Maybe a bit of a bias here: of course you think you deserve your rank, considering you are a legendary user.
Get the fuck out of here.
You are trying to find bias in a post that is based on substance and logic.
Do you actually understand that there was a system, less than 2 years ago, that allowed members to rank up based on activity, which is partly a product of post count and time?
Do you believe that those members who ranked up during that time and under those rules don't deserve their rank? If anyone is biased, it is you, and you are both envious and unable to accept prior historical rules that were different but carry on into the present. Instead, what the fuck do you want? You want to start over? That would make even less sense.
Okay, nice wait to start with "get the fuck out of here". I'm not trying to find anything, that's where you seem to be confused.
You started out by responding to my above post with a suggestion that the substance of my post was motivated by bias, and perhaps that is part of the reason that I am starting out my earlier post by telling you to get the fuck out of here.
I have no idea what you are referring to when you say "substance and logic" without providing either.
There is substance in logic in my earlier post in which I was criticizing any superficial generalization that are asserting that members who earned their ranks under the previous system were not deserving. I suggested that such generalization were not fair without specific evidence about the members behavior or something more specific than just asserting some kind of suggestion that it was not fair to rank up under the previous system because it was easier and did not require obtaining merits.
Yes, I am aware of the old merit system, paternalism at it's finest.
We don't have an old merit system. We just have a new merit system that was implemented on January 24, 2018. Before that date, there was no merit system.
So, I am a bit confused about your reference to an "old merit system" and what you are attempting to contrast or criticize, exactly with such assertion that paternalism exists.
There is a concept of grandfather clause which applies when a new system is developed but you allow members to keep their benefits of status that was earned under the old system. I am not sure if that is what you are meaning when you say paternalism, because grandfather clause is a system of fairness and paternalism suggest nepotism, which is a different kind of situation that I doubt is happening in this forum, at least not to any kind of sense that is close to your superficial reference, unless you would like to explain what you mean, a bit better?
Never said anything about not deserving a rank, nor starting over. "you are both envious and unable to accept prior historical rules", how many fallacies can we rack up here? Classic Ad hominem.
I was just attempting to respond to your assertion that was baloney suggesting that I was biased.. so I am not sure if I was employing any fallacies in my attempted rebuttal and denial of your baloney, as you would like to suggest.
So what exactly did you accomplish here besides ranting and blindly spewing insults? Nothing, so I suggest you try again and provide some substance.
I responded. Seems to have been an accomplishment by responding. Of course, you disagree, so maybe we don't need to pursue it any further.
You are pointing out nonsense because of your own inner and seemingly unjustified resentment about history.
Again, you are appealing to emotion. Not going to even start on this one.
The rest of your post consists of more circular reasoning and agreements which aren't really relevant here.
You seem quite the self-appointed expert on various kinds of employed logic, or lack thereof. Congrats.
Deciding to cut the post here.
Might be good for you to cut because you did not seem to have a lot to say, anyhow in terms of the initial points that I had made in my first post in this back and forth.
