LAN_Megalodon

There was some dude who came on poketrade and just talked in a sub-par impersonation of the soldier's voice 24/7. Trust me, it's a useful rule to keep around.

There was some dude who came on poketrade and just talked in a sub-par impersonation of the soldier's voice 24/7. Trust me, it's a useful rule to keep around.

"No immature voices" is no longer related to the actual age of the persons on mic and is now used as more of a method of dealing with people who intentionally use an exaggerated voice to irritate people.

There was some dude who came on poketrade and just talked in a sub-par impersonation of the soldier's voice 24/7. Trust me, it's a useful rule to keep around.

There was some dude who came on poketrade and just talked in a sub-par impersonation of the soldier's voice 24/7. Trust me, it's a useful rule to keep around.

There was some dude who came on poketrade and just talked in a sub-par impersonation of the soldier's voice 24/7. Trust me, it's a useful rule to keep around.

"No immature voices" is no longer related to the actual age of the persons on mic and is now used as more of a method of dealing with people who intentionally use an exaggerated voice to irritate people.

People don't have the social cues they normally have in an irl conversation, so I agree, it's really fudgeing annoying to have some higher up butt into the middle of a civil conversation and yell 'EXCUSE ME PLEASE ONLY ONE ON THE MIC" just because one of you didn't realize the other wasn't done yet. Like I've seen this enough times and it's honestly like "okay, what do you think annoys people more here, the fact that two people were briefly talking at the same time, or someone grinding the entire discourse to a halt to holler at them not to do something neither of them were intending to do?" 
Equally enough times I've seen people just not fudgeing caring what's going on or who's talking before them and it just devolves into noise, so while the first situation is annoying, the rule is a necessary evil imo.

People don't have the social cues they normally have in an irl conversation, so I agree, it's really fudgeing annoying to have some higher up butt into the middle of a civil conversation and yell 'EXCUSE ME PLEASE ONLY ONE ON THE MIC" just because one of you didn't realize the other wasn't done yet. Like I've seen this enough times and it's honestly like "okay, what do you think annoys people more here, the fact that two people were briefly talking at the same time, or someone grinding the entire discourse to a halt to holler at them not to do something neither of them were intending to do?" 
Equally enough times I've seen people just not fudgeing caring what's going on or who's talking before them and it just devolves into noise, so while the first situation is annoying, the rule is a necessary evil imo.

People don't have the social cues they normally have in an irl conversation, so I agree, it's really fudgeing annoying to have some higher up butt into the middle of a civil conversation and yell 'EXCUSE ME PLEASE ONLY ONE ON THE MIC" just because one of you didn't realize the other wasn't done yet. Like I've seen this enough times and it's honestly like "okay, what do you think annoys people more here, the fact that two people were briefly talking at the same time, or someone grinding the entire discourse to a halt to holler at them not to do something neither of them were intending to do?" 
Equally enough times I've seen people just not fudgeing caring what's going on or who's talking before them and it just devolves into noise, so while the first situation is annoying, the rule is a necessary evil imo.

People don't have the social cues they normally have in an irl conversation, so I agree, it's really fudgeing annoying to have some higher up butt into the middle of a civil conversation and yell 'EXCUSE ME PLEASE ONLY ONE ON THE MIC" just because one of you didn't realize the other wasn't done yet. Like I've seen this enough times and it's honestly like "okay, what do you think annoys people more here, the fact that two people were briefly talking at the same time, or someone grinding the entire discourse to a halt to holler at them not to do something neither of them were intending to do?" 
Equally enough times I've seen people just not fudgeing caring what's going on or who's talking before them and it just devolves into noise, so while the first situation is annoying, the rule is a necessary evil imo.

People don't have the social cues they normally have in an irl conversation, so I agree, it's really fudgeing annoying to have some higher up butt into the middle of a civil conversation and yell 'EXCUSE ME PLEASE ONLY ONE ON THE MIC" just because one of you didn't realize the other wasn't done yet. Like I've seen this enough times and it's honestly like "okay, what do you think annoys people more here, the fact that two people were briefly talking at the same time, or someone grinding the entire discourse to a halt to holler at them not to do something neither of them were intending to do?" 
Equally enough times I've seen people just not fudgeing caring what's going on or who's talking before them and it just devolves into noise, so while the first situation is annoying, the rule is a necessary evil imo.

People don't have the social cues they normally have in an irl conversation, so I agree, it's really fudgeing annoying to have some higher up butt into the middle of a civil conversation and yell 'EXCUSE ME PLEASE ONLY ONE ON THE MIC" just because one of you didn't realize the other wasn't done yet. Like I've seen this enough times and it's honestly like "okay, what do you think annoys people more here, the fact that two people were briefly talking at the same time, or someone grinding the entire discourse to a halt to holler at them not to do something neither of them were intending to do?" 
Equally enough times I've seen people just not fudgeing caring what's going on or who's talking before them and it just devolves into noise, so while the first situation is annoying, the rule is a necessary evil imo.

