Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Zelmana

  • Rank

Linked Accounts

  • Byond Key

Recent Profile Visitors

69 profile views
  1. So I have been pushing for a good mouse and maintenance combined PR that will provide some much needed updates to the Mouse rp playstyle. If you are interested in this, please feel free to contact me within the mouse mains discord or via DM. Thanks!
  2. The classic "we're adults" narrative. Good to hear what I was expecting.
  3. Yeah pretty much. I just says 'em as I sees em. It's like a radar or a sixth sense. Retard sense, if you will. If I see something, and it is really dumb and stupid, I think, "Hmmph, that's retarded." and sometimes I will write that down on my keyboard and you may see it.
  4. A quick exercise in retardation: Now, a few entries on these are for legitimate discussion of the use of the word "retard" (mainly Chada discussing it with people), but the point is still clear. It is a word that is used a lot as a means to apply negative connotation to a sentence, subject, or sometimes person. I am okay with moderating the use of these types of things when in context to individual people. Such as saying, "Garnasacus is retarded."
  5. Certainly. The idea that my language choice offends someone so much that it necessitates a reporting or ruling process. Refer to my "where do you draw the line" post. This will continue to spiral (as it has been for a few years) to be more and more accommodating to individuals with paper thin skin. Yes, we're adults here (most of us), so sure- they can say "uSe ADuLt LaNgUAgE" but honestly just because I use certain words that offend people does not mean that the words need to be censored. A vocal minority of people being offended by the use of "retarded" "moronic" "asinine" "idiotic" and "dumb". I would understand if this were a specific thing such as "this is autistic" and someone with autism being offended. Being offended over such simple word choice is retarded in and of itself. People need to grow some fucking skin and realize people say words they may not like. By being so virtuous and high-horse about "well it is just not polite" or "i am above such peasantry language" is laughable. To be more direct with your question- They're both the same. One uses colorful language to get their emotional state across. Sure. People have a right to be offended, but they are most certainly choosing and seeking out things to be offended by. @Garnascus
  6. Alright. Clearly I am not swaying anyone here. This discussion is dumb so I'm gonna head out. Do not expect a reply.
  7. This is in reference to commentary on ideas and non-individuals. I am 100% for censorship of words people don't like in use when directed at individuals. Permitting it is moderated across the board and staff is accountable as well.
  8. Where do you draw the line? Retarded Moronic Idiotic Stupid Dumb Bad Dislike
  9. Well there you have it. You and I agree on something! I would call into question the role of a developer's responsibility to participate in community-oriented development. I do not like this trend of "i want to make a PR". You code it. You post it to pull. Users cannot talk about non-mechanic related things on the github, so we go to forums. Many of the controversial PRs posted do not receive any developer-feedback on the critiques made on the forums. I believe, that even when saying an idea is "retarded" or "dumb" that as long as the individual is not ad-hominemly attacking the developer, there should be a level of community-oriented development. There's no community involvement in many of your development processes. Maybe between other community members discussing things, but not that of the contributor. The very core of my complaint is revolving around the responsibilities of "developing". Do developers have a responsibility to address feedback, in any form, regarding their developments? According to Lord Fowl, as he explained above, he does not partake in discussion on the forum. Discussion concerning it on the discord is directed to the forums. Discussion about non-code on the Github is directed to the forums. Lord Fowl does not respond to the forums. Therefore, simply put, Lord Fowl does not at all address feedback or discussion during development. I would like clarification if this is expected or within good practices. This is the core of the issue, but once again- a larger picture is how he handled me pointing this out to him. He stated his reasoning for doing so was because myself, as an individual, made those critiques. Not because my critiques were out of scope, not because he does not partake in discussion (in which i call into question the responsibility to above), but because it was Zelmana making those statements. That, in my opinion, is completely contrary to staff practices. tl;read it anyway Are developers expected to interact with the community, or do we no longer do "community-oriented" development? Was the reasoning given behind not replying or partaking to critique to the PR in the only public and staff-enforced feedback area acceptable?
  10. The requirement of treating ALL ideas respectfully and not being able to call dumb or retarded ideas such is extremely hug-box. Easily-offended, "he said my idea was retarded >:(" should realize that this is not how the world operates. We are very much a hugbox already, but at a palatable level. Why put extra padding on the box we run around in, when people in the userbase should grow a tiny bit of thick skin? It seems there is a vocal minority complaining about the most mundane usage of "this idea is retarded, and here is why it is dumb".
  11. In my opinion, as long as the only thing that is being "attacked" is ideas given and points made in discussions, the response to that should be "reply and validate your points".
  12. I think an issue is that people have ad-hominem definition expanded to be entirely opposite of its definition. Ad hominem is an attack on one's character. Being upset that ideas are being attacked is the inverse of ad hominem.
  13. I think that a seperation between whether or not people are debating / attacking ideologies and views should be considered. There is a difference between attacking an individual and attacking an individual's thoughts and what they say. It should not be punishable to tell an individual that their idea is bad, nor should it be punishable to debate upon the idea.
  14. As long as this is in regards to people attacking individuals, and not ideas in feedback threads, I am really behind this.
  • Create New...