The Flat Earth Society
The Flat Earth Society => Suggestions & Concerns => Topic started by: cmdshft on December 12, 2008, 09:44:08 AM
-
I am making this thread the official thread to discuss any concerns you may have. By 'concerns', we mean issues with your profile, issues with other users, disputes over moderation, or any other kind of complaint, grievence or problem you may have. All new threads regarding any issue on the forums will be redirected here, and either simply merged to this one or locked, it's up to the mod who decides to deal with it.
The rules for this thread are simple:
- No flaming. ANY FLAME POSTS will be deleted and the offender will be dealt with at the discretion of the staff.
- Intelligent posting only. Posts that consist of "tl;dr", "lol", etc will be deleted.
- Common Sense is a must. Follow the usual rules as well. Don't be stupid.
-
Thank you, Hara. This thread will be great for posting any questions or concerns regarding any actions of the mods. Keep the bashing out and you have a place where people can discuss and come to an understanding with one another.
-
If you're going to do the right thing, be sure not to admit to it. Otherwise, everyone will hate you.
-
So here's what I'd like to see happen:
Mods being a little less strict about the rules. For as far back as I remember, General Discussion has been for serious random discussion, Everything Else was for random shit, and Complete Nonsense was for stupid stuff that didn't belong anywhere else. General Discussion has never been about Flat Earth, that's what Debate and Discussion is for, really.
Also, members should stop trolling. The forums are shitted up already, and are dying. Spend a little more time in the Debate forums, respond to noobish questions, maybe even start your own FE debate.
Bring the forums back to life, guys. Old FES FTW.
-
Thank you, Hara. This thread will be great for posting any questions or concerns regarding any actions of the mods. Keep the bashing out and you have a place where people can discuss and come to an understanding with one another.
And on that very issue, seeing as I was unable to respond to Hara's last post, he will of course take back what he said in this post (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=25471.msg565850#msg565850), now that it's clear that I wasn't criticising his punishment of Vauxhall. I'm sure he'll also acknowledge that I can in fact read, and that given I've been at these forums nearly twice as long as him and yet have a third of his post count, I satisfy the criteria for lurking as well.
You know, just to clear the air.
-
If you're going to do the right thing, be sure not to admit to it. Otherwise, everyone will hate you.
You stole my quote you son of a bitch!
But yes, Hara, what T.T (allegedly) said.
-
Thank you, Hara. This thread will be great for posting any questions or concerns regarding any actions of the mods. Keep the bashing out and you have a place where people can discuss and come to an understanding with one another.
And on that very issue, seeing as I was unable to respond to Hara's last post, he will of course take back what he said in this post (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=25471.msg565850#msg565850), now that it's clear that I wasn't criticising his punishment of Vauxhall. I'm sure he'll also acknowledge that I can in fact read, and that given I've been at these forums nearly twice as long as him and yet have a third of his post count, I satisfy the criteria for lurking as well.
You know, just to clear the air.
Sure.
So here's what I'd like to see happen:
Mods being a little less strict about the rules. For as far back as I remember, General Discussion has been for serious random discussion, Everything Else was for random shit, and Complete Nonsense was for stupid stuff that didn't belong anywhere else. General Discussion has never been about Flat Earth, that's what Debate and Discussion is for, really.
The strictness is to make sure the rules are observed for a while, there are still stragglers, and until it's under control, we have to keep up on it as tight as we can. We'll probably lax up a bit, but when we do, we're hoping it wont be taken advantage of. Also, Daniel wanted to change around what each forum is designed for. I'm hoping he'll alter the sub-descriptions to fit now. We wont prune out the old threads, but any new threads should follow suite with what is in the revised rules.
If you're going to do the right thing, be sure not to admit to it. Otherwise, everyone will hate you.
You stole my quote you son of a bitch!
But yes, Hara, what T.T (allegedly) said.
So it's better for me to not take responsibility publicly for my actions? That's not really my style, but ok.
-
Most excellent.
-
If you're going to do the right thing, be sure not to admit to it. Otherwise, everyone will hate you.
You stole my quote you son of a bitch!
I was going to give you the credit, but then I thought better.
-
If you're going to do the right thing, be sure not to admit to it. Otherwise, everyone will hate you.
You stole my quote you son of a bitch!
I was going to give you the credit, but then I thought better.
Well fair enough, carry on then.
-
So here's what I'd like to see happen:
Mods being a little less strict about the rules. For as far back as I remember, General Discussion has been for serious random discussion, Everything Else was for random shit, and Complete Nonsense was for stupid stuff that didn't belong anywhere else. General Discussion has never been about Flat Earth, that's what Debate and Discussion is for, really.
The strictness is to make sure the rules are observed for a while, there are still stragglers, and until it's under control, we have to keep up on it as tight as we can. We'll probably lax up a bit, but when we do, we're hoping it wont be taken advantage of. Also, Daniel wanted to change around what each forum is designed for. I'm hoping he'll alter the sub-descriptions to fit now. We wont prune out the old threads, but any new threads should follow suite with what is in the revised rules.
All right, but can we at least rename General Discussion to something like Flat Earth Discussion and move it up with the other Flat Earth stuff.
And maybe move Everything Else to the top of the second list, that'd be nice too.
-
So it's better for me to not take responsibility publicly for my actions? That's not really my style, but ok.
We were actually commending you. You forget that not all of us are against the FES administration.
-
So it's better for me to not take responsibility publicly for my actions? That's not really my style, but ok.
We were actually commending you. You forget that not all of us are against the FES administration.
QFT, we were trying to say that you're getting bad press for doing what needs to be done.
-
All right, but can we at least rename General Discussion to something like Flat Earth Discussion and move it up with the other Flat Earth stuff.
And maybe move Everything Else to the top of the second list, that'd be nice too.
Maybe move General Discussion as it is right into the FE part of the board? That might clear things up a bit and make it more obvious that it's for things like "hey, look at the article BBC wrote about FES" and the like, no?
So it's better for me to not take responsibility publicly for my actions? That's not really my style, but ok.
We were actually commending you. You forget that not all of us are against the FES administration.
QFT, we were trying to say that you're getting bad press for doing what needs to be done.
Kids don't like play pens.
-
Indeed they don't, but nobody likes a cluster-fuck.
-
So here's what I'd like to see happen:
Mods being a little less strict about the rules. For as far back as I remember, General Discussion has been for serious random discussion, Everything Else was for random shit, and Complete Nonsense was for stupid stuff that didn't belong anywhere else. General Discussion has never been about Flat Earth, that's what Debate and Discussion is for, really.
The strictness is to make sure the rules are observed for a while, there are still stragglers, and until it's under control, we have to keep up on it as tight as we can. We'll probably lax up a bit, but when we do, we're hoping it wont be taken advantage of. Also, Daniel wanted to change around what each forum is designed for. I'm hoping he'll alter the sub-descriptions to fit now. We wont prune out the old threads, but any new threads should follow suite with what is in the revised rules.
All right, but can we at least rename General Discussion to something like Flat Earth Discussion and move it up with the other Flat Earth stuff.
And maybe move Everything Else to the top of the second list, that'd be nice too.
A fair request but one that requires an Admin to do, so it may not get done immediatly
An explanatory
Cinlef
-
Can we have an option to turn off the time logged in thing? I'm over 24 days now, and it's depressing to look at.
-
OK, here is something that has really disturbed me. As I was going through the forums, I came across some new mods. One I saw was Raist, which is fine, because he is smart and can contribute well to conversations and debates. The other though, was very difficult to comprehend. I have yet to see a productive post from Dead Kangaroo and all I have seen is spam. This made me think of something. Do you remember that mod named Robosteve? Ya, that guy, the one that was de-modded recently for his spam. So in conclusion, I was wondering, why all the hypocrisy all of a sudden with these anti spam laws but then modding a non productive poster, right after someone was demodded for spamming. Please, enlighten me with the reasoning behind this madness.
