User talk:Gares Redstorm

Archive1 Archive2 Archive3 Archive4 Archive 5

Real World Guild Wars Class
Taking the quiz brought to my attention by Phoenix on Fun page created by Gem.

My results for the Prophecies quiz:

Mesmer 75% Warrior	75% Necromancer 50% Elementalist 40% Ranger 35% Monk 20%

Even had a tiebreaker question between Mesmer and Warrior, it was that close. --Gares Redstorm 09:52, 12 May 2006 (CDT)

My results for the Factions edition quiz:

Warrior	94% Assassin 81% Mesmer 75% Ritualist 69% Elementalist 63% Ranger 63% Monk 44% Necromancer 44%

No tiebreaker here, but I guess even with my charm ;), I still have a fighter mentality. -Gares Redstorm 12:51, 20 June 2006 (CDT)

Sigma
This decidedly unhappy individual is spreading joy in the build section through his intelligent, carefully thought and sensible votes. Cough. But that's to be expected and not much can be done about it, I guess. But... as if that weren't enough, he's also insulting other people who disagree with him: "Some idiots unfavored it.. IT REALLY WORKS!!" on his user page. I'm sure I can find other examples, but this one sounded pretty straightforward. Check the recent history - Curiously enough, he just deleted a gigantic section of his page which included this comment. Ah yes, definitely the behavior of a guiltless person with a clear conscience :)) NightAngel 14:16, 20 February 2007 (CST)


 * grown up* -- SigmA 14:19, 20 February 2007 (CST)

Don't insult people, wich you think that are insulting, especially people with more experience. I know what I am doing (okay I am not, but whatever) -- SigmA 14:21, 20 February 2007 (CST)

You were the one who insulted, first the voters on your build, then me. I called you unhappy, I don't really think that's quite on the same level, but if you do, I'm sorry, i'm sure you're actually a happy and cheerful individual. :) You were the one who insulted, first the voters on your build, then me. I called you unhappy, I don't really think that's quite on the same level, but if you do, I'm sorry, i'm sure you're actually a happy and cheerful individual. :) At any rate, I've already learned the lesson of "make one remark and leave it at that, don't pursue endless arguments, etc", so I won't answer your "grow up" and "I'm more experienced than you" comments, even though I'm itching to point out some things. Control yourself! Happy Bunnies! Happy Bunnies! There, I'm better now :) Sigma, you fluffy bunny, talk to Gares, not to me ok? NightAngel 14:24, 20 February 2007 (CST)

Someone is even looking at my userpage ?:| wow, you must be the first one. -- SigmA 14:26, 20 February 2007 (CST)


 * Anytime I vote against someone, I tend to check out their userpage...and whenever I see those big, bold numbers in Recent Changes -1004 then that makes me curious. But on to the topic. NightAngel, I can share some of your concerns, because I also disagree with some votes Sigm@ has made. However, remember the vetting policy - you dun have to have any reason to vote, and you can't say that Sigm@ leaves behind incoherent or patently false reasons (unlike some do...) As to Sigm@, I think that it is a bit unfair for NightAngel to single you out, because you are not an especially bad voter nor a really notorious one; also considering the fact this is brought up on Gares' page and not Sigm@'s where it belongs. A user's right to vote can't be bound and so logically there is no reason for others to criticize what are probably good faith votes. But I would ask you to please consider builds a bit more thoroughly before voting, because sometimes it does seem you jump to conclusions before actually thinking of a build. Anyway that's my two cents. [[Image:Entropy Sig.jpg]] (T/C) 14:34, 20 February 2007 (CST)

Quick note: I was afraid of this. "not much can be done about it, I guess". I acknowledge his right to vote anyway he pleases according to current rules. The "idiots", "grow up" comments are the real issue here. Just wanted to make that clear! This is not a discussion on the vetting procedure. NightAngel 14:40, 20 February 2007 (CST)

Grow up? -- SigmA 14:41, 20 February 2007 (CST)


 * Uhm. Sigm@ said "grown up", not Grow Up. That is in reference to him cleaning out the offending part of the userpage (I assume). As to the "Idiots" note, I don't think you can criticize someone for what they put on their userpage...there are far worse ones out there, and even in the Builds section itself, lots of ugly mudslinging often goes unpunished. Above this thread you linked to Build talk:Rt/any Wielders Weapon. Now, that is what I would call a problem - a user clearly insulting another, insults thrown back and forth, profanity, dicksize arguments, etc etc. I don't see Sigm@ doing any of that. He doesn't even single out any particular users. And I would even tend to agree with him, to some extent - some of the votes on the Decapitate build were "idiotic" (mine not included ofcourse :P), at least from a standpoint of someone who supported the build. It's not a whole lot of an offense if you ask me. Heck, I have gotten away with worse and noone complains... -.- I'd say it's a nonissue but I guess it's up to Gares to decide. [[Image:Entropy Sig.jpg]] (T/C) 14:48, 20 February 2007 (CST)

Oh, I got banned after a warning given for saying "Jeezes, are you all friggin' insane?" (which, btw, doesn't mean I think they are literally crazy, it's just an expression of amazement, I believe. Not a native speaker of English but I do try to keep up with popular expressions and idioms for my work). So yeah, "Idiots" should qualify too. And yes, I'm a bitter person. The bunnies can bite me. (that should be painful) NightAngel 14:52, 20 February 2007 (CST)

