Lol I had the same feeling when I saw your Cawk avatar, Edvard. Honestly my first thought was that your account was hacked.
Turncoat makes excellent points, echoed by many people. QuietBeef's point is rather concise and accurate: Inq thrives off of inaction. I'd add that when Inquirer needs to make argument falling outside of his character, e.g. now, MissCommunication or SensitiveSoul come to supplement his posts. Mmmhmm. Nobody would ever suspect Inq of such trickery, it'd be so outside his character. If he didn't have so many other accounts.
But I'm surprised Inq takes this seriously, did TC get to him? That's a first! Fine, let me take my tongue off my cheek for a second then, I'm bored anyway.
Inquirer, do I have any examples?
You trashed BR. You call it debate, but you knew you were really just inciting people to turn on him. Because he was easy prey and you perceived him as less intelligent than you (as Turncoat points out). And let's face it, you enjoyed it.
You pretended to be Luna's bumchum. When we turned on her, you turned on her. You didn't even try to justify yourself. You didn't take a clear side, but your actions made it obvious. No motivation, no justification. Luna was left wondering why her BFF left her alone in the trash bin. To the last moment, she was pleading for some sort of rapport from you "oh Inq will be a good admin on the new forum, please be me my only friend," while you and companions plotted to destroy her 5+ years of life work. Now that's evil!
This is echoed by Turncoat: "You were willing to oppose authority, and you did it in such a way that it was hush-hush instead of above board like Edvard would have done." The end outcome was clearly in your favour.
You tried to turn SensitiveSoul against me -- and it worked fantastically. Her character went ballistic on me because you incited her to. You kept whispering to her I was being unfair and didn't reciprocate. Then you kept insinuating that she's insecure and weak by telling me I've taken advantage of her "even though I knew that she had health problems and was afraid to talk." You played that to a tit.
I never thought so little of Sensy. Our friendship was sacred, and you ruined it. And before you mislead people by your usual discredit-BR reply "you did that to yourself", you know that's not really true.
All of this is echoed here. You thrive off people you perceive to be unintelligent, and cause conflict indirectly. When someone directly calls you out, you deflect them by pretending you were never serious. You see a place where you can input yourself with no risk involved to yourself, and you take the stab. By your own words, even.
Like Edvard says, you shouldn't be ignored and you're no wallflower. You cause way more trouble than most people are led to believe. As Ed says, you've done a few good things, too, I can't really argue with that. It doesn't excuse the under-the-hood manipulation.
But I'll forgive you if you make an apology to myself and all the people you hurt. Honestly, you've caused me to lose sleep, feel stressed out and taken advantage of. It's time to apologize and admit your faults, Inq. Make a thread.
Hey Legga, I think you're just Inquirer trying to find out who's harbouring ill-feelings towards him. Is it not strange how you appear from time to time, periodically, just to trash-talk him?
It makes perfect sense for Inq to do that posing as you. This is his way of keeping tabs on his enemies! I have uncovered you, Legga, or actually Inq! Confess now!
Lol I had the same feeling when I saw your Cawk avatar, Edvard. Honestly my first thought was that your account was hacked.
Turncoat makes excellent points, echoed by many people. QuietBeef's point is rather concise and accurate: Inq thrives off of inaction. I'd add that when Inquirer needs to make argument falling outside of his character, e.g. now, MissCommunication or SensitiveSoul come to supplement his posts. Mmmhmm. Nobody would ever suspect Inq of such trickery, it'd be so outside his character. If he didn't have so many other accounts.
But I'm surprised Inq takes this seriously, did TC get to him? That's a first! Fine, let me take my tongue off my cheek for a second then, I'm bored anyway.
Inquirer, do I have any examples?
You trashed BR. You call it debate, but you knew you were really just inciting people to turn on him. Because he was easy prey and you perceived him as less intelligent than you (as Turncoat points out). And let's face it, you enjoyed it.
You pretended to be Luna's bumchum. When we turned on her, you turned on her. You didn't even try to justify yourself. You didn't take a clear side, but your actions made it obvious. No motivation, no justification. Luna was left wondering why her BFF left her alone in the trash bin. To the last moment, she was pleading for some sort of rapport from you "oh Inq will be a good admin on the new forum, please be me my only friend," while you and companions plotted to destroy her 5+ years of life work. Now that's evil!
