Forum:ErryK as an OP

Log
http://freetexthost.com/50nswa2rlz http://freetexthost.com/ohfxcokkdf

Discussion
...is there a log? I think reading what happened would help... unless a good chunk of the community was online when this happened. 01:43, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll upload a log as soon as I'm done with setting up the Mirage Arena. 14:58, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

I personally think Erry should stay as an OP. If DTN doesn't take kindly to Erry's criticism he shouldn't have involved the others at the channel by muting the whole channel, he could've just kicked Erry or maybe even gave him a warning via query. In my point of view, Erry's just stating his opinion (or maybe even criticism) and he doesn't even mention the names, he's almost innocent. 15:40, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I second your opinion, 17m. 15:44, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Okay... what the hell. Erry, in no way, was being unprofessional. And I mean, DTN, really, calling him an unprofessional op for repeatedly trying to unmute the channel? That makes him an inappropriate op? What about your giant kick war with Kryten, where you ended up banning him from the social channel, just for fun? How is that professional? Or the multiple times when users have asked you questions on both the notioceboard and social channels, and only recieved "Beep" or "Boop" as responses? Not helping those who came to seek your aid is definitly not responsable. And like they said above, you shouldn't have muted the channel. That obviously didn't solve anything. Meerly because he stated his own opinion about a completely different site (which, by the way, refuses to affiliate with us, even though they know that we are the more encyclopedic of the two), he shouldn't be kicked for it. I mean, you didn't even supply ample reason why the subject wasn't preferable. Who was it going to hurt? The only FFWiki staff that occasionaly come around our channel are Hexedy and Azul, both of which are primarily inactive. I vote +o for ErryK. 16:00, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

I certainly don't chat enough in IRC to know what is going on with all the -o/+o and the quiet time (why is there such thing anyway) but I don't think Erry's vague criticism is enough to take away his OP rights. Why shouldn't he be allowed to speak his mind when he wants to, as long he does it in appropriate words? And who is zetaBasilisk by the way? --ShardofTruth 17:14, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Coming from the same place as Shard here, since I'm never really on the IRC, but going by the log Erry wasn't being unprofessional at all. He made a vague critique of another site. ...So? He wasn't cursing and he wasn't naming names. 20:13, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

The only thing that is "more to this" as in evidence is the past times I've been rude. But that was not done on purpose. 20:58, 28 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Who was Aradooria?  02:05, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * But when Kryten, Neumannz, Crono or you swear, oh no, they're not at fault, nobody is, it's all sunshine and rainbows.... truer words have never been spoken (even though Neumannz really doesn't curse that much). This entire argument is the pot calling the kettle black, guys.  No matter how much you believe or act, you are no better than anybody else, no matter who you are.   02:19, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * ...Guys this is getting ridiculous. Seriously. Would it kill someone to simply resolve this case? While Erry did swear, he did it just so he can get some attention and be done with this. Now, at the last roundtable this problem wasn't solved because DTN can't state his opinions yet, but I suggest we get it done at the next meeting. 07:57, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Or we can get it done now. The Roundtable is just a meeting, it's not like we can't discuss and make decisions outside of it. -- 10:23, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

No one called you a hypocrite, Kryten. It was meerly being said that DTN wouldn't yell at you for cursing, while he would go to the extreme to de'op Erry. You weren't there, and you weren't being called a hypocrite; you were being used as an example to prove the hypocracy of someone else. 12:57, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Reopening
Because it is continually brought up, I'm reviving this discussion. Should Erry be reop'd? I say yes, and to save us the trouble, DTN says no. Please discuss below. 23:31, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I second the motion. For real, and for all the reasons I and everyone else stated above. Tambours Néant  Ensemble !  23:42, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Re-op him. Just end it now before any other ridiculous arguments happen. 01:24, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
 * In case it wasn't clearly obvious, it's been roughly a month without any disagreeing replies to my Godtext. As far as I know, this has been interpreted as agreement and an inability to disagree with the information presented. The sheer fact that there are users who support ErryK getting his channel operator privileges without having even commented or replied to the Godtext shows ignorance and/or weakness of justification. My decision on the matter stands, and I don't think another Godtext is required to make that clear. -- 04:40, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, DTN, the only reason I didn't argue with you is because, frankly, I think this whole stupid thing needs to be over. Arguing with you wasn't gonna do anything, because you were, and are, adamant that you are correct, just as Erry is sure he is correct. Arguing would only push this farther than it already has, which is a bloody ridiculous amount of time I might add. Both you and Erry, in my mind, were at fault. My solution is that we pretend nothing ever happened, and if anything happens again we hand out some warnings and have a Manufactory go. Continuing this discussion won't get us anywhere. 13:56, 9 October 2011 (UTC)