-
DK doesn't spam in the sense that Robosteve does. He also posts sensibly, in the right forums. I've seen plenty of good posts from him, and I am assuming that Daniel also did otherwise he wouldn't have asked him. He has promised to cut back on any spam and curb any slight attitude, and I personally also feel he'd make a great mod and wont use the spot to spam tl;dr and whatnot, like a former team member did.
As long as the job is done, and done well, that's all that really matters, right?
-
Seriously, this is getting very annoying. NO ONE IS POSTING IN NORMAL FUCKING SUB-FORUMS!!!!!! ITS ALL IN COMPLETE NONSENSE AND ANGRY RANTING. IS THIS WHAT YOU WANTED WHEN YOU CHANGED THE FUCKING RULES AND WENT APESHIT WITH ALL THE FUCKING MOD SHIT!!! COME ON. AND THEN ALL THE NORMAL FUCKING THREADS ARE STILL BEING SPAMMED AND BY MODS NONTHELESS. WTF IS THIS SHIT. GREAT FUCKING FORUM FIX UP!!!!!! That is all.
-
Barmey after shocks... it should die down eventually.
-
Seriously, this is getting very annoying. NO ONE IS POSTING IN NORMAL FUCKING SUB-FORUMS!!!!!! ITS ALL IN COMPLETE NONSENSE AND ANGRY RANTING. IS THIS WHAT YOU WANTED WHEN YOU CHANGED THE FUCKING RULES AND WENT APESHIT WITH ALL THE FUCKING MOD SHIT!!! COME ON. AND THEN ALL THE NORMAL FUCKING THREADS ARE STILL BEING SPAMMED AND BY MODS NONTHELESS. WTF IS THIS SHIT. GREAT FUCKING FORUM FIX UP!!!!!! That is all.
Proof the rules work, all the spammers and trolls who want to stay here are posting appropriately.
Great work, in my eyes. Please, point out where a mod has spammed any normal thread in the past few days since the new rules came into effect. As far as I recall, everyone was trying to pick on me, but that was about it.
-
Try the thoughts thread. Yes it was derailed a while ago, but then the mods continued to spam it.
http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=24612.40
-
Try the thoughts thread. Yes it was derailed a while ago, but then the mods continued to spam it.
http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=24612.40
Now you are trying to be a nit picker. It's an old thread, derailed a long time ago. If you want, it can be moved. In fact, I will do it myself.
-
Ok, try this one, it's fresh and guess what the first reply is. Hmm that's right, it's you saying to read the faq.
http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=25503.0
What was the point of that? At least Cinlef and Singularity respond correctly.
-
It was a perfectly valid response and the new user deserved no better. He clearly had not read the FAQ.
-
Cinlef rules!
-
Ok, try this one, it's fresh and guess what the first reply is. Hmm that's right, it's you saying to read the faq.
http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=25503.0
What was the point of that? At least Cinlef and Singularity respond correctly.
It was a perfectly valid response and the new user deserved no better. He clearly had not read the FAQ.
This.
-
Aren't you supposed to be helping the noobs? Wile it is obvious now that he was a temporary troll, isn't better to do what the others did rather than wasting time telling him to read the faq twice.
-
Aren't you supposed to be helping the noobs? Wile it is obvious now that he was a temporary troll, isn't better to do what the others did rather than wasting time telling him to read the faq twice.
Seriously. I just read the FAQ
Explain gravity
Explain the orbit of the moon, using scientific means
With those questions answered:
Do you believe other heavenly bodies are flat? Is the sun flat, too?
He clearly didn't read the FAQ. Telling him to read the FAQ is a valid response as it saves us from having to explain everything since it's already explained.
This response has been used since long before you ever came here. In fact, when I first joined that was one of the responses to me.
-
Yeah its tradition to tell every newcomer to read the FAQ. Repeatedly.
-
Aren't you supposed to be helping the noobs? Wile it is obvious now that he was a temporary troll, isn't better to do what the others did rather than wasting time telling him to read the faq twice.
This is coming from someone who contributes nothing of value to the forum whatsoever...
Why should we waste time explaining to obvious trolls in detail what is already available for easy viewing in the FAQ? Why bother even having an FAQ then?
-
Yeah its tradition to tell every newcomer to read the FAQ. Repeatedly.
This, until they rage from the eye-balls.
-
Yeah its tradition to tell every newcomer to read the FAQ. Repeatedly.
This, until they rage from the eye-balls.
Or they actually read it and stop asking stupid questions.
-
Yeah its tradition to tell every newcomer to read the FAQ. Repeatedly.
This, until they rage from the eye-balls.
Or they actually read it and stop asking stupid questions.
Exactly, win-win as I see it.
-
OK, here is something that has really disturbed me. As I was going through the forums, I came across some new mods. One I saw was Raist, which is fine, because he is smart and can contribute well to conversations and debates. The other though, was very difficult to comprehend. I have yet to see a productive post from Dead Kangaroo and all I have seen is spam. This made me think of something. Do you remember that mod named Robosteve? Ya, that guy, the one that was de-modded recently for his spam. So in conclusion, I was wondering, why all the hypocrisy all of a sudden with these anti spam laws but then modding a non productive poster, right after someone was demodded for spamming. Please, enlighten me with the reasoning behind this madness.
I've been here a while and recently started contributing in the serious boards. Daniel chose me through PMs, I didn't ask for it. Don't get me wrong I am very grateful for this opportunity and I will try my best to keep the peace.
-
OK, here is something that has really disturbed me. As I was going through the forums, I came across some new mods. One I saw was Raist, which is fine, because he is smart and can contribute well to conversations and debates. The other though, was very difficult to comprehend. I have yet to see a productive post from Dead Kangaroo and all I have seen is spam. This made me think of something. Do you remember that mod named Robosteve? Ya, that guy, the one that was de-modded recently for his spam. So in conclusion, I was wondering, why all the hypocrisy all of a sudden with these anti spam laws but then modding a non productive poster, right after someone was demodded for spamming. Please, enlighten me with the reasoning behind this madness.
I understand what you're saying, but I still feel that DK was a good choice for mod. I modded DK based on his contributions to the forums a while back. I realise that things have been a bit different lately but he's assured me that we'll be seeing the old Dead Kangaroo that we all knew and loved. :)
-
But Kanga has the tendency to disappear for months on end.
Oh wait, so do you Daniel. Nevermind.
-
It was a perfectly valid response and the new user deserved no better. He clearly had not read the FAQ.
OMG HAI!
-
NO ONE IS POSTING IN NORMAL FUCKING SUB-FORUMS!!!!!! ITS ALL IN COMPLETE NONSENSE AND ANGRY RANTING.
Then I guess that's a good thing.
-
Try the thoughts thread. Yes it was derailed a while ago, but then the mods continued to spam it.
http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=24612.40
I posted that before I was a mod. While drunk too I believe. It died before I posted that.
-
I just found this thread. First of all, thanks to all the new mods, especially Hara. I'm ashamed to admit that I hadn't heard of his diplomacy with the raiding forum, but I just read his posts on the site, and I'm extremely impressed. Hara reminds me of Engy in his old glory days. Well done. :-*
I have two issues that I wish to discuss. First of all, as many people have already noted, there doesn't seem to be much debate in the FE forums going on, outside of noobs asking questions clearly covered in the FAQ. This might seem a little awkward, but I recommend that a few members should return to debating for the RE side and try to poke a few holes in FET. That might inspire some more intelligent debate from noobs, and of course we'd be able to strengthen our own theory if we can explain away any new flaws.
The second problem is alts. Part of the blame surely lies with me, as I'm pretty sure that my classics "NASA Agent", "Thomas Bishop", "Eric Bloedow is back", and of course, "Anne Bloedow" helped inspire the recent alt-fest. With the new rules, coupled with the departure of Vauxy and Robo, most of the alts have probably been banned by now. However, there still could be a few alts floating out there that survived the carnage. Is there any way that we can enforce the no-alt rule, or figure out who's an alt or not?
