The Joker wrote:

Scott wrote:

The Joker wrote:

Scott wrote:

There's a perfect rationale behind the nominees, as I've explained... however it does APPEAR that the vote is pointless. But keep in mind this poll is up for a week.

Right, like a vote is what we need to establish competency...

I'll have you know that I received excellent apps from three of them...

"Excellent Apps" and competency to do the required work are not the same thing...

Although you could always fire the eventual successful applicant should he prove below promised expectations...

I think you missed the entire basis of my choosing of nominees. I was looking for people that would put forth the effort to front a decent app... not the app itself. It was simple... and they showed heart... and I don't think you are one to judge on competency.

Scott wrote:

The Joker wrote:

Scott wrote:

I'll have you know that I received excellent apps from three of them...

"Excellent Apps" and competency to do the required work are not the same thing...

Although you could always fire the eventual successful applicant should he prove below promised expectations...

I think you missed the entire basis of my choosing of nominees. I was looking for people that would put forth the effort to front a decent app... not the app itself. It was simple... and they showed heart... and I don't think you are one to judge on competency.

What are you implying?

Burkman wrote:

The Joker wrote:

Scott wrote:

I think you missed the entire basis of my choosing of nominees. I was looking for people that would put forth the effort to front a decent app... not the app itself. It was simple... and they showed heart... and I don't think you are one to judge on competency.

What are you implying?

You start fights. And don't act like you don't because you do.

I don't start fights... Just because you pick up on things that aren't there does not mean I intend to start a fight... And just because I answer your short-temperateness and serious attitude by pulling your cape and setting Bat-dog's tail on fire does not mean I intend harm...

And lets be true here- when have I ever scuffled with anyone else than you, Batsie?

I don't feel comfortable voting on this.... I hope that's ok.

But.... shouldn't someone that fills this role be sort of.... idk an impartial kind of personality? I would think that would be a beneficial requirement, wouldn't it?

Burkman wrote:

Mistress Morrigan wrote:

I don't feel comfortable voting on this.... I hope that's ok.

But.... shouldn't someone that fills this role be sort of.... idk an impartial kind of personality? I would think that would be a beneficial requirement, wouldn't it?

I have past experience. I KNOW what I'm doing.

I didn't say otherwise. But.... and this is not meant to pick a fight in any way whatsoever, I am not saying it in like an attacking way.... but you are a bit.... sensative to certain things, and I wonder if that is a hinderment in this sort of role.

Burkman wrote:

Mistress Morrigan wrote:

Burkman wrote:

I have past experience. I KNOW what I'm doing.

I didn't say otherwise. But.... and this is not meant to pick a fight in any way whatsoever, I am not saying it in like an attacking way.... but you are a bit.... sensative to certain things, and I wonder if that is a hinderment in this sort of role.

I don't think so. I'm a completely different person when in a role like that.

okey dokey

Mistress Morrigan wrote:

Burkman wrote:

Mistress Morrigan wrote:

I don't feel comfortable voting on this.... I hope that's ok.

But.... shouldn't someone that fills this role be sort of.... idk an impartial kind of personality? I would think that would be a beneficial requirement, wouldn't it?

I have past experience. I KNOW what I'm doing.

I didn't say otherwise. But.... and this is not meant to pick a fight in any way whatsoever, I am not saying it in like an attacking way.... but you are a bit.... sensative to certain things, and I wonder if that is a hinderment in this sort of role.

He might come with his bias but Bats can be very just when he needs to... Due to his serious nature, he's pretty much the only beneficial mod on this forum... Not to mention the only one actually doing his job when he has to (excluding Scott on some occasions)...

I may not like it, but I do support him when he decides there might be something wrong going about, even when it's directed at me...

I may try to rebuttal his argument by providing the natural opposite rationale, but that's mainly for the sake of having an argument.
And I don't mean an argument in the violent 'I'm right, you're wrong' way, but in the philosophical, well-mannered and civilized way, like two people discussing a book or something...

And Batsie... The tugging and teasing does not start fights, it's your hostile attitude towards something intended with a good dose of humor (and nothing else) that starts the fight... When have you actually seen me answering in a hostile way after you've blown a gasket over one of my jibes?

Burkman wrote:

The Joker wrote:

Mistress Morrigan wrote:

I didn't say otherwise. But.... and this is not meant to pick a fight in any way whatsoever, I am not saying it in like an attacking way.... but you are a bit.... sensative to certain things, and I wonder if that is a hinderment in this sort of role.

He might come with his bias but Bats can be very just when he needs to... Due to his serious nature, he's pretty much the only beneficial mod on this forum... Not to mention the only one actually doing his job when he has to (excluding Scott on some occasions)...

I may not like it, but I do support him when he decides there might be something wrong going about, even when it's directed at me...

I may try to rebuttal his argument by providing the natural opposite rationale, but that's mainly for the sake of having an argument.
And I don't mean an argument in the violent 'I'm right, you're wrong' way, but in the philosophical, well-mannered and civilized way, like two people discussing a book or something...

And Batsie... The tugging and teasing does not start fights, it's your hostile attitude towards something intended with a good dose of humor (and nothing else) that starts the fight... When have you actually seen me answering in a hostile way after you've blown a gasket over one of my jibes?

