Mkerr decided to call me insane, for some reason, on his blog.
He also doesn't seem to understand why I cannot edit comments in blog comment systems.
Seems like everyone does not have a lawyer or talk to one, ever.
So, a couple things, why can't I do things like 'edit comments'? Like here, it'd be nice if I could just go in and delete all that extra text, right?
Reposting of your message, I can't edit your posts I can only delete them. Mkerr didn't seem to grasp why I can't edit what you say, simple really--you own what you say here, not me. I am only responsible for making sure you don't say "bad" things that can get me sued. Unlike most major forums, I don't really care what people say and won't do stupid shit like edit what you say--you can sue for that. Most people won't bother,
See, when you edit or delete posts--you go from being a common carrier to a publisher. As an example, BOLS is no longer a common carrier--they are a publisher. This means THEY are responsible for everything their users say about me.
Meaning if I was actually a douchebag, tossing out a lawsuit over the nonsense being posted there would be something to consider.
That's why I don't allow people here to cross the line, because *I* too am a publisher, and I am responsible for your comments.
Thankfully, nobody ever really has crossed that line.
See, you can call me a motherfucker all day long.
You can't call me insane, because that is actually false (being I am not actually insane).
I can call you a dickhead, because it's an opinion not a statement of fact.
Note: I have no intention to sue, I'm just pointing out that what you (Mkerr) say on your blog which is published by Bols makes you and Bols liable for what you say--and your comment system which you control makes you liable for what is said there.
It helps to know these things.
The reason you cannot edit comments in blog posts is you, as the blog owner, do not OWN the comments--the people making them do. That's why the only options are delete. See, it's a common thing for forums to allow moderation but you usually see smart moderators simply delete the entire post--because you can (and will be) sued for putting words in other peoples mouths, because you can get them sued for putting words in their mouth.
That said, you might consider an apology.
Doubt I'll get one, but hey, if you want to know the "legal" reasons why I say what I say, you are allowed to post here.
So is Bushido, and Jwolf, and the rest.
I welcome dissenting opinions, even if I do tend to frag them if they can't make a good argument.
Note the best stuff on my blog is, in my view, that generated by my regular readers--they are an intelligent bunch who aren't afraid to challenge me, and that's something I value greatly (and thank you fellas for doing it).
All because I allow dissent, I get great content--for free? Wow, what a concept.
I also limit my legal liability.
Funny how that works.
71 comments:
Those editing shenanigans are exactly why forums like LO have turned into page after page of meaningless drivel. If you attempt to have a moderately serious conversation, you get censored or banned for being "offensive".
Just a thought...couldn't you ad a small disclaimer on the site along the lines newspapers have? As I understand, they can edit letters to the editor and such for length purposes as long as they don't change the original author's intent (or something along those lines).
Not that I think it's necessary here, mind you, but more of a technical/legal question.
I could, but no blog commenting system would touch that. Not with a ten foot pole, not until they can keep the ORIGINAL UNEDITED copy around. Which newspapers do, by the way.
Yup, I called Stelek insane on my blog. Here's a link: http://www.chainfist.com/2009/10/stupid-it-burns.html
But to address your comments:
1. Your "legal reason" for not editing comments is ridiculous. The fact you won't edit a post - at the user's request - because you are afraid of getting sued is funny (and a little nuts). Honestly believing that someone is going to sue you because you edited their comment on your blog is pretty freaking crazy.
2. Almost every blogging comment system I've looked allows a moderator to edit comments. Blog commenting sites don't seem quite as paranoid about moderators editing user-posted content (I don't see anything about it in their terms and conditions). I wouldn't edit a comment without user's permission, but not because of "legal liability".
3. BOLS doesn't publish my blog (your facts are bent); *I* publish my blog. Suggesting that BOLS is liable for what I say is, well, not completely sane. Suggesting that BOLS is somehow legally responsible for user-generated comments, also smacks of paranoia.
4. Intimating that you are going to sue me (or another blog) for making fun of you isn't helping your case.
5. Although I'm no expert (no medical training here), it is my opinion that your blogger "persona" is bat-shit crazy. Andrew might be a completely normal guy and this whole YTTH thing might be an act (I've heard as much from people you claim as your friends). But "Stelek" is crazy -- and not in that "crazy aunt who collects too many ceramic pigs" cute way, but in the not-so-cute "collects too many guns and thinks the government is beaming messages into his head" way.
Just my opinion though.
6. You are correct in assuming you won't get an apology from me. If you want me to stop saying that you are crazy, then stop acting crazy.
The law in the US is ridiculous? Interesting point of view.
Almost every...except the ones that interface with blogger, which is run by Google, which HAS lawyers and does not want to lose it's cash cow.
I can *not* edit the post.
By legal definition, Bols does indeed publish your blog much as a newstand does. Please consult with an attorney.
Nobody was intimating anything, obviously me saying I can sue but am not going to is very different from intimating anything.
Saying my 'persona' is crazy is a far thing from calling me insane. Thank you for backtracking.
No apology is needed now that you've 'corrected' your mistake.
Now go on.
So it's your position that no blog commenting system that interfaces with Blogger can edit the post for legal reasons? That Google's gaggle of lawyers legally prevents said system from providing that functionality? Do you also believe that a tin foil hat keeps the government from stealing your ideas?
WRONG: My blog Chainfist.com (100% Warhammer, 2% Drama) is a Blogger blog. I use Disqus for my commenting system which is integrated seemlessly. I can edit any user's comments.
Here's a screen shot of the moderation page: http://www.box.net/shared/static/t0jf5yvbco.jpg
Notice the little EDIT button on the far right. All of the comments has it. So you are 100% dead wrong.
Let's see if you actually admit that fact.
Perhaps a *less crazy* viewpoint would be that you are using JS-KIT (which hasn't implemented that function) as opposed to Disqus. Doesn't that seem more reasonable (i.e., less crazy) than assuming that there's some HUGE legal conspiracy preventing you from moderating?
BOLS doesn't publish my blog by any definition of the word. I publish my blog. You may see conspiracies all around you, but that doesn't make it true.
Finally, I'm not backtracking at all. For all I know, Andrew may be completely as crazy as "Stelek". Hell, you may actually think "Stelek" is a real person. But I do know that you are doing your damnedest to portray a crazy person on your blog. If it's intentional, then it's working. I'm convinced.
What's that 40k quote...
"Only the Insane can judge what is truely Sane?" Words to those effect, Badab War quote iirc.
Seems kind of pertinent to this discussion.
Auretious Taak.
Do you read Disqus own blog at all? They are wrestling with this very issue now--of who owns the comments. The blogger community is outraged over this. Maybe you should pull your head out and figure out why. If you can tell me why people are upset with Disqus, I'll say whatever you want.
By definition, Bols does indeed act as the newstand--and they should know what you write given you are one of those that writes for them. The law is the law, you saying it isn't doesn't make it so. lol
You did backtrack, and I appreciate it.
"See, you can call me a motherfucker all day long."
Motherfucker, motherfucker, motherfucker! :3
So no "Wow, I was wrong about not being able to edit comments on Blogger. Oh, and that whole Google lawyer thing was wildly inaccurate."? Color me surprised.
You mean the Diqus post where they tell you now to "edit undesirable content instantly"?
http://blog.disqus.com/post/217536912/disqus-comments-moderating-comments-from-your-post
Note: That one has 62 comments and zero "outraged" bloggers.
