Seems the "raffle .... free stuff and entry" (in General)

thread was "closed to new posts" at the time of this writing.

Admin power abuse much? I hope this isn't why this game suffers from a lack of active players.

Oh, just in case IPoop reads this:

I think it'd be fair to give #18 or #38 to giftedmadness, as giftedmadness was active when those two last numbers should have been available. Of course, it's ultimately your call, IPoop.

I also want to point out that I won't be entering into any other contests if Tal is going to abuse admin powers.

Don't worry, people, I won't risk ruining any of your future contests due to any potential idiotic drama or the like.

Just in case IPoop reads this (again):

I hope you disqualify Tal for the following reasons:

1. He may have cheated by choosing two numbers in one day. The method used prevents verification of his claim that he waited like everyone else before choosing again

2. There is a high probability that he is directly responsible for the contest thread being closed, which unfairly prevents people from choosing numbers to finalize the contest.

There is an almost absolute chance that the list could be filled today, if Tal did not abuse his admin power. This interferes with what would otherwise have been your well-timed reward distribution date.

I told you twice to let it go. You have not been here remotely long enough to start shit where there was seriously no need. With an admin no less. Had you shut up when told to do so and let the raffle owner make his own decisions at his own discretion - there would have been no question as to who was right or wrong. You could have, and probably should have voiced your concerns via pm with Ipoop himself. Then you might have been listened to without causing drama.

To top it off, you are berating an admin I, myself have known to be very fair for years with anything and everything that I've seen him personally tend to.

He probably closed the thread to stop the drama.

You, creating another, and continuing this moronic tirade will do nothing but alienate yourself from everyone here.

Now, in my personal opinion, you should seriously just drop it, let the raffle owner deal with it, and shut your damn mouth.

--TF--

"You have not been here remotely long enough to start shit where there was seriously no need. With an admin no less."

This is irrelevent. If a good argument is made, nothing can take that soundness of argument away.


"Had you shut up when told to do so and let the raffle owner make his own decisions at his own discretion - there would have been no question as to who was right or wrong. You could have, and probably should have voiced your concerns via pm with Ipoop himself. Then you might have been listened to without causing drama."

IPoop can handle things himself either way when available. There wasn't any drama from my end; I was just stating what I considered factual.

Also, either way, the contest would have been delayed, but very likely that it would have been a faster, fairer, more efficient process with community enforcement.


"To top it off, you are berating an admin I, myself have known to be very fair for years with anything and everything that I've seen him personally tend to."

Irrelevent. See argument below.


"He probably closed the thread to stop the drama."

He may have closed it because he could not counter my logic and became irrational. If I was an admin, overlooked something and thus /appeared/ as if I was cheating in a contest, I would disqualify /myself/ once it was understood.


"You, creating another, and continuing this moronic tirade will do nothing but alienate yourself from everyone here."

Alienation is irrelevent. What matters is what IPoop decides. Also, it seems that some agree with me.


"Now, in my personal opinion, you should seriously just drop it, let the raffle owner deal with it, and shut your damn mouth."

You are free to voice your opinion, of course. I will continue with my methods until proven incorrect.

Lxy, who put you in charge of this contest?

"Lxy, who put you in charge of this contest?"

I'm not in charge of the contest, IPoop is. I'm merely trying to expose cheating and rule-breaking mistakes so that numbers can be free for non-cheaters.

IPoop did not disagree with my assessment on a prior case regarding #20. I am simply working based on similar principles.

Everyone should be free to argue openly; I disagree with the contest thread being closed. I appreciate intelligent debate.

Ur a clown.

"Ur a clown."

You are entitled to your opinion, but your integrity is diminished with such ad hominems.

Your integrity went out the window when you made a 4th pick when some only had 1 and 2 picks.

"Your integrity went out the window when you made a 4th pick when some only had 1 and 2 picks."

I disagree; I believe I am following the rules.

It went against the spirit of the contest. are you autistic?

