Jusunlee.com Forums (https://www.jusunlee.com/forums/index.php)
- Random Thoughts (https://www.jusunlee.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?forumid=2)
-- salt. (https://www.jusunlee.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=10270)

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: salt.

quote:

---

Originally posted by jusunlee
oh please, dont flatter yourself. are you trying to tell me that you did infact give her post some thought before you resolved to reply with one word? as much as i applaud you for your debating skills, thats hardly believable. it would indeed be justified to conclude that your post is useless, especially without the further elaboration youve just given. how else was i, or anyone else for that matter, to know?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by jusunlee
its interesting that you say this, because you are the one who made baseless assumptions first. had you read my original post more thoroughly without jumping into your own conclusions, you would have realized that i never intended to force a 200+ word minimum on every post, but only for responses to quality posts, as i clarified in my second post addressed to you

---

quote:

---

understand my shortcomings as i will yours

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by jusunlee
ive never directly attacked your integrity, but you, after the integrity youve shown (or the lack of), decided to redicule mine.

---

quote:

---

where you had the nerve to respond with a simple 'touching' after a 500+ word composition

---

quote:

---

something like that is unacceptable

---

quote:

---

that kind of garbage happen next time

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by jusunlee
thus summing up my whole perspective about life, through one post. one post.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by jusunlee
let me ask you this: who is more single minded; you, who put words into my mouth and jumped into a conclusion that i never intended and go as far as to slander and accuse me of faults ive never intended, or me, who merely tried to defend myself from your faulty and hastily made conclusion? jumping to conclusions, shall i say?

---

__________________
ni pour ni contre; ça m'est égal

"The weight of this sad time we must obey,/ Speak what we feel, not what we ought to say./ The oldest hath borne most; we that are young/ Shall never see so much, nor live so long."
King Lear (V.3.300-304)

quote:

---

Originally posted by jusunlee
one the sidenote, i appreciate the fact that you guys can overlook the fact that i am the owner/administrator of this site and argue with me. thats very courageous. i dont think i would be able to bring myself about to get into an arguement with an administrator of another forum no matter how blatantly wrong they may be, as i am cowardly. its commendable, really, even though it brings me to bad light, because it ensures that i make the right decisions.

---

quote:

---

you, who arrogantly make blatantly wrong assumptions one after another, why yes, ofcourse it also applies to you.

---

quote:

---

do you realize this is the only justified statement youve made in your lengthly post? no, i have hardly went to the debate forums, as i am not much of a debater, and felt there was no need for me to go there previously as hardly any problems arise there for moderation. ill gladly retract my statement concerning the length of my post, as i was obviously wrong in my assertion.

---

quote:

---

again, there you go with unfounded conclusions. im too tired to make another lengthly reply, sorry. go reread my original post.

---

quote:

---

and again.

---

__________________
Long messages do not equal aggravation of any sort,
rather they reflect nothing more than a response of insight
that should always be read in a matter-of-fact tone.

"Those womyn that seek equality with men, lack determination."

"I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible you may be wrong."
-Cromwell

jSL=Jusun selling lies

I'm at school and I can't type much since I'm not paying attention to class, but Jusun, please follow through with the penalty that you said would ensue once someone replied to a "well-thought out" post with only a few lines. I may be wrong, but it seems as if not everyone has been penalized for not contributing to this thread in certain posts, I think the last thing this forum needs right now is indeterminacy on behalf of the admin.

__________________
word is bond

quote:

---

Originally posted by tm11
I'm at school and I can't type much since I'm not paying attention to class, but Jusun, please follow through with the penalty that you said would ensue once someone replied to a "well-thought out" post with only a few lines. I may be wrong, but it seems as if not everyone has been penalized for not contributing to this thread in certain posts, I think the last thing this forum needs right now is indeterminacy on behalf of the admin.

---

__________________
Long messages do not equal aggravation of any sort,
rather they reflect nothing more than a response of insight
that should always be read in a matter-of-fact tone.