On the Disqus FAQ site the #4 question is "Who owns the comments?" -- Disqus answers "You do. Disqus does not make any claims to the ownership or control of the comments. If you use Disqus Comments, you will always retain control and ownership of any content that is present on your website. "
That's pretty clear. That doesn't seem to be much of a wrestling match. Maybe this is less a "pulling my head out" issue and more a "watch where you are putting yours" problem.
I know lots of bloggers that use Disqus and I don't know a single person that's outraged (or even concerned) about comment ownership. Comment ownership isn't really an issue that most bloggers worry a lot about. Why? Unless you intend to use those comments (i.e., sell or publish them) then it doesn't really matter who owns them. They are comments not content.
Your newsstand analogy makes no sense. BOLS doesn't publish my blog in any sense of the word. Chainfist.com is my blog, not theirs. I own every piece of it. I suppose that while you were consulting with multiple stock brokers about GW's real valuation, you found time to meet with a few intellectual property lawyers as well? You are completely talking out of your ass (if I understand this is a common malady of crazy people).
No backtracking here. Either you are completely bat-shit crazy or you are acting completely bat-shit crazy. I have no way to tell the difference.
"<span>You are completely talking out of your ass (if I understand this is a common malady of crazy people)."</span>
Hey, I talk out of my ass and I'm not crazy. :(
@Sidstyler: I don't know, you did just call some dude a motherfucker three times in a row, lol! :)
Mkerr, your technical knowledge of blogger is laughable. Your legal knowledge is worse.
Disqus hosts your comments.
You are the one talking out of your ass--Disqus cannot edit Google's blogger comments (because like I said, Google doesn't allow it) because they aren't hosted by fucking Google and are not copied to Googles stream, do you even understand what I'm talking about? Probably not, because you believe what Disqus tells you.
Disqus can say as a matter of policy that YOU own the comments--but in fact, by law, your users do. Do you understand that people publishing are granted copyright immediately? It's not a US phenomenon, you know. The majority of countries on earth abide by the Berne convention--do you even know what it is? Again, probably not but that too is irrelevant because by your comments so far, you don't know anything.
You don't know anyone outraged, so you obviously aren't a member of the Disqus community boards. Where were you months ago when Disqus said they owned the comments? Oh right, that didn't happen because you didn't see it. And Orks are awesome. What's behind door # 3?
Disqus sells your comments, right now they are selling them and making a profit on them. Do you understand that's their entire business model? Or is the internet view on this "wrong" and the Disqus provided view correct? If so, I have stock in the Brooklyn Bridge I'd love to sell you. Honest!
Comments ARE content. Are you living in the 90s and called the newspaper industry? Chrissakes, same moronic know-nothing attitude they had too.
Thanks again for backtracking, and of course the snide comments--always welcome to post accurate facts.
I'll post some more, not really for you--but for everyone else.
Since you insist I educate you, here you go. Remember, this is the treatment you get here--the truth, and boy does it hurt.
You are the publisher, Bols is the newstand (they have your posts, ie. your magazine, in their newstand, aka their blogroll). With me so far?
Great. Now if you don't know what's going on, like in Cubby vs Compuserve--then you get a free pass at the offensive material you post. This would make you a common carrier--in short, they could say they are just a distributor and has no control over what you post.
If, on the other hand, you act as a staff at say...Bols, which you do, then by publishing links to your blog over which they do have knowledge and over which you have control (sorry friend, you can't pass off your directly-related work in a field for your employer where you make the same views and then write publicly the same thing elsewhere and say the two aren't related...the law doesn't buy that one, and never has), they become a 'publisher' because they do have guidelines for you to follow, they do have moderators, they do moderate, etc I could go on but you are going to try and pretend like this isn't the law--but Oakmont vs Prodigy says it is.
Do you keep up on actual events around the world that affects both you and me, YTTH and Bols equally, or are you just here to piss in my cup of coffee? I think the answer is obvious, but in case you aren't going to just run the attack flag up--go do some actual research.
Right now, as we speak, bloggers rights are being defined. Are you even involved in this? Do you make public comments for the FCC to review, do you send in comments to those making 'friends of the court' briefs to SCOTUS over the recent cases headed there?
Here, read this, get a clue about Disqus.
http://whydoeseverythingsuck.com/2008/05/who-has-comment-copyright-ownership-in.html
Do some research. Don't tell me you fucking know when you fucking don't. Stop embarressing yourself.
1. This whole comment-owner issue is stupid. Who really gives a crap about who owns a comment on a toy soldier blog? They are COMMENTS. If I leave a comment on someone else's blog, the last thing on my mind is who owns it (I did "leave" it there, after all). You've really nailed the important issues to the average gamer with that one!
"Help, help! I'm being oppressed because Disqus says the comment I posted on ChainFist.com isn't mine! Oh mercy me, what am I ever to do? Don't worry, ma'am; we're here to make sure that your intellectual property is protected!"
And yes, that article from MAY 2008 is awesome -- clearly there's a huge wrestling match over it, lol. Hank at WhyDoesEverythingSuck.com recently surmised that Adobe is falling apart because he didn't get quick customer service when he called. "Or is this the canary in the coal mine for Adobe? Does it reflect deeper management problems than are apparent?" -- Is this where you get your "GW is failing because they don't have GT" ideas from, Stelek? Lame.
2. "Disqus sells your comments" -- First of all, that's not true (and they aren't making a profit). Secondly, like many web 3.0 companies, they haven't settled on a business model -- but I can assure you that it's not "sell our customer's blog comments". Neither Y Combinator nor Union Square Ventures is known for backing sleazy companies. That's your paranoid bubbling up again.
But, hell, if someone can make some money off the comments I leave on various blogs, then more power to them. If it allows Disqus to continue to offer their service for free, then I'm cool with it. If I have some intellectual property that I really want to protect, I'll avoid leaving it as a comment on another person's blog. Thanks for the tip, lol!
I'm not trying to leverage my reader's comments to drive search-engine traffic to my site. Comments (for my blog) are a way to interact with my readers and I want the experience to be as easy and as positive as possible. I've seen dozens of complaints about your commenting system, but you seem more concerned about "big brother" and maybe making a few more cents a day than reader satisfaction.
I guess I'm differently motivated -- I like my readers. I don't call them names or anything. - even the ones that disagree with me. How weird is that?
3. The "backtracking" comments are dumb. Although I'm no medical expert, you act freaking crazy. You can say "nuh-uh" or threaten to sue as often as you like, but all it's doing is making you sound craaaaaazy.
4. "You are the publisher, Bols is the newstand (they have your posts, ie. your magazine, in their newstand, aka their blogroll). With me so far?"
No, not at all. Chainfist is my blog -- it is not my publisher. There's no publisher in this model. Other blogs aren't my "newsstands" -- being in a blogroll isn't anything like being for sale in a newsstand. Your terrible analogy is terribly flawed. Since you have no actual understanding of any of the relationships between other blogs, other bloggers or their various their relationships (or anything else, for that matter), your whole rant on "you can't pass off your directly-related work in a field for your employer where you make the same views and then write publicly the same thing elsewhere and say the two aren't related" is pointless, weird and creepy.
5. No, I'm not on the front lines of the "bloggers rights" battle, but I'm relieved the we've got a nutcase like you in there making public comments for the FCC to review and helping to make sure that our readers don't get their valuable comments deleted by some tyrant blogger! Well done!
6. I laughed at the "Stop embarressing [sic] yourself" comment, lol.
I donno, I wouldn't like my comment appearing on a shirt if it had a tag line someone liked or someone claiming it as their own if they made a freakin' essay out of this. :P
So, I guess you can't contribute. Pity.
