[Kirosia]

Quote:

someone was confused about how I could be benefiting the community while doing something for myself, and I answered.

An answer you initially used as an excuse for changing the FS/FT requirements, to makes it seem less about your own persona gain. Ref: pg 1-2

Quote:

Of course I formed this thread for my own self-interest: I want to sell an amp but I can't post in the trade forums. At the same time, I don't think I really ever had a strong expectation of being able to get some kind of free pass, so a lot of my motivation has been curiosity about the reason for the rule, which was made clear to me pretty quickly. Are you arguing that I claimed that I made this thread for some reason other than my personal gain/amusement? Because I don't remember making any claims about my reasons for making this thread (or even my reasons for buying things off the trade forums).

Ref: Previous lines + you calling me dishonest, ignorant, churohugger, for saying you did this for your own personal gain + pg 1-3

Quote:

Or are you saying that I'm still trying to get out of making 50 posts? Because by my third post in this thread I had accepted that I'd have to get my post count up before making listings in the trade forum.

Why didn't you just say "Okay, I was BSing, what I implied was not a fair reason to change the rules" and be done with it, instead or arguing semantics and such?

Quote:

I'm really not trying to pull what you call the "you makey no sense" excuse - especially now, I just don't really see what you're trying to make me "admit".

Do you read your own posts? particularly the paragraphs before this one?

You know, screw it. I should just introduce you to my friend cash68.

Quote:

For whatever it's worth, I thought that your explanation and the distinction that you drew made perfect sense.

His distinction was clear, it was that he used it as a reason for why he should be allowed to access the FS/FT forum. And oh yeah, the backpedaling and accusations.

 

[breakfastchef]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Febs /img/forum/go_quote.gif For whatever it's worth, I thought that your explanation and the distinction that you drew made perfect sense.

x2. I believe pubbawup has made logical and valid statements. Most new members go AWOL after a full frontal attack. You stood your ground. Cheers.

This thread is way beyond reason at this time. First we learn about the rules for posting in the FS section, then we dicuss why the OP may be dishonest, his integrity is attacked, and then we tell him to just to get his post count up and everything will be fine. This thread make no sense and should be closed.

P.S. As it was explained to me when I first joined this community, buying and selling before the 50 posts and whatever days of posting is also improper. That includes making deals through PM. Just a note and not meant to be further expounded upon.

 

[Kirosia]

Oy, here's what happened:

A: I believe the rules should be changed because it's unfair, my buying from others benefits the community

B: But you're doing for your own personal gain, right?

A: Well, sorta... my own personal gain has the effect of benefiting someone else.. so it's not "soley" selfish

B: Sure, but that's not really an excuse to change the rules? In the end, it's for your own gain.

A: No, you don't get it... (argues semantics)

B: Cmon, just admit that it's for yourself. No one's gonna blame you, just be honest.

A: You still don't get it, what's wrong with you? What do you want me to say?

B: Just stop making excuses, that's all. You've already admitted it, don't you see?

Then it ends with me coming off as a ******.

I have no hate for pub, nor am I am trying to make him look bad. I just don't like it when people are dishonest. Like I said before, I buy/sell things pretty just for myself, as well as post mainly for myself, I have no problem admitting it. I'm not gonna backpedal or try to downplay it in any way.

 

[aaron313]

Quote:

His distinction was clear, it was that he used it as a reason for why he should be allowed to access the FS/FT forum. And oh yeah, the backpedaling and accusations.

I think Kirosia is correct on this matter. I could tell what the OP tried to do within his first two or so posts, when he implied that his purported benefit to the community through buying gear from another HFer should perhaps be enough to waive the 50 post requirement. He did, all long, realize that there was no way this would happen, and always intended to make 50 posts. The discussion then shifted, as per PFK's request for clarification on the "benefit the community" aspect. This new need for clarification obfuscated the discussion to the point where it looked like the OP was being a whiny bitch about having to post 50 times, when he should be allowed to post in the FS forum based on his "benefits" to the community. This apparent rationalization irked Kirosia, who loathes backpeddlers and rationalizers so much that eats them alive, call them churromongers, sets fire to their lawns and violates their stuffed animals. It seems there were parallel trains of thought here that got unintentionally intertwined, except that one of them made no sense, and was justifiably slammed by Kirosia: your purchasing items from HFers does not benefit the community, it benefits yourself and the seller. Benefiting the community consists of writing a review of a product, or making consistently thoughtful remarks in one of the subforums. Do not try to bull$*** your way out of your misstep.

That being said, it is impressive how far you carried out your accusations of some well-established members, albeit being wrong. Plus, you seem to be intelligent, which is always welcome.

And you should be glad that by the end of the day you'll be at 50 posts.

 

[Kirosia]

I also admit that I may've taken it too far, I should've just let it go. But I am a selfish egomaniacal prick after all.

