Cultural Lotting Changes, now with no risk of being closed

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by katz

Im not against linkshell distribution as the bolder underlined statement shows. I just dont operate it.

---

It wasn't the bolded underlined, it was the second bolded statement.

Still a statement of slander.

as you have all said you all signed up to the linkshell leaders rules. so the linkshell leaders should have the rights to do what they want, people will just leave if its a bad shell

Clarified for the purpose of making you understand it better.

create malicious insinuations towards another. And you think by asking this isnt insinuation

I dont care to continue this line of thread. Subject closed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by katz

as you have all said you all signed up to the linkshell leaders rules. so the linkshell leaders should have the rights to do what they want, people will just leave if its a bad shell

Clarified for the purpose of making you understand it better.

---

Logic:

1. As we all said means We = everyone but you. You do not agree with our methods, so you are excluded from the group of we. There are 2 groups now, we and you. You are one who is excluded from we, and we are everyone but you.

2. We accepted linkshell leaders rules, meaning everyone but you excepted linkshell leaders rule.

3. Linkshell rules is not SE ToS.

4. We who accepted linkshell leaders rules means we accepted an alternative set of rules.

5. You do not accept linkshell leaders rules, therefore you don't accept alternative set of rules.

6. People who steal from linkshells did so by not obeying alternative set of rules. Therefore, they have accepted linkshell rules before.

7. People who steal are bad.

8. You have never accepted linkshell rules, so you have never stole before. Therefore you are not bad.

9. People who have accepted linkshell rules and stolen from linkshells are not you, since you never accepted linkshell rules.

10. Since you are not we, we have accepted rules, and we have stolen (by this logic) then that must mean we are bad, since we are not you, and there are only two groups of people. You never stole because you never accepted rules, so therefore we have stolen, and there are only two groups of people; we and you, we are bad because we have stolen from linkshells.

You just called everyone bad by logic. Slander!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by katz

create malicious insinuations towards another. And you think by asking this isnt insinuation

---

Malicious: a form of lie used to defame or slander another.

Since I did not lie by logic, I did not create malicious insinuations towards anyone.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by katz

I dont care to continue this line of thread. Subject closed.

---

See you tomorrow.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Korpg

Logic:

1. As we all said means We = everyone but you. You do not agree with our methods, so you are excluded from the group of we. There are 2 groups now, we and you. You are one who is excluded from we, and we are everyone but you.
TAKEN OUT OF CONTEXT AGAIN!!!!!!!!This doesnt mean I dont agree it means I never signed up to those linkshells who set up rules.
2. We accepted linkshell leaders rules, meaning everyone but you excepted linkshell leaders rule.
I ACCEPT LINKSHELL RULES APPLY AND HAVE EVEN PREVIOUSLY STATED I FOLLOW PARTY LEADER RULES.

3. Linkshell rules is not SE ToS. AND I HAVE STATED THEY CAN SET RULES AND PUBLISH THEM

4. We who accepted linkshell leaders rules means we accepted an alternative set of rules.

5. You do not accept linkshell leaders rules, therefore you don't accept alternative set of rules. MADE UP THAT I DONT ACCEPT LINKSHELL LEADER RULES BECAUSE I DO ACCEPT THEM

6. People who steal from linkshells did so by not obeying alternative set of rules. Therefore, they have accepted linkshell rules before.

7. People who steal are bad.

8. You have never accepted linkshell rules, so you have never stole before. Therefore you are not bad. WTF

9. People who have accepted linkshell rules and stolen from linkshells are not you, since you never accepted linkshell rules.

10. Since you are not we, we have accepted rules, and we have stolen (by this logic) then that must mean we are bad, since we are not you, and there are only two groups of people. You never stole because you never accepted rules, so therefore we have stolen, and there are only two groups of people; we and you, we are bad because we have stolen from linkshells.

You just called everyone bad by logic. Slander!

---

OMG HOW CAN YOU TWIST SO MUCH TO BE SO WRONG AND NOT AT ALL WHAT I BELIEVE

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by katz

OMG HOW CAN YOU TWIST SO MUCH TO BE SO WRONG AND NOT AT ALL WHAT I BELIEVE

---

I don't know, I'm just stating things by your rules.

Nobody has slandered you, but you have accused us all of slandering you.