@Smurfy: So concern that your comment would be used as a t-shirt tag line would prevent you from commenting on a blog you follow? Or are you just saying that it might seem unfair if that happened?
Why comment if you give up your right to your own words? Ah fuck, why even say anything.
Unfair at first, I'm sure it can worsen?
Have you seen those shirts with the Chuck Norris facts?
I wonder if the guys who thought those up are able to sell them, or the guys who put 'em on a shirt first.
"<span>I don't know, you did just call some dude a motherfucker three times in a row, lol!"</span>
He told me to! It's right up there!
Calling me a motherfucker is protected speech.
Stating I'm insane is defamation (it isn't a true fact).
Qualified privilege, fair comment, and opinion; helps to know what those are as a blogger.
Also helps to know that whether bloggers are publishers or not is still being decided, but regulating or editing pushes you firmly into the publisher camp.
Common knowledge, if you just look for it.
Or bury you head, call me names, and we'll have have a laugh.
<span>Calling me a motherfucker is protected speech.
Stating I'm insane is defamation (it isn't a true fact).
Qualified privilege, fair comment, and opinion; helps to know what those are as a blogger.
Also helps to know that whether bloggers are publishers or not is still being decided, but regulating or editing pushes you firmly into the publisher camp.
Common knowledge, if you just look for it.
Or bury your head in the sand, call me names, and we'll have have a laugh at your expense.</span>
Not my idea of fun, but hey whatever makes the internet happy.
AACK! more Net Neutrality and Freedom of Information arguements. As of yet (and I am no full legal expert) Net Neutrality and who owns what on the interwebs aren't fully decided. There curently are court cases underway and legislation underway to be considered on the topic.
Should the internet (and information *blogs*) be owned by those that host, and by those that provide ISP? Or is it owned by the authors? Can my ISP filter what I say and where go online because they provide the toll service to me or not, or should the internet be a free, open thing to use like the interstate system?
I'm glad Stelek comes down on the free speech side, he's researched more about the legal issues than I have. I don't think dissenting opinions should be nipped in the bud.
I don't think many nay-sayers of Stelek realize how much he'll defend your rights to smear YTTH.
Stelek is like my cranky uncle. He can be pretty rude, has experience and some good insights. Not a lot of people like him. I don't agree with 100% of what he says. He's very passionate about this hobby. He reacts to people trolling him.
I know Chainfist is Mkerr's own stuff, not BoLS. BoLS has done some efrort to encourage the hobby. I groan and roll my eyes when I read 'tacticas' there however. I don't feel there is a lot of allowed dissent there, it seems some of the mods like their egos stoked. I do appreciate the rumors that can come through BoLS.
I dont' see the point to mindless following of anyone. I also don't see the point to the fighting between YTTH and BoLS. It's opinions on toy soldiers. Stop trolling each other. come down off the ego thrones, and stop namecalling like kids do.
I have to admit this is very entertaining and quite informative so a tip of the hat to you stelek.
Mkerr,
If you are stating that you believe it is ok to edit directly comments made by people who are recognisable to other people by their published tag, then you are opening doors that you dont want opened.
Sure the simple and amusing start is editing steleks comments on your blog to just say
Stelek
I'm an ass-hat.
But the end-point is completely open. You are effectively making yourself free to 'accidentally' mis-interpret and then 'edit for clarity' other peoples comments.
Just because your doing it on a blog about toy soldiers doesnt make the laws any different i'm afraid.
You should not edit user submitted comments unless you are 100% willing to take personal responsibility for the resulting published material. And you're willing to back it up. In court if it comes to it
effectively saying you could take any comment by someone you didnt like on your blog and change it to whatever the hell you like (there is no original kept) and publish that.
I studied Journalism and from what I learned in our legal courses, Stelek is right about the comment thing. (not sure about the blogroll thing, but pretty sure on this)
FarmPunk is also right, it's not clearly defined.
Now agreeing to both might sound paradoxical, but the situation is about this:
- It is not clearly defined how the law stands with that since most laws are too old to take the nature of the internet into consideration as of now.
- The most common interpreatation of the law looks pretty much like what Stelek said.
- Mkerr, I'm sorry and I don't want to insult you, but it really looks like you have no idea what you are talking about.
Going further into the last point, as I think it might need explanation:
Saying things like "there is no publisher in that situation" (paraphrased) is just wrong. I'm not saying you are or BOLS, but there is content published. That term not only applies to printing.
Saying Disqus doesn't make profit in any way is naive. Their servers cost money, you know? They have to at least get that money back. They may not look like it, but Disqus is indeed a firm. (and since they've been hiring additional personell there has to be some money coming in)
A statement like "Who really gives a crap about who owns a comment on a toy soldier blog? They are COMMENTS." may work fine for you and your personal comments, but just because you think it is not as important as publishing a news paper comment doesn't mean the law thinks so, too.
There have been law suits over blog posts, there have been some over comments.
Disclaimer:
I'm not being a Stelek fanboi here. Frankly, I think the Stelek persona is pretty much an asshole. But since his "assholism" is entertaining and there's some very interesting content framed by it, I read his blog regularly. I also read BOLS. And BoK. And several other sites/blogs/forums (hell, maybe I'll start reading chainfist too soon, who knows?). They all serve different purposes for me.
<span style="font-weight: bold; color: #000099;">............................................________</span>
<span style="font-weight: bold; color: #336666;"> ....................................,.-‘”...................``~.,</span>
<span style="font-weight: bold; color: #006600;"> .............................,.-”...................................“-.,</span>
<span style="font-weight: bold; color: #666600;"> .........................,/...............................................”:,</span>
<span style="font-weight: bold; color: #996633;"> .....................,?......................................................\,</span>
<span style="font-weight: bold; color: #993300;"> .................../...........................................................,}</span>
<span style="font-weight: bold; color: #660000;"> ................./......................................................,:`^`..}</span>
<span style="font-weight: bold; color: #990000;"> .............../...................................................,:”........./</span>
<span style="font-weight: bold; color: #cc6600;"> ..............?.....__.........................................:`.........../</span>
<span style="font-weight: bold; color: #cc9933;"> ............./__.(.....“~-,_..............................,:`........../</span>
<span style="font-weight: bold; color: #999900;"> .........../(_....”~,_........“~,_....................,:`........_/</span>
<span style="font-weight: bold; color: #009900;"> ..........{.._$;_......”=,_.......“-,_.......,.-~-,},.~”;/....}</span>
<span style="font-weight: bold; color: #339999;"> ...........((.....*~_.......”=-._......“;,,./`..../”............../</span>
<span style="font-weight: bold; color: #3333ff;"> ...,,,___.\`~,......“~.,....................`.....}............../</span>
<span style="font-weight: bold; color: #6600cc;"> ............(....`=-,,.......`........................(......;_,,-”</span>
<span style="font-weight: bold; color: #cc33cc;"> ............/.`~,......`-...............................\....../\</span>
<span style="font-weight: bold; color: #6633ff;"> .............\`~.*-,.....................................|,./.....\,__</span>
<span style="font-weight: bold; color: #3366ff;"> ,,_..........}.>-._\...................................|..............`=~-,</span>
<span style="font-weight: bold; color: #00cccc;"> .....`=~-,_\_......`\,.................................\</span>
<span style="font-weight: bold; color: #33cc00;"> ...................`=~-,,.\,...............................\</span>
<span style="font-weight: bold; color: #ffcc00;"> ................................`:,,...........................`\..............__</span>
<span style="font-weight: bold; color: #ffcc33;"> .....................................`=-,...................,%`>--==``</span>
<span style="font-weight: bold; color: #ff6600;"> ........................................_\..........._,-%.......`\</span>
<span style="font-weight: bold; color: #cc0000;"> ...................................,<`.._|_,-&``................`\</span>
............................................________
....................................,.-‘”...................``~.,
.............................,.-”...................................“-.,
.........................,/...............................................”:,
.....................,?......................................................,
.................../...........................................................,}
................./......................................................,:`^`..}
.............../...................................................,:”........./
..............?.....__.........................................:`.........../
............./__.(.....“~-,_..............................,:`........../
.........../(_....”~,_........“~,_....................,:`........_/
..........{.._$;_......”=,_.......“-,_.......,.-~-,},.~”;/....}
...........((.....*~_.......”=-._......“;,,./`..../”............../
...,,,___.`~,......“~.,....................`.....}............../
............(....`=-,,.......`........................(......;_,,-”
............/.`~,......`-...................................../
.............`~.*-,.....................................|,./.....,__
,,_..........}.>-._...................................|..............`=~-,
.....`=~-,__......`,.................................