-
I just found this thread. First of all, thanks to all the new mods, especially Hara. I'm ashamed to admit that I hadn't heard of his diplomacy with the raiding forum, but I just read his posts on the site, and I'm extremely impressed. Hara reminds me of Engy in his old glory days. Well done. :-*
Amazingly, they still talk about us there. Hah.
I have two issues that I wish to discuss. First of all, as many people have already noted, there doesn't seem to be much debate in the FE forums going on, outside of noobs asking questions clearly covered in the FAQ. This might seem a little awkward, but I recommend that a few members should return to debating for the RE side and try to poke a few holes in FET. That might inspire some more intelligent debate from noobs, and of course we'd be able to strengthen our own theory if we can explain away any new flaws.
Blame the economy.
The second problem is alts. Part of the blame surely lies with me, as I'm pretty sure that my classics "NASA Agent", "Thomas Bishop", "Eric Bloedow is back", and of course, "Anne Bloedow" helped inspire the recent alt-fest. With the new rules, coupled with the departure of Vauxy and Robo, most of the alts have probably been banned by now. However, there still could be a few alts floating out there that survived the carnage. Is there any way that we can enforce the no-alt rule, or figure out who's an alt or not?
It's something that's being worked on. However, I think everything is ok now.
-
However, there still could be a few alts floating out there that survived the carnage. Is there any way that we can enforce the no-alt rule, or figure out who's an alt or not?
The "No Alts" rule is difficult to fully enforce. As it stands now, we're not actively hunting them. But if someone seems like an alt, we'll check IPs. Then, of course, there are proxies to deal with. So basically, we're making a reasonable effort to keep them to a minimum but we know it'll never be 100% perfect.
-
Were all the angry noobs we used to play with in AR actually alts? We are suffering from a severe shortage of angry noob.
-
Were all the angry noobs we used to play with in AR actually alts? We are suffering from a severe shortage of angry noob.
>can play the angry noob if you want, as long as I don't get banned for it.
-
It's not as fun if they're fake. Can somebody link to us from 4Chan? If you do, for the love of God warn us, particularly the mods.
-
Yeah, fake angry noob is no fun, that's why the alts sucked. 4chan noobs suck too, cause they're not interested in convincing anyone that the earth is round.
-
Dawkins.com? I could bump our thread on the QI forum, too. Dammit, where do smart people go on the Internet that isn't here?
-
It's not as fun if they're fake. Can somebody link to us from 4Chan? If you do, for the love of God warn us, particularly the mods.
Don't give anyone any ideas!
-
I dunno.. does anyone have an acct at SciForums? They'd probably delete a thread advertising this forum, but someone could probably sneak a link into Free Thoughts.
http://www.sciforums.com/
-
You obviously missed this vital bit: "Average registrations per day: 10.45"
I recommend letting them come to us.
-
It's not as fun if they're fake. Can somebody link to us from 4Chan? If you do, for the love of God warn us, particularly the mods.
Make sure I'm warned well in advance so I have time to travel to whoever's going to link us on 4chan and kill that person ahead of time.
-
It's not as fun if they're fake. Can somebody link to us from 4Chan? If you do, for the love of God warn us, particularly the mods.
Make sure I'm warned well in advance so I have time to travel to whoever's going to link us on 4chan and kill that person ahead of time.
Why not just kill the 4Chan community? That'd be even more satisfying and a great service to society.
-
It's not as fun if they're fake. Can somebody link to us from 4Chan? If you do, for the love of God warn us, particularly the mods.
Make sure I'm warned well in advance so I have time to travel to whoever's going to link us on 4chan and kill that person ahead of time.
Why not just kill the 4Chan community? That'd be even more satisfying and a great service to society.
http://pedofield1942.ytmnsfw.com/
-
It's not as fun if they're fake. Can somebody link to us from 4Chan? If you do, for the love of God warn us, particularly the mods.
Make sure I'm warned well in advance so I have time to travel to whoever's going to link us on 4chan and kill that person ahead of time.
+∞
It's not as fun if they're fake. Can somebody link to us from 4Chan? If you do, for the love of God warn us, particularly the mods.
Make sure I'm warned well in advance so I have time to travel to whoever's going to link us on 4chan and kill that person ahead of time.
Why not just kill the 4Chan community? That'd be even more satisfying and a great service to society.
+1
A cantankerous
Cinlef
-
I just found this thread. First of all, thanks to all the new mods, especially Hara. I'm ashamed to admit that I hadn't heard of his diplomacy with the raiding forum, but I just read his posts on the site, and I'm extremely impressed. Hara reminds me of Engy in his old glory days. Well done. :-*
I have two issues that I wish to discuss. First of all, as many people have already noted, there doesn't seem to be much debate in the FE forums going on, outside of noobs asking questions clearly covered in the FAQ. This might seem a little awkward, but I recommend that a few members should return to debating for the RE side and try to poke a few holes in FET. That might inspire some more intelligent debate from noobs, and of course we'd be able to strengthen our own theory if we can explain away any new flaws.
The second problem is alts. Part of the blame surely lies with me, as I'm pretty sure that my classics "NASA Agent", "Thomas Bishop", "Eric Bloedow is back", and of course, "Anne Bloedow" helped inspire the recent alt-fest. With the new rules, coupled with the departure of Vauxy and Robo, most of the alts have probably been banned by now. However, there still could be a few alts floating out there that survived the carnage. Is there any way that we can enforce the no-alt rule, or figure out who's an alt or not?
I haven't really been on the debate forums recently except for the occasional comment. I wouldn't mind going back and attempting to seriously debate RE (I was thinking of switching to FE, but I don't feel like dealing with noobs.)
Recently it has been pretty boring on there, most serious discussions get derailed by either side. Most recently was the sun on the equinox thread. I would love to go back and debate, however I would like to request that the moderators start being a bit more strict on attempts to derail a serious thread, from either side.
Thanks.
-
I just found this thread. First of all, thanks to all the new mods, especially Hara. I'm ashamed to admit that I hadn't heard of his diplomacy with the raiding forum, but I just read his posts on the site, and I'm extremely impressed. Hara reminds me of Engy in his old glory days. Well done. :-*
I have two issues that I wish to discuss. First of all, as many people have already noted, there doesn't seem to be much debate in the FE forums going on, outside of noobs asking questions clearly covered in the FAQ. This might seem a little awkward, but I recommend that a few members should return to debating for the RE side and try to poke a few holes in FET. That might inspire some more intelligent debate from noobs, and of course we'd be able to strengthen our own theory if we can explain away any new flaws.
The second problem is alts. Part of the blame surely lies with me, as I'm pretty sure that my classics "NASA Agent", "Thomas Bishop", "Eric Bloedow is back", and of course, "Anne Bloedow" helped inspire the recent alt-fest. With the new rules, coupled with the departure of Vauxy and Robo, most of the alts have probably been banned by now. However, there still could be a few alts floating out there that survived the carnage. Is there any way that we can enforce the no-alt rule, or figure out who's an alt or not?
I haven't really been on the debate forums recently except for the occasional comment. I wouldn't mind going back and attempting to seriously debate RE (I was thinking of switching to FE, but I don't feel like dealing with noobs.)
Recently it has been pretty boring on there, most serious discussions get derailed by either side. Most recently was the sun on the equinox thread. I would love to go back and debate, however I would like to request that the moderators start being a bit more strict on attempts to derail a serious thread, from either side.
Thanks.
The thing is this is tricky to do since discussions in the serious debate Forums can diverge widely from the initial topic and still be serious debates (generally this happens when someone from either side raises an answer to the initial query topic that relies on a premise someone finds questionable and the debate then turns to the truth of that premise)
Still I think you'll find there are several good ongoing discussions in the serious debate forums
Friendly neighborhood mod
Cinlef
-
I just found this thread. First of all, thanks to all the new mods, especially Hara. I'm ashamed to admit that I hadn't heard of his diplomacy with the raiding forum, but I just read his posts on the site, and I'm extremely impressed. Hara reminds me of Engy in his old glory days. Well done. :-*
I have two issues that I wish to discuss. First of all, as many people have already noted, there doesn't seem to be much debate in the FE forums going on, outside of noobs asking questions clearly covered in the FAQ. This might seem a little awkward, but I recommend that a few members should return to debating for the RE side and try to poke a few holes in FET. That might inspire some more intelligent debate from noobs, and of course we'd be able to strengthen our own theory if we can explain away any new flaws.
