BIGFOOT or BIG HOAX?

[Dgo]

I never said anything about you and eXo being the same person.

I think you just gave yourself away.

No I did not but it's pretty retarded to quote me and make a rediculous comment if it's not directed toward me correct?

Isn't it always a hoax when it comes to Bigfoot?

Apparently so but for once I would like one of these outlandish stories to be true it would really take the focus off of all that is evil in the world.

[SpikeOtacon]

No I did not but it's pretty retarded to quote me and make a rediculous comment if it's not directed toward me correct?

I'm not sure I follow you. Your logic, it just doesn't exist.

[Dgo]

I'm not sure I follow you. Your logic, it just doesn't exist.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dgo View Post
Thats one ugly MOFO exo this is also the first time that I have seen the picture of Bigfoot I personally do not find anything wrong with this post. yes you copied and pasted the article however it also established the basis of a conversation. Atleast you attempted to provide information on the topic i have seen alot worst on these forums including the majority of replies from the complainers.
At least I am a man about it instead of eXo who made an alternate account to make himself look better.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SpikeOtagon View Post
Are you sure you want to support someone like that?

Im not going to lie I tend to not read your responses because they generally consist of slight rubbish however I did not click your link the first time, you did quote me in that same exact post and after clicking your link im still lost and what you are attempting to say what does that have to do with exo?

[SpikeOtacon]

Im not going to lie I tend to not read your responses because they generally consist of slight rubbish however I did not click your link the first time, you did quote me in that same exact post and after clicking your link im still lost and what you are attempting to say what does that have to do with exo?

If you read my posts I'm sure you'll find that i'm usually a rather normal, happy poster. I guess quality = rubbish to you.

I never once said you were eXo. I posted the link to the banned account because AlexCraig caught eXo using that account to make himself look better and give himself support to make it look like us, designated "The Troll Patrol", were absolute monsters. They banned that account but let eXo continue posting. The reason I posted this is because I felt this was a total chicken shit move on his part, and I myself would not want to support someone like him. I think Off Topic should be aware of his shady dealings.

I have tried to post in his topics and get along with him, but since he has me blocked this is counter-productive to a happy and healthy Off Topic. I don't come here just to troll him, you know.

Now, the reason why I said "You just gave yourself away" is because you instantly freaked and said that you weren't eXo when I wasn't accusing you. But to be honest, the two of you have the same posting style, and your posting style even matches the banned account. It was meant to be a joke but I guess since you've been caught red handed you can't have a laugh, right?

[Mixfortune]

Due to a number of complaints and locked topics recently, we are changing some guidelines for posting in Off Topic.


New threads must include some input from the topic creator. Usually more than a sentence is required to truly start a discussion.
News articles are easy to find and there are entire sites built for commenting on them, we don't need every Yahoo! or Google front news page article showing up here. Not every Kotaku article needs to be linked either. Some major ones are ok with enough appropriate comment by the creator.


If you see a post that violates what was said above or any of the other Forum Rules, please use the Report button attached to the offending post. The Report button has replaced Mod Alert. Not reporting a post and flaming instead will get you a warning as well, report any offending posts and not saying anything is the best thing to do.

http://pso-world.com/forums/showthread.php?t=146479

This thread seems to make a good example of this whole problem.
The thread is a copy and paste of an article with not much actual discussion to it. It is the responsibility of the topic creator to provide a suitable basis for a conversation or discussion. The more successful topics do not rely upon the posters to validate the purpose of the thread.

For example, pasting an article or an information tidbit like "the sky is above us" followed afterwards with a simple "Discuss." or "So what do you all think?" No, simply asking everyone else what they think is not a basis for discussion. If you leave yourself open for tangents and spam, that is what you'll end up with in due time.

Flip side, properly reporting a thread. Use the report function. Don't degrade the thread by flaming or masking flames or insinuations, especially in a public manner. This adds nothing to a potentially already barren topic. The personal views of an individual on the validity of a thread are no sole justification, nor excuse, for pulling the thread down further and/or in the first place.

Also, reporting a thread is no excuse to then also continue to degrade the thread.
By best circumstances, simply report the thread with a solid descriptive of your complaint, and seek to avoid bringing the issue to the forefront in public. That is, walk away.