...................`=~-,,.,...............................
................................`:,,...........................`..............__
.....................................`=-,...................,%`>--==``
........................................_..........._,-%.......`
...................................,
Remember when this was a 40k blog?
It still is; this is part of 40k too, the pissing matches between people equally matched in intellectual capacity and puerile intransigence.
Personally I think a big punch-up is the best way to sort it out. With blackjack. And hookers.
In fact forget the punch up.
Ah screw the whole thing.
[quote]mkerr:
I'm not trying to leverage my reader's comments to drive search-engine traffic to my site. Comments (for my blog) are a way to interact with my readers and I want the experience to be as easy and as positive as possible. I've seen dozens of complaints about your commenting system, but you seem more concerned about "big brother" and maybe making a few more cents a day than reader satisfaction. [/quote]
You know mkerr, lots of people have complained about the way we can comment to this blog and stelek went through 2 or 3 revisions to best suit the needs of everyone. The difference between BolS and here in that regards for commenting is you lot now have this new fangled forum and frankly we don't need a forum here. We're happy posting in this blog way and we have a whole shit tonne of ways to leave comments, and that includes email AND msn. I spoke to stelek earlier toda...yesterday now, on msn, we discussed a bunch of stuff and then went offline. If I had wanted to I could call him a dick head fucktard to his face via webcam and msn and he wouldn't bat an eyelid. Sure you've seen a shit load of people bitching about how they can't comment properly here but hey, the traffic here is going strong and unlike a forum a pure blogging style of response is rather unique these days now that you guys have this forum where oh, certain user names are banned.
Stelek, have you banned anyone in effect here by deleting all of their posts, because you can't ban someone directly like you can on a forum (or can you?).
[quote]I guess I'm differently motivated -- I like my readers. I don't call them names or anything. - even the ones that disagree with me. How weird is that?[/quote]
So...you aren't ona more personal level where you can jest with readers all over the world who you've come to respect for whatever reasons via your blog? Yeah, you are weird. And besides, do we care as a whole if stelek calls us names? Not really, if we do does anyone else care? No, but then that's part of this blog atmosphere here on YTTH, people are honest and will call you names if they think it's warranted. More over, it isn't censored (for the most part) and there's quite alot of stuff floating about.
[quote]Stelek:
Oh right, that didn't happen because you didn't see it. And Orks are awesome. What's behind door # 3?
[/quote]
What is behind door number 3?
this made me laugh. :)
[quote]Frank Fugger:
<span>It still is; this is part of 40k too, the pissing matches between people equally matched in intellectual capacity and puerile intransigence.
Personally I think a big punch-up is the best way to sort it out. With blackjack. And hookers.
In fact forget the punch up.
Ah screw the whole thing.[/quote]</span>
<span></span>
<span>I dunno, the BoLS Vs YTTH Tournament could be all sorts of fun. I reckon you in there too Frank could be amusing. Then we'd get a cool punch up going and the pissing match would be so much more...enjoyable. Oh wait, no one will meet half way for a neutral tourney location, it's too much cost to get there, and bitch bitch bitch whinge whinge whinge. </span>
<span></span>
<span>Fuck heads.</span>
<span></span>
<span>I agree screw the blackjack, but screwing the whole thing, you got rid of the hookers so there might eb a chance to see something like this occur...maybe. doubtful. 1:18am...sleep would be great...</span>
<span></span>
<span>Oh, and I like how you complimented both mkerr and stelek on their abilities of equally matched intellectual capacity and puerile intransigence. We should give them Dane Axes. That'll make things more [...]
Blackjack and Hookers, now that's an idea...
<span><span>I reckon you in there too Frank could be amusing. Then we'd get a cool punch up going and the pissing match would be so much more...enjoyable.</span></span>
Are you saying you want to see me pissing? Because there are websites you can go to for that sort of thing.
Not that I'd know anything about it, of course.
Ahem.
@Stelek: Calling you insane is only defamation if you aren't insane, so I think I'm in the clear.
@BoBliness: I don't (and wouldn't) edit a comment without the poster's permission. No reasonable person would do that, regardless of legal rights.
Stelek said that he isn't allowed to edit comments because commenting systems don't provide that functionality (for "legal reasons" and fear of Google's lawyers). He was wrong and I'm just pointing those facts out.
@Luke Roberts: "Sure you've seen a shit load of people bitching about how they can't comment properly here" -- that was kind of my point. Stelek is more concerned about using your comments to drive traffic to his site (so he can show you ads) than he is about making the experience of commenting a pleasurable one.
I think that's kind of shitty.
Sure, he can ban users from posting comments (all commenting systems allow that).
"And besides, do we care as a whole if stelek calls us names? Not really, if we do does anyone else care? No, but then that's part of this blog atmosphere here on YTTH, people are honest and will call you names if they think it's warranted."
I don't like being called names, so put me in the "care" column. I don't see how name calling helps prove a point (unless you are trying to prove that you are a jerk).
"<span>I dunno, the BoLS Vs YTTH Tournament could be all sorts of fun."</span>
<span></span>
<span>It'll never happen. Stelek will say that he'll play, but something will come up to prevent it from happening. Our reputation isn't a "the best player in the world" house of cards. But, win or lose, I'm sure there are a ton of players in Austin that would welcome a game against Stelek -- just name the major tournament and we'll be there.</span>
<span>I don't like being called names, so put me in the "care" column. I don't see how name calling helps prove a point (unless you are trying to prove that you are a jerk). </span>
It's called banter. It doesn't help prove a point, but it does serve to wash away the pretentious veneer of academia that certain folk bring to discussions about toy soldiers. I suppose the capacity to engage in it is inversely proportional to how seriously you take yourself; hence why some people care when they're called names, or when it's insinuated that they are homosexual, or whatever, whilst most people don't.
Hmm.
One user is banned for disparaging my wife. I haven't deleted posts en mass, no.
I've been going to GT's for a decade. What, you missed a chance to play? Well, until GW gets off it's ass I don't know what to say--I don't like the Indy's, as described in detail elsewhere on this blog. Why don't you tell me my wife isn't more important than toy soldiers, and I didn't go to a GT not because of that but because I'm actually a liar and/or a pussy. That'll go over well, btw.