People don't have the social cues they normally have in an irl conversation, so I agree, it's really fudgeing annoying to have some higher up butt into the middle of a civil conversation and yell 'EXCUSE ME PLEASE ONLY ONE ON THE MIC" just because one of you didn't realize the other wasn't done yet. Like I've seen this enough times and it's honestly like "okay, what do you think annoys people more here, the fact that two people were briefly talking at the same time, or someone grinding the entire discourse to a halt to holler at them not to do something neither of them were intending to do?" 
Equally enough times I've seen people just not fudgeing caring what's going on or who's talking before them and it just devolves into noise, so while the first situation is annoying, the rule is a necessary evil imo.

valve comp is casual sixes

Good luck with whatever you're doing next man, I didn't really know you too well, but no news tends to be good news and you were pretty friendly whenever I saw you in-game.

Considering there's nothing left for me here, I'm out. I think I'm done with gaming communities and gaming in general. 
Peace out to everyone. Go ahead and remove my member tag. 

That’s something more to pm him about tbh if it’s genuine, posting it on this thread shows you’re going in full defense mode to save your behind

I made a post about this in the past but I will again, I have been here on and off since 2010 and you can't avoid nepotism in a gaming community that is full of volunteers + kids. I have had problems with it even when I rejoined and defended you @Brian, and you know I will always speak my mind if someone is in the wrong. I won't let *majority rule* make me disregard my own thoughts if I strongly disagree about something, so I don't really think it is that much of an issue if I'm involved. Same goes for @virr who is much more closely involved with TF2 than I am, I trust his decisions to the point where I would never have to second guess him, but he still asks my opinion time to time cuz it doesn't hurt to have a second perspective.
The thing is, if you're friends with a group of people, it's generally going to be an echo chamber of like-minded views, and disagreeing will be out of the norm, so it doesn't surprise me a group of friends will agree with one of their own on a point of view they share, and how would we even moderate it? 

Your point on staff as well, of course if John Doe is friends with Admin or Division leader X while showing interest to moderate, they will more than likely get the position if they fit the bill over someone who is quiet or isn't as noticeable. When you're on the servers, there is only so much you can do to "prove" you can be a good moderator, and a lot of it is your personality and how friendly you are with current staff. This kind of poop happens even in the work force, unless there's some kind of stat they can track (i.e. sales).
I will say though, that anyone who thinks Brian made this post to start a poopstorm and that he doesn't care about xG needs to really think about their implication, because he would not waste time to make a post like that if he didn't care. You should see the threads I made when I left xG, specifically about various staff who were dragging the clan I worked so hard on down to the gutter.

 

"I know damn well I’m not the only one who feels like it’s just a bunch of friends gathering together to protect anyone in that circle and not caring about anyone outside of their groups input." 
Everything in that thread was organized by three people if we want to talk about friend groups. I don't think Krampus is in the right there, I think I've done my best to express that, and the fact that we're kind of friendly towards each other doesn't change that, but it's extremely hypocritical for certain individuals to suggest that "friend groups" are the cause of someone's opinions on the matter when it's that individual and their friend group that orchestrated the whole gig, even rightfully so. 
 
then there's displays of absolute genius like these
"people are dog-piling their friends this isn't fair" 
 
k 
I don't really care who you are or what your stance on the precious-spray-matter is, all I ask is that people look at themselves for five bloody seconds before they claim that people are deciding issues based on whether an individual is in a friend group or not. 
Self examination and nuance is not a particularly difficult feat. 
The best part about those reactions is that there weren't even any negative ones until the thread was locked, which I was you know, going to point out (but locked thread xddd). If you want to make the case that there's some kind of cronyism or favoritism going on it's probably best to just give your friends a heads up to not instantly react positively to your thread, it makes the idea that you're being oppressed a whole lot more believable. 

"I know damn well I’m not the only one who feels like it’s just a bunch of friends gathering together to protect anyone in that circle and not caring about anyone outside of their groups input." 
Everything in that thread was organized by three people if we want to talk about friend groups. I don't think Krampus is in the right there, I think I've done my best to express that, and the fact that we're kind of friendly towards each other doesn't change that, but it's extremely hypocritical for certain individuals to suggest that "friend groups" are the cause of someone's opinions on the matter when it's that individual and their friend group that orchestrated the whole gig, even rightfully so. 
 
then there's displays of absolute genius like these
"people are dog-piling their friends this isn't fair" 
 
k 
I don't really care who you are or what your stance on the precious-spray-matter is, all I ask is that people look at themselves for five bloody seconds before they claim that people are deciding issues based on whether an individual is in a friend group or not. 
Self examination and nuance is not a particularly difficult feat. 
The best part about those reactions is that there weren't even any negative ones until the thread was locked, which I was you know, going to point out (but locked thread xddd). If you want to make the case that there's some kind of cronyism or favoritism going on it's probably best to just give your friends a heads up to not instantly react positively to your thread, it makes the idea that you're being oppressed a whole lot more believable. 

