The Extra-Solar Union of Systems Archive

Arenumberg wrote:I wasn't expecting you to provide "an answer on the ignore policy" - I was simply demonstrating it will involve retcon (therefore history rewrite) - Merely proving my point. Unless the situation goes back to normal by the end of the week, I guess.

Also, Derscon, I don't hate everyone.

What's wrong with a retcon, exactly?

And I'm sure you don't, but you sound too much like Dread Lady Nathicana for me to particularly care if I disappoint you.

Nothing wrong with it, just saying that in this case it proves that a rewriting of history is taking place if it occurs, nothing more, nothing less.

As for Nathicana, I don't know whether to take that as a compliment or not. Either way, we don't know each other, So I'll just harass you on MSN for inane reasons.

Arenumberg wrote:Nothing wrong with it, just saying that in this case it proves that a rewriting of history is taking place if it occurs, nothing more, nothing less.

As for Nathicana, I don't know whether to take that as a compliment or not. Either way, we don't know each other, So I'll just harass you on MSN for inane reasons.

Carry on then.

In my opinion, this has no reason to exist. There is a definite separation between IC and OOC. Those who blur that line are labeled with several unsavory adjectives which I will not go into here.

Personally, I think this Thread should be deleted after everyone realizes how NOOBish this really is.

I have had Rob on IGNORE for years so if he posts I cannot see what he wrote. There is an Enemy feature that does a similar thing. Depending which board you use, you have your choice.

Really, I thought we were all better than this, mixing IC and OOC together. That is one of the basic rules, never let OOC influence your IC actions.

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

Thou shall not speak for the ESUS.



I consider this a serious infraction. The ESUS - we - are not a bludgeon with which to prosecute your personal, OOC feuds.

Which part of it's untrue? We're deliberating. He was informing him as to the alliance's activity, not claiming to prosecute it's policy. It'd be one thing if he said "ESUS is going to ignore you! ," and this isn't that. Stop being a vindictive tattletale, and derailing this vote. That is also a serious infraction.

EDIT: In addition, from the Forum Rules thread, emph. mine: "If you feel that one of these rules has been violated and that no moderator action has been taken, please report it to one of the admins: myself [The Mindset], Central Facehuggeria or Arizona Nova." So you've already not followed the instructions in the rulebook you're invoking.

Arizona Nova wrote:Which part of it's untrue? We're deliberating. He was informing him as to the alliance's activity, not claiming to prosecute it's policy. It'd be one thing if he said "ESUS is going to ignore you! ," and this isn't that. Stop being a vindictive tattletale, and derailing this vote. That is also a serious infraction.

My post on the NS boards was strictly a PR move to counter his petty and childish actions.

His post there, while technically true, was petty and childish(making the proposal himself and then declaring we're thinking about ignoring him? Bias much?) Also, intended or not, 'thinking about' implies 'will', and can be easily taken as an implied threat(why else do you announce something like that, out of the blue, if not to threaten potential action, or brag about impending action?).

Either way, he was acting in such a way that he could easily have been perceived as speaking on behalf of the ESUS. I acted to counter that perception - I admit my wording was rather strong, but it was weighted in measure to actions it was intended to counter.


My then posting the same here was designed to divert any further comments on the matter by ESUS members to this thread, and out of the spotlight, again for PR and damage control purposes.

In any case, I'm declaring this topic closed as it violates IC/OOC and isn't enforceable.