Questions for Callaway

[Calandale]

The despotism seems a silly thing then.
And a bit frightening, given how some
have taken it to heart.

[purposefulinsanity]

Sometimes things meant tongue in cheek can backfire.   


(damn that puts some awful imagery into my head  )

[Calandale]

Wouldn't a backfire be awful?

[purposefulinsanity]

Wouldn't a backfire be awful?

Sometimes things meant tongue in cheek can backfire.   


(damn that puts some awful imagery into my head  )

[Calandale]

I hope I never end up cumming out the
wrong end.

[Callaway]

By hounded, I mean the pack mentality. By away,
I mean told to GTFO. Both have applied to me.
Both applied to Lit. Both applied to Scrap.

You have accused both me and Callaway for driving them away, directly. No pack mentality; you accused us.

You? I don't think so. I'm not even sure Callaway intended,
but when she gets roused for a fight, the minions all come
yipping after her target. You've been a good minion, with your
'please go away' attitude.

This is so ridiculous, Calandale.  

I do not have "minions" because everyone here thinks for themselves.  

It is ridiculous for you to suggest that I spearheaded an effort to drive Scrapheap away and it is even more ridiculous for you to suggest that I spearheaded a similar campaign to drive Litigious away and that I am responsible for his mental health issues.  

I liked Litigious and we got along pretty well.  I had a hard time even believing what he did to the site at first when he had his meltdown.  I did not like him betraying our members' personal information as part of his meltdown and I would have told him so, but he left soon after he did it.  

I think that if anyone bullied Litigious, it must have been you.  I remember Litigious reducing your karma to 5 one time.  What did you do to provoke him into doing that?  Perhaps what you did to him was spearheading a campaign to drive him away from here and contributing to his mental health issues.

 

[Calandale]

This is so ridiculous, Calandale. 

I do not have "minions" because everyone here thinks for themselves. 

So, you think that Himmler and Goering were unthinking fools?
Is everything in your existence so clear...and wrong?

It is ridiculous for you to suggest that I spearheaded an effort to drive Scrapheap away

Not in the least.

...and it is even more ridiculous for you to suggest that I spearheaded a similar campaign to drive Litigious away and that I am responsible for his mental health issues. 

I've not made that claim. Others, mostly of
the same pack which are serving your purpose now,
led that one.

I liked Litigious and we got along pretty well.

Not so well that you'd help protect him. Or even refrain
from jumping into the general pile up, in order to attack
him about his little 15 yo plaything. Which certainly couldn't
have helped.

What did you do to provoke him into doing that?  Perhaps what you did to him was spearheading a campaign to drive him away from here and contributing to his mental health issues.

This issue was discussed elsewhere, in the site direction thread.
I think that was a good natured exchange. BUT, the fact that
I was a usual ally of his might have made my slap sting a bit. His
reaction after the fact was clearly not one of bitterness or
anger, however. Perhaps seeing you as jumping into the
consistent attacks on him had a greater effect. No telling.

[Callaway]

Dunc said you can start a poll if you wish. He said nothing about stopping the election. I simply reiterated the message from our Beloved Leader.

 

I think you should try to remember what you've been saying yourself: this is not a democracy.

Before you start speaking for Dunc you should ask him if he actually meant he wouldn't stop the election if a decent majority voted against it. 

There was no way that the slanted poll Calandale started was going to determine whether the majority of members were in favor of or opposed the elections, Purposeful Insanity.

A more neutral poll might have.

[Calandale]

There was no way that the slanted poll Calandale started was going to determine whether the majority of members were in favor of or opposed the elections, Purposeful Insanity.

A more neutral poll might have.

Nice to, once again, have the staff decide
what is valid, and what not.

Especially someone who claims that the members
are bright enough to think for themselves.

[Callaway]

There was no way that the slanted poll Calandale started was going to determine whether the majority of members were in favor of or opposed the elections, Purposeful Insanity.

A more neutral poll might have.

Nice to, once again, have the staff decide
what is valid, and what not.