I am transparent, I admit it. I steal my users comments without giving credit (oh wait, I do), I steal other blogs content without giving credit (oh wait, I don't), and all I care about is money from ads based on my users backs. Uh huh.
I think Naptha pretty much covered the whole legal thing, of course I did too but that doesn't matter--when you figure it out, call me some names or something else imaginative.
Namaan, you're welcome. That is the point of all this, really. It's not about money, or traffic. It's about understanding. Sometimes, I don't quite cover 40k and frankly--that's always been part of the blog, and will remain part of it--but I think in the end, even this silly subject is useful. Right now, bloggers comments and rights are being defined legally. That's important, because if we aren't journalists and we don't own what we say--those two possible outcomes are very chilling on the point of blogging, the free flow of information. Something you, mkerr, should realize is best for the hobby. Bols should allow free discussion, the 90's GW style model of stamping out dissent you are following is a dead end. It makes you look bad, it makes the hobby look bad, and in the end--that's all I care about. Why don't you?
<span>Mkerr: "This whole comment-owner issue is stupid. Who really gives a crap about who owns a comment on a toy soldier blog? They are COMMENTS. If I leave a comment on someone else's blog, the last thing on my mind is who owns it (I did "leave" it there, after all). You've really nailed the important issues to the average gamer with that one!"</span>
I find it highly amusing that someone would argue - in an actual argument no less - that their words bear no value [nor should they]. Please indulge my practical [read: sane] mind and fill the gap between *you* not giving a fuck about what you say and why *we all* should give a fuck about what you have to say. I mean, after all, you are touting your ideas and words as worthless [at least to you].....
Doesn't that turn into a spectacularly boring and pointless circular argument wherein you keep saying what you say means nothing, yet you cannot communicate that point without actually saying it? How is the end message "Don't listen."?
Speech is protected for a reason, even if we do have to suffer such idiocy in the process.
Fail.
Oh, and capitalizing upon what the "average" consumer *doesn't* know has been making a select few elites super-rich for thousands of years. Thanks for 'explaining' why none of us should care [because *you* don't]. Speak Power to Truth. Oh, wait.... Shit.
Fail^2.
huh. I don't usually get the impression that Stelek thinks of himself as "the best player in the world". he does have a good record, and his Battle reports are sound. When he does get a bit full of himself, there are plenty of Fuggers out there to let him know he doesn't poop rainbows. I think Stelek's even admitted it himself.
I honestly think the intarwebs tough guy, I've got the biggest 40K dick stuff is silly. Currently there's not a ranking system, and winning a big tourney is still open to a lot of chance.
I frankly like the banter here. The Fugger makes me laugh, and helps me remember it's a game of dolls. Grown men going 'pew pew pew' with their dolls. that I obsess about. and like writing about on my blog. and enjoy having Frank call me a 'poopie sandwich head' if I get too full of myself. I try to keep it PG though. there might be kids in here.
nice ascii art BTW, Frank.
@Frank Fugger: "It's called banter. It doesn't help prove a point, but it does serve to wash away the pretentious veneer of academia that certain folk bring to discussions about toy soldiers. I suppose the capacity to engage in it is inversely proportional to how seriously you take yourself; hence why some people care when they're called names, or when it's insinuated that they are homosexual, or whatever, whilst most people don't."
Calling strangers names isn't banter. And if "some" people don't like being called names, why call them names? I guess my mother just taught me different values.
@Stelek: I don't think you are a liar or a pussy; I think you're crazy.
Convenient how you'd only be willing to meet at a GT. I'm Mkerrstradamus, I predicted that you wouldn't be willing to put yoru money where your mouth is at a major event. And even if you did, I'm sure something completely reasonable would come up at the last minute.
Like I said, your reputation depends on your readers swallowing the whole "you're the best" kool-aid. If you played other bloggers and did poorly, it would hurt your reputation.
I don't have any control over what BOLS allows or doesn't allow. It's not my blog/forum. But I can't fault them for keeping the crazies out.
We already established you backtracked on the whole insanity thing. My reputation doesn't have anything to with winning or losing.
I lose games like everyone else.
Grow up already.
<span>Calling strangers names isn't banter.</span>
Not always, no. If I call you a daftie because I think you're a daftie, that's me expressing an opinion. Not banter. If we're talking about toy soldiers and I call you a daftie, you can safely assume I don't actually think you're a daftie, so I'm just ribbing you. Ergo, banter.
<span>And if "some" people don't like being called names, why call them names?</span>
How are you supposed to know someone doesn't like being called a daftie unless you call them a daftie and they get pissed off?
<span>Like I said, your reputation depends on your readers swallowing the whole "you're the best" kool-aid. If you played other bloggers and did poorly, it would hurt your reputation.</span>
I don't think that's entirely true. Freddie Roach has, to the best of my knowledge, never been a professional boxer himself, yet he's still the man promoters take their prospective champions to when they want them trained properly.
Stelek getting his arse handed to him in every game he plays would drive off a lot of the Johnny Merryweathers who turn up to find a nice list to net-deck perhaps, and it might even reduce the traffic to the blog drastically, but if he continues as he is doing then his advice will still make sense.
@Frank Fugger: "How are you supposed to know someone doesn't like being called a daftie unless you call them a daftie and they get pissed off?"
And if you kept calling him names after they got pissed off, would that be "ribbing"? Or would that just be mean? Or maybe irrational?
Freddy Roach was a professional boxer. Even though he had a decent record, he doesn't say shit like he could beat any boxer in the world "99 out of 100 times". If he did (which Stelek does), then people would think he was crazy too.
"Stelek getting his arse handed to him in every game he plays would drive off a lot of the Johnny Merryweathers who turn up to find a nice list to net-deck perhaps, and it might even reduce the traffic to the blog drastically (snip)"
Which is exactly why it'll never happen.
<span>And if you kept calling him names after they got pissed off, would that be "ribbing"? Or would that just be mean? Or maybe irrational?</span>
Depends how pissed off they were and how they were choosing to express it.
<span>
Freddy Roach was a professional boxer. Even though he had a decent record, he doesn't say shit like he could beat any boxer in the world "99 out of 100 times". If he did (which Stelek does), then people would think he was crazy too.</span>
OK I looked it up; 53 fights, 39-13-11, 15 K.Os. Not bad, but still not someone you'd take advice from, at least not on the face of it. I agree that if someone with that record was saying they could take on and beat any boxer in the world you would indeed think they were crazy.
Then you look at someone like Floyd Mayweather, who fights good opponents on his terms when he feels like it and wins, then goes around saying he could beat anyone in the world and does stuff like eating KFC family buckets twenty minutes before a title defence, and nobody thinks he's crazy. Obnoxious, yes; crazy, no.
Maybe if he read up on the economics of the fight game or the legislation by which the Nevada Commission is governed and started making foul-mouthed comments about it people would think he was crazy. Then again there are people who don't like him and are just going to think he's a cock and leap on his back no matter what he does, so whatever.
<span>
"Stelek getting his arse handed to him in every game he plays would drive off a lot of the Johnny Merryweathers who turn up to find a nice list to net-deck perhaps, and it might even reduce the traffic to the blog drastically (snip)"
Which is exactly why it'll never happen.</span>
(unsnip) <span> but if he continues as he is doing then his advice will still make sense.</span>
What about that last bit, which was really the only pertinent part of the whole paragraph?