The second problem is alts. Part of the blame surely lies with me, as I'm pretty sure that my classics "NASA Agent", "Thomas Bishop", "Eric Bloedow is back", and of course, "Anne Bloedow" helped inspire the recent alt-fest. With the new rules, coupled with the departure of Vauxy and Robo, most of the alts have probably been banned by now. However, there still could be a few alts floating out there that survived the carnage. Is there any way that we can enforce the no-alt rule, or figure out who's an alt or not?
I haven't really been on the debate forums recently except for the occasional comment. I wouldn't mind going back and attempting to seriously debate RE (I was thinking of switching to FE, but I don't feel like dealing with noobs.)
Recently it has been pretty boring on there, most serious discussions get derailed by either side. Most recently was the sun on the equinox thread. I would love to go back and debate, however I would like to request that the moderators start being a bit more strict on attempts to derail a serious thread, from either side.
Thanks.
The thing is this is tricky to do since discussions in the serious debate Forums can diverge widely from the initial topic and still be serious debates (generally this happens when someone from either side raises an answer to the initial query topic that relies on a premise someone finds questionable and the debate then turns to the truth of that premise)
Still I think you'll find there are several good ongoing discussions in the serious debate forums
Friendly neighborhood mod
Cinlef
With your sig even when you are threatening you still seem too happy so my issue is that. Be meaner sometimes, but just not to me ;D
-
Why exactly was KingMan banned? I'm not trying to baw, but I don't see how he violated any rules. It looks like he was banned following an exchange with Hara in the "post an image of yourself" thread, which dissolved into personal attacks back and forth. Suddenly, KingMan showed up in an alt to announce that he had been banned.
Yes, KingMan wasn't very good at debating, and he held some bizarre views, but I don't recall him ever being intentionally disruptive. All we had were vague suspicions that he was trolling. But even if he wasn't really so evangelical, is there a rule against pretending that he was? Oscar was not only permitted to stay, but was actively supported by the mods when he pretended to be a lesbian. Some members here have cast doubt on whether or not I am truly Saddam Hussein, but I've never got into trouble over it. And let's not forget Narcberry, who was far more of a troll than KingMan, yet when he was finally banned, it was because of his spamming and insulting members.
If I've made a mistake or misjudged the situation, then I'm sorry. I usually support the mods, but I can't help getting a feeling that KingMan was banned out of personal dislike.
-
It was probably the bad debating thing, but that's a teeny bit of an understatement. Every single thread he was in degenerated to trolling, and every time it could be traced to a stupid, uninformed or provocative post he made. But that's just an assumption.
-
In the thread I referenced, it was Hara who started the argument.
-
I think you'll find that using anything other than "macfag" or "ginger" to insult Hara is a bannable offence.
-
I think you'll find that using anything other than "macfag" or "ginger" to insult Hara is a bannable offence.
So in other words if hara can't take the heat he kicks people out of his kitchen?
No offense but that seems petty. Most of my comments are bullshit and a lot of threads get derailed but several of the regular posters. I too would be interested in the real reason kingman was banned. He never really pissed me off that badly. He was like a fun human punching bag, quite fun sometimes.
Do mods actually reply to questions posed here?
-
Why exactly was KingMan banned? I'm not trying to baw, but I don't see how he violated any rules. It looks like he was banned following an exchange with Hara in the "post an image of yourself" thread, which dissolved into personal attacks back and forth. Suddenly, KingMan showed up in an alt to announce that he had been banned.
Yes, KingMan wasn't very good at debating, and he held some bizarre views, but I don't recall him ever being intentionally disruptive. All we had were vague suspicions that he was trolling. But even if he wasn't really so evangelical, is there a rule against pretending that he was? Oscar was not only permitted to stay, but was actively supported by the mods when he pretended to be a lesbian. Some members here have cast doubt on whether or not I am truly Saddam Hussein, but I've never got into trouble over it. And let's not forget Narcberry, who was far more of a troll than KingMan, yet when he was finally banned, it was because of his spamming and insulting members.
If I've made a mistake or misjudged the situation, then I'm sorry. I usually support the mods, but I can't help getting a feeling that KingMan was banned out of personal dislike.
He doesn't contribute.
Ever.
He's also the WORST debater ever, and extremely ignorant. Frankly, if you can't even understand the concept of "argue properly", you really need to GTFO. It has nothing to do with not "taking the heat". I don't have to explain every ban I make. I only needed to make them in the notes while performing the ban. If you are banned, it's going to be for a reason, I never just lay the hammer down whenever I feel like it or when it seems I suddenly can't "take the heat".
As for Oscar, it's the opposite. While he partakes in the derailments, there is also something to note of his contributions. You cannot compare those two. There is a clear difference. Also, kingman had an alt during the no alts part. He was banned once before for that specific reason, but for some reason was soon unbanned. Oscar is allowed to stay because the older accounts are not active and has directly come to us and informed us of the changes he was intending on making. The support of the apparent lesbianism was in his request, if I recall.
The general idea is simple: Don't be a fucking asshat. I know who can and cannot understand plain english. If you cannot understand when several members tell you that you cannot debate, are made of fail, and continue to act in the fashion that creates such comments, then you really shouldn't be here. Most of his remarks were in the supposedly serious threads that he created or participated in. Now, if he wished to do that stuff in CN where it belonged in the first place he would still be here. But he broke the rules several times on his own accord, and I personally let it slide several times after several of you asked him to debate a little more maturely. He failed to comply, and I had enough of it.
Is that good enough or are we back to the old "Hara is a tyrant and needs to explain every itty bitty bit to me" ordeal?
-
Kingman made an alt during the no alts part? I thought he made the alt before that, and just admitted to it during the no alts part
-
Kingman made an alt during the no alts part? I thought he made the alt before that, and just admitted to it during the no alts part
Either way, it doesn't apply to this ban.
-
Kingman made an alt during the no alts part? I thought he made the alt before that, and just admitted to it during the no alts part
Either way, it doesn't apply to this ban.
Then why did you mention it? And if you're gonna ban people for being poor debators and being ignorant we're not gonna get a lot of new people here :(
-
Kingman made an alt during the no alts part? I thought he made the alt before that, and just admitted to it during the no alts part
Either way, it doesn't apply to this ban.
Then why did you mention it? And if you're gonna ban people for being poor debators and being ignorant we're not gonna get a lot of new people here :(
I brought it up because Saddam wanted to question Oscar's "ban evasion" because of the several accounts made, but I explained why it was allowed. Also, if you read, I said that I banned him for breaking the rules. Specifically the one that says to not derail the serious stuff. In several serious threads (specifically the ones dealing with theology) he would derail and flame. You all asked him to debate properly, and he continues to act retarded. The reason most of you don't end up that way is because I know (and I believe the other mods do as well) that you ARE capable of debating properly when applicable. Not every flame gets accounted for (hell I work all day and I know that most are all in good jest, KingMan's never was) but when it gets to a point where people are constantly telling you to shape up and you don't and it's obviously becoming a problem according to the rules, we have no choice. I was letting it slide for so long and I just said fuck it because as a mod, I am bound to the rules really. He spammed/flamed/derailed constantly and it had to be stopped.
I have no issue removing the ban if he can change his posting methods and actually engage in proper conversation, thinking and debate exercises instead of calling everyone retarded or repeating "irony" in what's supposed to be a real discussion. This has nothing to do with my ego (which you all should know is just a running joke anyway [well, sorta], if you don't, then you're retarded) or my lack of being able to "take the heat".
But remember, just because I ban someone and don't tell you doesn't mean I did it illegitimately. I don't have to explain it to you at all if I don't feel like it. But nearly all "major" bans are noted in the ban list that we moderate. So rest assured, the job's being done properly.
