IBC

Civilitas was a Roman concept of assuming the behavior that is keeping in a civilized, proper society.

It is also something that has been sorely lacking in the IBC of late, especially in this off-season. It has now reached ridiculous levels. I'm done with it. The egos are ridiculous and to the point where an argument/discussion cannot happen without bullheadedness and ad hominem attacks. I joined this league with the intention of being in it for a long time, but this back-biting and negativity is going to be the death of the IBC.

I am not going to point fingers or name names, but just ask everybody to

CHILL THE FUCK OUT.

Twins wrote:Civilitas was a Roman concept of assuming the behavior that is keeping in a civilized, proper society.

It is also something that has been sorely lacking in the IBC of late, especially in this off-season. It has now reached ridiculous levels. I'm done with it. The egos are ridiculous and to the point where an argument/discussion cannot happen without bullheadedness and ad hominem attacks. I joined this league with the intention of being in it for a long time, but this back-biting and negativity is going to be the death of the IBC.

I am not going to point fingers or name names, but just ask everybody to

CHILL THE FUCK OUT.

Civilitas ... I <3 Civilitas ...

I know a few GM's that only check the board for transactions then promptly leave.

Twins wrote:Civilitas was a Roman concept of assuming the behavior that is keeping in a civilized, proper society.

It is also something that has been sorely lacking in the IBC of late, especially in this off-season. It has now reached ridiculous levels. I'm done with it. The egos are ridiculous and to the point where an argument/discussion cannot happen without bullheadedness and ad hominem attacks. I joined this league with the intention of being in it for a long time, but this back-biting and negativity is going to be the death of the IBC.

I am not going to point fingers or name names, but just ask everybody to

CHILL THE FUCK OUT.

Does this have something to do with the "Perspective" thread? I've avoided that.

Rockies wrote:I know a few GM's that only check the board for transactions then promptly leave.

Which hurts the potential for group discussion/bonding (I hate that f*ing word, but it is the one that fits here)

Tigers wrote:Does this have something to do with the "Perspective" thread? I've avoided that.

Partly...I've stopped reading it. But basically EVERY thread is like that now

Twins wrote:

Rockies wrote:I know a few GM's that only check the board for transactions then promptly leave.

Which hurts the potential for group discussion/bonding (I hate that f*ing word, but it is the one that fits here)

Which has been somewhat lacking since the quicktopic days anyway

Pirates wrote:

Twins wrote:

Rockies wrote:I know a few GM's that only check the board for transactions then promptly leave.

Which hurts the potential for group discussion/bonding (I hate that f*ing word, but it is the one that fits here)

Which has been somewhat lacking since the quicktopic days anyway

I won't deny that

I rather liked how the Perspective thread turned out, especially the very amusing tie-in to the hockey discussion.
There are two distinct parts to the problem that Andrew is alluding too.
1. Certain members seem to be completely oblivious to the fact that I like to argue and debate. I START threads like the perspective thread because this place gets boring as watching grass grow because no one talks about ANYTHING anymore. And yes, it WAS better with the QT board but it's gone and this is what we have. What else is going on... movie reviews and the occasional college basketball post. Holy Shit this place is hopping! You guys can't even get pumped up about the start of Spring Training!
2. Certain members can't disagree with me civilly. It's not "Bren's wrong, here's why" it's "Bren's wrong because he's a fascist/always wrong/a D-bag." But that's ok, because I have no problem throwing it right back in their faces, then they act as if I've taken it seriously and I'm overreacting. Seriously? I've been getting shit thrown in my face since Day 1 of this league whether it was Joe, Martz, Josh or whomever. If I actually took it personally, I wouldn't still be here. I've been called almost every name in the book for decisions from vetoing trades and deciding on one side in a dispute to enforcing the rules (How dare I!) or not wanting to change them (again!).
3. When I throw it back though, you guys DO take it seriously (as if I can't fire back when you guys call me, in turn, a fascist (Jim), douche bag (Gabe) or retard (Nate)) and freak out. If you start slinging mud, I'm gonna sling it back so don't go running around like you're all persecuted because I did. You each took disagreements on a discussion and turned them into the trading of personal insults. What IS insulting is the ridiculous indignation these individuals have thrown around when they were the ones who started throwing around that kind of talk in the first place (particularly Jim).
4. All of which, IMO, is tied in to me being the former Commish. You don't just disagree, because you still carry that stigma (and yes, I carry it too at times) about me being the Commish so everything becomes some huge issue instead of just being a disagreement. Go back and look, Gabe, at where you started calling me a d-bag. Seriously, wtf was that about? Where the hell did that come from? Jim calls me a fascist for thinking Clemens is guilty (apparently I have to specify everything that's an opinion v. a fact). Nate calls me a retard because... basically because he could. That's fine though, I can play that game so I fired back. WTF did you think I was going to do? You each started a fight and then you get all bent out of shape at me for firing back as if it's against the rules for me to do so.
I start arguments, I have no qualms or hesitations about saying that. But I don't start them with the intention of turning it into mudslinging, you guys (and you know who you are) have been the ones to do that. I start arguments because this place is a freaking tomb and guys arguing about Clemens, guilty or not is better than the slow boring death that constitutes discussion around here otherwise.

Bren -

I am not going to carry this debate on with you publicly or privately. This post will be my last on this subject but I will end by pointing out that you are steadfastly being untruthful. I specifically did not call you a fascist. To quote, "Bren - your approach to this borders on fascism ..." I was addressing your behavior on this specific instance. You can try to bend the facts but you, I and others know the truth ...

In effort towards the Civilitas I offered an apology to you yet all you have done is attack me and my religion personally (which you know nothing about), continue to call me names and perpetuate a lie. As I have done personally, I will also do publicly saying that I apologize for indicating that your approach to the Clemens situation borders on fascism. It was not my intention to hurt you personally. Now leave me alone - and for the sake of the league, quit living out this lie!

The ultimate in irony would be the thread about Civilitas inevitably becoming the exact antithesis.

Debating is fine in moderation. Calling out names is unprofessional and should not be promoted.

I have a life to live, bills to pay, a truck to constantly fix and a job that demands alot of me. IBC trash talking in no way agitates me anymore. I've become one of those GM's who checks for announcements, transactions, trade offers (which i still need to get to Dan, I didnt forget) and then quietly leaves. It's not worth my time to get into a name calling debate.

Prior post deleted, it was a rambling mess of sleeplessness.
Basically, Jim, calling me a fascist, really doesn't piss me off all that much aside from the negligent misuse of the word. What I DO have a problem with, is when you said I started name-calling. I did not. I cast an aspersion, just as your comment did, deliberately avoiding namecalling but rather turning the tables right back on you. If you cast an aspersion on me, I'm willing to do the same right back. But when you say that I was namecalling (which you did) but that you were not, THAT was what pissed me off because, IMO, it was completely hypocritical. If there's one thing I don't like, it's having words put in my mouth, which seems to be something of a hobby amongst some people (Shawn did a fair bit of it in the Perspective thread). I say plenty of stuff you can get on my back for and I don't have much problem with that, but don't get on it for stuff I didn't say or you think I said or wished I said.
Dammit, this got long again. Ah well...

Mets wrote: Civilitas ... I <3 Civilitas ...

Wrong thread my man! hahaha.

This is why I have 243 unread post threads.

Only 243?

Traffic on the board sucks.