A serious question for Ancalagon...

This post intrigued me, so I took a little time to, in tafkats’ words, find, memorize, and synthesize a few details.

I did your “simple search.” The 200 posts it turned up began in 2011, even though searches on other topics go back to 2008, 2007, etc. So the simple search turned up no interaction between us at all from the last board meltdown (was that before, during, or after you were overseas?) until 2011.

Let’s drill down into those 200 posts you claim are you interacting with me, shall we?

Twelve out of 200 posts – or 6% – are in fact you interacting with me. We’ll drill down into those further in a moment.

Some of the others (I can give you an exact account, but I’m guessing in the neighborhood of 8-10 – I’ll be generous and say 10 – or 5% of the total) are instances where someone else was replying to me, my post was quoted in theirs, and you were addressing them, not me.

The remaining approximately 178 out of 200—or 89% of the posts you claim were you responding to me—are in fact instances where you or someone else used the : garamet : smiley.

So was it your intention to deliberately mislead with that “200” figure or did you just jack-rabbit through the Search function the way you do so many things just to ?

Now, let’s look at the content of those genuine “Ancalagon responds to garamet” posts, shall we?

There’s this one from 12/07/11:

What were you saying about “a bucket of snark”? See, I recognize that as your characteristic Superior Intellect tone of voice and it doesn’t bother me. But if anyone needs a refresher in Matthew 7:5, it ain’t me, bub.

From 12/15/11:

Now, in contrast, that one’s friendly and informative and not at all snotty.

12/19/11:

Another nice one.

01/12/12:

01/31/12:

Wow…a genuine accolade -! I did forget that, and I apologize.

02/0212:

On the same page again.

03/02/12:

And another one.

You’re right, we did have some genuine exchanges back then. But your claim that there was some radical change in my posting style is inaccurate. I am snarky when needed; I’ve never denied that. But if anything I’m a lot mellower now than during the Red Queen’s reign when “get garamet” was a rite of passage for every drooly-chinned troll who shuffled in here.

And then this happened:

03/11/12: Bucket of Snark: The Sequel

Okay, that was funny.

04/13/12: Keep that up and you’ll qualify for the Snark Summer Games.

The way to get someone to stop doing something that annoys you is to talk to that person, not to bitch about that person to anyone and everyone else.

But you were just getting started:

Here we have Full-Scale Smartest-Guy-in-the-Room Lecture Mode. This is about when you were in the HD every other day trying to remold the board to your liking.

And snark again…

But now we come to my favorite. Batman. I hadn’t seen the film, wasn’t part of the conversation, but you had to drop my name into it anyway:

http://wordforge.net/index.php?posts/2355890/

Batman? Really? You felt compelled to turn a discussion about Batman into an “I can’t stand garamet” moment?

We now return you to your regularly scheduled Two Minutes Hate, Stupid Volpone Tricks, Soma and Flashy playing snuggle-bunnies, and a toss-up as whether Face, Zombie, or evenflow is the first one to tell me you’re the normal one.

For everyone else, Ginger Beef all around, and on to the next page!

"And I am cruel? I could peel you like a pear, and God Himself would call it justice!"​

Can rename this thread to something like "Reviewing Anc's Posting History"?

Anc, you fucking pompous turd! x35,244

What do I win?

Annnnnnnnd....

Page 4!

What were we discussing again?

That redheads don't like each other? Well, shit. There goes my dream of having a threesome with two redhead girls

Unfair to call them girls IMO. Garamet isn't a girl.

Actually, some get along quiet well. Even though they're sisters, can you imagine?

HOLY SHIT GARAMET!!!!!!

The word unhinged came to mind as I read that. Maybe I missed it, but where did Ancalagon claim something regarding a 200 post magic number?

I'm just catching the tail end of this thread, but post #151 should be saved for posterity.

If ever the membership needed proof that garamet is batshit crazy, there it all is in one glorious post.

Somebody really should quote this!

I like how her post corroborated ANCs assertion. Yet she feels her post serves some other...purpose??

Anyone that koo-koo for Cocoa Puffs could certainly be a threat to the board and/or its posters.

Muad comes back to the board and you people reward him with what looks suspiciously like math the Red Room?

Have you no shame?

Wow, is that isn't the pot calling the kettle black, I don't know what is.

Frankly you and Anc have both become rediculous on this issue that it's hard to support either of you.

