Talk:Club Penguin Fanon:Gaming the system

Wiki-lawyer and fillibuster MUST BE LEGAL
propositions and such... classified as such? should they be punished? time-wasting, it's not like you can ban it. consensus is debate. if the greater good is at stake. a rule in GTS, I exempt myself from it. and conversation. the one obstacle he can't jump over. chamber back with my rants and series of tubes. shut me up? that I can't leave without death. cases, ZK take this wiki too seriously.
 * 1) x [16:31]  Explorer, you're the mster of wiki-lawyer.
 * 2) x [16:31] ... It does, actually. You knocked Sheepman for a loop with that, and so did Bugzy.
 * 3) x [16:31] ... Bugzy used wiki-lawyer without Latin.
 * 4) x [16:31]  Because no one gets ad hominem or formal fallacies or hypothetical
 * 1) x [16:31]  He knew what straw man was, he just din't say straw man.
 * 2) x [16:32]  Plus, no one here GETS the concept.
 * 3) x [16:32]  Again, Bugzy did the same, but with common English.
 * 4) x [16:32]  They need it to be explained in baby terms.
 * 5) x [16:32]  Hello! I do!
 * 6) x [16:32]  Fine.
 * 7) x [16:32]  Well, that doesn't mean he should ban it.
 * 8) x [16:32]  But don't you think TLDR wiki lawyering wouldn't actually be
 * 1) x [16:32]  Just because some people are better writers than others...
 * 1) x [16:32] ... It is, according to "CPFW is not a court of law".
 * 2) x [16:33]  If an argument is understandable and meaningful and not
 * 1) x [16:33]  Any use of advanced arguments would be wiki-lawyer, as
 * 1) x [16:33] ... He can and he does.
 * 2) x [16:33]  Advanced arguments can be broken down.
 * 3) x [16:33]  Explorer, if he's not after you, truly, he is after me.
 * 4) x [16:33] ... How can you not see that fillibustering is specifically directed at me.
 * 5) x [16:34] ... He knows that I use it to sway the masses.
 * 6) x [16:34] ... My rant, he says, makes them bow and "yes sir, yes sir, three bags full".
 * 7) x [16:34]  Meh. I won't get involved with that part.
 * 8) x [16:34] <MobileShroom> He also knows my almighty mastering of fear-mongering.
 * 9) x [16:34] ... He is specifically targeting me wtih fillibuster.
 * 10) x [16:35] ... ...-and all my arguments to support it is wiki-lawyer.
 * 11) x [16:35] <Sheepman> back
 * 12) x [16:35] <Explorer 767> TS, isn't that really your problem?
 * 13) x [16:35] <MobileShroom> It's a two-punch to cripple me.
 * 14) x [16:35] <Explorer 767> And not mine?
 * 15) x [16:35] <MobileShroom> Well, ZK won't ever listen to me.
 * 16) x [16:35] ... My opinion is not equal on consensus, it's lower, because I hate consensus.
 * 17) x [16:35] ... This is why I'm using the Ignore Clause.
 * 18) x [16:36] <EternalMagma> Ugh.
 * 19) x [16:36] <MobileShroom> Common sense dictates, he claims, that it can be ignored
 * 1) x [16:36] <Explorer 767> Isn't wiki-lawyering treating the place like a courthouse?
 * 2) x [16:36] ... That doesn't mean not being able to argue.
 * 3) x [16:36] <Sheepman> Oh. I think I should just turn around and leave...
 * 4) x [16:36] <MobileShroom> Therefore, because the only way I can work is by breaking
 * 1) x [16:36] <Sheepman> Could go play JC2
 * 2) x [16:36] <MobileShroom> Explorer, I always have and always will see debate like a courthouse.
 * 3) x [16:37] ... I always have and always will speak in elevated and advanced speeches.
 * 4) x [16:37] ... IT'S WHO I AM.
 * 5) x [16:37] <Explorer 767> ....TS, this is seriously too much to deal with.
 * 6) x [16:37] <MobileShroom> ZK isn't making an anti-filibuster law to help consensus...
 * 7) x [16:37] <Sheepman> And I will always be commie!
 * 8) x [16:37] <Explorer 767> I can't straddle sides forever.
 * 9) x [16:37] <MobileShroom> I'm the only man who uses it, so he's banning me alone.
 * 10) x [16:38] <EternalMagma> And now we descend into the madness of useless arguments
 * 1) x [16:38] <Explorer 767> I'm not going to get involved with this.
 * 2) x [16:39] <MobileShroom> Explorer, it's simple.
 * 3) x [16:39] ... Those two rules invalidate my opinion.
 * 4) x [16:39] ... As I am only capable of fillibuster... my rants are ignored.
 * 5) x [16:39] ... Which allows all others to overtake my consensus...
 * 6) x [16:39] <Sheepman> Finally!
 * 7) x [16:39] <MobileShroom> ...-and prevents me from holding back any change.
 * 8) x [16:39] <EternalMagma> It's never simple.
 * 9) x [16:39] ... Not with you.
 * 10) x [16:40] <MobileShroom> ZK is a genius beyond comprehension; he knows I am
 * 1) x [16:40] <EternalMagma> he can just walk around you
 * 2) x [16:40] ... I thought that'd be obvious
 * 3) x [16:40] <MobileShroom> I am the ninety year old Senator who holds the whole
 * 1) x [16:41] ... The whole chamber hates me, but I fillibuster onwards...
 * 2) x [16:41] <Sheepman> I am the 20 year old commie!
 * 3) x [16:41] <MobileShroom> ...so they ban fillibuster. What else could they do to
 * 1) x [16:42] <Sheepman> Ban you?
 * 2) x [16:42] <MobileShroom> No, I'm so entrenched in my seat by my constituants
 * 1) x [16:42] ... My voters love me and pretty much guarentee life teure.
 * 2) x [16:42] ... Pardon, tenure.
 * 3) x [16:43] <MobileShroom> .......
 * 4) x [16:43] ... (It's a metaphor, MM.)
 * 5) x [16:43] <Explorer 767> I'm gonna work on those examples you requested.
 * 6) x [16:43] <MobileShroom> (The voters represent my position.)
 * 7) x [16:43] ... Okay.
 * 8) x [16:43] <EternalMagma> I never said it wasn't a metaphor.
 * 9) x [16:43] <Explorer 767> When Antican's done... heh heh.
 * 10) x [16:43] ... We'll be able to talk secretly. In private.
 * 11) x [16:44] <EternalMagma> I just can't believe it's the exact same thing over and over.
 * 12) x [16:44] <Explorer 767> And no one will know what we're saying...
 * 13) x [16:44] <MobileShroom> Who's this "we"? I can't speak Antican.
 * 14) x [16:44] ... I can't even read what you were writing.
 * 15) x [16:44] <EternalMagma> besides, I've always believed that you, Explorer and in some
 * 1) x [16:44] <MobileShroom> THIS IS SERIOUS BUSINESS.

<BR /> -TurtleShroom, martyred