Cultural Lotting Changes, now with no risk of being closed

[katz]

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

[Korpg]

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?

[katz]

Ultimately its the moderators that will determine it.

[Korpg]

You excluded me from the we, not I

Remember this from bottom of page 13?

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.

[Bagel]

This thread is terrible now.

















^slander

[Korpg]

This thread is terrible now.

















^slander

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

[katz]

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.

[Korpg]

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....

[katz]

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.)

[katz]

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