RP Hate Meme ♥ (
anticirclejerk) wrote2012-04-28 12:18 pm
Entry tags:
The Ninth
Go nuts. Namedrop, rant, rave, and wank up a storm.
NEWEST PAGE
Game Hate | Canon Hate | Namedropping | Game Pet Peeves | Meme Pet Peeves
Report threads here.
I am going to delete all the dumb, aspergers worthy discussion threads.
this is not the place for talking about butts and farts and shrimp. take that to your plurk or rpanons.
"No kidding. This breach of privacy can be argued on the fact that the people posting the caps were given permission to be in the private links. So the fault isn't on Anticirclejerk or the ACJ mod, but the component that decided to make the screencap." - Anon

no subject
(Anonymous) 2012-05-07 11:17 am (UTC)(link)That's why other people who don't want to play with her want her to drop. I'm just fine with being passive aggressive.
I can see people who had problems with her modding wanting her to drop even without it being a a grudge. Nobody is going giving her un-anon crit ever again. Anons will be labelled grudgewankers. She's beyond reasonable reproach so even if you believe in second chances she's not worth the risk.
no subject
(Anonymous) 2012-05-07 11:25 am (UTC)(link)no subject
(Anonymous) 2012-05-07 11:42 am (UTC)(link)I do know that if you think she's suspicious your choices are take a risk on her anyway, be passive aggressive, or pray she drops.
no subject
(Anonymous) 2012-05-07 11:51 am (UTC)(link)(FYI other anons, the reason I'm not tagging the post is for most of the reasons in the list given by another anon.)
no subject
(Anonymous) 2012-05-07 01:04 pm (UTC)(link)no subject
(Anonymous) 2012-05-07 01:34 pm (UTC)(link)No one who suspects her is ever going to give future crit un-anon. Concerns are being invalidated by calling them a grudge.
Do you want to play with someone you can't crit if you need to? It's reasonable to believe she wanked on someone who gave her crit. Out of the people suspecting her nobody wants to risk being the next victim just to prove she's a wanker. Much as her whiteknights want to believe we do, we do not all have a grudge.
Most of us are just covering our own asses because daaaaayum that's suspicious and she's not worth the trouble.
no subject
(Anonymous) 2012-05-07 01:43 pm (UTC)(link)The only other crit she received was the info-modding, which was anon, and yes I agree that it's too soon to tell. But all other crit (logged in, even!) she received was never brought up by her and she improved on it. You all are taking is way out of proportion, no one is above receiving crit.
no subject
(Anonymous) 2012-05-07 01:44 pm (UTC)(link)DA
(Anonymous) 2012-05-07 02:06 pm (UTC)(link)you don't have to suspect her to see how a rational person could
but you're more interested in making everyone who suspects her look like grudgewankers so accepting that it looks suspicious to most is too much to ask
Re: DA
(Anonymous) 2012-05-07 02:49 pm (UTC)(link)dda
(Anonymous) 2012-05-07 08:01 pm (UTC)(link)+1
(Anonymous) 2012-05-07 02:36 pm (UTC)(link)To break it down for you:
Case A: Logged in crit of godmodding by Greedmun.
> Greedmun gives crit, Jade takes it as crit only in hindsight.
> Problem brought to the mod team anyways.
> Greedmun's already vented on rpanons.
> No wank made by Jade or Turtle, but Greedmun's vent started to get wanky by other anons then and some anons already want her to drop.
> HOWEVER, issues are settled, both improve their playing, and there's no more godmodding. Greedmun says it's been settled. Tay says it's settled.
Conclusion? She took the crit, she didn't wank, and she improved. That alone says she can take crit with no one being affected.
Case B: Logged-out crit on info-modding.
> Suspicious activity starts. No, it doesn't take a genius to put two and two together. It does seem fishy.
> Anons viciously defend Greedmun and call for Jade to drop.
> Greedmun says he will give Jade an answer. They probably did discuss something privately.
> Ozaki drops.
> Anon on Greedmun's side sees that Ozaki is dropped as well as seeing a new joint less-activity post, points this out as evidence for others avoiding her and wants Jade to "take a hint".
> Another wankstorm starts.
> DDD revealed to have a problem with muns avoiding.
Conclusion? Jade is still suspicious, there's no way to prove or disprove innocence or being guilty, no time given to conclude if she has improved, but whiteknights on both sides are making a mess of things. I think the worst part of all of this is the revelation that DDD has major P/A issues going on.
My argument here is that even if you believe she is guilty, saying that she can't take crit, cannot improve, starts wank after every crit received (logged in or not), and should be avoided due to these reasons is false. She's not unreasonable, and she did improve. So be suspicious of her, that's fine, I'm sure plenty of people are and there's nothing to be done with it. If one of the basis of your suspicion is that she cannot take crit, you've got a pretty weak argument going as the first case says otherwise.
tl;dr The suspicion will never be prove true or false, but just know that she can take crit, and none of you should be worried about it in the future. Ignoring her for one suspicious fiasco and ignoring the good outcomes of another incidence of is both premature and unsavory.
ayart
(Anonymous) 2012-05-07 02:51 pm (UTC)(link).....I think you made the same typo as me, anon. Have a *this
sa
(Anonymous) 2012-05-07 03:16 pm (UTC)(link)+1000
(Anonymous) 2012-05-07 07:45 pm (UTC)(link)no subject
(Anonymous) 2012-05-07 08:02 pm (UTC)(link)da
(Anonymous) 2012-05-07 08:07 pm (UTC)(link)no subject
(Anonymous) 2012-05-07 08:19 pm (UTC)(link)da
(Anonymous) - 2012-05-07 20:44 (UTC) - Expandno subject
(Anonymous) 2012-05-07 08:23 pm (UTC)(link)She did improve: there is no godmodding to grudge about. Maybe I should clarify from my view: there never was as she always used permission; it was only a potential problem that was fixed before it became anything more. Said godmodding powers she received permission to have from a mod, only used in two separate plots with permission from the respective muns. I believe that one mun extended the duration of the effect of this power for their own plot. Incidentally, it is a good thing that Greedmun and others brought it to the mods, but it was hardly wankworthy, imho, seeing as they apparently spoke again and things were eventually righted out.