I'm playing by your rules now. That way, you have nothing to complain about.

I havent accused everyone and there are still plenty of slanderous statements in this thread.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by katz

I havent accused everyone and there are still plenty of slanderous statements in this thread.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Korpg

1. As we all said means We = everyone but you. You do not agree with our methods, so you are excluded from the group of we. There are 2 groups now, we and you. You are one who is excluded from we, and we are everyone but you.

---

Yes, you have accused everyone. Since everyone is every single living being except you, you have accused everyone. Logic dictates it.

Logical dictates its your logic not mine that you are quoting maybe its your logic at fault maybe not. You excluded me from the we, not I

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by katz

Logical dictates its your logic not mine that you are quoting maybe its your logic at fault maybe not.

---

Oh, now we are getting somewhere. I was hoping for a response like this from you for a long time now.

Now, look further. Who is the one who determines slander? Is it just you? Is it just me? Or is it society as a whole? Who's to say who is right? Who is to say who is wrong? Who are we to judge others in this matter? But that is for another time.

Nobody has slandered you, because a majority of the people will agree that there was no slander involved here. Who is right, the individual or the consensus?

Ultimately its the moderators that will determine it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by katz

You excluded me from the we, not I

---

Remember this from bottom of page 13?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by katz

Ive seen examples where people argue over who has what rights and as you have all said you all signed up to the linkshell leaders rules so the linkshell leaders should have the rights to do what they want people will just leave if its a bad shell.

---

You state: "As you have all said...."

You excluded yourself from the group. The logic started as you extracting yourself from the group, therefore creating two groups (see: Logic 1)

Therefore, my logic still stands. You have yet to attack anything but the first part of the logic, and failed to show why it is flawed.

This thread is terrible now.

















^slander

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bagel

This thread is terrible now.

















^slander

---

Watch out, katz might report you for slander there bub.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Korpg

Remember this from bottom of page 13?



You state: "As you have all said...."

You excluded yourself from the group. The logic started as you extracting yourself from the group, therefore creating two groups (see: Logic 1)

Therefore, my logic still stands. You have yet to attack anything but the first part of the logic, and failed to show why it is flawed.

---

ok just for you Ill clarify it, I was not one of the people who said they signed up to abide by linkshell rules, I was quoting that other people had said they had. This doesnt mean I havent or have, it just meant others did.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by katz

ok just for you Ill clarify it, I was not one of the people who said they signed up to abide by linkshell rules, I was quoting that other people had said they had. This doesnt mean I havent or have, it just meant others did.

---

Oh no, no backtracking allowed.

You don't need clarification because clarification isn't needed. You are changing your words to suit your needs, but you already said it in the manner you said it.

You have backtracked so much, I'm not sure what your position is anymore. So please, restate your position....again....

My linkshell lots by the exisiting free lot rules and therefore cant ninja lot what is already a free lot. I can see a need for linkshell rules to be displayed if they have them and that there is no current system in place for this. I can also see a linkshell leader not having anything in place to stop anyone ninja lotting if their rules dont allow it. I can also see no one wants changes to the existing format as they are all happy to post ninja warnings outside of se.

A part from the last bit which I have added, this has always been my point of view.

(I can also see no one wants changes to the existing format as they are all happy to post ninja warnings outside of se.)

The only person who needs to back track is the person who has decided my point of view for me that wasnt me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by katz

My linkshell lots by the exisiting free lot rules and therefore cant ninja lot what is already a free lot.

---

That is your linkshell. Your linkshell is limited by order however, since everyone can lot everything and nobody can really get anything done. Tell me, does your linkshell do any emp weapons?

Quote:

---

I can see a need for linkshell rules to be displayed if they have them and that there is no current system in place for this.

---

There doesn't need to be a system for this. Do you want everything to be controlled by Square Enix?

Quote:

---

I can also see a linkshell leader not having anything in place to stop anyone ninja lotting if their rules dont allow it.

---

A) I thought you didn't believe in ninja lotting?
B) Most successful linkshells have a system for ninja lotters. Anyone take an item they weren't supposed to have? Automatic kick and a player warning thread on the usual 4 forums.

Quote:

---

I can also see no one wants changes to the existing format as they are all happy to post ninja warnings outside of se.