"It went against the spirit of the contest."

I disagree. The spirit of competition, I believe, is based on trying to win fairly. I have followed the rules to the best of my ability; I am acting with a proper competitive spirit.

Allow me to elaborate on why I believe I have followed the rules:

Round-robin systems are based on equal chance. IPoop based his contest's equal chance on allowing everyone to choose a number every twenty-four hours, if they chose to log in. I diligently chose each number after waiting the appropriate amount of time.


"are you autistic?"

I don't see how this is relevant, but I have never been diagnosed with autism. It would not bother me if I was.

I'm autistic! :D

"I'm autistic! :D"

You also have anger management issues.

I'll have you know that I haven't "Hulked Out" in quite a while! Every time I get angry, I learn a little more about how to stop myself from becoming angry. If only everyone was like that, lol.

You are beautiful in your wisdom, Hulk.

Being derogatory towards other people isn't okay, especially in CB forums.

I don't blame Lxy for playing enforcer. We all want a fair game. I wasn't going to do the labor and look through all the time stamps... I could hardly find my posts haha.

Also Lxy was fine in picking 4 numbers. I only blame myself for not picking more numbers.

That other thread did deserve being locked since we can't simply play nice with each other. Sometimes chatmail is more appropriate than forums.

We will have to wait for ipoops judgement.

This is madness!!!

Party 1: "It went against the spirit of the contest."

Party 2: "I disagree. The spirit of competition, I believe, is based on trying to win fairly. I have followed the rules to the best of my ability; I am acting with a proper competitive spirit."

This is the most interesting point so far. Driving slowly, there are some potholes in the high road.

P1: "It went against ...."
P2: "I disagree ...."

The appropriate response to P2 is probably something on the order of "You've established that already." If you aren't the sponsor of the contest, nor the admin adjudicating the forums, and you've already objected repeatedly, this isn't a value additive assertion. -5 pts.

P1: "... against the spirit of the contest."
P2: "... spirit of competition ... proper competitive spirit."

P2 doesn't, or chooses to fail to, understand the difference between "the spirit of the contest" [this one] and "competitive spirit" [in the Olympic sense]. Then, having conflated one with the other, argues the latter as if it is the former. -12 points.

Proceed.

"P2 doesn't, or chooses to fail to, understand the difference between "the spirit of the contest" [this one] and "competitive spirit" [in the Olympic sense]."

I don't understand the difference. Please explain it.

Lxy has been working this thread for a solid 12 hours.

"Lxy has been working this thread for a solid 12 hours."

On and off. I took a longer break a few hours ago.

"If you aren't the sponsor of the contest, nor the admin adjudicating the forums"

P1 stating that "It went against the spirit of the contest." would also be invalidated then, due to not being the sponsor of the contest nor an over-watching admin, due to claiming to know what the "spirit of the contest" is based only on assumption--if my understanding that "the spirit of the contest" to refer to "what's appropriate to the contest" is correct.

"You could have, and probably should have voiced your concerns via pm with Ipoop himself."
"Sometimes chatmail is more appropriate than forums."

One of the main reasons as to why I didn't resort to PMing IPoop was because of his desire to end the contest quickly. PMing meant waiting for his approval before removing names that had been added to the list in ways similar to the illegitimate #20 case.

I thought things could have been resolved faster if I handled situations similar to the #20 one, that IPoop approved the name removal of, in the same manner--by removing names that were illegitimately added or seemingly illegitimate and unverifiable.

The following is a suggestion to IPoop of a remedy regarding Tal's second number choice's unverifiable legitimacy:

Tal was first shown listed on August 21 9:26 AM EDT in Wascally Wabbit's (his wife's) post.
18 - Tal
38 - Tal

giftedmadness was definitely active (posted in the contest thread) on August 21 6:38 PM to 7:10 PM EDT.

giftedmadness's last number choosing was on August 20 6:24 PM EDT.