@Frank Fugger: Floyd Mayweather has won 40 professional fights; he's won six world boxing championships. He held the WBC welterweight title until he retired. He's proven himself to the boxing community and can say whatever he wants.
Floyd participated in the existing competetive environment and won bouts. If Stelek did that (instead of running his mouth), we wouldn't be having this conversation. Either he'd win (like my friends Jwolf and Darkwynn) and I'd agree that he is awesome, or he'd lose and as a result would stop saying that he could beat ANY player "99 out of 100 times".
Frank, do you think Stelek could beat you 99 out of 100 times? Do you think that he could beat all of the "elite" 40K players in the world 99 out of 100 times? Do you think that's a rational claim?
"<span>but if he continues as he is doing then his advice will still make sense."</span>
<span></span>
<span>I'm not saying that he doesn't have good suggestions from time-to-time. I don't think that all of his advice is terrible. I'd just like him to do that in a manner that's less crazy (which was the original point of my article).</span>
@Mkerr: You still need to justify why you put no value in your arguments - yet meanwhile you expect to be received as at all valuable in the discussion.
Also, whether you would prefer it called libel or slander, insinuating someone is not mentally secure by calling them crazy is itself name-calling unless it is demonstrably true. On the other hand, if it is true and proven, it is just cruel and unusual to poke fun at disabled people. Whats good for the goose is ... What? Not good enough for the gander, all of a sudden?
But your opinions are self-stated as worthless if they appear in a comment field, so how can you then justify fishing for sympathy in such a forum? Those aren't your feelings, remember. Otherwise they would appear outside the context of a blog comment [where we were instructed to distrust you - by you].
Also, to ice the cake, thank you for intentionally obfuscating the point and cheapening your argument further by cherry-picking lines from a quotation [proving you have integrity neither for the written word nor respect for those you are quoting, let alone the forum from which you pulled the quotation]. I'm not sure you got the memo, but censorship [under any flag] is a little taboo.
"My feelings are hurt because you guys are meanies & I'm so misunderstood & I only hear what I want & blog comments are worthless," does not an argument make.
For the record: You shouldn't have to be called a name to feel insulted.
<span>@Frank Fugger: Floyd Mayweather has won 40 professional fights; he's won six world boxing championships. He held the WBC welterweight title until he retired. He's proven himself to the boxing community and can say whatever he wants.
</span>
That's your take on him. As far as I'm concerned he's a talented boxer and a gigantic prick who ducked out of joining UFC when he realised he would get his head handed to him despite having spent months mocking it as a sport. I believe his exact words were "any good boxer could join that thing and rule it within a year". He was a good boxer. Give him that. I don't really need to, he gave that to himself. Why, then, did he not join in the MMA and rule it within a year? If you're not going to try it, why knock it?
<span>Floyd participated in the existing competetive environment and won bouts. If Stelek did that (instead of running his mouth), we wouldn't be having this conversation. </span><span>Either he'd win (like my friends Jwolf and Darkwynn) and I'd agree that he is awesome, or he'd lose and as a result would stop saying that he could beat ANY player "99 out of 100 times".</span>
Didn't Stelek used to play in GTs and tournaments before everyone decided he was some sort of hate figure? What was that thing in Vegas where he went 5-0? It looked like a GT to me, but I honestly don't know (and I'm not being snide when I say that; I honestly don't know and can't be arsed to look it up).
Can't speak for him and I'm not going to try to, but I know if I was facing the kind of bullshit that he does from a community I'd be less than inclined to attend events where they're likely to be present. Cowardice? No, common sense. Do I really want to put myself through the mill of knowing I'm in a room full of people watching me like a hawk, waiting for me to fuck up so they can shit all over me for it? If I DO lose fair and square can I expect people to be gracious about it? Am I going to do that to myself for the sake of proving I'm better than some people at a toy soldier game? Fuck that. The argument could be made that if I was going to run my mouth about my prowess I should be willing to man up, but until such day as I'm satisfied that people can't fuck me over with the set-up and have no opportunities to try (i.e in some sort of centralised tournament officiated by a third party... like, for instance, a GT) I wouldn't much see the point in trying to make good on it.
<span>Frank, do you think Stelek could beat you 99 out of 100 times? Do you think that he could beat all of the "elite" 40K players in the world 99 out of 100 times? Do you think that's a rational claim?
</span>
<span>It's certainly hyperbolic; you could, I suppose, put the "irrational" spin on it if you wanted to, but you'd have to be digging really hard for a handful of dung if you were to cite that as proof of irrationality. I think that's what you're doing. Which is sad. Not for the hobby, not for the online 40k community; just sad in general.
</span>
Could he beat me 99 times out of 100?... Why not? I'm hardly an "elite" player but I do have a talent for killing shitty net-deck lists. If he brought a shitty net-deck list, or one of the lists I see being touted as a GT Winnar, probably not, because I've got the tools to kill the list regardless of how he plays it. Is he going to do either of those things, though?...
<span><span>I'm not saying that he doesn't have good suggestions from time-to-time. I don't think that all of his advice is terrible. I'd just like him to do that in a manner that's less crazy (which was the original [...]
Wow...after reading this entire comment thread, I've come to the conclusion that mkerr is either trolling, or honest to god just can't understand.
Everyone has been making really solid points and he is just out-right ignoring them.
I think it was Einstein that said something about insanity is doing the same thing over and over...
You people have the patience of saints to try and help this guy out of the cave his ass is hanging out of.
@Greg O: I have no clue what you are trying to say. Your response is almost unreadable, but I'll try to address your comments.
1. I never suggested that I was being fair (or nice or friendly) in my assessment of Stelek. I'm only stating that I think he's crazy. I'm not trying to offer demonstrable proof -- I'm leaving that in Stelek's capable hands. There's some irony in Stelek's feelings being hurt by the truth.
2. I'm not saying that I'm not name calling, but I'm not calling the guy a "twat" (that's his style, not mine). My point to Frank is to say that if Stelek thinks calling someone a twat is "ribbing" (or in some other way friendly banter), then he's nuts.
My feelings aren't hurt by Stelek calling me names (he's been doing that on his own for quite some time now). I'm not a "twat" or any of the other things he's called me. Perhaps Stelek is so upset because I've touched a nerve. A crazy, crazy nerve.
3. Your comment about cherry-picking Frank's quote is stupid. I quoted the part that I wanted to address (and noted that it was both quoted and shortened). Calling that "censorship" is ignorant.
@Frank Fugger: He might be a giant prick, but he won 40 professional fights (and several titles) to earn the right to be a giant prick.
Stelek went to a GT a couple of years ago and managed to "not lose" any of his games. I think he came in 21st. Wow, color me impressed. We aren't playing chess here -- you can't just win the primary objective and claim that you "won".
Saying he can beat any 40K player in the world "99 out of 100 games" is freaking insane when he's never even placed in a major tournament.
If he'd crawl down from his high horse and stop saying shit like that, the he wouldn't have to come up with excuses for missing major events. If he just said "Hey, I'm a decent player and I give great tactical advice" then he wouldn't have anything to prove.
But if he's going to say that he's the best player in the world, then he should probably prove it in some way - or he should just shut up. Either works for me.
Ah, it's a rare day indeed when I delete stupidity, but stupidity brings even good places down and you've had your fill of the stupid trough. Let's move on, shall we?
I do not know Stelek this is kinda pure entertainment gold...
<span>2. I'm not saying that I'm not name calling, but I'm not calling the guy a "twat" (that's his style, not mine). My point to Frank is to say that if Stelek thinks calling someone a twat is "ribbing" (or in some other way friendly banter), then he's nuts.