[Dgo]

If you read my posts I'm sure you'll find that i'm usually a rather normal, happy poster. I guess quality = rubbish to you.

I never once said you were eXo. I posted the link to the banned account because AlexCraig caught eXo using that account to make himself look better and give himself support to make it look like us, designated "The Troll Patrol", were absolute monsters. They banned that account but let eXo continue posting. The reason I posted this is because I felt this was a total chicken shit move on his part, and I myself would not want to support someone like him. I think Off Topic should be aware of his shady dealings.

I have tried to post in his topics and get along with him, but since he has me blocked this is counter-productive to a happy and healthy Off Topic. I don't come here just to troll him, you know.

Now, the reason why I said "You just gave yourself away" is because you instantly freaked and said that you weren't eXo when I wasn't accusing you. But to be honest, the two of you have the same posting style, and your posting style even matches the banned account. It was meant to be a joke but I guess since you've been caught red handed you can't have a laugh, right?

No I never knew that a posting pattern determines the person behind the keyboard I have no reason to defend myself I do not visit the forums very often however the few times that I have visited the forums it generally consist of you and that nitro guy trolling other PSOW members post.

It's not my place to defend anyone however everyone has a set value that determines rather or not a post is considered quality or not, like I stated previously fellow PSOW members Kent and VulpesMundi can verify that we are two different people.You are always peaching about quality posting however the best thread that I can recall you posting was clearly a ripoff of exo's Soul Calibur IV post in my opinion, and yes you admitted that which I can respect although it was fairly obvious to everyone anyway.

I just always felt that the PSOW staff does a fairly decent job of moderating whats considered quality or poor quality and sent those post to FKL accordingly. To have random PSOW members attempting to play vigilante moderator is pretty much saying that they fail at their jobs which isnt the case at all in my opinion, also I strongly doubt that a moderator would discuss anything such as the reason behind banning someone with you therefore please stop spreading rumors and just let them handle the posting responsibilities and you guys handle yours.

Quote:
Due to a number of complaints and locked topics recently, we are changing some guidelines for posting in Off Topic.


New threads must include some input from the topic creator. Usually more than a sentence is required to truly start a discussion.
News articles are easy to find and there are entire sites built for commenting on them, we don't need every Yahoo! or Google front news page article showing up here. Not every Kotaku article needs to be linked either. Some major ones are ok with enough appropriate comment by the creator.


If you see a post that violates what was said above or any of the other Forum Rules, please use the Report button attached to the offending post. The Report button has replaced Mod Alert. Not reporting a post and flaming instead will get you a warning as well, report any offending posts and not saying anything is the best thing to do.

To me this thread appeared to consist of a conversation between the OP and BeatrixKiddo, if I were available at the time I most likely would have enjoyed discussing this topic however since it's not considered quality to like two members while two members appeared to have no problem with the thread it has pretty much been ruined.

[Mixfortune]

You're partially correct here in the sense that there may have been the beginnings of a conversation, however it's true that by the limits of the initial post there's not too much outside of an "I agree" or "I disagree" conclusion. Within half a page there'd not be much else outside of what would then become considered off tangent by the definitions laid out by the opening post.

Consider this, and this goes for most members here as well. When you think to yourself "Hey, I'm going to go make a new thread", think again about what you'll need to help cement a decent conversation path.

First of all, is there already a thread to which we can attribute this discussion to? If so, simply place it in there. It'll keep that other thread fresh as well as broaden the scope slightly and potentially weaving concepts together.

Next, find out what you'll need to include to make sure it'll be followed properly. Guidelines for the members to consider, for example. Or rather, give an initial direction to the topic. A foundation to get the ball rolling. Here, the quoted article itself even disintegrates the event it's trying to build up. Examples of a topic direction include a more in depth starting analysis of the topic creator outside of "This is cool." or "I don't believe it." Say, push us in the direction of the social aspects of these kinds of manias and the underlying psyches behind these different interpretations, or experiences/reasons to disprove or prove these articles. It doesn't have to be quite that complex, but enough to have something.