---

Slander! You are making it sound bad that people rather go to forums that have existed for years and are well known to have a good source of information about other players than having Square Enix forums do it for them. You are defaming everyone who uses outside sources for information about other players now! Slander!

Now that I got that out of the way, why would you care? Unless your name is on that "name and shame" list you are so adamantly against, why are you even bothered about it? Note that the last two sentences were questions, not statements.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by katz

The only person who needs to back track is the person who has decided my point of view for me that wasnt me.

---

Why do I need to backtrack? I have not said anything to conclude a new set of rules at all. I pointed out the flaws of your argument and you keep changing them to suit the latest need, even when it means contradicting yourself. Then you delete all your posts and try again.

Is it that people believe the lotting system need to be overhauled so that Leaders have to right to assign "winnings" to people? If you could change the lotting rules how would you do it?

Wonder really how you came to believe I said Leaders cant write their own rules when I asked do you think the lotting system needs overhauling to allow leaders to do exactly that.

Im sorry you believe making everyone happy to use existing forums is a slanderous statement. Why do I care about improving a system, I do wonder myself, maybe I care to help others rather than leave it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by katz

Is it that people believe the lotting system need to be overhauled so that Leaders have to right to assign "winnings" to people?

---

So far the consensus is no.

Quote:

---

If you could change the lotting rules how would you do it?

---

Why change the lotting rules when the rules aren't broken or being severely misused? It is being misused yes, but not to the point that it needs any changed.

Quote:

---

Wonder really how you came to believe I said Leaders cant write their own rules when I asked do you think the lotting system needs overhauling to allow leaders to do exactly that.

---

You said that, not me. I'm not putting words in your mouth here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by katz

Im sorry you believe making everyone happy to use existing forums is a slanderous statement

---

You were the one accusing people of slanderous remarks. Not me. I was just showing you your own slanderous remarks in your context.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Korpg

You were the one accusing people of slanderous remarks. Not me. I was just showing you your own slanderous remarks in your context.

---

OK then for the 3rd time today,I apologize for any unintentional slanderous statements that I make in error of understanding other peoples points of view.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Korpg

Why do I need to backtrack? I have not said anything to conclude a new set of rules at all. I pointed out the flaws of your argument and you keep changing them to suit the latest need, even when it means contradicting yourself. Then you delete all your posts and try again.

---

Did I accuse you, if you read it that way then I apologize.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by katz

OK then for the 3rd time today,I apologize for any unintentional slanderous statements that I make in error of understanding other peoples points of view.

---

I'll only accept your apology if you stop throwing out the word "slander" or anything that goes off the word "slander" which includes but not limited to: malicious, defame, derogatory.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by katz

Did I accuse you, if you read it that way then I apologize.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by katz

The only person who needs to back track is the person who has decided my point of view for me that wasnt me.

---

Seeming how in the last 5 pages only you and I have spoken, then yes, you did accuse me.

Seeing as we were the only two talking at the time of your statement. And you even said that it wasn't you who decided your point of view. By logic, that someone has to be the person of the two people who wasn't you. Since I am the only other person talking, that had to be me. Logic dictates so.

Is it just me or is every post by Katz before post #74 blank and then a few here and there since. I see the quotes from Katz posts but the actual post are blank til the more recent ones. Did Katz edit and delete the content?

There is no message saying they were edited or changed by a moderator either. Just curious cause i do see these empty posts now and then.

EDIT: the post directly above this one is blank.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Trumpy

Is it just me or is every post by Katz before post #74 blank and then a few here and there since. I see the quotes from Katz posts but the actual post are blank til the more recent ones. Did Katz edit and delete the content?

There is no message saying they were edited or changed by a moderator either. Just curious cause i do see these empty posts now and then.

EDIT: the post directly above this one is blank.

---

katz deleted most of his posts because now he gets to say that he didn't say what he said.

It is a chicken way out of a conversation.

Greetings, everyone!
It seems that the thread has travelled quite far away from its original subject, and it seems that tempers have been flared, so I have made sure to close this thread. I understand how heated these conversations can become, but please try to keep away from posting any comments that are non-constructive to the thread, in addition to avoiding any attempts to personally attack your fellow players. I wish you all the best of luck with your future contributions to the forums.