User talk:Pants
Like I said, the glowsticking records were removed because some were false, and with only the others (or maybe just one other) remaining, they didn't seem significant. I made it clear that you were invited to write a more comprehensive combined entry, integrating all three records. I also made it clear why the Chen entry should go to Memories -- you have no idea yet whether he will be remembered in future sessions as being significant to the overall site culture. Without this foreknowledge, he's just another session's camp legend, and most of those don't have their own HoF entries (in fact, Saratoga is the only session with individuals who seem to have had such a lasting influence that they were still significant years later; Lancaster doesn't have /any/ people in its HoF, only some small-group or individual actions). If you would prefer not to pay heed to editing policy, or to reintegrate and to revamp removed content, and instead would prefer to yell, that's your prerogative. I made the policy clear, I gave suggestions for how you can improve a page which is beyond my CTY background, and I called you out on your reaction towards a sysop -- behavior which would have been inappropriate regardless of which user you directed it towards.
If you're calling out sysops for "dicking around," then you, and not I, are the one who is power-tripping -- and moreover, if you're going to accuse me of power-tripping hypocrisy, you should at least include some substantial claims beyond the nebulous "what actually happens there." I am not playing favorites with which sites' HoF's I edit and move to Memories; in fact, if anything, as an editor, I'm harsher on Lancaster because it's my home site. Nor am I applying pressure to you or your site's page without reason. I support moving less significant HoF entries into Memories to improve the page as a user, not as admin. As admin, I am enforcing a newly revamped and much clearer policy on the criteria for HoF pages. I'm not sure exactly what here involves "power-tripping." Am I not allowed to touch your HoF page because I don't attend your site? Am I not allowed to make and promote editing policy that I, having spent four years running this site, think will improve page quality and extend the site's utility and longevity? I've given you clear guidelines, as well as proposed some suggestions which you are free to interpret at your own leisure. I understand that you are defensive of the things you find personally important regarding your CTY experience. One of them, according to editing policy, is fit for the page -- but only if it's written so that it is clearly significant, in precisely the right amount (specifically, so that it doesn't contain false information). As for the other, I think it's reasonable to keep it in Memories until time (maybe a year or two or three) makes it clear that it is truly worth of the HoF.
Now, you have two options. You can help improve the site and improve this page by restoring the content that has been removed or moved, and improving the remaining content both here and in Memories:SAR. Or you can clutch your pride in two fists and stay on your own power trip. Please, choose the first option. I have no intention of alienating editors with good intentions; I just want to enforce the site policy. I would prefer you to stay and help the page, since it's not my site or my era. But if you must take the second option, know that you, unlike me, do not have the power to trip on. --Max W. 01:36, 20 August 2010 (PDT)
Let's take things in order.
I should probably explain better why I said the glowsticking records were false; I understand your disagreement. The main reason was that each of them claimed that the record was set for all of CTY, rather than just for Saratoga. This is not the case, at least not for the first two; hence, the first two were deleted, leaving the third, which, all by its lonesome, did not seem significant to the HoF in Dutchman's eyes. Hence, he moved it to Memories. (Although glowstringing with five glowsticks sounds really... heavy. I'm surprised that lanyards didn't break in the process.) Basically, though, it just isn't true that these records happened for "the first time in CTY history." There were two problems with the glowstringing entries in general: accuracy and significance. If you rewrite the entries (like I said, combining them into a single entry would be a good idea), they can be made to fit the page. I don't see why you're so wed to the idea of just leaving the page and "leaving it to [us]." Your goal, if you really care about these events that took place, should be to make them seem as awesome as possible. If they seem false to other people, you should rewrite the entry.
Also, how am I "changing my words" now? I have been saying the same thing the whole time, especially concerning the glowsticking entries. The first thing I said about them was basically what I said above, and in my last post. Don't make unsubstantiated accusations; it only highlights your lack of backing for your claims.
I'm also not sure why using the LAN HoF page as an example is bad. All the HoF pages are held to the same criteria -- something that involves student rebellion against rules, or something that has a lasting effect, to the tune of maybe threeish years or more, unless it was ridiculously significant for two years. In particular, all events not having to do with defending tradition or overturning bad rules that only were relevant to a single year or session never belong in the HoF, because they are known to only one single year of students. Obviously, some of those individuals directly involved in the event will return and remember, but the point is that it is not relevant to the site globally for more than (maybe) a single year. This is why, in particular, Prank Wars was removed. Do you agree with that change?
