Armchair GM Pet Peeves

So I push reply and I can tell you to log in? I was not aware of this function. Thanks!

i know exactly what you're saying...and i totally agree...i have to come up with a better way to handle the scrolling

To be honest Pean, that is probably my only complaint. I like to complain so that says alot of how great this site has been put together overall. At the end of the day, there will always be people that bitch about stuff, but you can't make everyone happy all of the day, including this AF.

A better way to find older stories is to go to the page that it talks about -- those things usually have fewer stories, and they're pre-sorted for you. For example, if you wanted to read an older story about the Chicago Cubs, go to page "Chicago Cubs" -- it'll be there.

Or if you know who wrote it you can go to their site.

I agree with this sentiment. However, my biggest pet peeve is when people mention non-sports topics (i.e. politics) on this website.

They could have thought your argument was silly and irrelevant, too. Just because you thought it was a "pretty good argument" doesn't mean everyone does, Corey. I often minus vote points that I think are not particularly relevant or not well made, and people slam me as negative-rating them just because they disagree with me. There's never any way to judge why someone negative-rates your comment unless you can reach through cyberspace and read their mind.

You know, I may be dumb sometimes, but I think I can tell when my arguments are relevant. It's not like I'm throwing in non sequitur garbage like "I think McDonald's Chicken Nuggets are tasty." From what I've seen, people that get into debates with you usually come out with a couple negative votes. Whether that's actually you handing them out, I have no way of telling.

Just because you've got a bone to pick with everyone who disagrees with you because they might've been the one giving you all the negative votes all those times, doesn't mean all of us have to suffer every time we lay our opinion out there. Shit, at this point I'm ready to add you to the ArmchairGM pet peeves list. Grow up, man.

I like getting the negative votes. It's reassurance that even in these days and times, sarcasm can still be taken seriously...

Irrelevant, Corey. The point remains that you have zero way of knowing why someone negative-rates you. Just because you think it's a good argument doesn't mean that everyone does. Just because someone disagrees with you and they negative-rate your comment doesn't mean they negative-rated your comment *because* they disagreed with you.

So I'm your Pet Peeve because I disagree with you, Corey? Very mature. Let me add a list to the Pet Peeves: people disliking people just because they disagree with them.

BTW, if you want to whine about suffering because of your opinion being out there, you might not want to do it to someone who got 230 negative comment votes in one day for no reason at all. Just a thought.

Xinoph you "got 230 negative comment votes in one day" not "for no reason at all" but because you're the #1 breaker of Pet Peeve number one.

Count it! I'm glad I'm not the only one who sees this. I still haven't negative rated Xinoph at all this entire argument but I manage to have a bunch of them. Let me just say that as an administrator, Xinoph, the way you act and your general demeanor toward people who disagree with your opinions does not reflect very well on this site. Please, when someone disagrees with you, don't act like they spilled your Trix.

This from the Great Internet Mind-Reader. Still haven't come up with a response to that one yet, have you, Corey? You're right, because I disagree with you my opinions are invalid, and my arguments worthless. I'll try not to ever express them again.

I never trash someone for their opinions, actually. If you ever actually read what I wrote you might even understand that. I never trash *people* at all, actually. I counter poorly-reasoned arguments. I have never, ever, told anyone their opinion was wrong, so point #1 has nothing whatsoever to do with me. Offering counterpoints that make sense is not telling someone their opinion is wrong; it's using logic.

Tell me, CPCP, how would you know why I got 230 negative points in a day? It seems to me only the person who did it would know what. Is there omething you'd like to share with us?

know *that*, excuse me

Corey, your entire accusation against me is total BS. I don't treat people who disagree with me any differently than anyone else on this site. I'm not the one accusing people of random irrelevant things just because they disagree with me, now am I? Tell me, Corey, is any disagreement with you against the rules?

