Maybe it's about to.
Blocking Members Manifesto
Sort:
SPARTANEMESIS wrote:
If I knew you in the real world and you ever had the audacity to say some of the crap that I have the impression is one of your trademarks, there is no telling how big a fool I would make of you.
What kind of logic is this exactly?
"I'm imagining you saying foolish things -- oh, man would I ever give you the what-for about them!"
If you're going to call someone to task it should be for what they actually say and do, not what you imagine they might.
SPARTANEMESIS wrote:
Maybe it's about to.
it looks very different from it's beginnings already. are you going to make further changes ?
[COMMENT DELETED]
Sunofthemorninglight wrote:
has the topic morphed ?
transmogrified perhaps. or torpedoed maybe?
Ubik42 wrote:
Fun fact: you never see Spartanemesis and learningthemoves posting at exactly the same time.
Coincidence? Or perhaps...they are the same person...?
Just a thought. A random one. Surely, thats not actually true!
TheGrobe my comment--which you quoted only a section of--was a response to the above quoted comment. The above text is what was said. However the impression I have is derived from a lot more than this.
Thank goodness that's cleared-up!
Ubik42 wrote:
I gather, having just looked it up, that blocking means blocking people from posting on your page or sending you messages.
Sparty, you must be aggravating a lot of people if you need to block that much incoming.
There was only one person I would have considered blocking, that qkfl guy who posted the thread awhile back about timeouts. He was calling me a "shill" for chess.com, threatening to sue them for hiring us "shills", then started up a game with me which is still going on (only because of the very vacation time he was complaing about), and then got his account closed.
Then he must have signed on as a puppet, because he sent me a link to some wiki where he was blasting a lot of the shills. Sadly, I wasnt included in his blasting. I don't understand what I could have not done to sufficiently offend him, I felt left out. I thought I was atleast as harsh on him as everyone else.
In the end, even if I had known about the blocking, I probably wouldnt have done it, because it was fun being accused of being in the pay of chess.com. Maybe they would have sent me a check eventually?
Just for fun, here is the chat we did in our "game"
qfkl: You know I'm just going to time this out, right?
Ubik42: Of course, I was looking forward to my free rating increase!
Ubik42: It already more work than I was expecting.
qfkl: Haha. Should be interesting to see a sockpuppet play like a real boy.
Ubik42: Sockpuppet?
qfkl: Shill...maybe you guys call it "mod" because it makes you feel better.
Ubik42: lol you think I'm a mod thats funny
qfkl: No I think you're a shill. Funny...I just got some emails from Patzer24 posing as an attorney in Miami Dade County. What a douche! Now I have his IP address, though, so he definitely gets to be part of the federal case.
Ubik42: I think you have a bit of a persecution complex. Why do you think I am a "shill"?
Account closed!
Also the dialogue in this post did not surprise me in the slightest, although I'm guessing there was more to it than what is displayed. I'm not saying I believe qfkl, however qfkl obviously thought something was wrong.
what a load of bull
is ''qfkl'' a derivative of Queen roots King?
Ubik42 wrote:
If you dont want to block me, then you dont want to block anyone.
Nor was this a surprise.
Sparta, would you like to kill everyone you don't like ?
Sunofthemorninglight wrote:
Sparta, would you like to kill everyone you don't like ?
I wouldn't like to kill anyone.
SPARTANEMESIS wrote:
ubik42 wrote:
Fun fact: you never see Spartanemesis and Learningthemoves posting at exactly the same time.... perhaps...they are the same person...
ubik42 your logic (if I can call it that) is severely flawed. The comment I wrote which begins: "Aha! The voice of reason," was posted within minutes of the comment prior to that. I happened to be online at the same time as Learningthemoves.
Did I mention you really remind me of someone I used to be friends with? You actually remind me of two people I used to be friends with. If I knew you in the real world and you ever had the audacity to say some of the crap that I have the impression is one of your trademarks, there is no telling how big a fool I would make of you. One of the old friends you remind me of I consider to be one of the biggest con-artists I ever had the misfortune of knowing. (Fun fact: he's fond of the number 666, not that it's really relevant.) I hate con-artists. ubik42 I'd really like it if you stayed out of this discussion from here on out, but please don't let that stop you.