"Those womyn that seek equality with men, lack determination."

"I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible you may be wrong."
-Cromwell

tm11 your points very valid, i cant stress that enough. jusun if you claim your going to enforce something for everyone then act on everyone, not just an example.

I would have to agree with point #2, but had you disabled the post count feature, people would not be competing to get a higher post count, and thus solving some spamming. My opinion so don't bite me.

__________________
Website: http://www.demeant0r.com
Contacts: email: davidyip@oceanfree.net

tm11
sorry, i originally misread your previous reply when quoting you in my response to psychoSnowman. you too misinterpeted what i originally meant. please read my response to psychoSnowman if you havent already. there, i corrected the misconception people had about my original post. to sum up, a) i wished peope would make worthwhile posts more often b) when replying to quality posts, to respond sincerely, and if not, not at all. no where in my original post did i state that everyone must reply with 200+ words for every post or suffer a penalty. nor did i implicitly state that 200+ words were needed to qualify as a quality post. the 'penalty' that you were refering to was to affect only to those who thoughtlessly responded to threads started by quality posts, to preserve it of its quality.

but your next argument struck a chord. i had not realized then, my lack of foresight, that peoples perception of what is quality and not are different. thus, because there is no real standard to compare the quality of each post by, it would be biased and unfair for me to penalize people only by my perception of the matter.

which brings us to ajy's post and how i handled it. if you refer back, his two posts that he was penalized for were made prior to yours, and before all the overwhelming negative feedback i received from the policy. from an adminstrator's standpoint (and forgive me for using my status as an excuse), i took his second post as a direct challenge to my authority, which really gave me no choice but to penalize him (as he said i would) only to prove the point that i was willing to follow through with my word. however, since then, and since your post, i realized such a penalty was biased, as it was based solely on my decision, and decided, atleast for the moment, to suspend any future penalties.

but as much as i let dissent be openly discussed, i would have much rather prefered if you did not openly question my past administrative decisions (though i prefer it much more than talking behind my back). it is an unwarranted attack to my credibility whether or not you intended it to be. try setting up your own community, manange it, and pay for it. only then will you truly understand how thoroughly disjusted i am by your statement, as politely as you said. next time, please use private messages to convey such concerns. this isnt only intended to you, but everyone else who were quick to chip in without giving me a chance to defend myself. in all honestly, i was very well aware of my 'apparant unfairness' and was going to explain myself regardless of your asking.


crazydeb8ter
as much as i would like to refute your arguments in the same offensive manner youve presented, im going to refrain myself. i feel admist personal feelings, i lost my sense of objectivity. i reread the entire thread, and admit that i was the first one that came off as offensive, and for that, i apologize. i dont want to delve into a petty (if i may say) argument revolving around technicalities and logistics. those things tire me, and itll bring about no progress to the original argument save of insulted feelings. go read all my previous replies, if you havent already. maybe youll understand where im coming from. if there was a fault in my new policy, it would have been my inability to see that there is no such thing as a 'standard' in quality that i tried to argue for. i do remember you saying something about this in your first post, but the meaning became lost in your misinterpretation of my intent. nevertheless i apologize for overlooking.

yet i still dont understand how you could have missed my entire argument and come up with the idea that i thought quality posts were 200+ words and that i was going to require that for every post.

and no, there is more actually to why i thought it would be the forums best interest to enact such a policy (thoughtful posts getting sincere responses), but chose your example because it fitted well in my argument. yes, that means i still dont understand how you can say that you put as much effort and thought into that one word reply as you say you did. no, im not here to argue about the intend, that was never my original arguemnt, but of the final outcome. in the real world its the final outcome that counts, not the means to go about to achieve it (as shallow i may be by saying this). and from that standpoint, i think you can also agree with me that there was much left to be desired in your one word reply. in any case, you seemed to think that my reasons for inacting such a policy was solely because of your response. it is not. if it brings any consolation to you, originally, it was over my frustration for such a post in the exprience forum wehre i started a thread with what i perceived to be a well thought out post. had i not known kenvsryu personally, i would have been more frustrated, and yes, i did get somewhat discourage to see such a reply. so my decision actually came from personal expereince, not some assumption as you put it. but i do apologize nevertheless for my misleading argument. you might have influenced in my decision, but it wasnt because of you, so dont take offense. and last but not least, i also apologize for calling your post garbage, taht was uncalled for. i never intended it to be meant literally, but damage is already done. better wording i will use next time.


