Jump to content

Flagging reviewed by human or not? The evasiveness continues...


Josh Susanto
 Share

You are about to reply to a thread that has been inactive for 4613 days.

Please take a moment to consider if this thread is worth bumping.

Recommended Posts

Not sure why you're asking me, told you I wasn't wearing that particular hat.

All I can do is offer a common sense-ism there as well. I can understand them not taking the stance of suggesting categories. Going down that road would lead to having to offer that as a service to everyone, lest they be accused of favoritism, create more work, etc.

I'd said that I wasn't sure, but thought they were pretty firm on that.

I can see that it also could lead to one Linden saying it fits here and another Linden acting on a flagging unaware and creating a bigger mess  Agreed that categories need more fine tuning, you may have missed that, so at times we know it can get subjective until that's worked out a bit more.

So, we could talk about improving that overall, or continue nitpicking over a single support incident and make martyrs. Would like my turn as a martyr though, haven't worn that particular hat yet and I hear it has its perks.

Who knows, he may get an exception yet. Not a Linden so can't tell you how that will play out. Perhaps Toy is right and LL actually likes this style of feedback.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Dartagan Shepherd wrote:

Not sure why you're asking me, told you I wasn't wearing that particular hat.

All I can do is offer a common sense-ism there as well. I can understand them not taking the stance of suggesting categories. Going down that road would lead to having to offer that as a service to everyone, lest they be accused of favoritism, create more work, etc.

I'd said that I wasn't sure, but thought they were pretty firm on that.

I can see that it also could lead to one Linden saying it fits here and another Linden acting on a flagging unaware and creating a bigger mess  Agreed that categories need more fine tuning, you may have missed that, so at times we know it can get subjective until that's worked out a bit more.

So, we could talk about improving that overall, or continue nitpicking over a single support incident and make martyrs. Would like my turn as a martyr though, haven't worn that particular hat yet and I hear it has its perks.

Who knows, he may get an exception yet. Not a Linden so can't tell you how that will play out. Perhaps Toy is right and LL actually likes this style of feedback.

Okay, now that's a sensible reply. But do you really see what's missing from this one yet was present in your original reply to Josh? All the negative aspersions, insinuations and denigrating side-remarks.

All you need to do is state what you stated above and leave the personal characterizations out .. and your posts will be worth reading.

Thank you Dart.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Might help to dig into the backstory here spread over a few threads if that's at all interesting. It was about intentionally manufacturing a conspiracy to expose Lindens for not being honest. Feeling a bit foolish for trying to lend some help, along with other Merchants who tried. No payoff there, it's about exposing lies of the evil empire rather than a conversation.

Strange to me, but so be it.

Never opposed to sincerity and someone personally affected by an issue, there's rarely an argument to make. Unfortunately as an adult, whether something is sincere or drama is a call that I have to make for myself.

Some residual snark mixed in with trying to make a case for improved communication on BOTH sides. Low personal tolerance for games and the blame and shame thing. Tear that apart as you will, chalk it up to opinion, but it gets me through life, keeps me honest and makes me money.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Dartagan Shepherd wrote:

[..] It was about intentionally manufacturing a conspiracy to expose Lindens for not being honest. [..] 

Here is where my method differs radically from yours.

The "back story" started some time back .. further than just a few recent threads. It started with asking a direct question about a specific incident. That question was not answered directly, but was instead answered with an indirect and unclear .. and contradictory ... bit of boiler plate text.

And that's where I hang the initial "fault" in the process. A direct honest question deserves a direct honest answer. Even if the direct honest answer is "we don't know why" or even "oops sorry", it still deserves to be addressed professionally.

However, you hang the initial "fault" at Josh's follow on posts in which he has employed many different tactics to attempt to get some sort of honesty in the reply.

My point is, Josh's conspiratorial posts would not have been needed had the initial question been handled properly. It was not.

I cannot in good conscience fault Josh for attempting to outmaneuver LL into admitting their mistake. It is quite understandable that lacking a direct answer that rings of honesty, he has employed various means to try and twist the answer loose. Had a direct answer been given from the very first post, none of this would ever have come to pass.

I prefer to dig into an issue to find the true root cause. Fixing the broken part is the only way to repair the system. However fixing only those parts you don't particularly like will not accomplish a successful outcome.

I am happy for you that you are making money shifting blame onto others, but I am also happy that your source of income has no relationship to my purse whatsoever.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Both my character and what people call common sense are irrelevant here, as is my gut.

My gut still tells me to prefer to imagine that there is no conspiracy, but trusting my gut hasn't worked out so well, so far, in this case.

I have applied the scientific process and I have constructed a plausible theory that is internally consitent, falsifiable any time that LL choses to falsify it, and is consistent with observable data.

If mine were the only theory, there would be no dispute over it (not necessarily a better scenario, scientifically speaking), because there would be no competing theory; the correct rebuttal to a theory always being either actual disproof (not present here) or a different theory with greater predictive utility (also not present).

But I'm not the only theorist here. All merchants are each operating according to some kind of theory, whether stated or unstated, conscious or unconscious. And most of them seem to love their theories way more than I love my own, if you test them. That's why they're so often throwing good money after bad behind unstated theories which LL and its aplogist lapdogs at least tacitly help them to construct and maintain.

The unstated core theory adhered to by my critic here, that there simply is no conspiracy, lacks the predictive utility of my own theory. That is: whether or not there is a conspiracy, assuming that there is one has made it easier for me to anticipate Linden behavior than it was when I chose to assume that there was no conspiracy.

We are all free to deny the existence of things like gravity, magnetism and atomic decay, but such claims come not merely with an intellectual evidentiary burden, but also with very serious practical consequences, should we choose to apply (or continue to apply) our denial in real terms.

Whether or not there is a conspiracy, there are some very predictable systemic consequences to whatever is happening which are appreciably the same as those of a conspiracy. There is also a pattern of communication style reasonably associable with conspiratorial involvement, including vague denials, clumsy evasions, unexplained silence and a desperate shifting of blame from the accused to the accuser.

I might ask: if this scenario does not meet your criteria for reasonable suspicion of conspiracy, what would meet your criteria?

If nothing would, then you have no criteria. If that's the case, then your criticism of me as a conspiracy theorist boils down not to the argument that I prefer to perceive a conspiracy where the evidence does not warrant such, but simply that I'm even capable of perceiving one, even if it actually exists; that is: that there is no conspiracy because a conspiracy is not possible, regardless of what may be observed.

How is what is being said here different from that?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are about to reply to a thread that has been inactive for 4613 days.

Please take a moment to consider if this thread is worth bumping.

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...