#1 Yes Xinoph, I fished around the entire site and found 230 of your comments to give negative feedback to. You solved the case, Sherlock. #2 You just said, "I never trash someone for their opinions, actually. If you ever actually read what I wrote you might even understand that. I never trash *people* at all, actually." Let me point to two things: Exhibit A: "Too many fans think they know better than everyone else who the "real" All-Stars are. Why is your list better than anyone else's? To think you know better than millions of fans is the height of arrogance, it seems to me." Exhibit B: "You're right, because I disagree with you I must be ignorant. Very open-minded, keep up that attitude. All-Star lists based on stats are terrible. Absolutely awful. You're the one who can't deal with differing views, apparently." Exhibit C: "As I noted above, it is the height of arrogance to think that you know better than millions of fans put together. Why is your list any better? Ah, because you made it. But of course. What was I thinking? How could I question your almighty stats knowledge. Silly me." Those are all from the SAME POST. Maybe YOU ought to read what you're writing. Your comments were some of the first I saw when I first came to this site and I almost disregarded the entire site until I saw that most people weren't like you. I still can't believe you're an administrator, though.

I'm glad we got that out in the open. In order to know why I was attacked, you would logically have to either A) know who the attacker was, and have had a discussion with them on it, or B) done it yourself. You do realize that declaring that you knew the motivations behind the attacker is utterly insane if neither of those are true, right? Bzz. Sorry. Try again. In none of those examples did I attack anybody's opinion or any specific user. Quote by Quote: "Too many fans think they know better than everyone else who the "real" All-Stars are. Why is your list better than anyone else's? To think you know better than millions of fans is the height of arrogance, it seems to me." Merely expressing a view. We are still allowed to do that, right? Or are alternate opinions personal attacks now? I was saying that I thought anyone who thought they knew better than millions of people was arrogant. "You're right, because I disagree with you I must be ignorant. Very open-minded, keep up that attitude. All-Star lists based on stats are terrible. Absolutely awful. You're the one who can't deal with differing views, apparently." Did you follow the entire conversation? Somebody literally said I was close-minded because I disagreed with *their* all-star selection. "As I noted above, it is the height of arrogance to think that you know better than millions of fans put together. Why is your list any better? Ah, because you made it. But of course. What was I thinking? How could I question your almighty stats knowledge. Silly me." Making a point, doesn't attack any opinion or person. Does use sarcasm. If you find *that* offensive, you probably shouldn't read the Comments on this site at all. All of those quotes were mere disagreements, no more a direct attack than any other comment voicing disagreements. To interpret those as attacks of any kind requires your own unique interpretation of the english language that is totally different from the one the rest of the world uses. As far as I'm concerned, you have selected these examples merely because you disagreed with them. Do you hate everyone you disagree with, or do you just have a vendetta against me because you don't like the letter X? You're definitely right. Agreeing with *you* should be the number-one criteria by which we select Administrators.

But seriously, CPCP, let's just put this behind us and focus on the things on which we agree, like how much the Yankee suck. :)

In defense of I am a cpcp, the only fishing around the site one would have to do to know that you had a substantial amount of negative votes would be to simply read the archived opinions. After all, you were the one who posted a whiney article about how your "comment score dropped by about 620 slots in one third of a day." I'm not pissed at you because you disagree with me. I'm pissed at you because you're an asshole and a poor excuse for an administrator.

Yet again you misread what I wrote, Corey. He wasn't claiming just to know that there was a negative attack against me. He was claiming to know the motivation of the attackers. Go back and re-read carefully what he wrote and you might understand.

Yes, you think I'm an asshole because I disagree with you. I behave no differently than anyone else on this site. Grow up.

You know, it would almost be funny if it weren't so sad. You criticize me for engaging in personal attacks when you're engaging in a personal attack against me. How hypocritical is that? Give me a break. Your whole argument in this matter is so silly that it's almost hard to logically argue against.

See number three

You mean like the definition of the words "Opinion" and "News"?

That was meant to be up in another thread, my bad.