This is echoed by Turncoat: "You were willing to oppose authority, and you did it in such a way that it was hush-hush instead of above board like Edvard would have done." The end outcome was clearly in your favour.
You tried to turn SensitiveSoul against me -- and it worked fantastically. Her character went ballistic on me because you incited her to. You kept whispering to her I was being unfair and didn't reciprocate. Then you kept insinuating that she's insecure and weak by telling me I've taken advantage of her "even though I knew that she had health problems and was afraid to talk." You played that to a tit.
I never thought so little of Sensy. Our friendship was sacred, and you ruined it. And before you mislead people by your usual discredit-BR reply "you did that to yourself", you know that's not really true.
All of this is echoed here. You thrive off people you perceive to be unintelligent, and cause conflict indirectly. When someone directly calls you out, you deflect them by pretending you were never serious. You see a place where you can input yourself with no risk involved to yourself, and you take the stab. By your own words, even.
Like Edvard says, you shouldn't be ignored and you're no wallflower. You cause way more trouble than most people are led to believe. As Ed says, you've done a few good things, too, I can't really argue with that. It doesn't excuse the under-the-hood manipulation.
But I'll forgive you if you make an apology to myself and all the people you hurt. Honestly, you've caused me to lose sleep, feel stressed out and taken advantage of. It's time to apologize and admit your faults, Inq. Make a thread.
I hate to say this but there's some bell that kind of resonates here. Is this the first time Legga has justified his accusations?
@V for Vendetta: Lmfao, to be Inq or not to be? That is the question. What is soylent green, erm, Inq, and what does he stand for? What does he sound like? What does he smell like? I'm too upstanding and honest to play those type of games.
@Sensy: Yes.
Oh god you're taking it seriously...
D:
(I'm skipping to those I find the most interesting, but feel free to poke me with those I neglect if you want to continue any of them as well)
You were willing to oppose authority, and you did it in such a way that it was hush-hush instead of above board like Edvard would have done.
Yes, because what was the point in making a scene about how Luna indiscriminately banned people? I hoped she'd calm down if given time.
Do you think Luna would've rolled up her sleeves and fixed the issues plaguing us if I hadn't?
She'd probably have gone for the next likely person to accept the role, but you were a big part of people not going after Luna to actually fix the real problem.
Possibly, but it's also possible they would've just left for Discord a couple of months early instead. I also do think that the combination of having shown ourselves willing to be tough on CP coupled with the rep system worked pretty well.
I owned you guys in the Gun Control topic lol. But you're right that I tend to avoid topics that interest me less and that I know less about (a shocker!).
Owned what, as it certainly wasn't owning a victory or owning up to your debilitating loss.
I showed a clear correlation between number of guns and number of gun deaths in a society and all you and Syst could muster in return was "but the US is different!".
You insist it be on your terms, that's part of your inflexibility.
Sometimes it is just inflexibility, yes, but a lot of other times I do think 'my' terms are closer to what's accepted as standard or fair.
You used to type out tomes of good data, now you can barely type a "lol".
As others began to take the place less seriously and stopped trying as hard, you fell into it.
I guess. The evolution of this place has made me less interested in putting in the effort. Being busier in real life is also a contributing factor.
It lets you believe that others are unlike you because they are abnormal, and allows you to ignore your own abnormalities.
It's projectionary in nature.
I don't think I'm a 100% normal, few people are, and I've mentioned several times what I think is abnormal about myself (less social, bit more emotionally muted, more risk-averse, less flexible etc.). What this comes down to, I feel, is that you believe people are fundamentally less stable than I believe them to be and thus we consider "normal" to be on different places on the scale.
I don't think you recognize the shift between the two entirely consciously. There's been points where I really wanted you to understand how serious something was, but you practically devolved into giggly hysterics.
It "being a game" is how I think you handle it.
Any examples of when I've devolved into giggly hysterics or not understood the gravity of a situation?
I think you've got "it being a game" mixed up. I don't generally like direct confrontation, so when I get into it it's because I saw it as a game from the start. Not the other way around. BR is a perfect example of that, where I hit back at him because I found his antagonistic style to be engaging (as a game) but eventually stopped because it became clear to me that this was more than just a game for him.