Since the latest date Tal seemed to have picked a number on was August 21 9:26 AM EDT, he wouldn't have been able to choose another number until August 22 9:26 AM EDT. His claim of waiting before choosing his second number, to my knowledge, is unverifiable.

I propose that one of Tal's number choices be disqualified and given to--despite his unjustified name-calling--giftedmadness, who would have been able to choose another number around August 21 6:38 PM to 7:10 PM EDT--long before Tal would have been able to choose a second time.

Should giftedmadness refuse a number, there would be the possible problem of others having been able to choose before Tal's second choosing.

I wrote the above because I don't think Tal should be completely disqualified. I believe he chose legitimately at least once.

why can't you just wait for ipoop? ffs.

"I wrote the above because I don't think Tal should be completely disqualified. I believe he chose legitimately at least once."

I give my 3rd pick to Tal so he can have two picks. It's more fair that way.

"why can't you just wait for ipoop? ffs."

I wanted to write it now so I wouldn't have to later.

"I give my 3rd pick to Tal so he can have two picks. It's more fair that way."

That's a good idea too, since it would be like getting your third item and transferring it to Tal.

go to bed. It's been a long and hard day of debating. You need your rest for tomorrow with the arrival of ipoop.

"That's a good idea too, since it would be like getting your third item and transferring it to Tal."

It's not like that at all, ldo.

I like my thread.

You're a sad case. Are you gonna make it a full 24 hours?

the thing is, you've been here two months and have a net worth of $97M and are so greedy that you shove people with 1 and 2 picks out of the way to make a 4th pick. Winter is coming.

I played hard for everything I have. Nothing was donated and I often had to overbid for items (based on average winning bid).

Fair is fair.

I never said it wasn't fair.

"You're a sad case. Are you gonna make it a full 24 hours?"

Maybe I will.

"I never said it wasn't fair."

I never said you never said it wasn't fair.

You are intellectually dishonest. It's a common theme in your posts.

"You are intellectually dishonest."

I disagree.

what does "fair is fair" mean then?

"what does 'fair is fair' mean then?"

It means exactly that. It can, of course, be interpreted as an implication to accuse someone of saying that something was unfair, but that's not absolute.


The thing is, if anyone has a problem with me, I'm open to debating on the issue.

My policy is to argue to learn, not to "win." Ergo, if I don't know something or made a mistake, I will openly accept my ignorance or mistake, if it is known to me.

lmao

"My policy is to argue to learn, not to "win." "

Yeah, that's why you had the urge to create a new thread when an admin stopped the last one you ruined.

"Yeah, that's why you had the urge to create a new thread when an admin stopped the last one you ruined."

I didn't ruin it; I did not flame anyone or the like to justify it being closed, in my opinion.

I started a new thread so that we could debate on what seemed, to me, like an attempt at cheating. If Tal attempted to reasonably counter my last argument in the contest thread, things would have turned out for the better, I am sure.

so you are debating to win against Tal, not to "learn".

"so you are debating to win against Tal, not to 'learn'. "

Incorrect. Anyone is free to argue, even Tal is welcomed. There is no special condition that would prevent him from countering my arguments--only his mental and emotional limitations.

but your goal is to win the argument, not to learn.

"but your goal is to win the argument, not to learn."

Negative. I am willing to learn if there is something /to/ learn.

"but your goal is to win the argument, not to learn."

Let me restate that:
My goal isn't to "win" in arguments, it's to reach the most logical conclusion even if I fail to "win."

this is just laughable. You've been debating for 24 hours almost and you say that you don't want to win the debate. amazing.

"this is just laughable. You've been debating for 24 hours almost and you say that you don't want to win the debate. amazing."

There is no absolute correlation between the amount of time I spent debating and your assumption of my desire to win. I only desired the most logical conclusion.