This is indeed similar to what kiddo brought up about the contradictions in their existence, citing predatory aspects versus "invisible" level elusiveness, but again, the most successful topics do not rely on the hope that other members will validate the purpose of posting a thread, the creator must see to this in the Original Post. If this sort of point was included in the original post when it was first made, perhaps with a little follow-up to support it, then you'd more likely to have a better basis to start an actual conversation.

These are a few basic essentials to helping yourself to creating a successful thread. If your picture you're giving your audience to paint is built onto a potentially incomplete framework, you're opening yourself up to results you may not have been looking for. So know what you're looking for BEFORE you hit that New Topic button, and set yourself up accordingly.

For your other point on what you'd consider "forum hoodlums" etc., you've cited your own solution. If their posts are not to your liking and you feel are not compliant to the board rules, you have the power to report as well as they do. Included in this responsibility is another attribute we've both cited. To not make a public degradation of the situation. Just as they can/should simply report and remain silent, the same applies to the other side as well.

The forum rules are such where defending yourself is not a solid justification for bending them, so this is something to keep in mind as well, since it's a little different than maybe what you'd expect.

[Mixfortune]

And I suppose if you'd like to get REALLY meta, you could cite me on these same grounds of reporting and not posting, as well as carrying the thread even further off tangent...

Alas.

[Dgo]

You're partially correct here in the sense that there may have been the beginnings of a conversation, however it's true that by the limits of the initial post there's not too much outside of an "I agree" or "I disagree" conclusion. Within half a page there'd not be much else outside of what would then become considered off tangent by the definitions laid out by the opening post.

Consider this, and this goes for most members here as well. When you think to yourself "Hey, I'm going to go make a new thread", think again about what you'll need to help cement a decent conversation path.

First of all, is there already a thread to which we can attribute this discussion to? If so, simply place it in there. It'll keep that other thread fresh as well as broaden the scope slightly and potentially weaving concepts together.

Next, find out what you'll need to include to make sure it'll be followed properly. Guidelines for the members to consider, for example. Or rather, give an initial direction to the topic. A foundation to get the ball rolling. Here, the quoted article itself even disintegrates the event it's trying to build up. Examples of a topic direction include a more in depth starting analysis of the topic creator outside of "This is cool." or "I don't believe it." Say, push us in the direction of the social aspects of these kinds of manias and the underlying psyches behind these different interpretations, or experiences/reasons to disprove or prove these articles.

This is indeed similar to what kiddo brought up about the contradictions in their existence, citing predatory aspects versus "invisible" level elusiveness, but again, the most successful topics do not rely on the hope that other members will validate the purpose of posting a thread, the creator must see to this in the Original Post.

These are a few basic essentials to helping yourself to creating a successful thread. If your picture you're giving your audience to paint is built onto a potentially incomplete framework, you're opening yourself up to results you may not have been looking for. So know what you're looking for BEFORE you hit that New Topic button, and set yourself up accordingly.

I agree and understand that also but at the same time their has to be a point were the replying most learn to demonstrate maturity and simply conclude that, I am generally unhappy with the posting content of this member therefore i will ignore them or avoid their post altogether unless it appears to have a certain amount of replies then it must be worth a damn.

I mean seriously think about it if you ate some bad chinese food would you continue to eat at that restaurant?? the same logic applies to reading post if it's really that bad then stop coming back for more because it's going to taste the same regardless of what you say or do.

[Mixfortune]

I agree and understand that also but at the same time their has to be a point were the replying most learn to demonstrate maturity and simply conclude that, I am generally unhappy with the posting content of this member therefore i will ignore them or avoid their post altogether unless it appears to have a certain amount of replies then it must be worth a damn.

I mean seriously think about it if you ate some bad chinese food would you continue to eat at that restaurant?? the same logic applies to reading post if it's really that bad then stop coming back for more because it's going to taste the same regardless of what you say or do.

I had added in additional points for what you're talking about in my previous post. It was probably not finished editing into there until after you'd already started your post, so feel free to take a look.

Essentially, everyone has the power to report, as long as it's applicable.
When dealing with what you might consider bad apples, whether they're actually bad or not, it certainly won't help them change by telling them to, just as how you or anyone else won't change simply because they tell you to.

It takes two (sides, in this case) to tango. So, instead of replying in order to give them something to reply to, you have the same power you're calling them out on not using/not exclusively using.