psychoSnowman
hey. thanks for replying so courteously amidst my rudeness. my tactlessness came from my overwhelming frustration that no one read my original posts as they were. if it helps, i did kind of mellowed out in the latter half of my reply. but yes, i agree that your original post was not meant to offend me, its a misunderstanding in my part, again in my frustration, and for that im sorry. but i am glad that you finally see my point and understand where im coming from. i read your original unedited post, almost in despair, until you abruptly stopped after some further clarification in my part. yes, the beam of hope.

yet i would like to point out agian that i never implicitly stated that a quality post warranted 200+ words. i understand that it was bad word choice to use "200+ words", i meant 'meaningful' in the back of my mind, which is hard to do with trite responses (though not impossible), my reason for in saying "200+ words" in my haste. but to futher clarify that statement: "i wished more people would make meaningful posts more often".

and to elaborate on the new form of beauracay that i forgot to mention earlier - yet something very crucial that could have erased your doubts about it in the first place - the reasons (though lost amidst my argument) for wanting to try for a democratic government was because i honestly believed it would lead to a more fairly governed forums, where users have actual voice in administration. in the current structure of government, i am the sole decision maker, as there isnt a checks and balances system (i may seek counsel with everyone from time to time, but i still ultimately have the only decision making capabilities). by introdcuing a more democratic government, it will limit my power drastically, and prevent me from making any harmful decisions. i was to shift from a dictator position to a 'president' figure (my thoughts were lost in my original post, but let me follow through). there were to be 3 supermoderators, voted by the moderators, who in turn were to be voted by the forum population. any decisions i was to make would first have to be ratified by all three supermoderators first. if there was to be a disagreement between the supermoderators, i could then turn to the moderators for support, where the majority vote was to rule. if i was still to be displeased with the outcome, then, as my last resort, i was to turn to the forum population for popular support. so, without any support, i would not be able to introduce any new policies. this could go either way, where the lower body could challenge the upper body's decisions. as you can see, such a government would drastically crumb my ability in decision making, and have everyone feel included as opposed to creating an elite class. you probably can see now as to why i was bewildered by your arguments (though it was my fault for not conveying it properly in the first place). my communication skills have much left to be desired, it was such a crucial point, that i had in my head, vaguely explained, and only assumed taht you guys would understand what i meant by 'democracy', so naturally i was dumbfounded and even insulted when you asserted that i was trying to create elitism, when i went as far as to offer to lessen my power to fight against such thing.



ladi jay
no, i wasnt thinking of anyone when i decided to make such a rule. please read the second half of my reponse to psychoSnowman as to the real reasons why. and no, i never said i would requie 200+ posts for ever posts made. please reread my original thread, or the countless responses ive made to defend myself from that assertion that everybody somehow concluded. i feel sorry that you felt this way, but no, you need not to be 'smart' to get your point across. i never made such assertion.


ajY 2k
the reasons i took off 200 posts were because you blatanly asked for it. you posted intending to see whether or not i would actually follow through. as the admininstrator, i was left with no choice but to, so to stay firm in my decicions, sorry. read the latter part of my response to tm11 for elaboration.


niggoreanboi
no no no. youve also misread my original argumetn. please go read it again, or the replies ive made. and no, as much as i should have taken off some posts of yours, ive decided against it, as i was recieving overwhelming negative feeback about the new policy (which everyone misconcluded anyways). go read the latter part of my response to tm11 for further clarification.