You don't have to be hostile to start anything. Your "jokes", your teasing, is what causes me to act hostile. Face it, you are a catalyst of my anger.

Do we really need to go over this again?

No. This session is over (if you feel an unsettling urge to continue this, feel free to book an appointment with my assistant).
Now lets get back to the seemingly pointless voting of the new Admin from between four people, only one of which actually having the criteria required...

Can't we all just get along?

Mistress Morrigan wrote:

Can't we all just get along?

But... We are...

The Joker wrote:

Mistress Morrigan wrote:

Can't we all just get along?

But... We are...

Ok. I obviously lack the testosterone that makes that look like getting along. It looks totally different with estrogen.

Mistress Morrigan wrote:

The Joker wrote:

Mistress Morrigan wrote:

Can't we all just get along?

But... We are...

Ok. I obviously lack the testosterone that makes that look like getting along. It looks totally different with estrogen.

Ok, here's what happened:

You made a comment that Bats wouldn't be a particularly good admin, seeing how he can come across as somewhat biased on certain issues.

I went to his defense, stating that, from the choice on this forum, he's pretty much the only person with a serious-enough attitude to both do his job as a mod and not overuse it.

In the meantime, I noticed that Bats had made a comment that I tend to start fights.

I addressed that by explaining that any fights I might have 'started' were unintentional and had sprouted from Bat's own mis-interpretation of my intentions, which are, as always- to shed a humorous light on things.

Bats, once more, tried to make the argument that my intentions are to push and tease him, which results in him blowing the cap of his kettle.

Acknowledging that I might have a small tendency to somewhat push things a bit too far at rare occasions, I continued with explaining that had he not taken my japes with a serious air to them, all our scuttles would have been avoided.

Stubbornly, he continued to make the point that had I not made my jokes, he wouldn't have anything to toss a bolt in his engine.

On this I would have normally taken the stance that had he simply had taken my jokes with the humorous intent they were meant with, his anger spike would have been avoided. I avoided that however as I have already made this point sufficiently clear and did not wish to have a discussion about his seriousness issues on the forum.

I also put out the question of whether I have at any point answered of of his hostile remarks with equal hostility, in stead of backing up, apologizing and taking his side should anyone try to pick up on his violence (most recent being the 'gullible incident').

Having all that said, we came to an agreement to drop this as it was pretty much getting nowhere and we have been over this before, several times.

This was not a fight. We are getting along perfectly, in our own way.

Had we been fighting (and had I had the idea to actually take Bats full on and treat it as a serious fight)... Well... Lets say Scottie would need way more than a simple site address change to cover things up...

The Joker wrote:

Mistress Morrigan wrote:

The Joker wrote:

But... We are...

Ok. I obviously lack the testosterone that makes that look like getting along. It looks totally different with estrogen.

Ok, here's what happened:

You made a comment that Bats wouldn't be a particularly good admin, seeing how he can come across as somewhat biased on certain issues.

I went to his defense, stating that, from the choice on this forum, he's pretty much the only person with a serious-enough attitude to both do his job as a mod and not overuse it.

In the meantime, I noticed that Bats had made a comment that I tend to start fights.

I addressed that by explaining that any fights I might have 'started' were unintentional and had sprouted from Bat's own mis-interpretation of my intentions, which are, as always- to shed a humorous light on things.

Bats, once more, tried to make the argument that my intentions are to push and tease him, which results in him blowing the cap of his kettle.

Acknowledging that I might have a small tendency to somewhat push things a bit too far at rare occasions, I continued with explaining that had he not taken my japes with a serious air to them, all our scuttles would have been avoided.

Stubbornly, he continued to make the point that had I not made my jokes, he wouldn't have anything to toss a bolt in his engine.

On this I would have normally taken the stance that had he simply had taken my jokes with the humorous intent they were meant with, his anger spike would have been avoided. I avoided that however as I have already made this point sufficiently clear and did not wish to have a discussion about his seriousness issues on the forum.

I also put out the question of whether I have at any point answered of of his hostile remarks with equal hostility, in stead of backing up, apologizing and taking his side should anyone try to pick up on his violence (most recent being the 'gullible incident').

Having all that said, we came to an agreement to drop this as it was pretty much getting nowhere and we have been over this before, several times.

This was not a fight. We are getting along perfectly, in our own way.

Had we been fighting (and had I had the idea to actually take Bats full on and treat it as a serious fight)... Well... Lets say Scottie would need way more than a simple site address change to cover things up...

it's the in between bits, that made me think it wasn't getting along, not fighting per se... just not getting along.

But ok. whatever. it's really sorta moot.

We all know Burkie is going to win.

This is like the 2012 elections. Burkman is Romney, I'm Santorum, Colla is Newt Gingrich, and Branch is Ron Paul.

Burkman wrote:

Bobabounty wrote:

This is like the 2012 elections. Burkman is Romney, I'm Santorum, Colla is Newt Gingrich, and Branch is Ron Paul.

Ha. I gotta kick out of that.

I'm glad you did.

Right now you're shitting on us with the delegate count... myself and Colla aren't far behind... and branch is a long shot.

Bobabounty wrote:

This is like the 2012 elections. Burkman is Romney, I'm Santorum, Colla is Newt Gingrich, and Branch is Ron Paul.

I demand to be Rick Perry!