Urgent: LOL DRAMA SERIOUS BUSINESS

[Kostemetsia]

So.

This thread isn't actually that urgent, but can we get a clear definition of what constitutes speaking for the ESUS?

I, for example, wouldn't say that noting that the ESUS is in the middle of whatever process constitutes speaking for the ESUS, as it's true. Granted, you may disagree with such notation, but you can't disagree with the underlying fact: i.e. that there is a debate going on on a specific topic.

Yes, I refer to my recent short discussion of the 'blanket ignore Rob' proposal in the IRON OOC thread: I was perhaps unjustified in publicising the existence of the debate (actually, I was completely unjustified, and plan to take a sabbatical from IRON for exactly that reason - I don't need to embarrass myself further) but I don't think it warranted the public attack I received from Kanuck in reply, and I want to sort out especially whether he was right in warning me for speaking for the ESUS.

Now, saying, for example, 'your use of us as an OOC bludgeon is not appreciated', implicitly by the entire ESUS, is, I think, a form of speaking for the ESUS. It's true, as far as I'm aware, but there is the tiniest possibility that somewhere, deep down, there is going to be someone who disagrees. You cannot disagree with the existence of a debate, however unjustified the debate; you can disagree with an emotive statement: 'not appreciated'.

tl;dr I think that saying what the ESUS is doing is not speaking for it, but saying what it might do / what you don't have proof it is doing is speaking for it. Mod ruling, pls?

[Solar Communes]

[Kostemetsia]

IF I SHOW TITS WILL THAT DO

[Arenumberg]

They are not sufficient.

[Kostemetsia]

I figured not. Hold on while I develop gynecomastia.

[Kanuckistan]

Yes, I refer to my recent short discussion of the 'blanket ignore Rob' proposal in the IRON OOC thread: I was perhaps unjustified in publicising the existence of the debate (actually, I was completely unjustified, and plan to take a sabbatical from IRON for exactly that reason - I don't need to embarrass myself further) but I don't think it warranted the public attack I received from Kanuck in reply, and I want to sort out especially whether he was right in warning me for speaking for the ESUS.

If my choice of words was too harsh, I apologise. My post was mainly intended to counter the implications of your own, swiftly and decisively, as I've seen such antics blow up befor.

I was... irked, I admit, by the whole affair, and felt, perhaps, that some rebuke warranted, but I wouldn't have been so heavy handed in my measure were it just that, so I hope you take no offence - when acting in public, one plays to the crowd.

Now, saying, for example, 'your use of us as an OOC bludgeon is not appreciated', implicitly by the entire ESUS, is, I think, a form of speaking for the ESUS. It's true, as far as I'm aware, but there is the tiniest possibility that somewhere, deep down, there is going to be someone who disagrees. You cannot disagree with the existence of a debate, however unjustified the debate; you can disagree with an emotive statement: 'not appreciated'.

Mayhaps - by the same measure as your own, it's not technically untrue, as it doesn't specify by whom. I can't recall my specific intentions when crafting that sentence, but I think I was going for impact without being purposely vague.

Likewise, invoking the rule was... imprecise, a concise best-fit for what I wanted to convey. When re-posting on the ESUS boards themselves I should have changed it to specify your behavior instead, but I was distracted and tired and didn't want to dwell too long on an affair that just sat as ill with me as this one, and so was not as even handed as I might have been in my actions.

If it caused you undue grief, again, I apologise.



However...

(By the by, you might like to know that the ESUS is currently deliberating on the matter of ceasing to recognise you. Have fun.)

Oh, you mean that proposal you made, which was instantly and almost universally rejected by the rest of the Union? And which you're now presenting as if it were a serious debate?

Thou shall not speak for the ESUS.

Your attempts to use us as a bludgeon in your petty OOC feuds is not apreciated.

And who's speaking for the ESUS now?

Stating a fact =/= making a subjective claim. If you're embarrassed by the fact that you continue to debate the proposal, that's none of my business.

DO. NOT. DO. THIS.

It is not only further hijacking, put plastering a dirty internal affair in public where others cannot but help see - for your childish pride, you smear us all, and provoke OOC divisions when they should be soothed while still but cracks.

[Kostemetsia]

Yes, that was, indeed, unwarranted and hard-fail on my part. In light of that, thank you for taking the time to respond at length and in detail to my post here, which doesn't deserve it.

Your points are entirely correct, and any offence I were to take at any part of what you said would be unjustifiable and below, I think, the membership standard of the ESUS.

[Arizona Nova]

Ugh Jesus what is this doing in our Laughterhouse

I concur with the most esteemed delegate of Solar Communes, do indeed generate the "lulz" or "GTFO." G2General

[Arizona Nova]

Also I just saw Kanuck's post; yes for fuck's sake don't start shit on an NS thread about ESUS shit, God are you people 12

[Telros]

Also I just saw Kanuck's post; yes for fuck's sake don't start shit on an NS thread about ESUS shit, God are you people 12

DOES BIG BROTHER HAVE TO GET THE PADDLE 'O PUNISHMENT?

*cough*

Anyways, just a comment. Having seen Ssskiss' writing, I am glad to see him rping again and look forward to when I can get a chance to rp with his Sskiss.

That is all, return to your daily programming of violence and 12-year-old mockery.