I’ll tell Tom you said ‘hi’,Steve.
Isn’t it more likely he’s learning, very quickly, how to swim?
Yeah, because those from a “Met_K,” “Xaroc,” or a “deanco”, etc., have so much more resonance and credibility because they’re man enough to sign their Internet handle to their post. They are truly brave men. Or women. Or kids.
What’s annoying to me is dismissing anonymous posts solely because they’re posted anonymously, particularly if they make a valid point.
(Not that this is a particularly good example, but anyway, I’ve seen other cases where people make a valid point anonymously, and rather than address them, people will merely dismiss them outright and comment on their anonymity, thereby ducking the issue. Which bugs me.)
Blah. “Ralph Nelson” may have been lurking on the forum for years and may have posted hundreds of messages under various handles. Or it may be Tom Chick posting from an Internet cafe in Prague, where he’s apparently wearing a beret and smoking cigarettes while hanging out with stringy haired and tattooed Eurotrash.[/quote]
I don’t give a rats ass if you say anything to me anonymously. Hell, isn’t that what people do when they cut you off on the highway? You don’t know 'em. Not much you can do about it, so I don’t care.
And for the record, I never said I have more credibility. I’m still, technically, anonymous, since I’ve never even given my first name here. I’m the same as you, guy.
the guy getting criticized here, “chet” happens to always go by his first name only online, and doesn’t seem to show his last name anywhere on his website – at least anywhere readily available. based on that modus operandi, i’m sure he doesn’t mind anonymous criticism. after all, he’s gone to some effort to withhold his own identity from casual distribution.
>uyeah, because those from a “Met_K,” “Xaroc,” or a “deanco”, etc., have so much more resonance and credibility because they’re man enough to sign their Internet handle to their post.
Exactly, I’m glad you understand. I could care less about knowing anything about the person, other than their posting history and views as expressed in other/previous posts. But anonymous potshots, made by people who don’t even have courage to stand by their comments by keeping a consistent handle, is pretty damn cowardly.
Especially when they use that anonymity to post attacks that they they don’t have the courage to post under their own name, as you’ve done so often in the past whenever you wanted to criticize magazines or publications that compete with the one you’re associated with.
Stefan
I don’t know Desslock,
If that was indeed Steve making those posts there’s really nothing wrong with him doing it. I can certainly see why he’d avoid doing something like that under his own name (for professional reasons - an attack on Gamespot from Steve Bauman carries more weight than an anonymous one), but that doesn’t make his criticisms invalid. Besides, for that very reason there’s been a long tradition of people doing just that. Mark Twain made anonymous attacks, so did Alexander Hamilton and Aaron Burr. Is your fued here going to end with a duel?
Of course those people didn’t have regular posters with admin powers to contend with. I’m pretty sure Legolas and Johan Freeberg, and who knows how many other Trolls, are people who post here all the time under their real names. Plenty of anons attack PCGamer as well. I got slammed recently by you, Mark, Tom and someone named “Guest” who writes just like Geryk. Maybe you should sleuth everybody out equally instead of just the people who attack you and yours.
Actually I’d prefer it if you did that, I hate the whole anonymous factor for the same reasons you profess to.
You’re a brave, brave man for sticking with “Desslock” all these years. As brave as the guy that posts as “nvidiot_whore” on Voodoo Extreme, even.
Especially when they use that anonymity to post attacks that they they don’t have the courage to post under their own name, as you’ve done so often in the past whenever you wanted to criticize magazines or publications that compete with the one you’re associated with.
Ah, here we go again, Desslock the posting cop. So you convicted me before without offering any actual, what’s that legal term, evidence, yeah. So explain how exactly you know I posted all of those anonymous messages you accuse me of? Like the one where I was on a plane, or the ones where I wasn’t even in town? And since I’m actually familiar with things like anonymous proxies, if I actually wanted to be anonymous, I know how to do it. And last I checked, I’m pretty comfortable criticizing competitors under my own name.
You know, it’s probably ironic for someone who practices a form of “journalism” to admin a board that allows anonymous posting then “out” the anonymous poster when they say something they disagree with or criticizes a publication they’re associated with. Are you so vigilant with people that criticize PC Gamer, or is it just CGW and Gamespot that are above any form of criticism?
Here’s an easy solution. Turn off anonymous posting or, well, keep who’s posting anonymous to yourself. Or out everyone, like Bub asked. Out your cronies when they post anonymously, because they’re clearly cowards. Out the guy that posted about problems at Electronic Arts, the guy who said, “I can’t post this under my own name for obvious reasons.” Coward! Out Sinner. Out Met_K! Out “Stringy haired Eurotrash!” Now! That person is mocking me! Wahhhhhhh!