Yep. Now that she's proven my story, go back and reread the narrative she's created in her head:
http://www.wordforge.net/index.php?threads/a-serious-question-for-ancalagon.104726/#post-2647465


Then think a little while back when she made over her whole account (Av, title, sig, etc) and followed me around the board with the whole 'wormboy' thing to try and get my attention and then when that failed contacted me off board to threaten me with a creepy ass 'How would Anne like you posting her pic in the Red Room?'.

And people can't understand why I want to have NOTHING to do with her and keep her on ignore?!??!

As a regular poster, sure. But mods are held to a higher standard, even on Wordforge. Some things are not about us, which is a sentiment that you being former military should understand.

Hasn't this ship sailed?

I do think they're both being ridiculous, and if they agree that they just can't get along, why do they both play this martyr card?

I agree with this, and would never do it. But there are at least two caveats. First, we have enough staff that one deciding to ignore a poster probably does no harm. Second, it depends some on who it is. Does anybody think Garamet is likely to use personal information or otherwise make a really egregious transgression that would require Ancalagon to see it?

As I've said, not a good idea in my opinion, but I don't think it really does any true harm beyond that of perception.

Post #111.

A long, long time ago.

(A) I had no quarrel with him back when he was just a snotty poster. My objection is to a board owner making himself in essence an absentee landlord when it comes to Posters He Doesn't Like. Having been the target of an admin who played those games for years, I expected better of him

(B) There's a difference between a martyr, a target, and a counter-puncher. I have never been the first

Yeah, doesn't say that, not even close.

From Garamet, so @Ancalagon can see it:

I had no quarrel with him back when he was just a snotty poster. My objection is to a board owner making himself in essence an absentee landlord when it comes to Posters He Doesn't Like. Having been the target of an admin who played those games for years, I expected better of him

Bolding mine. Sure Garamet is not a problem child, but when one already was percieved as wanting to use force and manipulation to get what their way puts posters on ignore and proclamations of wanting to ban them...well, what do you expect? Isn't this the shit that he and gul went through with Cassandra and Listkeeper and Nick?

FWIW, Anc's has been one of the more peaceful reigns of WF history with only two major blow ups this past year, so not an entire disaster as some predicted.

There's "said" and there's "implied." Someone just skimming that post might think "See, she's lying! He's responded to her lots and lots of times!"

A "simple search" turns up multiple uses of the : garamet : smiley and a handful of replies. Accuracy matters.

And if I'd stopped at that 6% figure, there'd be more "See, she's lying!" by those who couldn't be arsed to verify it for themselves. I probably should have stopped there, but I was watching the Ken Burns Roosevelt thing (listening to, actually; like most Burns productions, it relies heavily on still photos, so you can glance up now and then and not miss the narration) and multitasking.

Yes, by RR standards, a concern for accuracy is "obsessive." I should be wasting my life like so many of you playing Candy Crush and GTA or watching porn. Sorry, neither.

But he did not claim he had made 200 replies. In fact, he essentially said he had made no replies during the period you searched.

So does the Search function only yield 200 posts? If so, is there an archive of posts prior to 2011 (the furthest back this search would go) that can verify his statement? If you can/want to check that out, I wouldn't mind seeing it.

Either way, the "simple search" available to non-staff does not mean what he thinks it means.

And, again, my primary concern is with the power of staff to ignore Posters They Don't Like. Some of you haven't considered all of the downsides to that.

Something I noticed in this Burns' documentary: It looks like they went back and digitally cleaned up the still photos they're using. In the past (like with The War, which I was watching again last week), I think they did a little bit of that, but the photos in this documentary look amazing, like they were shot with a high end DSLR instead of with an old-time camera over a hundred years ago.

Huh, trust your expert eye! I did notice some of them seemed to "wobble" a little on my ancient analog TV.

I'm only on the first episode, but I haven't noticed any shakiness. I don't think Burns has actually "filmed" photographs for a number of years. I suspect they scan the prints and then do digital "moves" so they're nice and smooth. Digitizing the photos also makes it possible to clean them up, too. Contrast that with The Civil War, where lots of the still photos "jiggle" do to camera/tripod movement and you can see scratches and imperfections on the prints.

The ignore function isn't so much an "ignore" as it is a dial, it turns you from an 11 down to a 2. The person is still aware of you, and may even click "View Post" now and then. But at the end of the day its just a filter for how much of the "ignored" poster they'd prefer to have in their day. It doesn't affect the ignored posters interaction with the board in any way.

No one, not even an admin is obligated to take everyone at 11, and as gul said, there are enough mods around that is if your 11 needs to be seen and acted on, it will be.

Okay. Then it's just a matter of what y'all want the public face of WF to be.