 08:35:28

Re: Spoonwood, we need to have a talk.

#27 2019-12-20 08:39:04

Re: Spoonwood, we need to have a talk.

#28 2019-12-20 08:40:57

Re: Spoonwood, we need to have a talk.

#29 2019-12-20 08:44:15

Re: Spoonwood, we need to have a talk.

#30 2019-12-20 09:25:42

Re: Spoonwood, we need to have a talk.

#31 2019-12-20 09:33:13

Re: Spoonwood, we need to have a talk.

#32 2019-12-20 09:44:45

Re: Spoonwood, we need to have a talk.

#33 2019-12-20 09:51:15

Re: Spoonwood, we need to have a talk.

#34 2019-12-20 14:38:19

Re: Spoonwood, we need to have a talk.

#35 2019-12-20 15:21:22

Re: Spoonwood, we need to have a talk.

#36 2019-12-20 15:27:25

Re: Spoonwood, we need to have a talk.

#37 2019-12-21 01:28:24

Re: Spoonwood, we need to have a talk.

#38 2019-12-21 01:53:29

Re: Spoonwood, we need to have a talk.

#39 2019-12-21 02:01:17

Re: Spoonwood, we need to have a talk.

#40 2019-12-21 02:07:19

Re: Spoonwood, we need to have a talk.

#41 2019-12-21 02:10:11

Re: Spoonwood, we need to have a talk.

#42 2019-12-21 02:12:02

Re: Spoonwood, we need to have a talk.

#43 2019-12-21 10:53:26

Re: Spoonwood, we need to have a talk.

#44 2019-12-21 12:07:17

Re: Spoonwood, we need to have a talk.

#45 2019-12-21 12:10:13

Re: Spoonwood, we need to have a talk.

#46 2019-12-21 14:18:15

Re: Spoonwood, we need to have a talk.

#47 2019-12-21 16:01:24

Re: Spoonwood, we need to have a talk.

#48 2019-12-21 16:15:54

Re: Spoonwood, we need to have a talk.

#49 2019-12-21 16:35:24

Re: Spoonwood, we need to have a talk.

#50 2019-12-21 16:38:35

Re: Spoonwood, we need to have a talk.

Board footer