Am I the only one here who is actually intrested in the results?

Yes, I think you are. This message board should be renamed "Bryan Time" or something similar and lamer.

No actually he isn.t the only one interested in the results. Why would you even be viewing this page if you don't care. Or were you just interested in diminutive comments that obviously show that they don't like the service of Ticalc. Why are they on it and even viewing the POTM. Ticalc is doing this as a SERVICE and it is not remotely comprable to any other necessitative web pages, like email, this should not take criticism because they are the ones serving for free and they do not need negativly toned attacks about how bad a job they might of done. You(everybody) CAN just easily mention and bring the problem to their attention and not act so arrogant making it seem like your better.

I find it interesting that the most critical people are usually the ones who post first. Now, since all these people hate ticalc.org so much, why do they check the front page so often? Wouldn't it stand to reason that they would stay away from ticalc.org and use one of the other sites?

I myself do not hate ticalc, and have been visiting here for a long time. I consistently visit ticalc and dimTI. I like them both. I don't mind frequent news events either. It just seems as though the staff of ticalc has gotten quite a bloated ego lately, certain members more than others.

Constructive criticism my brother...

Exactly! You're giving a competing site unnecessary page requests just so you can piss off people who attempt to make relevant comments on it. This is the exact kind of behavior I was talking about in the above article.

CompWiz says stuff it!!!

You don't need to be first to reply to the first message.

Did NOBODY here read the stuff under 'Add A Comment'? Take a look:
<snip>
Constructive and relevant comments only; no flames. Especially no posts relating to web site competition.
<snip>
Use clean language: do not swear.
<snip>

Why is everyone screaming about all of this stuff? I would expect stuff like "Oh no, PlainJump 83 was WAY better than Galaxian" or "Yeah, SimCity86 Rules!!!" Calm down!

One thing that has been bothering me as I'm reading/responding to these posts is the severe lack of tolerence that people have for expressing their ideas. I'm not talking about people who post inappropriate content, I'm talking about people who say something like "Bryan, did you ever consider that just MAYBE his comments were not directed at you specifically?" or "Bryan is at a state of petty retaliation at the moment. Ignore his posts of infinite lameness". I believe ticalc.org created this comments feature so that people could express their views freely. But people are critisizing people for posting. It's okay to disagree, but that does not mean that the person who posted is wrong. Even if he is wrong, he still has the right to post it.

At the beginning of the comments to this news article there is a string in which supposedly Bryan Rabeler posted a slightly rude comment under an assumed name. ticalc.org tracked his host and announced that Bryan was in fact the culprit. But did Bryan do anything wrong? Maybe just the fact that Bryan felt he HAD to use an assumed name or else he would be bombarded with critisism should tell you that something is wrong with this scenario.

One more point I'd like to make, in closing. Consider the comment made several posts back, "Remember to always wear your sunscrean. Whatever you do in life, remember, always wear sunscrean." This post has absolutely nothing to do with anything this board is discussing. But not one person responded to it (at the time that I am posting). No one flamed him for expressing his views. So why must we flame people like Bryan Rabler or other people who post in favor or against him simply for posting? It is no crime to express one's views

The reason I posted said comment is that Bryan responded to Nick's statements as if they were directed at him specifically. Quite the contrary, Nick's statements were away from bryan, if anywhere. Bryan is a special case, as he HAS maintained a file archive based site, and done so quite succesfully. I think that Bryan took Nick's comments out of context. I also think that he considers himself the center of the universe.
Very few of the people using this board have dealt with Bryan on administrative issues regularly. I have. I can attest to the ticalc.org staff's complaints in there original news item. In fact, I'm willing to bet that Bryan will respond to this post and tell me that my opinions are unfounded. He also knows that I have logs to back up my opinions. But all that is irrelevant, as I am going to bed.

<< Bryan is a special case, as he HAS maintained a file archive based site, and done so quite succesfully. >>

Well, I'm glad we agree on at least one thing.

<< I think that Bryan took Nick's comments out of context. I also think that he considers himself the center of the universe. >>

You are certainly allowed to state your opinion. However, I don't think of myself as the center of the universe. Stating how you personally feel about a specific individual is probably not very on-topic here.

<< Very few of the people using this board have dealt with Bryan on administrative issues regularly. I have. >>

So your are trying to relate your "oppression" of the chatters in #ti to being administrative? I don't buy that.

<< I can attest to the ticalc.org staff's complaints in there original news item. >>

In their news item, Magnus and others blamed me for causing disruption on IRC, as well as giving ticalc.org a bad name. Well, many of the current owners in #ti repeatedly ban people who they think are "newbies" and "lamers". Of course, when I was on the ticalc.org staff, all this got unfairly blamed on me.

<< In fact, I'm willing to bet that Bryan will respond to this post and tell me that my opinions are unfounded. >>

You are right.

<< He also knows that I have logs to back up my opinions. >>

You are also right. But those logs that you showed me are taken out of context. They were months ago and under totally different circumstances. And I was also being sarcastic to make my point.

CompWiz been baned 3 times (Compwiz's most famous ban was as weedsmkr) (I always get back in wityhin 5 min what idiots) so you new owners of #ti beware cause CompWiz shall find a way to take you down

Who is this guy?