"I know damn well I’m not the only one who feels like it’s just a bunch of friends gathering together to protect anyone in that circle and not caring about anyone outside of their groups input." 
Everything in that thread was organized by three people if we want to talk about friend groups. I don't think Krampus is in the right there, I think I've done my best to express that, and the fact that we're kind of friendly towards each other doesn't change that, but it's extremely hypocritical for certain individuals to suggest that "friend groups" are the cause of someone's opinions on the matter when it's that individual and their friend group that orchestrated the whole gig, even rightfully so. 
 
then there's displays of absolute genius like these
"people are dog-piling their friends this isn't fair" 
 
k 
I don't really care who you are or what your stance on the precious-spray-matter is, all I ask is that people look at themselves for five bloody seconds before they claim that people are deciding issues based on whether an individual is in a friend group or not. 
Self examination and nuance is not a particularly difficult feat. 
The best part about those reactions is that there weren't even any negative ones until the thread was locked, which I was you know, going to point out (but locked thread xddd). If you want to make the case that there's some kind of cronyism or favoritism going on it's probably best to just give your friends a heads up to not instantly react positively to your thread, it makes the idea that you're being oppressed a whole lot more believable. 

"I know damn well I’m not the only one who feels like it’s just a bunch of friends gathering together to protect anyone in that circle and not caring about anyone outside of their groups input." 
Everything in that thread was organized by three people if we want to talk about friend groups. I don't think Krampus is in the right there, I think I've done my best to express that, and the fact that we're kind of friendly towards each other doesn't change that, but it's extremely hypocritical for certain individuals to suggest that "friend groups" are the cause of someone's opinions on the matter when it's that individual and their friend group that orchestrated the whole gig, even rightfully so. 
 
then there's displays of absolute genius like these
"people are dog-piling their friends this isn't fair" 
 
k 
I don't really care who you are or what your stance on the precious-spray-matter is, all I ask is that people look at themselves for five bloody seconds before they claim that people are deciding issues based on whether an individual is in a friend group or not. 
Self examination and nuance is not a particularly difficult feat. 
The best part about those reactions is that there weren't even any negative ones until the thread was locked, which I was you know, going to point out (but locked thread xddd). If you want to make the case that there's some kind of cronyism or favoritism going on it's probably best to just give your friends a heads up to not instantly react positively to your thread, it makes the idea that you're being oppressed a whole lot more believable. 

"I know damn well I’m not the only one who feels like it’s just a bunch of friends gathering together to protect anyone in that circle and not caring about anyone outside of their groups input." 
Everything in that thread was organized by three people if we want to talk about friend groups. I don't think Krampus is in the right there, I think I've done my best to express that, and the fact that we're kind of friendly towards each other doesn't change that, but it's extremely hypocritical for certain individuals to suggest that "friend groups" are the cause of someone's opinions on the matter when it's that individual and their friend group that orchestrated the whole gig, even rightfully so. 
 
then there's displays of absolute genius like these
"people are dog-piling their friends this isn't fair" 
 
k 
I don't really care who you are or what your stance on the precious-spray-matter is, all I ask is that people look at themselves for five bloody seconds before they claim that people are deciding issues based on whether an individual is in a friend group or not. 
Self examination and nuance is not a particularly difficult feat. 
The best part about those reactions is that there weren't even any negative ones until the thread was locked, which I was you know, going to point out (but locked thread xddd). If you want to make the case that there's some kind of cronyism or favoritism going on it's probably best to just give your friends a heads up to not instantly react positively to your thread, it makes the idea that you're being oppressed a whole lot more believable. 

"I know damn well I’m not the only one who feels like it’s just a bunch of friends gathering together to protect anyone in that circle and not caring about anyone outside of their groups input." 
Everything in that thread was organized by three people if we want to talk about friend groups. I don't think Krampus is in the right there, I think I've done my best to express that, and the fact that we're kind of friendly towards each other doesn't change that, but it's extremely hypocritical for certain individuals to suggest that "friend groups" are the cause of someone's opinions on the matter when it's that individual and their friend group that orchestrated the whole gig, even rightfully so. 
 
then there's displays of absolute genius like these
"people are dog-piling their friends this isn't fair" 
 
k 
I don't really care who you are or what your stance on the precious-spray-matter is, all I ask is that people look at themselves for five bloody seconds before they claim that people are deciding issues based on whether an individual is in a friend group or not. 
Self examination and nuance is not a particularly difficult feat. 
The best part about those reactions is that there weren't even any negative ones until the thread was locked, which I was you know, going to point out (but locked thread xddd). If you want to make the case that there's some kind of cronyism or favoritism going on it's probably best to just give your friends a heads up to not instantly react positively to your thread, it makes the idea that you're being oppressed a whole lot more believable.