Also, yes, I am aware of how different all the sites are, probably more so than you. That comes with running this site for so long.
AND ALSO, THERE IS SUCH A THING AS YELLING ON THE INTERNET. There's also such a thing as Internet snarkiness, which is more what I was referring too.
You also still haven't told me /how/ it is that I run this site badly; you just keep saying it, as though you, by some natural phenomenon, are fitter to pass judgment on my site than me, and are too far above me to even have a regular discussion about it. "You people simply administer a site badly, that's basically it." Is it really this simple? You'll have to explain to me precisely why this is so "basic," because I don't understand. Also, I'm not sure what exactly you're saying about my tone of voice. Again, please -- be more specific. This is pretty much how I always type.
The Passing of the Duck is a tradition older than Passionfruit (and, in fact, one of the Ducks is responsible for Passionfruit, or at least Lancaster's -- I forget if she was at Carlisle and helped create it or if she just moved it to Lancaster). It might even be older than the Saratoga site; I'm not sure when the site was introduced. This is fairly self-explanatory; if you're trying to provoke me, you need to try harder. There have been Ducks since before you were born. Since before your parents had sex to conceive you. And this site does a plenty good job of trying to make sure people understand this. This is because there are lots of people who care to recognize things like the Duck. All I'm asking was that you do a better write-up about things like the glowstringing record, because as they stood before, they seemed less significant, and more importantly, weren't true from the perspective of other sites, since it made a claim about CTY globally.
Also, you know as well as I do that a gathering of Emperors wouldn't be all that special. You know full well that what matters to one site is totally irrelevant to other sites; this is part of why you're arguing with me, I think. I don't have any personal care for anything Saratoga does, nor do you give a damn what Lancastrians or doing. Nor should you. But I'm not trying to set a higher standard for Saratoga just because I don't know about it or don't have a personal stake in the matter. Nor am I trying to remove what isn't significant from a Lancastrian perspective. Nor, in particular, am I /removing/ anything from the site (except the two glowstringing entries that, to me, were just untrue, because of how they were written). You recently wiped the Memories page. Why? To get back at the Man? At me? At the site? Don't be immature about it. And don't take that snarky tone, what with the telling me to "grow up." You are not the fitter judge, and to be honest, your taking that role doesn't do anything for anyone. If you want to be useful, if you want to argue your point /and/ improve the site /and/ keep all the records of your site (but maybe you don't want this, considering you actually wiped it away instead of moving it?), just talk about it /with/ me, instead of /telling/ me that I'm wrong and you're right, and telling me how you know I think. Because you're not correct.
If you actually do want to talk and help improve the SAR HoF and Mems pages, you should IM me on AIM or Gchat me or some such. I'm not a fan of the condescension you're giving me, but I am pretty sure that you actually care about your page (if I weren't, I would ban you for vandalizing the Memories page). Seriously, come talk to me, and we can sort this out. --Max W. 21:19, 20 August 2010 (PDT)
Oh, and I should also mention that I'm not sure why you keep using the plural "you." There are only two full admins on the site, and I'm the only one of them who ever deals with content or who is here. There are a number of sysops, but they generally work independently of me, although I trust their judgment. Don't attack me for Dutchman's edits (although I agree with a plurality of them -- the only one I disagree with would probably be the second tower run, and I have obviously voiced further opinions on what to do with the glowstringing entries), and don't attack Dutchman for the site policies I've established.
Well, now you're not even listening to yourself. You still have not demonstrated any ill logic on my part, nor any hypocrisy. I had offered to talk to you on IM or in some other form of chat so that we could work out this issue in a real-time discussion. But you have no interest in this, apparently, nor with working with me to better the site, including the part of it you have a personal stake in. You would prefer to make accusations and call me names and feel self-righteous. You would prefer to say that you "wouldn't expect this of a CTY-er" when, instead of having a civil discussion about it, in which we read one another's words and debate them, you prefer blindness and contempt. You prefer to judge without critical observation. You prefer ridicule. You prefer names to meanings.
I don't need to call you names. I don't need to make myself feel higher than you.
Once more, I urge you to actually read what I wrote and actually talk to me in real-time about this page so that you and I can both be happy. Please? --Max W. 01:38, 21 August 2010 (PDT)