'Can't take crit because she will wank about you' is a sentiment so unbelievably immature that it is beginning to make me uncomfortable with the playerbase here. The first time she was critiqued logged in there was no wank except from Greedmun and others, and even then it wasn't necessary because they didn't wait for mods or look for any improvement. The second case is indeed suspicious, but I'm saying even with that suspicion the first case still stands stronger. Try to keep your feelings out of this and compare the two instances of crit. If anything at all, logged in crit is better as it resulted in player improvement, better gameplay for all, and there was no wank from her (only the miffed party).
Therefore, avoiding her altogether and saying she neither can take any kind of crit nor improve is a weak conclusion to draw from all of this.
DA
(Anonymous) 2012-05-07 08:40 pm (UTC)(link)They didn't talk much outside of plotting, that's clear. So her only other motivation is IC. They do have negative CR. I don't know about the self inserting snowflake thing but this would sure as hell support it.
It's nicer to think she can't take crit.
Re: DA
(Anonymous) - 2012-05-07 21:00 (UTC) - Expand(no subject)
(Anonymous) - 2012-05-07 22:04 (UTC) - Expand(no subject)
(Anonymous) - 2012-05-07 22:12 (UTC) - ExpandRe: +1
(Anonymous) 2012-05-07 10:00 pm (UTC)(link)Can't say the same for the other passive aggressives here. Not to be a douche against the 'side' I am on, but that p/a has to stop. Use the opt-out post. Like the above anon said, that's only one time where she's suspicious of making wank after receiving crit, but the first crit was a lot worse in terms of how wanky Greedmun's thread became and she never wanked back on anyone in response. So, sorry, Jade. I'll give you another chance.
no subject
(Anonymous) 2012-05-07 10:08 pm (UTC)(link)I'm glad you're giving her another chance but this isn't going to stop until she is completely in the clear as she deserves to be. It's only suspicious with the crit motive.
no subject
(Anonymous) 2012-05-07 10:15 pm (UTC)(link)DA
(Anonymous) - 2012-05-07 23:11 (UTC) - ExpandRe: DA
(Anonymous) - 2012-05-07 23:24 (UTC) - ExpandRe: DA
(Anonymous) - 2012-05-08 00:13 (UTC) - ExpandRe: DA
(Anonymous) - 2012-05-08 00:26 (UTC) - ExpandRe: DA
(Anonymous) - 2012-05-08 00:49 (UTC) - Expanddda
(Anonymous) - 2012-05-08 00:52 (UTC) - Expandda
(Anonymous) - 2012-05-08 01:09 (UTC) - Expand(no subject)
(Anonymous) - 2012-05-08 03:21 (UTC) - ExpandRe: dda
(Anonymous) - 2012-05-08 03:57 (UTC) - Expandda
(Anonymous) - 2012-05-08 04:08 (UTC) - ExpandRe: da
(Anonymous) - 2012-05-08 04:57 (UTC) - ExpandRe: dda
(Anonymous) - 2012-05-08 04:22 (UTC) - ExpandRe: dda
(Anonymous) - 2012-05-08 05:08 (UTC) - ExpandRe: dda
(Anonymous) - 2012-05-08 05:39 (UTC) - ExpandRe: dda
(Anonymous) - 2012-05-08 06:08 (UTC) - ExpandRe: dda
(Anonymous) - 2012-05-08 06:33 (UTC) - ExpandRe: dda
(no subject)
(Anonymous) - 2012-05-08 05:55 (UTC) - Expand(no subject)
(Anonymous) - 2012-05-08 06:00 (UTC) - Expand(no subject)
(Anonymous) - 2012-05-08 06:54 (UTC) - Expand(no subject)
(Anonymous) - 2012-05-08 15:34 (UTC) - Expand(no subject)
(Anonymous) - 2012-05-08 06:10 (UTC) - Expand(no subject)
(Anonymous) - 2012-05-08 06:52 (UTC) - Expand(no subject)
(Anonymous) - 2012-05-08 07:00 (UTC) - Expand(no subject)
(Anonymous) - 2012-05-08 07:04 (UTC) - Expand(no subject)
(Anonymous) - 2012-05-08 07:08 (UTC) - Expand(no subject)
(Anonymous) - 2012-05-08 07:10 (UTC) - Expand(no subject)
(Anonymous) - 2012-05-08 07:14 (UTC) - Expand(no subject)
(Anonymous) - 2012-05-07 22:27 (UTC) - Expand+1
(Anonymous) - 2012-05-07 22:44 (UTC) - Expandno subject
(Anonymous) 2012-05-10 08:57 pm (UTC)(link)Heh, only thing here is I think a good chunk of the muns didn't even know this wankfest was going down until someone started linking to this thread thingy. I don't even know the people involved so yeah - I'm just gonna shrug and keep on doin' what I do.
no subject
(Anonymous) 2012-05-11 02:40 am (UTC)(link)