My feelings aren't hurt by Stelek calling me names (he's been doing that on his own for quite some time now). I'm not a "twat" or any of the other things he's called me. Perhaps Stelek is so upset because I've touched a nerve. A crazy, crazy nerve.</span>
I can't decide whether this boils down to "he said a naughtier word than me so it's okay", or "he started it!". Either way it's a bit of a sorry state to be in, no?
<span>@Frank Fugger: He might be a giant prick, but he won 40 professional fights (and several titles) to earn the right to be a giant prick.</span>
He won 40 UFC fights? Boxing and MMA are so utterly different it's difficult to know quite where to start, there isn't really a gaming analogy I can make to describe it. So him being a good boxer means he can say MMA is shite then piss out of having a go at it?
So why can't Stelek say that tournaments are shite and then piss out of attending them? Why does he have to defend his assertion that he can beat anyone 99 times out of 100 by going to a tournament, yet Mayweather can say "MMA is for beer drinkers" and then retire? The principles are the same; why is the end different?
<span>Stelek went to a GT a couple of years ago and managed to "not lose" any of his games. I think he came in 21st. Wow, color me impressed. We aren't playing chess here -- you can't just win the primary objective and claim that you "won".</span>
I've got it from various sources that he either won all 5 games or won 4 and drew one. Of course there are other things to consider at tournaments - things like soft scores, secondaries, who you're drawn against - but to me 5 victories does imply that he can beat other players. He may not be able to place in a tournament setting, but he's winning games, is he not?
<span>Saying he can beat any 40K player in the world "99 out of 100 games" is freaking insane when he's never even placed in a major tournament.</span>
But he went to one and won all five games (or won 4 and drew one, depending on who you listen to). Tells me he can win games. He might not be able to place in tournaments but all the evidence I'm seeing suggests he can win games; granted the players and lists he was playing were hardly "elite" standard (again, judgement call on my account; I wasn't there, going by batreps), but the same can be said of anytournament.
If Floyd Mayweather had gone into MMA, schooled the likes of Forrest Griffin and Randy Cotoure, smashed them around the octagon, but lost the fight on some MMA technicality, I'd find his comments a lot less irritating.
Do you see where I'm going with this? Stelek says he can win games. He derides the competetive 40K scene in the US as uncompetetive because of the flaws he perceives in it (placings going to whoever the TO happens to be friends with, shitty scenarios, whatever), and the evidence I see suggests he's right about that. Judgement call; I've never been to a US tournament so I don't know this to be true, I can only go by what I see in indies in the UK (where people being shafted out of prize placings because Dave knows John and John's a nice lad) and what I see people posting on the internet. So he doesn't bother with it. In fact he's said, a number of times now, how he has no faith in it whatsoever and avoids it for that very reason. Winning games doesn't necessarily mean you're going to win a tournament though, does it? Else how can you go 5-0 and still place 22nd?
Frame it in that context and saying you can beat any player 99 times out of 100 doesn't seem quite so hyperbolic anymore. Especially not if the evidence suggests you probably could.
<span>If he'd crawl down from his high horse and stop saying shit like that, the he wouldn't have to come up with excuses for missing major events. If he just said "Hey, I'm a decent player and I give great tactical advice" then he wouldn't have anything to prove. </span>
See, the way I look at it is like this. Stelek has said repeatedly he hates the competetive 40K scene in the US. You're using his "99 times out of 100" boast to try and get him to attend a major event. He's not going to do that, because he hates major events. Nor should you be asking him to, because we all know that winning games doesn't necessarily entail winning events. If you really want to test the jest, set up something in Utah, on Stelek's terms. Evidence exists to suggest he can win games, you're the ones who want him to prove it, so go and play him on his terms.
That's how Mayweather became a legend and retired unbeaten, by taking on challenges from opponents on his terms when he felt like it. If it's good enough for him, why not for Stelek?
Manny Pacquiao is a legend because he doesn't give a shit; if you're being touted as a top talent he'll fight you wherever he can find you and he's so good he'll probably beat you. I'd like to see Stelek being a bit more Pac-Man than Money-Man myself, but like I said before I can empathise with the fact that he doesn't want to go to events where he knows there will be rooms filled with people who don't like him, and a lot more who have prejudged him.
<span>But if he's going to say that he's the best player in the world, then he should probably prove it in some way - or he should just shut up. Either works for me.</span>
I don't recall him ever saying he was the best player in the world. When did he say that? Are you sure you're not just putting words in his mouth?
Don't [...]
I'm confused--I have a shitty tournament track record?
I attended 17 of the GT's, not including the half-dozen Indy's before I abandoned them completely.
99-08, undefeated. What, that's a shitty record? What's yours? You won a GT?
Bully for you, color me unimpressed.
I won every game in Vegas. You can call it what you want, it's only a minor victory. Sorry, that's a draw? Not at that tournament it wasn't. I won every game the year before that, and was sitting on the top ten tables (like I have been for the past decade). Not really an exciting event that year. I played two unpainted armies and got trashed on sportsmanship. Yay! I love rehashing.
What I find most amusing is how I don't go out of my way to find your record, and post it. Oh right, because I said I can kick your ass 99 times out of 100 makes me an easy target for you.
Well, that's nice. I've said it before and I will say it again--winning a GT in a soft score social fuckfest system means pretty much dick to anyone with a real competitive bone in their body.
Yeah, we don't need an endgame because our non-existent competitive scene is so awesomely competitive I did the following:
I said pick an army to play.
Dakka chose Demonhunters.
I said here is my list.
I said bring mech lists.
Who did? John Steele did. Everyone else brought Demons and Orks, and 4e lists.
Hey, fucktwits--how are those armies doing now?
I said that two years ago.
I posted my list on Dakka for all to see.
The overwhelming majority said I'd lose 5 games in the informal unscientific 'hate on Stelek' poll.
I won as follows: 2 massacres, 2 normal victories, 1 minor victory. I didn't even get credit for one of those massacres because I didn't realize GW was enforcing the 'table your opponent you get a massacre' rule, and honestly I couldn't be bothered. A win is a win. My epeen is not caught up in my lack of GT wins, or what kind of wins I got.
I get wins. Always have. When frankly I sucked ass at the game, I at least LISTENED to the veteran players and brought decent lists, and I won. I don't get losses, I never have. Every time it's happened, GW reversed the result. Why? Oh right, BLATANT CHEATING. Happened a total of one time, sadly for that dickwad the TO was watching all of his games from game 3 on because of the complaints from games 1 and 2. Yeah, GW does actually watch for cheats if you speak up. I just asked for a win, because the other guy cheated. I was given one. Oh and what's cheating? Who knew you couldn't run 5 Vindicators in a Chaos army along with 5 oblits. Can't call Rhinos with Havoc launchers fucking Vindis, and expect to get away with it. :p
I think I should probably kill commenting on this thread. lol
@Stelek: "<span>Ah, it's a rare day indeed when I delete stupidity, but stupidity brings even good places down and you've had your fill of the stupid trough. Let's move on, shall we?"</span>
<span></span>
<span>You want to tell me why you deleted my comment? I guess it's all about free speech unless you don't like it? Nice.</span>
I've had enough of you calling me crazy actually. I told you to stop, everyone gave you coherent arguments and you refuted precisely none. But you did continue with the crazy insults, so poof. Grats to you.
So you can call me a "twat" but I can't call you crazy? How's that not censorship?
