general nz-wi tour thread metathread

[GIMH]

do you even know what passive aggressive means

 

[Blocky]

do you even know what passive aggressive means

Do you? Watching someone interject in a thread solely to make a subtle dig at someone seems passive aggressive to me, as does a gif depicting someone being shot.

 

[GIMH]

Do you? Watching someone interject in a thread solely to make a subtle dig at someone seems passive aggressive to me, as does a gif depicting someone being shot.

They were neither passive aggressive nor subtle - both actively wanted you to be aware of their opinions.

 

[Blocky]

They were neither passive aggressive nor subtle - both actively wanted you to be aware of their opinions.

"I wouldn't invite you to my party" - OK, that's such a firm statement.

I disagree with you, I consider that type of posting extremely passive aggressive and designed to try and skirt a ban.

 

[Athlai]

"I wouldn't invite you to my party" - OK, that's such a firm statement.

I disagree with you, I consider that type of posting extremely passive aggressive and designed to try and skirt a ban.

Passive aggressive would be. "Well I know a certain poster I wouldn't invite to my party."

Should we start the meta meta thread now?

 

[GIMH]

"I wouldn't invite you to my party" - OK, that's such a firm statement.

I disagree with you, I consider that type of posting extremely passive aggressive and designed to try and skirt a ban.

It was in response to references to dinner parties. Don't be obtuse.

 

[Maximas]

Thankyou to the mods for their openness and willingness to explain some of their methods and processes, it has been insightful. I also commend the recent action taken against a certain NZ poster because something needed to be done about the fact that the responses to Blocky/WW have often been more tiresome and inflammatory than the 'antagonizing' posts themselves. I hope people now realize that being sucked down to a low level is no way to engage in a debate.

 

[Hurricane]

Lol

 

[Blocky]

It was in response to references to dinner parties. Don't be obtuse.

Oh, so it wasn't a thinly veiled attempt at "I don't like your posting and I think the moderators should ban you"...? He actually IS hosting a dinner party and won't be inviting me?

Be serious.

 

[BackFootPunch]

Just to chuck in my two cents, I've been here for a lot less time than a lot of the people involved in all this but one thing that's always struck me about this place is the respectful nature of most interactions. Posters are, by and large, courteous and well-mannered no matter what they're discussing, debating or arguing. It's awesome. Respect is right at the heart of how CW runs.

With that in mind, I just can't understand how people who are fundamentally (and openly) opposed to the idea of respectful discussion can be allowed to carry on. If I don't name names I'm sure I'll be called passive aggressive so, yes, of course I'm largely talking about Blocky. I'm not attempting to personally attack him here, but the guy has been quite upfront that he's not interested in being polite or engaging with us in the way that seemingly everyone else expects posters to act. So why should we, and you guys as both mods and posters, tolerate it?

I guess what I'm asking is for a clarification about the type and nature of interactions that are expected here. I know we don't want a forum where everyone posts exactly the same but surely there's a limit as to how blatantly someone can go against the atmosphere of the place before it's too detrimental (even if they do have an impressive knowledge of a certain subject, excellent insight into a number of players, and a seemingly too good to be true array of credentials). So, mods and others, where's the limit? How much are we willing to tolerate in the name of 'discussion'?

 

[GIMH]

Oh, so it wasn't a thinly veiled attempt at "I don't like your posting and I think the moderators should ban you"...? He actually IS hosting a dinner party and won't be inviting me?

Be serious.

I think it was an analogy saying exactly what you've put in quotes but it wasn't thinly or otherwise veiled; it was transparent. Hence why he wasn't being passive aggressive.

That's the last I'll say on it, I'm not going to argue semantics with you.

 

[Blocky]

I think it was an analogy saying exactly what you've put in quotes but it wasn't thinly or otherwise veiled; it was transparent. Hence why he wasn't being passive aggressive.

That's the last I'll say on it, I'm not going to argue semantics with you.

Well considering the thread itself contained posts saying "Any personal **** will result in infractions" - its obviously an attempt to skirt an outright insult and antagonise, but yes, lets not call it what it is.

 

[GIMH]

Is this what you are always like?

 

[Blocky]

Is this what you are always like?

Only when people want to play politically correct sensitive soldiers.

 

[RossTaylorsBox]

Wow, so edgy.

 

[wellAlbidarned]

I'd love to see Blocky at family dinners.

"Oi mum. Pass the salt you brainless moron."
"Manners please Blocky!"
"Nah stop being an overly sensitive politically correct ****, all I did was ask for the salt"

 

[Blocky]

I'd love to see Blocky at family dinners.

"Oi mum. Pass the salt you brainless moron."
"Manners please Blocky!"
"Nah stop being an overly sensitive politically correct ****, all I did was ask for the salt"

Actually, she'd have to say something along the lines of "Salt hasn't been used by anyone to season their food at any point over the last fifteen thousand years and is also completely toxic to human beings" in order for me to call her brainless..... kind of similar in being blatantly wrong as "Sodhi deserves his spot in the ND or NZ side" is.

 

[sledger]

Let's talk about the time you said Tendulkar looks like someone with downs syndrome.

 

[vic_orthdox]

Right, gone the same way as the other threads. Think we have expressed as much as we need to as a moderator team on the topic, and now the galahs are swooping in.