Fine, we can ignore my fourth round thread and stay in this one. Bastards.

Quote Originally Posted by Psy
When it comes to Eyes on Each Other, however, you are a complete and utter bell end. You incessantly argue pointless and inane things endlessly. I am convinced that although outwardly you may appear like it is not a big deal and you are trolling, deep down inside you are a stubborn son of a bitch and genuinely want to crush your e-opponents into the dust. I thus have a fear that if you were in the staff forum, you would endlessly drag out debates and make the staff dither and not do anything. What say you?
May I ask what you consider "pointless and inane" that I argue in EoEO? Because I can be very uncompromising on certain passionate issues of mine, which I personally consider of great significance. Most of which you're probably familiar with, such as religion/atheism, criminal justice, free speech, science, etc. As The Newsroom likes to say, there are not two equal sides to every story, and against certain arguments (like "all cops are great people; we should just give them a break"), I will not pretend there are. I do not throw my atheism, for example, randomly in everyone's face, but if there's a thread on a relevant issue for public discussion, I think it's important to discuss it. I think Huxley and I generally have pretty similar attitudes on this issue.

That being said, I'm aware that historically I've had a problem with letting these sorts of arguments go, even once they're beyond hopeless. That actually has something I have consciously tried to change over the past few years, and I think I've done a pretty decent job, at least from my perspective. There have been several less-than-rational people in certain EoEO threads, such as the police brutality thread, that I just gave up on and stopped posting responses. I'll say my piece, but I don't want to sit there repeating myself over and over.

Now, unless you want to start talking about how great Obama is on civil liberties issues in staff, I just don't see this as an issue. My posts in the B^3 forum and in mock-staff discussions of this and the last competition are much more representative of my actual interactions on forum issues. BoB has worked with me on tGA and other projects, admittedly fairly long ago, but I don't remember being much different. I care about EoFF, but I learned long ago from the 2005 prank that it's not worth the emotional investment to get worked up over.

Quote Originally Posted by Psy
You may also recall a certain TOP SECRET SHAMEFUL FORUM that Eyes on FF used to possess. You held its existence over the staff and quite gleefully publicised its existence. I do not believe this was out of any attempt at whistleblowing, more just to cause difficulty for the forums staff. There are a lot of TOP SECRET things in the staff forum which nobody would want publicised for the sake of mischief and/or scoring e-political capital. Given your history of blabbing top secret information, why could you be trusted to maintain those secrets?
I think this is a very strange way to characterize the events. I did not intend to "hold anything over" the staff; in fact, the former existence of Eeyore's Corner is, if anything, only an indictment of my staff and not the current one. When I first started discussing it, I was not aware Eeyore's previous existence was a secret at all, and then was given conflicting messages about whether or not it actually could be discussed (with most staff not seeming to care). Then I posted about it in my CK comp blog (originally thinking that only staff could read it), and none of the staff seemed to have a problem. In fact, I thought we had a very informative conversation. As for whistleblowing... why would anyone else have even cared? You seem to be inferring an intent on my part to bring some sort of shame on the current staff that I absolutely did not have; in fact, my whole point was that it wasn't something to be so ashamed of, but understood in context.

As regards to "TOP SECRET" life-or-death info, I'll just say that I take my promises very seriously. I couldn't work as a lawyer-in-training with tons of clients if I didn't. I have gotten quite used to biting my tongue in public, especially when I was doing civil litigation work. And to be honest, I can't even begin to think of a motive where I'd want to "leak" information. I think EoFF has matured and mellowed out quite a bit over the past 7-8 years, and I am just not the same drama hotspot I was in 2004.

Quote Originally Posted by BoB
1. Redirection. Do you think you can handle being on staff? I mean, you always like to have a go at us. Who will you turn to should you be on staff?
I would just yell at Shlup for everything. So basically, what I already do now. And what would I possibly not be able to handle? I am not going to have some sort of meltdown xD (unless it's March and Del's in on it ). Plus, these questions make it obvious that it's you all who's concerned about handling me. As if I was just constantly plotting the ways to make all your lives' miserable. Please, I only do that on Tuesdays.

Anyway, I assume you're referencing my old LJ rants about dealing with certain unnamed people at FG and tGA? Oh, those were the days. As I said earlier, EoFF is a much more mellow place now, and I can't even imagine getting that irritated. If I did, I'd quit in a heartbeat. Dealing with murder cases definitely puts EoFF into perspective.

Quote Originally Posted by BoB
2. Pranks. What would you do if you had to pick between being able to do pranks on staff (and other members) and being on staff?
I would certainly refuse to be on staff then, even absent any desire or plan for any pranks. If I was seriously given that choice, then that wouldn't be a staff or even a forum I would want any part of.

Quote Originally Posted by BoB
3. Serious Business. When arguments get heated and people are getting agitated, how do you go about getting things back in control? Think of this as both within staff and between members in EoEO or whatever.
I like this question, and it's something I've worked on in legal debates. It's too easy for people to talk passed each other using vague language or undefined terms. The first thing to do is narrowly lay out what the points are, so that everyone knows exactly what everyone else is talking about. Then, to rein things in, the important thing is to find some common ground. Maybe it's not even a specific common goal (though that would make things easier), but a common value that they want to achieve, and work from there. Within a generally good-natured staff that's only here because they like EoFF, that really shouldn't be too difficult (I know this sounds a little vague itself, but I can't think of how to articulate it any better without specific examples).

Well, that or I'd make fun of Shlup's saggy boobs.

So considering these are all apparently still issues of concern, I think it's safe to assume the decision's been made to cut me. I look forward to my chance to three-peat in 2014!