I am keeping track of how many times I remind you of nameless people you used to know. I feel this advances the conversation quite a bit!
SPARTANEMESIS wrote:
Ubik42 wrote:
I gather, having just looked it up, that blocking means blocking people from posting on your page or sending you messages.
Sparty, you must be aggravating a lot of people if you need to block that much incoming.
There was only one person I would have considered blocking, that qkfl guy who posted the thread awhile back about timeouts. He was calling me a "shill" for chess.com, threatening to sue them for hiring us "shills", then started up a game with me which is still going on (only because of the very vacation time he was complaing about), and then got his account closed.
Then he must have signed on as a puppet, because he sent me a link to some wiki where he was blasting a lot of the shills. Sadly, I wasnt included in his blasting. I don't understand what I could have not done to sufficiently offend him, I felt left out. I thought I was atleast as harsh on him as everyone else.
In the end, even if I had known about the blocking, I probably wouldnt have done it, because it was fun being accused of being in the pay of chess.com. Maybe they would have sent me a check eventually?
Just for fun, here is the chat we did in our "game"
qfkl: You know I'm just going to time this out, right?
Ubik42: Of course, I was looking forward to my free rating increase!
Ubik42: It already more work than I was expecting.
qfkl: Haha. Should be interesting to see a sockpuppet play like a real boy.
Ubik42: Sockpuppet?
qfkl: Shill...maybe you guys call it "mod" because it makes you feel better.
Ubik42: lol you think I'm a mod thats funny
qfkl: No I think you're a shill. Funny...I just got some emails from Patzer24 posing as an attorney in Miami Dade County. What a douche! Now I have his IP address, though, so he definitely gets to be part of the federal case.
Ubik42: I think you have a bit of a persecution complex. Why do you think I am a "shill"?
Account closed!
Also the dialogue in this post did not surprise me in the slightest, although I'm guessing there was more to it than what is displayed. I'm not saying I believe qfkl, however qfkl obviously thought something was wrong.
No there wasnt any more to this dialogue in-game chat, but preceeding this there was a very lengthy thread exchange where qkfl was basically accusing everyone of being in league against him, from chess.com to whoever was responding in the thread.
I got the "shill" accusation because I was calling his complaints BS, implicitly defending chess.com's policy. I cant remember exactly what his crap was about, I think it had something to do with auto-timeouts and vacations, but like all threads it morphed into chess.com paying people to support them on the forums, and this was illegal, and he was going to sue everyone with 100 miles of him, and then bizzarly went off about some guy in Florida that emailed him pretending to be a lawyer or something...basically he went completly off the rails. Then he made an antry into some wikipedia clone complaining about some of the members (not me, oddly).
Like I said, the only person I would have considered blocking. See...i would'nt even consider blocking you, Sparta, because you are just weird and a basket case, but not quite completely loony as this nut was.
ubik42, along with several other people, you helped me finally come to the decision to agree with the increase on the 200 block limit. Also you helped me come up with the three points I made which I think would improve the site, it's revenue, and the amount of thoughtful participators significantly. Furthermore you, along with the several people I previously mentioned, assisted me in coming up with several other points which I feel would make a vast improvement. I'm still fine-tuning the details and they will not be posted in the forums. Feel free to continue offering your assistance. I'll be listening even if I'm not responding.
How many people have you blocked, Spart?
Ubik42 wrote:
How many people have you blocked, Spart?
This maybe one of the last comments of your's I address. The answer is none, ever. I stated as much earlier in this thread, do you need me to spell it out for you? If you cannot understand it this time, you probably never will.
SPARTANEMESIS wrote:
Ubik42 wrote:
How many people have you blocked, Spart?
This maybe one of the last comments of your's I address. The answer is none, ever. I stated as much earlier in this thread, do you need me to spell it out for you? If you cannot understand it this time, you probably never will.
Well, then why so keen to up the limit to 200?
I personally don't care who blocks who, but you seem to think its an important issue, and thats just odd for someone who keeps saying he never blocks anyone.
has the topic morphed ?