saranghae, daNNy LuV 1TYM, azn0monk
again, i am not advocating for 200+ words for every posts. nor am i advocating for 200+ words for thoughful (or what i deemed to be, which my have been faulty). i was advocating for people to post worthwhile threads more often, and to be thoughful and sincere if they were to respond to quality posts. thats all, really. had you argued for the possible faulty basis of my perseption of what may be deemed quality or not, then you would have an argument. actually, that would probably be the only real aurgument that could have been made, save for the manner i presented everything.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by jusunlee

ajY 2k
the reasons i took off 200 posts were because you blatanly asked for it. you posted intending to see whether or not i would actually follow through. as the admininstrator, i was left with no choice but to, so to stay firm in my decicions, sorry. read the latter part of my response to tm11 for elaboration.


that does make sense. but if you think just because i posted 3 pictures of a bunny is enough reason to take off as many posts as you did, then go ahead.

quote:

---

Originally posted by AjY 2k
that does make sense. but if you think just because i posted 3 pictures of a bunny is enough reason to take off as many posts as you did, then go ahead.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by jusunlee
tm11
sorry, i originally misread your previous reply when quoting you in my response to psychoSnowman. you too misinterpeted what i originally meant. please read my response to psychoSnowman if you havent already. there, i corrected the misconception people had about my original post. to sum up, a) i wished peope would make worthwhile posts more often b) when replying to quality posts, to respond sincerely, and if not, not at all. no where in my original post did i state that everyone must reply with 200+ words for every post or suffer a penalty. nor did i implicitly state that 200+ words were needed to qualify as a quality post. the 'penalty' that you were refering to was to affect only to those who thoughtlessly responded to threads started by quality posts, to preserve it of its quality.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by jusunlee

but your next argument struck a chord. i had not realized then, my lack of foresight, that peoples perception of what is quality and not are different. thus, because there is no real standard to compare the quality of each post by, it would be biased and unfair for me to penalize people only by my perception of the matter.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by jusunlee

which brings us to ajy's post and how i handled it. if you refer back, his two posts that he was penalized for were made prior to yours, and before all the overwhelming negative feedback i received from the policy. from an adminstrator's standpoint (and forgive me for using my status as an excuse), i took his second post as a direct challenge to my authority, which really gave me no choice but to penalize him (as he said i would) only to prove the point that i was willing to follow through with my word. however, since then, and since your post, i realized such a penalty was biased, as it was based solely on my decision, and decided, atleast for the moment, to suspend any future penalties.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by jusunlee

but as much as i let dissent be openly discussed, i would have much rather prefered if you did not openly question my past administrative decisions (though i prefer it much more than talking behind my back). it is an unwarranted attack to my credibility whether or not you intended it to be. try setting up your own community, manange it, and pay for it. only then will you truly understand how thoroughly disjusted i am by your statement, as politely as you said. next time, please use private messages to convey such concerns. this isnt only intended to you, but everyone else who were quick to chip in without giving me a chance to defend myself. in all honestly, i was very well aware of my 'apparant unfairness' and was going to explain myself regardless of your asking.

---

__________________
word is bond

quote:

---

Originally posted by jusunlee
to futher clarify, i took off 200 posts counts because of the two replies youve made very early in this thread, not from anywhere else.

---

quote:

---

alright after reading this ive decide no more spamming

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by AjY 2k
sorry if this comes out blatantly rude, but that's nothing but a lie. The first thing i said in this thread was . Now if that is affecting in you in any way please explain, exactly it doesn't. So your statement makes no sense.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by jusunlee
to futher clarify, i took off 200 posts counts because of the two replies youve made very early in this thread, not from anywhere else.

---

__________________
immagijibae: seons a hoeeeeeee, he wears them g-strings, and i also knowwwww, they hurt his dinga-lings~ la l alalala~ nanannan~ oh~ seons a hoeeeeee, he wears them g-strings..............
immagijibae: liiiiiiiiiiiiiike my new 1-minute-made-up song???????

quote:

---

Originally posted by krnxswat
he wasn't directing it on your first post on this thread.