-
This is the only ban I asked about. Perhaps i was a bit hasty in my wording, i suppose it my have been insulting. But I was unaware what rule he broke.
I have no personal beef with you hara, i get your persona, and you seem alright by me. Thanks for clarifying your position on this.
-
Alrighty then.
-
Meh. Hara didn't ban him. he just likes the attention. I banned him ten minutes before Hara even made that post about it.
-
Meh. Hara didn't ban him. he just likes the attention. I banned him ten minutes before Hara even made that post about it.
In that case....why did you ban him you bastard? Bad mod! BAAAAAAAAAAAAWWWWWWWWWWWW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
-
Also why is noone moving the current /b/tard posts from general discussion and debate forums to angry ranting. There are quite a few new ones as of this moment.
-
Done.
-
Why exactly was KingMan banned? I'm not trying to baw, but I don't see how he violated any rules. It looks like he was banned following an exchange with Hara in the "post an image of yourself" thread, which dissolved into personal attacks back and forth. Suddenly, KingMan showed up in an alt to announce that he had been banned.
Yes, KingMan wasn't very good at debating, and he held some bizarre views, but I don't recall him ever being intentionally disruptive. All we had were vague suspicions that he was trolling. But even if he wasn't really so evangelical, is there a rule against pretending that he was? Oscar was not only permitted to stay, but was actively supported by the mods when he pretended to be a lesbian. Some members here have cast doubt on whether or not I am truly Saddam Hussein, but I've never got into trouble over it. And let's not forget Narcberry, who was far more of a troll than KingMan, yet when he was finally banned, it was because of his spamming and insulting members.
If I've made a mistake or misjudged the situation, then I'm sorry. I usually support the mods, but I can't help getting a feeling that KingMan was banned out of personal dislike.
He doesn't contribute.
Ever.
He's also the WORST debater ever, and extremely ignorant. Frankly, if you can't even understand the concept of "argue properly", you really need to GTFO. It has nothing to do with not "taking the heat". I don't have to explain every ban I make. I only needed to make them in the notes while performing the ban. If you are banned, it's going to be for a reason, I never just lay the hammer down whenever I feel like it or when it seems I suddenly can't "take the heat".
As for Oscar, it's the opposite. While he partakes in the derailments, there is also something to note of his contributions. You cannot compare those two. There is a clear difference. Also, kingman had an alt during the no alts part. He was banned once before for that specific reason, but for some reason was soon unbanned. Oscar is allowed to stay because the older accounts are not active and has directly come to us and informed us of the changes he was intending on making. The support of the apparent lesbianism was in his request, if I recall.
The general idea is simple: Don't be a fucking asshat. I know who can and cannot understand plain english. If you cannot understand when several members tell you that you cannot debate, are made of fail, and continue to act in the fashion that creates such comments, then you really shouldn't be here. Most of his remarks were in the supposedly serious threads that he created or participated in. Now, if he wished to do that stuff in CN where it belonged in the first place he would still be here. But he broke the rules several times on his own accord, and I personally let it slide several times after several of you asked him to debate a little more maturely. He failed to comply, and I had enough of it.
Is that good enough or are we back to the old "Hara is a tyrant and needs to explain every itty bitty bit to me" ordeal?
Fair enough. Thanks for explaining.
-
I mainly have a question for whatever mod wants to help me here. I stopped receiving any notifications for new replies to my email box today. I haven't marked FES as spam on hotmail nor are the messages going to spam. Nor have i changed my settings on here.
I also replied to a few messages in active threads 10 minutes ago and even with new replies still no notifications in my email box at hotmail. Is this something I am doing wrong or what? Would appreciate a serious reply thanks.
-
I don't think it is supposed to do that unless you use the notify function.
-
Thanks for the reply and i know. I was receiving notifications since i started here. That stopped as of about 11am today and i haven't received one since...
-
As for Oscar, it's the opposite. While he partakes in the derailments, there is also something to note of his contributions. You cannot compare those two. There is a clear difference. Also, kingman had an alt during the no alts part. He was banned once before for that specific reason, but for some reason was soon unbanned. Oscar is allowed to stay because the older accounts are not active and has directly come to us and informed us of the changes he was intending on making. The support of the apparent lesbianism was in his request, if I recall.
The general idea is simple: Don't be a fucking asshat. I know who can and cannot understand plain english. If you cannot understand when several members tell you that you cannot debate, are made of fail, and continue to act in the fashion that creates such comments, then you really shouldn't be here. Most of his remarks were in the supposedly serious threads that he created or participated in. Now, if he wished to do that stuff in CN where it belonged in the first place he would still be here. But he broke the rules several times on his own accord, and I personally let it slide several times after several of you asked him to debate a little more maturely. He failed to comply, and I had enough of it.
Is that good enough or are we back to the old "Hara is a tyrant and needs to explain every itty bitty bit to me" ordeal?
We should sticky this post for those wanting to learn how to make a good troll or alt.
-
Thanks for the reply and i know. I was receiving notifications since i started here. That stopped as of about 11am today and i haven't received one since...
Go to the profile tab and on the left land side there is a 'notification and email' link. The option that you want is there.
-
Thanks for the reply and i know. I was receiving notifications since i started here. That stopped as of about 11am today and i haven't received one since...
Go to the profile tab and on the left land side there is a 'notification and email' option. The option that you want is there.
Ya i know it is .... I figured out the problem and it is now working again .. not sure how it happens but its fixed.
-
We need to get something straight, Mr. Hara Tiki. Your issue with me is not related to this web site. Your issue with me is not related to anyone online. Your issue with me is due to your behavior and my understanding of said behavior, your refusal to acknowledge it, and your refusal to move on from it, which, out of respect for you (believe it or not I still do), will go unmentioned, no matter what befalls us next time. However, your habitual abuse of your "badge" is about to get you into some seriously embarrassing trouble.
If you continue to wantonly and randomly delete my posts, hara-fuck-ie-poo, your days as a mod will disappear with a finality unrivaled in the history of this domain name. I know you're doing it, you know you're doing it, and we both know that the posts you are deleting are NOT inflammatory, are NOT off topic, and are NOT nonsensical bullshit ala Dann. You are doing it simply to remove me from topics of conversation.
As a mod, you do not have the right, nor the freedom, to randomly delete posts because you can. You are instructed to delete/, modify, and etc, when a post is grossly over the limits of the thread or area, and etc. You know better, and of all people, I think higher of you than you have been acting on here to me.
You may think you are above the rules due to some imagined slight from me, but you are just a cog in a machine that outweighs your own footprint. Your badge is a privilege. It can be taken away, and if you are hell bent on your course, you can never say I did not warn you. ;D
Apparently you have learned nothing about me, and who you are dealing with. Crow it to the mountain, it will not avail you.
Of course you will flap and flex your e-peen and deny my true station because of my spotty attendance of the past months. My appearances, as you should know by now, are not accidental. I am always here, I simply remain silent for much of the time. This is my decision, for reasons you are party to, but will not admit to yourself.
Nothing I post here is ever an accident, nor is it aloof. When I post, the patterns show themselves for what they are. You know this.
You were my friend once. I still view you asa my friend, despite our previous issue [if you care at all, you will message me about that], but your attitude and your INSISTENCE on making me push back is only going to land you in the madhouse. Please attempt civility and leave my posts alone.
If you delete this, it will reappear. If you delete it repeatedly, it will keep coming back to your plate. Daniel has been notified of this post. He has it in his inbox, as well as other places you do not have access to *grin*.
For those of you on a power trip who seem to think you have the structure of the forums understood, you are in for a nightmare of fail. You do not run the show. You ARE the show. Like elected officials, you bastards are here as a service to Daniel and to the people who loyally remain in the ranks. That's it. It isn't a contest for the biggest dick in the bag. It is a duty, period.
If you ban me, or have your overseer do so, you will be highly frustrated at the outcome. I will not go away because you wish to avoid me for personal reasons. Silencing me is an impossible task. You know this. You know me. We are both adults, and we are capable of dialog, as we used to do on the msn and whatnot. If you want to talk to me, you know how to find me. If you persist in this...game, you will find yourself in an absurd situation that will only make you scream at your monitor. Know when to say when, and let's get past our shit, shall we?