Especially someone who claims that the members
are bright enough to think for themselves.

Do you assert that your slanted poll determined the wishes of a clear majority of members not to have elections for administrator, Calandale?

Here it is:

http://www.intensitysquared.com/index.php?topic=7181.0

It's called, "Did Yall Mean What You Voted For?" and you repeatedly insulted the intelligence our members in it.

These were your options, which were also slanted:

"Yes - we were just joking when we voted against this," which had 4 votes.
"No - We trust dunc to select whatever staff he needs," which had 5 votes. 

People said that they could not understand your menu options or they did not want to play your mind games to vote in this poll, but you would not make a more neutral poll except later after that one finished (in an attempt to prove me wrong).  I said, "I tried to tell Calandale how he could change the wording of this poll to find out what people actually wanted without us having to play his mind games just to vote, but he wouldn't listen, because he wanted to shit-stir and play mind games."

Then you said, "Doesn't make a fuck load of difference.  Here, I'll show you."

Here it is:

http://www.intensitysquared.com/index.php?topic=7424.0

It's called, "Elected Admins" and because there are no slanted options and only minimal insulting commentary from you, it had a very different outcome.

The vote was 10 to 3 in favor of having elections, so you continue to attack our members as not being able to think for themselves, rather than understand and accept that the slanted wording of your first poll was to blame for the discrepancy.

[Calandale]

Do you assert that your slanted poll determined the wishes of a clear majority of members not to have elections for administrator, Calandale?
.

No. I'm asserting that it was not slanted.
Perhaps different people voted in the two
polls. Perhaps being reminded of their prior
vote made people think differently than
in your poll.

Are you asserting that people here aren't clever
enough to understand my poll?

[purposefulinsanity]

Dunc said you can start a poll if you wish. He said nothing about stopping the election. I simply reiterated the message from our Beloved Leader.

 

I think you should try to remember what you've been saying yourself: this is not a democracy.

Before you start speaking for Dunc you should ask him if he actually meant he wouldn't stop the election if a decent majority voted against it. 

There was no way that the slanted poll Calandale started was going to determine whether the majority of members were in favor of or opposed the elections, Purposeful Insanity.

A more neutral poll might have.

That isn't really the point I don't think.  The point as I see it is that there was a poll started about whether or not the members wanted elections and a staff member clearly states on that poll thread that there 'will be elections' ,suggesting that even if the membership voted that they no longer wanted elections it wouldn't matter.  Perhaps this was just another instance of Odeon expressing his own personal opinion, that he never meant to be taken as the official line- but if that's the case why not just say so instead of trying to claim that he was just repeating Dunc's official position as 'leader' on the issue??

[Calandale]

Dunc said you can start a poll if you wish. He said nothing about stopping the election. I simply reiterated the message from our Beloved Leader.

 

I think you should try to remember what you've been saying yourself: this is not a democracy.

Before you start speaking for Dunc you should ask him if he actually meant he wouldn't stop the election if a decent majority voted against it. 

There was no way that the slanted poll Calandale started was going to determine whether the majority of members were in favor of or opposed the elections, Purposeful Insanity.

A more neutral poll might have.

That isn't really the point I don't think.  The point as I see it is that there was a poll started about whether or not the members wanted elections and a staff member clearly states on that poll thread that there 'will be elections' ,suggesting that even if the membership voted that they no longer wanted elections it wouldn't matter.  Perhaps this was just another instance of Odeon expressing his own personal opinion, that he never meant to be taken as the official line- but if that's the case why not just say so instead of trying to claim that he was just repeating Dunc's official position as 'leader' on the issue??

Do you honestly see a difference in callaway's statement,
from Odeon's?

[purposefulinsanity]

Sorry Cal- which of the many statements that have been made am I supposed to be comparing? 

[Calandale]

Sorry Cal- which of the many statements that have been made am I supposed to be comparing? 

The bolded one, to odeon's very similar phrasing.
One which implies that they are the ultimate
arbiters of what should be.