If someone were to argue better than I, I would accept that and hopefully would have learned something as well. Failing to counter an argument can be beneficial, as it can enlighten--reveal one's ignorance.

a lot of people have been telling you to let it go and to just shut up until ipoop arrives, why haven't you listened to them and accepted that as the end of the f-ing debate?

"a lot of people have been telling you to let it go and to just shut up until ipoop arrives"

A few.


"why haven't you listened to them and accepted that as the end of the f-ing debate?"

I wanted to make suggestions and provide details of perceived problems early so that I wouldn't have to write them later, just in case they're accepted as reasonable by IPoop.

just a little reminder. Nobody put you in charge of the contest. And you rubbed a lot of people the wrong way by acting like you were in charge. Nobody else is gonna have a listing of wrongs done in this contest like you had written.

"just a little reminder. Nobody put you in charge of the contest."

I was only working under earlier established principles, as explained in my "August 22 12:11 PM EDT" post. We've been through this already.


"And you rubbed a lot of people the wrong way by acting like you were in charge."

I apologize if people misunderstood my intentions, but it seemed necessary. Also, it did keep things fairer in three cases, at the very least, while still allowing finalization of the contest in good time.


"Nobody else is gonna have a listing of wrongs done in this contest like you had written."

Probably.

This is most likely due to wanting to avoid the trouble of such an endeavor. Others have expressed their agreement with community enforcement of the rules. This implies that if it wasn't so annoying to do, they would also have helped in the enforcement process.

the funny thing was, people thought the contest was over when someone picked slot #15. You felt the need to remove it and wouldn't you know it, you were the one who jumped on it when it was your turn to pick. This is obviously a conflict of interests. Nobody was looking for that slot to be open, only you knew it was open, so you picked your 4th pick while others had only 1 and 2 picks. How is this fair?

"the funny thing was, people thought the contest was over when someone picked slot #15."

It was freed due to earlier established principles set by IPoop. It was illegitimate.


"You felt the need to remove it and wouldn't you know it, you were the one who jumped on it when it was your turn to pick. This is obviously a conflict of interests. Nobody was looking for that slot to be open, only you knew it was open, so you picked your 4th pick while others had only 1 and 2 picks. How is this fair?"

It was illegitimately taken on August 21 10:24 AM EDT. I freed it as soon as I noticed--on August 21 10:36 AM EDT. I chose it on August 21 6:36 PM EDT, ample time for others to have realized it was freed.

There is no such conflict. All one had to do was check the thread and scroll up. You should have made sure when your time to choose came along, as you would have gotten to it before I, but you did not check.

It was not orchestrated, as you claim; it was as fair as I could manage.

It was the last slot chosen, you dolt.

Why would people check back in the thread if they thought all the slots were gone?

"It was the last slot chosen, you dolt.

Why would people check back in the thread if they thought all the slots were gone?"

No need for the ad hominem. It's what I would have done.

It was illegitimately taken on August 21 10:24 AM EDT. I freed it on August 21 10:36 AM EDT. That's 12 minutes after it was taken. It's very likely that someone could have checked in during those 8 hours after it was freed without knowing it was illegitimately taken in the first place and picked it.

I am not telepathic. I couldn't have known you checked in before those 12 minutes. I was hoping I got it freed quickly enough so that things would be as fair as possible.

again, you aren't the police of this contest. you didn't have the right to take picks away. you should have waited for ipoop or just PMed him. why do you like to create drama?

"again, you aren't the police of this contest. you didn't have the right to take picks away. you should have waited for ipoop or just PMed him. why do you like to create drama?"

Again, we've been through this. My "August 22 12:11 PM EDT" post explains it. Some have expressed their agreement on community enforcement of the rules. IPoop will ultimately fix this or leave it as is.

I do not like creating such drama.

"It's very likely that someone could have checked in during those 8 hours after it was freed without knowing it was illegitimately taken in the first place and picked it."

8 hours isn't very long to give them time and to be fair about things. IF you were fair, you'd give them longer time. Like me for instance, I could have picked a 3rd slot, but I didn't because the rules said to pick two slots.