The ball is in your court. No man the fuck up.
:-*
-
Actually I'm the one that deleted your posts when you are just quoting something you already posted because people ignored it. If you want people to read what you write then make it more interesting. Do not spam please.
-
lol, internet
See what happens when you assume, Mr. Midnight?
Go back to your quiet little world.
-
Actually I'm the one that deleted your posts when you are just quoting something you already posted because people ignored it. If you want people to read what you write then make it more interesting. Do not spam please.
Not the post in question Raist, but I forgive you. He will not worm around this one. =)
-
We need to get something straight, Mr. Hara Tiki. Your issue with me is not related to this web site. Your issue with me is not related to anyone online. Your issue with me is due to your behavior and my understanding of said behavior, your refusal to acknowledge it, and your refusal to move on from it, which, out of respect for you (believe it or not I still do), will go unmentioned, no matter what befalls us next time. However, your habitual abuse of your "badge" is about to get you into some seriously embarrassing trouble.
If you continue to wantonly and randomly delete my posts, hara-fuck-ie-poo, your days as a mod will disappear with a finality unrivaled in the history of this domain name. I know you're doing it, you know you're doing it, and we both know that the posts you are deleting are NOT inflammatory, are NOT off topic, and are NOT nonsensical bullshit ala Dann. You are doing it simply to remove me from topics of conversation.
As a mod, you do not have the right, nor the freedom, to randomly delete posts because you can. You are instructed to delete/, modify, and etc, when a post is grossly over the limits of the thread or area, and etc. You know better, and of all people, I think higher of you than you have been acting on here to me.
You may think you are above the rules due to some imagined slight from me, but you are just a cog in a machine that outweighs your own footprint. Your badge is a privilege. It can be taken away, and if you are hell bent on your course, you can never say I did not warn you. ;D
Apparently you have learned nothing about me, and who you are dealing with. Crow it to the mountain, it will not avail you.
Of course you will flap and flex your e-peen and deny my true station because of my spotty attendance of the past months. My appearances, as you should know by now, are not accidental. I am always here, I simply remain silent for much of the time. This is my decision, for reasons you are party to, but will not admit to yourself.
Nothing I post here is ever an accident, nor is it aloof. When I post, the patterns show themselves for what they are. You know this.
You were my friend once. I still view you asa my friend, despite our previous issue [if you care at all, you will message me about that], but your attitude and your INSISTENCE on making me push back is only going to land you in the madhouse. Please attempt civility and leave my posts alone.
If you delete this, it will reappear. If you delete it repeatedly, it will keep coming back to your plate. Daniel has been notified of this post. He has it in his inbox, as well as other places you do not have access to *grin*.
For those of you on a power trip who seem to think you have the structure of the forums understood, you are in for a nightmare of fail. You do not run the show. You ARE the show. Like elected officials, you bastards are here as a service to Daniel and to the people who loyally remain in the ranks. That's it. It isn't a contest for the biggest dick in the bag. It is a duty, period.
If you ban me, or have your overseer do so, you will be highly frustrated at the outcome. I will not go away because you wish to avoid me for personal reasons. Silencing me is an impossible task. You know this. You know me. We are both adults, and we are capable of dialog, as we used to do on the msn and whatnot. If you want to talk to me, you know how to find me. If you persist in this...game, you will find yourself in an absurd situation that will only make you scream at your monitor. Know when to say when, and let's get past our shit, shall we?
The ball is in your court. No man the fuck up.
:-*
**Moved from Religion and Philosophy**
If you have issues about the forums and want to complain about it, do it here.
-
We need to get something straight, Mr. Hara Tiki. Your issue with me is not related to this web site. Your issue with me is not related to anyone online. Your issue with me is due to your behavior and my understanding of said behavior, your refusal to acknowledge it, and your refusal to move on from it, which, out of respect for you (believe it or not I still do), will go unmentioned, no matter what befalls us next time. However, your habitual abuse of your "badge" is about to get you into some seriously embarrassing trouble.
If you continue to wantonly and randomly delete my posts, hara-fuck-ie-poo, your days as a mod will disappear with a finality unrivaled in the history of this domain name. I know you're doing it, you know you're doing it, and we both know that the posts you are deleting are NOT inflammatory, are NOT off topic, and are NOT nonsensical bullshit ala Dann. You are doing it simply to remove me from topics of conversation.
As a mod, you do not have the right, nor the freedom, to randomly delete posts because you can. You are instructed to delete/, modify, and etc, when a post is grossly over the limits of the thread or area, and etc. You know better, and of all people, I think higher of you than you have been acting on here to me.
You may think you are above the rules due to some imagined slight from me, but you are just a cog in a machine that outweighs your own footprint. Your badge is a privilege. It can be taken away, and if you are hell bent on your course, you can never say I did not warn you. ;D
Apparently you have learned nothing about me, and who you are dealing with. Crow it to the mountain, it will not avail you.
Of course you will flap and flex your e-peen and deny my true station because of my spotty attendance of the past months. My appearances, as you should know by now, are not accidental. I am always here, I simply remain silent for much of the time. This is my decision, for reasons you are party to, but will not admit to yourself.
Nothing I post here is ever an accident, nor is it aloof. When I post, the patterns show themselves for what they are. You know this.
You were my friend once. I still view you asa my friend, despite our previous issue [if you care at all, you will message me about that], but your attitude and your INSISTENCE on making me push back is only going to land you in the madhouse. Please attempt civility and leave my posts alone.
If you delete this, it will reappear. If you delete it repeatedly, it will keep coming back to your plate. Daniel has been notified of this post. He has it in his inbox, as well as other places you do not have access to *grin*.
For those of you on a power trip who seem to think you have the structure of the forums understood, you are in for a nightmare of fail. You do not run the show. You ARE the show. Like elected officials, you bastards are here as a service to Daniel and to the people who loyally remain in the ranks. That's it. It isn't a contest for the biggest dick in the bag. It is a duty, period.
If you ban me, or have your overseer do so, you will be highly frustrated at the outcome. I will not go away because you wish to avoid me for personal reasons. Silencing me is an impossible task. You know this. You know me. We are both adults, and we are capable of dialog, as we used to do on the msn and whatnot. If you want to talk to me, you know how to find me. If you persist in this...game, you will find yourself in an absurd situation that will only make you scream at your monitor. Know when to say when, and let's get past our shit, shall we?
The ball is in your court. No man the fuck up.
:-*
Mids, do we really need to go through this again? No one is trying to "silence" you. The only thing that has changed since your absence are the rules. We've gotten a lot tougher on spam and general topic derailment. These rules were implemented on direct orders from Daniel himself. Frankly, I don't understand why people keep getting angry at the mods (and Hara, in particular). All they're doing is following the rules, and Daniel approves of the job they're doing.
Just so you know, Mids, in around late 2008, even with the new mods, this forum was dying. Dying because it was drowning from the mindless spam, noobs that received nothing in welcome but "tl;dr" and "Fuck off" from proud mod Robosteve, organized troll raids, and worst of all, an endless supply of alts from bored regulars. There were so many alts that all noobs were scrutinized severely to see if they were legit, and many genuine newbies were no doubt insulted by our skepticism. Wardogg and Raven, in particular, I remember strongly suspecting were alts. As it turned out, both were genuine newbies, and they've both become highly productive, contributing, and friendly members of this forum.
It wasn't easy for the mods to crack down on all this garbage clogging our forums, but all things considered, they've done an excellent job. The alt problem appears to be largely gone, thanks to a community-driven effort to discourage alt production and punish offenders, dubbed "Operation Chemo". While we still are naturally exasperated by many noobs who don't bother to read the FAQ, I feel that our mods still give most of them a much more professional welcome than mod Robosteve, who is now ex-mod Robosteve. Our troll problem will probably never go away fully, but our mods are still capably dealing with them. In fact, Hara registered at a forum discussing us a few months ago and calmly explained what the true purpose of our forum is. The would-be raiders were mostly very reasonable when spoken to normally, and a potential troll invasion was adverted.