@Frank Fugger: "He may not be able to place in a tournament setting, but he's winning games, is he not?"
Do you see how that's at odds with beating any 40K player 99 out of 100 games?
"Winning games doesn't necessarily mean you're going to win a tournament though, does it? Else how can you go 5-0 and still place 22nd? "
Well, coming up with your own definition of "winning" is a nice start.
"If you really want to test the jest, set up something in Utah, on Stelek's terms."
Although I'd be more impressed with him if he wound tournaments, I'm not saying that he has to. I'm saying that he should attend a major event (where other good players will be) and play games against other strong players. He doesn't even have to enter the tournament. Just show up and play a few games in a public forum.
"But going after him (and indeed his family) because he's outspoken?"
I've never said anything about his family. I don't know anything about him besides the stuff he posts on his site. I'm saying that his actions aren't rational.
Calling me a "twat" in one post and then deleting my comment because I called him insane doesn't seem exactly equitable.
Wow, looks like I missed some grade A stupidity.
Stelek: Motherfucker
Frank: Motherfucker
Mkerr: Motherfucker
There, everyone is ribbed, now go home :P
@Stelek: "I played two unpainted armies and got trashed on sportsmanship"
That's strange since you got perfect Sportsmanship at the LVGT.
I wonder why I find it hard to trust your memory.
@Mkerr
This is really starting to bug me, please look up the definition of 'rational' in the dictionary. It is not what you are thinking.
Mkerr, you don't listen very well. This is why talking to you is so difficult, you just say whatever you want without regard to what I said.
I attended major tournaments, 17 GT's. 6 Indies. Were they not major enough? I'm sorry, I was invited to the ETC but I just could not make it happen last year.
See, when you set an invisible bar, it's impossible to reach. Stop doing that, or leave. It's your choice. We deal in rationality here, not whatever it is you are trying to do.
I did not have perfect sportsmanship at the first Vegas event. Comprende? They changed several rules at the second Vegas event because of well, my (and others) complaining I guess.
The first change was, they posted the scores between rounds so nobody could get your score changed without you knowing about it.
The second change was, they insituted a less chipmunk and more friendly sportsmanship system so obviously the games would be more friendly and less chipmunky.
My story never changed, mkerr. It's always the same.
I was planning on taking my crappy DH army to Bolscon, but Jwolf basically invalidated the whole army in one fell swoop and to be honest that whole 7 game thing really put me off--I just don't have the stamina for 7 games in 2 days. My brain would implode. So I didn't go.
Now look where we are. Not a place I want to be.
Are you going to be rational or what? I've been told several times now to just not talk to you, but I'd rather bury the hatchet. Isn't that what you want?
If you think I need more bullshit drama in my life, go read this thread. I obviously do not need it. http://www.yesthetruthhurts.com/2009/11/200140.html
Mkerr, I already deleted my own comment. Did you not notice that? I make mistakes like everyone else.
MKerr's still not answered the question...
how many GT's and RTT's has MKerr won?
BoLScon doesn't count.
or are you too crazy to ever answer questions? You seem to think it's important to troll Stelek about his record. Or are you in that happy hug yourself reality where "If you say something often enough and loud enough it must be true"? if that's your tactic, you must be crazy, Mkerr.
@Farmpunk: I could totally see that question being valid if I was here spewing that I was some sort of 40K god with the supernatural ability to beat any player in the world 99 times out of 100.
If I said something like that I would expect you guys to question me (I assume you aren't sheep) and I would expect to have to prove it at major events every year.
I've played some of the best players in 40K, including the players that consistently end up in the top 5 of EVERY major tournament in the country (Mike M, Marc P, Scott S, Rob B, Jon W, Nick R, Bill K, and Greg S come to mind). I've won some and I've lost some, but I had a great time across the board. In all of the major events I've attended, I've never met player that could beat me 99% of the time. It's just not possible to beat even a modestly skilled player 99% of the time -- that's an outlandish claim.
Oh and why wouldn't BOLSCON count? You know something I don't?
BoLS con shouldn't count for you, because you and your friends in Austin RAN IT. It's your house, more or less. Winning in your own house isn't the same.
Part of why I wish GW actually ran sanctioned tourneys, to level the field. In the Indianapolis area, I can go to 5 (7, if I drive an hour) places that run tourneys. 3 have similar rulings on things (same hobby club), 2 have their own 'house' interpretations on grey areas. but that's comvered in another thread.
Why does it bother you so much that Stelek makes a bragadocious claim? He's won majors. He's done well at majors with handicap armies. He's a hothead sometimes. He HAS improved his demeanor tremendously since I started checking out YTTH regularly around 9mo ago. At first, I thought Stelek was an offensive arse.
yeah, he made a claim once that he could beat anyone 99% of the time. and? it's a game.
Take the statement with a grain of salt. It's possibly a bit exagerated. Since record seems to matter to you, MKerr, he's got a good record. Stelek's got some ground to make an even slightly exaggerated claim from.
If he doesn't choose to come to somewhere on the GT Circuit to 'prove' himself AGAIN, so what? People's circumstances are all different for why they don't go.
Stelek's got his own complaints about the GT scene. There are some good points. They're the best there is out there right now, but it doesn't mean they're perfect. It also doesn't mean he can AFFORD to always go. The circuit might be a little different if everyone who wanted to go could, and if they could field the models they want to.
I personally don't think record matters a lot. I respect Stelek for his opinion, and the work he puts into YTTH. There are things I can apply to my game.
I also don't see why you need to poke the sleeping badger(Stelek) in his cage (he can't do much to you on teh intarwebs, tough guy). Your trolling smacks of too much swagger and inflated self worth. Maybe that's why Stelek's brag rubs you so wrong.
Perhaps you've listened too long to your own fanbois, and have started beliving their worship. Because you have adoring and worshipful fanbois, who look up to you, you should be an example of how to act. not an example of how to be an ass. The world has enough assholes.
Perhaps I'm expecting too much of the authors of a major 40K site BoLS to be gentlemen, and lead by example. we are boys with plastic toys after all.
@Farmpunk: Why does it bother you so much that it bothers me?
@Stelek: "I was planning on taking my crappy DH army to Bolscon, but Jwolf basically invalidated the whole army in one fell swoop and to be honest that whole 7 game thing really put me off--I just don't have the stamina for 7 games in 2 days. My brain would implode. So I didn't go."
Oooh, I missed this gem. How did Jwolf "invalidate" your whole DH army in one fell swoop? Do tell.
Because it included WH Allies.
There's enough drama going around right now - I'm asking everyone to cool off for a while... I've already told Andy this in person.
He banned IG/Inquisition allies, Stelek's list combined the two. Simple.
Feel free to email me, John. I'd love to hear from you. My email address is mkerr@chainfist.com.
I have to accentuate one point that Farmpunk made: Stelek is acting much more reasonable lately, and that has actually increased the value of his opinions and statements.
However, he still gets shit on by much of the internet community.
Damned if you do, damned if you don't, I guess.
"<span>"Sure you've seen a shit load of people bitching about how they can't comment properly here" -- that was kind of my point. Stelek is more concerned about using your comments to drive traffic to his site (so he can show you ads) than he is about making the experience of commenting a pleasurable one. "</span>
Attacking Stelek's ads, when the entirety of the ad revenue is going towards the convention which Stelek is putting together, and the ads were put up only after he asked his entire reader community what they thought about it, and they all said go for it.
Yep, you are the winner sir. SICK BURN.
Post a Comment