I'm going to give this thread _one_ comment on _one_ section. I do not want to be a part of the general flame-throwing here, but there is one thing I would like to make clear to both Bryan and all others.

<<In their news item, Magnus and others blamed me for causing disruption on IRC, as well as giving ticalc.org a bad name. Well, many of the current owners in #ti repeatedly ban people who they think are "newbies" and "lamers". Of course, when I was on the ticalc.org staff, all this got unfairly blamed on me. >>

No Bryan, this is clearly a misunderstanding. Maybe we were not clear enough, or maybe you misunderstood. Whichever doesn't matter.
You were _not_ blamed for all this. However, we _did_, and still do, place a higher demand on a member of our staff. What the other people did was not associated with our site, since they were not members of our staff. You were, and thus the things _you_ did was often interpreted as actions of our staff. You were blamed for _these_ incidents, not for what the other people did.

I thought we had explained this clearly in the many mails we have exchanged after these incidents. Clearly, we had not. Should you require further celarification, please mail me about it, and we'll spare the rest of the readers.

Perhaps you should refer to your earlier statements in the article "Our side of the story"...

<< Over the time he has been on our staff, we have also received a large number of complaints about his behaviour on the IRC. Channel-takeovers and generally bad behaviour against newbies have been the major reasons. When you are a staffmember of a TI site, whatever you do in the TI related IRC channels will be associated with the site you work for, and this is not what we wanted. >>

I challenge you to find one "newbie" that I have been mean to. You won't find one. Most of the time, these "newbies" are treated badly in #ti, and since people associate this site with that chat room, they naturally assume that ticalc.org staff members are in charge, which they are not.

I think you need to retract your previous statement.

Bryan, note how Magnus asked you to email him and spare the rest of the readers.

Sorry, I can't prove that. Why not? Because I have not kept the mails I have received. And I certainly haven't kept the mails that some others have received.
But I will _not_ retract a true statement.

So you have no proof. How many times have you been on IRC in the past, oh, two years? Maybe half a dozen times at the most. I am generally on at least once a day. I don't see how you can be so sure of what you are saying, since you have relatively little experience in #ti.

Correct, i have no proof. The argument is based on that we received _many_ (yes, a relative value. I know. )complaints about it.
One complaint, or a couple, can definitly be credited to the fact that you were present in #ti way more than anybody else on the staff. But not that many.

Complaints about what? Just because I was in the chat room more than everyone on the staff combined doesn't mean I did anything wrong.

I have been baned a number of times from #ti never once by bryan "snowball" but i remember asking for help from all the ops to unban me most laughed and that included snowball

On the contrary, Bryan, those logs are a perfect summation of how you consistently overreact about petty things.
<Snowball> OH IT'S ONLY IRC
<Snowball> IT'S ONLY LIFE
<Snowball> WHO CARES?!?!?!?!?!(&#!
Or something to that effect.
--
BlueCalx

Those comments were in response to ldspartan's comments on the stats on IRC, which were messed up at the time. ldspartan said something like "Its only stats, who cares? Get a life." And so my comments were merely sarcasism to prove a point. Geeze, don't take everything so seriously.

Everyone has said stupid things on IRC that have sounded differently from what they meant to say. Just read quotes.txt and you'll find a good deal of the time people are saying things that come out differently than what the person meant to say. Misquoting happens all the time. So you can't "prove" something by what someone says on IRC.

If you feel so strongly about posting whatever you feel and it's their right to do it, then why, just why did ticalc.org delete 100 msg's under the ti-94 message board? Hmmm...

I agree with the above, but it is not Adam's fault that ticalc felt the need to heavily censor its comments, allowing only those they deemed "appropriate".

Our news articles are 'censored' for posts that break the guidelines for posting. These guidelines are for reading before you post _anything_.
If anything has been removed that should not have been, according to these guidelines, I'd urge you to contact somebody on the staff. If you are afraid of bias, you might want to try more than one person, to make sure you don't get the one that actually did the deletion.

I commented on the TI-94 and gave several reasons why it may be a hoax. Why was it deleted?

There are many possibilities. One is it could have had swears or broke the guideliness. If not, it could have been a response to a comment that didn't fit the guidelines. In that case, when the one that didn't fit the guidelines was deleted so was yours, because it was a child node of the parent (the inappropriate).

It had no swears and was a new post, not a reply.

Haven't responded yet, eh? I dare you to respond to this (especially Kirk)!
I think Kirk is just afraid of criticism. Here is basically what I said:
I think this is a hoax. It was announced just after April Fools day, so it would be a good way for ticalc to cover their butt after that lame-o one about the POTM. Kirk also says it would take it beyond the TI-89. This is very untrue!!!
I also said a few more reasons that I forget. So why was it deleted? Once again, I dare you to respond, Kirk.

I agree with you completely. Although I wasn't really following the TI-94 thread, I don't think that there is much reason to erase 100 messages. I think you may have misinterpretted the URL I provided, www.calc.org as www.ticalc.org. I do not work at this site, I work at a different one.

So Ti-calc staff deletes <emphasis> OFF-TOPIC <unemphasis> posts, or ones that aren't <even more emphasis> CONSTRUCTIVE <unemphasis>? Fascinating. Why, then, hasn't this entire deity-condemnned (I cannot say the swear word for fear of this relevant post being banned.) thread been killed? I'm curious.
--Piloter