In conclusion, our mods deserve more respect than they've been getting recently. Their effort in resurrecting the forums has really been helpful, and I for one am grateful to all of them. Even Robosteve, who at least put in the effort. Maybe our forums are a little less goofy and silly now, but it was originally made to discuss FET. If you truly love the FES, then you should respect the new rules personally ordered by our leader. Vauxhall, Althalus, and Narcberry refused to respect the mods' authority and follow the rules, and they've been banned. And you know what? While the website may be a little less entertaining without them, it's far more productive.
So to all our mods, I say: "Thank you."
-
ontite 15:25:54 Posting a new topic in Flat Earth Debate & Discussion.
This guy has zero posts, and his first action is to make a new thread in the board reserved most strictly for serious debate. This happens all too often, and most of the time it's something like "why can I see curvature on the horizon when I go to the beach?" or "how come I can see satellites in the sky?". I'm not saying we shouldn't let noobs post in the serious boards, and obviously they need to be able to make threads in Questions & Clarification, but I seriously think we need some kind of minimum post count (I think 100 posts would be reasonable) before allowing new members to create threads in Debate & Discussion.
-
He just posted his thread. What a surprise. (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=28392)
-
ontite 15:25:54 Posting a new topic in Flat Earth Debate & Discussion.
This guy has zero posts, and his first action is to make a new thread in the board reserved most strictly for serious debate. This happens all too often, and most of the time it's something like "why can I see curvature on the horizon when I go to the beach?" or "how come I can see satellites in the sky?". I'm not saying we shouldn't let noobs post in the serious boards, and obviously they need to be able to make threads in Questions & Clarification, but I seriously think we need some kind of minimum post count (I think 100 posts would be reasonable) before allowing new members to create threads in Debate & Discussion.
That's an interesting idea, and I think it might be helpful. Only Daniel would be able to implement something like that, though.
-
Since we are on the subject, putting a minimum post limit on the ability to post images is also a good idea.
-
Apparently no one here has been to a forum that limits abilities by post count before. They suck. There is spamming to achieve the post count, people come to the forum and get pissed they can't do basic necessary things to participate in the forum, and it just leads to less new members staying.
-
Apparently no one here has been to a forum that limits abilities by post count before. They suck. There is spamming to achieve the post count, people come to the forum and get pissed they can't do basic necessary things to participate in the forum, and it just leads to less new members staying.
That's why we need only restrict what is causing a problem, and nothing more. How many new members have created useful threads in Debate & Discussion within their first hundred posts, compared with those who post threads that eventually get moved to Angry Ranting or General Discussion anyway? I'm not suggesting we stop them posting in there, just making threads.
-
Meh. It is a non issue. Changing it would just cause another annoyance.
-
Meh. It is a non issue.
Maybe for those who only visit Debate & Discussion once every couple of weeks.
-
Ah yes, because seeing an obviously ignorable thread pains you in ways that are unspeakable because being a pedantic twat you can't scroll right past it.
-
Ah yes, because seeing an obviously ignorable thread pains you in ways that are unspeakable because being a pedantic twat you can't scroll right past it.
I'd prefer it if Debate & Discussion could be kept reserved for, you know, debate and discussion.
-
We need to get something straight, Mr. Hara Tiki. Your issue with me is not related to this web site. Your issue with me is not related to anyone online. Your issue with me is due to your behavior and my understanding of said behavior, your refusal to acknowledge it, and your refusal to move on from it, which, out of respect for you (believe it or not I still do), will go unmentioned, no matter what befalls us next time. However, your habitual abuse of your "badge" is about to get you into some seriously embarrassing trouble.
If you continue to wantonly and randomly delete my posts, hara-fuck-ie-poo, your days as a mod will disappear with a finality unrivaled in the history of this domain name. I know you're doing it, you know you're doing it, and we both know that the posts you are deleting are NOT inflammatory, are NOT off topic, and are NOT nonsensical bullshit ala Dann. You are doing it simply to remove me from topics of conversation.
As a mod, you do not have the right, nor the freedom, to randomly delete posts because you can. You are instructed to delete/, modify, and etc, when a post is grossly over the limits of the thread or area, and etc. You know better, and of all people, I think higher of you than you have been acting on here to me.
You may think you are above the rules due to some imagined slight from me, but you are just a cog in a machine that outweighs your own footprint. Your badge is a privilege. It can be taken away, and if you are hell bent on your course, you can never say I did not warn you. ;D
Apparently you have learned nothing about me, and who you are dealing with. Crow it to the mountain, it will not avail you.
Of course you will flap and flex your e-peen and deny my true station because of my spotty attendance of the past months. My appearances, as you should know by now, are not accidental. I am always here, I simply remain silent for much of the time. This is my decision, for reasons you are party to, but will not admit to yourself.
Nothing I post here is ever an accident, nor is it aloof. When I post, the patterns show themselves for what they are. You know this.
You were my friend once. I still view you asa my friend, despite our previous issue [if you care at all, you will message me about that], but your attitude and your INSISTENCE on making me push back is only going to land you in the madhouse. Please attempt civility and leave my posts alone.
If you delete this, it will reappear. If you delete it repeatedly, it will keep coming back to your plate. Daniel has been notified of this post. He has it in his inbox, as well as other places you do not have access to *grin*.
For those of you on a power trip who seem to think you have the structure of the forums understood, you are in for a nightmare of fail. You do not run the show. You ARE the show. Like elected officials, you bastards are here as a service to Daniel and to the people who loyally remain in the ranks. That's it. It isn't a contest for the biggest dick in the bag. It is a duty, period.
If you ban me, or have your overseer do so, you will be highly frustrated at the outcome. I will not go away because you wish to avoid me for personal reasons. Silencing me is an impossible task. You know this. You know me. We are both adults, and we are capable of dialog, as we used to do on the msn and whatnot. If you want to talk to me, you know how to find me. If you persist in this...game, you will find yourself in an absurd situation that will only make you scream at your monitor. Know when to say when, and let's get past our shit, shall we?
The ball is in your court. No man the fuck up.
:-*
Mids, do we really need to go through this again? No one is trying to "silence" you. The only thing that has changed since your absence are the rules. We've gotten a lot tougher on spam and general topic derailment. These rules were implemented on direct orders from Daniel himself. Frankly, I don't understand why people keep getting angry at the mods (and Hara, in particular). All they're doing is following the rules, and Daniel approves of the job they're doing.
Just so you know, Mids, in around late 2008, even with the new mods, this forum was dying. Dying because it was drowning from the mindless spam, noobs that received nothing in welcome but "tl;dr" and "Fuck off" from proud mod Robosteve, organized troll raids, and worst of all, an endless supply of alts from bored regulars. There were so many alts that all noobs were scrutinized severely to see if they were legit, and many genuine newbies were no doubt insulted by our skepticism. Wardogg and Raven, in particular, I remember strongly suspecting were alts. As it turned out, both were genuine newbies, and they've both become highly productive, contributing, and friendly members of this forum.
It wasn't easy for the mods to crack down on all this garbage clogging our forums, but all things considered, they've done an excellent job. The alt problem appears to be largely gone, thanks to a community-driven effort to discourage alt production and punish offenders, dubbed "Operation Chemo". While we still are naturally exasperated by many noobs who don't bother to read the FAQ, I feel that our mods still give most of them a much more professional welcome than mod Robosteve, who is now ex-mod Robosteve. Our troll problem will probably never go away fully, but our mods are still capably dealing with them. In fact, Hara registered at a forum discussing us a few months ago and calmly explained what the true purpose of our forum is. The would-be raiders were mostly very reasonable when spoken to normally, and a potential troll invasion was adverted.