 

[Rednamalas1]

Quote:

Originally Posted by aaron313 /img/forum/go_quote.gif I think Kirosia is correct on this matter. I could tell what the OP tried to do within his first two or so posts, when he implied that his purported benefit to the community through buying gear from another HFer should perhaps be enough to waive the 50 post requirement. He did, all long, realize that there was no way this would happen, and always intended to make 50 posts. The discussion then shifted, as per PFK's request for clarification on the "benefit the community" aspect. This new need for clarification obfuscated the discussion to the point where it looked like the OP was being a whiny bitch about having to post 50 times, when he should be allowed to post in the FS forum based on his "benefits" to the community. This apparent rationalization irked Kirosia, who loathes backpeddlers and rationalizers so much that eats them alive, call them churromongers, sets fire to their lawns and violates their stuffed animals. It seems there were parallel trains of thought here that got unintentionally intertwined, except that one of them made no sense, and was justifiably slammed by Kirosia: your purchasing items from HFers does not benefit the community, it benefits yourself and the seller. Benefiting the community consist of writing a review of a product, or making consistently thoughtful remarks in one of the subforums. Do not try to bull$*** your way out of your misstep. That being said, it is impressive how far you carried out your accusations of some well-established members, albeit being wrong. Plus, you seem to be intelligent, which is always welcome. And you should be glad that by the end of the day you'll be at 50 posts.

100% agreement. Especially violating stuffed animals part.
My bedtime penguin pal, Weenie, needed several years of psychotherapy, and is now in drug rehab.

 

[Kirosia]

Your penguin pal's a person, and she asked for it.

 

[Rednamalas1]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kirosia /img/forum/go_quote.gif Your penguin pal's a person, and she asked for it.

This is true. and it's a he.

 

[Kirosia]

Damn, I think I got Eddie Murphy'd.

 

[aaron313]

I love the irony of a girl being named Weenie

. Or could it be that... ?

EDIT: beat me to it. Damn you, quick trigger!

 

[pubbawup]

Thanks for this post, which I think illuminates why we've been having this argument.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kirosia /img/forum/go_quote.gif Oy, here's what happened: A: I believe the rules should be changed because it's unfair, my buying from others benefits the community B: But you're doing for your own personal gain, right? A: Well, sorta... my own personal gain has the effect of benefiting someone else.. so it's not "soley" selfish

Already at this point I was definitely no longer trying to get the rules changed, but simply making a semantic distinction. I think this misunderstanding, that I still was arguing against the rules and not just the notion that something had to be done with the intention of benefiting the community in order to do so, led us down this path. This one post earlier
Quote:

Yeah, in retrospect that's true. And this thread should be a good start.

Was meant to imply that, but may have been too oblique.

No hate on my part either. As for letting it go, that would have been a good idea, but I'm still trying to pump up that post count. And I'd say I'm more of a... megalomaniacal jackass.

 

[pubbawup]

Quote:

Originally Posted by aaron313 /img/forum/go_quote.gif I think Kirosia is correct on this matter. I could tell what the OP tried to do within his first two or so posts, when he implied that his purported benefit to the community through buying gear from another HFer should perhaps be enough to waive the 50 post requirement. He did, all long, realize that there was no way this would happen, and always intended to make 50 posts.

Right, especially once it was made clear that the 50 post requirement didn't exist because 50 posts are some kind of benchmark of contribution to the community, but rather as a scammer deterrent.

Quote:

It seems there were parallel trains of thought here that got unintentionally intertwined, except that one of them made no sense, and was justifiably slammed by Kirosia: your purchasing items from HFers does not benefit the community, it benefits yourself and the seller. Benefiting the community consist of writing a review of a product, or making consistently thoughtful remarks in one of the subforums. Do not try to bull$*** your way out of your misstep.

I may have missed Kirosia making this point, in which I apologize. I did think about this point, but I'm not sure I agree with your distinction, since I doubt any one review or post, or even the entire corpus of the most contributingest member actually benefits every member of the community. Similarly, if altering the requirements of the trade forum were hypothetically to result in an influx of non-scammer sellers to the trade forum who then sold stuff to members of the community, then I think that might construe a benefit to the community. I think it comes down to where we draw the distinction between individuals and the community as a whole.

Quote:

And you should be glad that by the end of the day you'll be at 50 posts.

Most definitely glad.

 

[Kirosia]

Quote:

Already at this point I was definitely no longer trying to get the rules changed, but simply making a semantic distinction. I think this misunderstanding, that I still was arguing against the rules and not just the notion that something had to be done with the intention of benefiting the community in order to do so, led us down this path. This one post earlier

The thing is I understood exactly what you said, and I think you understood me too. I just wanted you to acknowledge that such a thing is not a good enough reason to change the rules. All you had to do was admit that right away without excuses. If it really was a misunderstanding, then I'll just chalk it up to that. (Even though that's still hard for me to believe)

Quote:

Similarly, if altering the requirements of the trade forum were hypothetically to result in an influx of non-scammer sellers to the trade forum who then sold stuff to members of the community, then I think that might construe a benefit to the community. I think it comes down to where we draw the distinction between individuals and the community as a whole.

Now that's a more valid argument. The issue is just too theoretical. For every trustworthy person we may get one scammer, and that'd be enough to offset the positive, don't you agree? There's no real way to screen people (within reason), since nothing's set in stone. The current requirements prevent hit and run scammers (the lazy ones at least) and give members more of an opportunity to "check out" the people they're dealing with, by reading prior comments by them.


You want to go pick up some stuffed animals? I know a few that don't say "no".

 

[Rednamalas1]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kirosia /img/forum/go_quote.gif Now that's a more valid argument. The issue is like you said, theoretical. For every trustworthy person we may get one scammer, and that'd be enough offset the positive, don't you agree? There's not real way to screen people (within reason). You want to go pick up some stuffed animals? I know a few that don't say "no".

are we stopping by preschool again? I'm in.

 

[Kirosia]

I told you, I was just picking up my daughter!