You got rid of a slot and then picked it 8 hours later, that to me is taking advantage of the situation.

this is exactly the reply I was hoping for. Let's wait for ipoop to return to settle things. Yet you created a new thread and debated for 24 hours to win a debate. Why couldn't you just shut your trap?

"8 hours isn't very long to give them time and to be fair about things. IF you were fair, you'd give them longer time."

I strongly disagree. 8 hours is more than enough time, in my opinion.


"Like me for instance, I could have picked a 3rd slot, but I didn't because the rules said to pick two slots."

I also explained why I believed the second part of the round-robin rule wasn't meant to be taken literally. It was a response to your question about it in the contest thread.


"You got rid of a slot and then picked it 8 hours later, that to me is taking advantage of the situation."

We've already been through this. IPoop will ultimately fix this or keep it as is.

exactly, let's wait for ipoop. I've said that 4 times already. Yet you keep debating. Why won't you stop already?

"this is exactly the reply I was hoping for. Let's wait for ipoop to return to settle things. Yet you created a new thread and debated for 24 hours to win a debate. Why couldn't you just shut your trap?"

I'm saying that we must wait for IPoop because the contest thread was closed. If it wasn't, you could take whatever actions you wanted in that thread and face the subsequent negative consequences, if any.

"exactly, let's wait for ipoop. I've said that 4 times already. Yet you keep debating. Why won't you stop already?"

You keep asking me things and bringing up arguments yourself. I am responding.

"I'm saying that we must wait for IPoop because the contest thread was closed. If it wasn't, you could take whatever actions you wanted in that thread and face the subsequent negative consequences, if any."

Also, no one's stopping you from creating a new thread as I did. I wanted to clarify things in this thread.

if you said that we must wait for ipoop because the original thread was closed, why did you start a new thread to debate? you don't make any sense. if you wanted to wait for ipoop because the thread was closed, and then you start a new one where you debate for 24 hours, doesn't that make you seem a little looney?

"I wanted to clarify things in this thread. "

exactly, you had no intention of stopping the debate. You just wanted to argue more.

"youkeep asking me things and bringing up arguments yourself. I am responding."

Yeah, keep telling yourself that. You started the thread with 4 unanswered posts and in the middle had 4 unanswered posts. ur a clown.

"if you said that we must wait for ipoop because the original thread was closed, why did you start a new thread to debate? you don't make any sense. if you wanted to wait for ipoop because the thread was closed, and then you start a new one where you debate for 24 hours, doesn't that make you seem a little looney?"

I created a thread because I thought the same questions and arguments wouldn't be brought up over and over again by one as seemingly forgetful as you. I responded to those arguments by suggesting that we'd already addressed those debates and so should wait for IPoop to review them--I meant those /specific/ arguments that you do not fail to repeat.

Also, I made the thread to provide additional details on any perceived problems, which I also said.

"I'm saying that we must wait for IPoop because the contest thread was closed. If it wasn't, you could take whatever actions you wanted in that thread and face the subsequent negative consequences, if any."

I'm sure ipoop will be reading this thread as well. There will be negative consequences for us, I'm sure. I wouldn't doubt that he would take away both of our picks because of our endless debating.

"exactly, you had no intention of stopping the debate. You just wanted to argue more."

I don't mind arguing, as long as it isn't about something that I already countered quite thoroughly, I would imagine.

"I'm sure ipoop will be reading this thread as well. There will be negative consequences for us, I'm sure. I wouldn't doubt that he would take away both of our picks because of our endless debating."

It's possible. I don't think he would be unreasonable, though, in whatever he decides.

so let's end this debate tonight, let's wait for ipoop to poop all over you.

enough is enough, if you 2 want to argue then take it to cm's. let ipoop make his decision and go from there

"It's possible. I don't think he would be unreasonable, though, in whatever he decides."

It will totally be worth it if he takes away all of your 4 picks.

thread closed