---

quote:

---

to futher clarify, i took off 200 posts counts because of the two replies youve made very early in this thread, not from anywhere else.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by AjY 2k
and thanks a lot for taking away 200+ posts of mine

---

It's difficult to escape subjectivity, but anyways, I hope that you will still resolve to be active to the forums, as I said before, I've thought your recent surge of activity has been quite interesting, and I don't think it would be such a bad thing if you weren't so detached so more.

__________________
word is bond

the reason people thought u meant 200+ word count for all posts...even tho u dint say such a thing...its because people tend to gestalt...or in laymen's terms...complete an object or make whole...so by readin 'quality post' and '200+ words' the simply "completed" ur statement....for example...the picuture at the bottom was sent out to random people and i asked for them to look at the picture and to redraw it....100% (6 of 6)redrew a COMPLETE circle...even tho everybody sees the gap...unconciously completes the circle in their mind and draws a complete circle...

quote:

---

Originally posted by jusunlee
tm11
but your next argument struck a chord. i had not realized then, my lack of foresight, that peoples perception of what is quality and not are different. thus, because there is no real standard to compare the quality of each post by, it would be biased and unfair for me to penalize people only by my perception of the matter.

---

quote:

---

hey. thanks for replying so courteously amidst my rudeness. my tactlessness came from my overwhelming frustration that no one read my original posts as they were. if it helps, i did kind of mellowed out in the latter half of my reply. but yes, i agree that your original post was not meant to offend me, its a misunderstanding in my part, again in my frustration, and for that im sorry. but i am glad that you finally see my point and understand where im coming from. i read your original unedited post, almost in despair, until you abruptly stopped after some further clarification in my part. yes, the beam of hope.

---

quote:

---

and to elaborate on the new form of beauracay that i forgot to mention earlier - yet something very crucial that could have erased your doubts about it in the first place - the reasons (though lost amidst my argument) for wanting to try for a democratic government was because i honestly believed it would lead to a more fairly governed forums, where users have actual voice in administration. in the current structure of government, i am the sole decision maker, as there isnt a checks and balances system (i may seek counsel with everyone from time to time, but i still ultimately have the only decision making capabilities). by introdcuing a more democratic government, it will limit my power drastically, and prevent me from making any harmful decisions. i was to shift from a dictator position to a 'president' figure (my thoughts were lost in my original post, but let me follow through). there were to be 3 supermoderators, voted by the moderators, who in turn were to be voted by the forum population. any decisions i was to make would first have to be ratified by all three supermoderators first. if there was to be a disagreement between the supermoderators, i could then turn to the moderators for support, where the majority vote was to rule. if i was still to be displeased with the outcome, then, as my last resort, i was to turn to the forum population for popular support. so, without any support, i would not be able to introduce any new policies. this could go either way, where the lower body could challenge the upper body's decisions. as you can see, such a government would drastically crumb my ability in decision making, and have everyone feel included as opposed to creating an elite class. you probably can see now as to why i was bewildered by your arguments (though it was my fault for not conveying it properly in the first place). my communication skills have much left to be desired, it was such a crucial point, that i had in my head, vaguely explained, and only assumed taht you guys would understand what i meant by 'democracy', so naturally i was dumbfounded and even insulted when you asserted that i was trying to create elitism, when i went as far as to offer to lessen my power to fight against such thing.

---

__________________
Long messages do not equal aggravation of any sort,
rather they reflect nothing more than a response of insight
that should always be read in a matter-of-fact tone.

"Those womyn that seek equality with men, lack determination."

"I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible you may be wrong."
-Cromwell

quote:

---

Originally posted by tm11
It's difficult to escape subjectivity, but anyways, I hope that you will still resolve to be active to the forums, as I said before, I've thought your recent surge of activity has been quite interesting, and I don't think it would be such a bad thing if you weren't so detached so more.

---