Am I me? Do you know? Who cares? You’d think this message board was actually, I dunno, important or something.
>here we go again, Desslock the posting cop. So you convicted me before without offering any actual, what’s that legal term, evidence. So explain how exactly you know I posted all of those anonymous messages you accuse me of?
Don’t be ridiculous. How ridiculous do you feel knowing that I’m correct in my accusations, when you publicly post these denials? If you think it’s cool to do so, or justified because you think it’s more professional (rather than less) to do so anonymously - whatever.
>Turn off anonymous posting or, well, keep who’s posting anonymous to yourself.
Yeah, it’s a real tragedy that you can’t get away with making personal attacks anonymously. Here’s a thought - accept responsibility for your words and actions instead of denying them.
Stefan
Yeah, it’s a real tragedy that you can’t get away with making personal attacks anonymously. Here’s a thought - accept responsibility for your words and actions instead of denying them.
Here’s another: sticks and stones, rubber and glue.
Y’know what would be funny? If there was a Matthew Goofus.
Hold on you guys! Lemme grab a can of beer and some potato chips!
DeanCo–
Wow. This is getting ugly.
I don’t have the power – or maybe it’s just the time, or that I don’t care that much – to cross-check IPs or whatever, but…Well, I’ve seen Steve say some stuff, with his name attached, that, if I were the sort of person to occasionally post stuff anonymously, I would have posted anonymously. He’s made plenty of attacks with his own name.
That said, if Desslock’s cross-checked IPs, that’s pretty damning evidence…And he seems pretty confident. I just don’t know who to believe.
The beauty is…I don’t care. It doesn’t matter. I certainly prefer it when people have the balls to attach their name to every post they make, no matter how hateful. Or, better yet, when they just try to avoid personal attacks altogether, but that’ll never happen on a messageboard, will it? But, a valid point is a valid point, anonymous or no.
It just bums me out when I see valid points posted anonymously. Goodness knows that I’ve said enough dumb things in my time here that, if I made a valid point, I’d want credit for it. :)
Yes, thats what we need - a good ol’ duel!!
brb
/me racing to closet to dig out knickers, kilt and a pair of rusty ol’ swords
I can’t possibly feel more ridiculous than you appear getting all high-and-mighty and self-righteous about a post on a freakin’ message board.
Show of hands, who thinks this is silly?
Yeah, it’s a real tragedy that you can’t get away with making personal attacks anonymously. Here’s a thought - accept responsibility for your words and actions instead of denying them.
Who did I ever personally attack, anonymously or otherwise? What am I supposed to be denying?
Someone pass me the lube.
Hot on the heels of “Bob & Carol & Ted & Alice,” comes “Tom & Mark & Chet & Erik,” a touching love story for our times, about two witty websites that imploded from sexual tension turned, through repression, to firey message board hostility sometime in the early 21st century. The love scene of four men, dripping in sticky gravy, inserting joysticks in places where joysticks should not go in the wee hours of Quakecon, would be worth the admittance alone.
Don’t be ridiculous. How ridiculous do you feel knowing that I’m correct in my accusations, when you publicly post these denials? If you think it’s cool to do so, or justified because you think it’s more professional (rather than less) to do so anonymously - whatever.
Evidence isn’t evidence if you’re the only person who knows about it. As much respect as I have for Desslock et al, Steve is absolutely right about this. You have to post the relevant log sections for us to see and compare the IP addresses. We have to see the evidence and judge for ourselves for this to be valid “evidence”.
Otherwise you end up looking ridiculous, like Chet. “I HAVE ABSOLUTE UNCONTESTABLE PROOF! BUT I’M NOT SHOWING ANYONE! JUST TAKE MY WORD FOR IT!” Whatever helps you sleep at night, man.
Christ. Don’t you people get enough drama in your own lives that you have to bring it to a message board? It’s one thing when you’re trying to have a intelligent conversation but this seems ridiculous.
>Evidence isn’t evidence if you’re the only person who knows about it.
Er, Steve certainly knows about it, which is all that matters as far as I’m concerned. And plenty-o-regulars here have seen or otherwise validated what I’ve said, including Steve’s favourite freelancer.
>Don’t you people get enough drama in your own lives that you have to bring it to a message board? It’s one thing when you’re trying to have a intelligent conversation but this seems ridiculous.
Fair point.
A warped quote from Gord rings to mind…
“I subscribe to the theory of intelligence osmosis. I’m afraid I have to stop visiting this message board before my intelligence starts to lower.”
Does that answer your question about this board attempting intelligent conversation?