WTB Humor. -- SigmA 14:55, 20 February 2007 (CST)

Response to Gares: Winterborn complained that the argument was disrupting his build, so I was obliging him. And yes, of course I think arguing with TheDrifter was wrong. And that doesn't mean I think the ban was warranted, no. After all, people make mistakes like calling people retards and idiots, and nothing happens to them, so it can't be always worth a ban can it? Or even a warning? I think that stealing is wrong, but I don't suggest cutting people's head off for it (or for anything else, for that matter). So what is it? Is it ok to insult on your user page? Is it ok to insult just once? Is it ok to insult if you're a certain age? Is it ok to insult if it's someone you know, and not ok if it's a stranger? You might just lose your patience (if you still have any :) ) and say that it's ok to insult whenever you say it is, and that's it, and maybe that is your right (surprisingly, that's not irony or sarcasm, I really wonder if you can do that. Maybe you can, in which case I'll probably be perma-banned anytime soon now :) Goodbye cruel world? NightAngel 18:19, 20 February 2007 (CST)


 * First off, NightAngel received a 1 day ban for trading insults with TheDrifter. He did not disregard TheDrifter's comments, but decided to attack in response, both disrupting a user's build talk page in which the user had no recourse but to inform someone. This incident not only continued on the build talk page, but on a user's talk page as well.


 * I am not sure if he and SigmA have crossed paths in the past, but seeing as how he seems to want some action against SigmA and does not seem to want to wait for a response suggests that he does have something against SigmA. The correct action in this situation would have been to go to SigmA's talk page and ask him to remove the text. If he refused or acted inappriorately, then I would see a reason to contact an admin. There is an inital options section in GW:NPA, to give users a basis on which to follow and also states to not let yourself become confrontational or hostile.


 * After NightAngel's initial response on this talk page, SigmA removed the potentially offensive material and stated that he had grown up. NightAngel's recourse was that SigmA had insulted him somehow. NightAngel also insinuated that SigmA's deletion of said offensive material was an admission of guilt, when NightAngel did the same thing with the material for which he believes he was wrongly banned for.


 * Reviewing the text found in this thread and on Entropy's talk page has lead me to believe that NightAngel is using SigmA has a martyr for something he feels very emotional about and accusing other users of personal attacks is not something that should be taken lightly, especially when the accused did not defend his content and instead removed it. Even after the removal and accusation that removing the content was an admission of guilt, SigmA did not respond in kind.


 * In summary, SigmA seemed to not see the potentially offensive material as offensive and once he was aware that someone(NightAngel) did find it offensive, he promptly removed it. SigmA was in fault and corrected it after he was made aware of it. I don't believe administrative action is called for in this instance. If anyone feels differently on this decision, please contact LordBiro or another admin to review this discussion. &mdash; Gares 19:37, 20 February 2007 (CST)

So... lemme get this straight. When someone makes a complaint about me on something, I can just remove it quickly if I'm online, and then nothing bad will happen to me, as long as I myself don't think it was offensive? Ok. Got it. And if that person has some reason for disliking me, than it doesn't even count for much. Understood, thank you. Oh right, and I should also receive a request from that person who is complaining, to give me the option of correcting my actions. He shouldn't go straight to an administrator before even saying a word to me. No problem. Ps: obviously, I misunderstood his comment on grown up. I got the message loud and clear on how much more experienced he is, and on how my sense of humor pales in comparison though. Yeah, because this is all obviously extremely funny right? Sigh. NightAngel 21:01, 20 February 2007 (CST)


 * Your sarcastic tones have not gone unnoticed. If my decision has been unsatisfactory for you, please take it up with another admin, nothing is set in stone. A policy, however detailed, remains black and white and it is for an admin to judge the gray. It is preferred that users try to handle it between each other, it is not mandatory. A user can inform an admin about another user's action at any time, but it does not mean that the requesting user will automatically get his/her way. &mdash; Gares 21:56, 20 February 2007 (CST)

Above post was not sarcastic in fact, I was summing up your arguments so I know where I stand. And as far as I can tell, it is thus: a small violation can be corrected immediately without further reprisals, a larger one will be immediately punished. And never make any personal comment on anyone else, like the drifter. I still think that rule is a bit confusing though, considering the huge amount of personal comments I see running around. Apparently it's ok to make small remarks, as long as your foe doesn't respond in kind? or if he does, then you do nothing? I'm sorry but it still seems like "people who have been around and know other people can get away with stuff", others are immediately warned on stuff like "jeezes you're insane". That warning, gares, really gets to me. It smacked of bullying for somethign that was quite inoffensive. And, of course, it laid the ground for the later banning. Because I see people doing much worse than that and absolutely nothing happens to them. In fact, to my recollection no one complained directly about that remark, you just saw it yourself right? Ps: I think there are few sentences more likely to provoke an opposite reacion than "easy, calm down, you're too emotional". Sounded condescending. And I know what the answer will be... "take it up to another admin if you don't like it". Right. :( Given the amount of stress i've had here with other users and the way the admins are friends, I seriously doubt any of them would see things my way, and I don't blame them. NightAngel 22:12, 20 February 2007 (CST)