In conclusion, our mods deserve more respect than they've been getting recently. Their effort in resurrecting the forums has really been helpful, and I for one am grateful to all of them. Even Robosteve, who at least put in the effort. Maybe our forums are a little less goofy and silly now, but it was originally made to discuss FET. If you truly love the FES, then you should respect the new rules personally ordered by our leader. Vauxhall, Althalus, and Narcberry refused to respect the mods' authority and follow the rules, and they've been banned. And you know what? While the website may be a little less entertaining without them, it's far more productive.
So to all our mods, I say: "Thank you."
He doesn't care, so don't bother. Let him bask in the idea that I have some kind of super-duper grudge against him, it's much more entertaining. He's only fueling his own delusions. It's what happens when a pathological liar actually believes the garbage that ejaculates from his own mouth.
-
Wardogg and Raven, in particular, I remember strongly suspecting were alts. As it turned out, both were genuine newbies, and they've both become highly productive, contributing, and friendly members of this forum.
Awww, shucks. *kicks the dirt* :D
Who's alt was I?
-
ROUND000
-
It's what happens when a pathological liar actually believes the garbage that ejaculates from his own mouth.
Are you sure you don't have a teeny bit of a grudge?
-
Wardogg and Raven, in particular, I remember strongly suspecting were alts. As it turned out, both were genuine newbies, and they've both become highly productive, contributing, and friendly members of this forum.
Awww, shucks. *kicks the dirt* :D
Who's alt was I?
I actually suspected once that you were Narcberry's alt, trying to annoy us by pretending to be a stereotyped, redneck Amerifag.
-
I actually suspected once that you were Narcberry's alt, trying to annoy us by pretending to be a stereotyped, redneck Amerifag.
Ouch.
-
Wardogg and Raven, in particular, I remember strongly suspecting were alts. As it turned out, both were genuine newbies, and they've both become highly productive, contributing, and friendly members of this forum.
Awww, shucks. *kicks the dirt* :D
Who's alt was I?
I actually suspected once that you were Narcberry's alt, trying to annoy us by pretending to be a stereotyped, redneck Amerifag.
No, we really do exist.
-
Wardogg and Raven, in particular, I remember strongly suspecting were alts. As it turned out, both were genuine newbies, and they've both become highly productive, contributing, and friendly members of this forum.
Awww, shucks. *kicks the dirt* :D
Who's alt was I?
I actually suspected once that you were Narcberry's alt, trying to annoy us by pretending to be a stereotyped, redneck Amerifag.
No, we really do exist.
No, I had meant like an annoying Bush fan who ejaculates patriotism, 9/11 reminders, and born-again Christian fundamentalism garbage, a la KingMan. But don't worry. I realized eventually that you're much too smart to be an obvious troll or alt. I don't agree with all of your political beliefs, but at least you defend them reasonably enough, and I'm certain that you actually believe what you're arguing.
-
Wardogg and Raven, in particular, I remember strongly suspecting were alts. As it turned out, both were genuine newbies, and they've both become highly productive, contributing, and friendly members of this forum.
Awww, shucks. *kicks the dirt* :D
Who's alt was I?
I actually suspected once that you were Narcberry's alt, trying to annoy us by pretending to be a stereotyped, redneck Amerifag.
No, we really do exist.
No, I had meant like an annoying Bush fan who ejaculates patriotism, 9/11 reminders, and born-again Christian fundamentalism garbage, a la KingMan. But don't worry. I realized eventually that you're much too smart to be an obvious troll or alt. I don't agree with all of your political beliefs, but at least you defend them reasonably enough, and I'm certain that you actually believe what you're arguing.
Im still waiting for those new tidy whitey pics. ;)
-
There has been an influx of noobs lately. Would it be possible to "force" new members to read the FAQ?
-
There has been an influx of noobs lately. Would it be possible to "force" new members to read the FAQ?
Angry noobs make the world go round. har har
-
There has been an influx of noobs lately. Would it be possible to "force" new members to read the FAQ?
Angry noobs make the world go round. har har
At first I was >:(
Then I was ;D
-
Good to see our mods are still as rude and unprofessional as always.
-
Good to see our mods are still as rude and unprofessional as always.
Good to see you come and go so quickly.
-
yes
-
yes
I'm sorry, who are you, and what exactly is your question/concern?
-
Is it Narc sneaking around a corner?
-
yes
Hey narc, when are you gonna haxors our servers? Just know that when you do we'll be in your base killing your doods.
-
Oh, it's Narc again. Apologies, carry on.
-
Who's alt am I? ::)
-
Who's alt am I? ::)
Ignore bridget, he's an alt and a troll himself.
-
Who's alt am I? ::)
The Overmind's.
-
I have an issue concerning the grievance I posted about a week ago. I apparently made the mods uncomfortable and they locked it to save face.
I'm wondering, is that how you normally handle such situations? Or am I just the first to bother calling you on your bullshit?
Thanks.
You were being a twelve year old, demanding revenge against a (relatively) innocent person.
-
I have an issue concerning the grievance I posted about a week ago. I apparently made the mods uncomfortable and they locked it to save face.
I'm wondering, is that how you normally handle such situations? Or am I just the first to bother calling you on your bullshit?
Thanks.
Your thread was locked because it was ridiculous. Also, serious complaints about individuals are normally handled better in PMs, rather than open posts.
-
I have an issue concerning the grievance I posted about a week ago. I apparently made the mods uncomfortable and they locked it to save face.
I'm wondering, is that how you normally handle such situations? Or am I just the first to bother calling you on your bullshit?
Thanks.
What thread is your bawwing about?
-
I have an issue concerning the grievance I posted about a week ago. I apparently made the mods uncomfortable and they locked it to save face.
I'm wondering, is that how you normally handle such situations? Or am I just the first to bother calling you on your bullshit?
Thanks.
What thread is your bawwing about?
The one were he got all butthurt about his 4-day ban for racism.
-
I have an issue concerning the grievance I posted about a week ago. I apparently made the mods uncomfortable and they locked it to save face.
I'm wondering, is that how you normally handle such situations? Or am I just the first to bother calling you on your bullshit?
Thanks.
Now that I know the thread I'll say this. You wrongly accused us of banning you for a remark you made. Therefore the thread was pointless. It was locked to end drama.
-
I have an issue concerning the grievance I posted about a week ago. I apparently made the mods uncomfortable and they locked it to save face.
I'm wondering, is that how you normally handle such situations? Or am I just the first to bother calling you on your bullshit?
Thanks.
Irony, lots of it.
-
You wrongly accused us of banning you for a remark you made.
You are still yet to clarify which remark I was banned for. How can my accusation be wrong?
It was when I asked you to follow up on your denial that you locked it to avoid answering. The thread is still there for everyone to see. You were made to look a fool. You took no action. You could not even give me any straight answers. I was banned for a "racist post" for four days while "Jesus Crotch" was actively posting racist, anti-Christian rhetoric without consequence - indeed, he was smugly and publicly reporting others who objected to his posts' content for offenses he himself was committing. These are the facts. Is his self-assured arrogance in his connections truly justified?
It was locked to end drama.
You are the one prolonging this issue, not me.
I asked for justice. I got nothing.
I asked for your reasoning. I got nothing.
I asked for simple clarification. I got nothing.
You are too intent on protecting your bigoted little friend and saving face to do your job properly. Considering your position on this board, it's disgusting. Your shoddy handling of this has only caused me to take it further than I normally would have. My ban was bullshit and you know it. All I desire is equal treatment. Also, an apology is probably warranted at this point.
(http://www.wisemouseboy.com/gallery2/d/3790-2/internet_serious_business_framed.jpg)
LIFE ISN'T FAIR, GROW SOME BALLS AND SHUT THE FUCK UP!
-
I'm sorry, but I am addressing the staff, not the retard gallery.
Although, I must admit, it is becoming increasingly difficult to discern which is which.
Will you at least consider my suggestion?
-
I'm sorry, but I am addressing the staff, not the retard gallery.
Although, I must admit, it is becoming increasingly difficult to discern which is which.
Will you at least consider my suggestion?
By your logic, this entire thread should be deleted. It's more of a suggestion to the moderators.
So you won't consider my suggestion? Good luck making it through the 4th grade in September.
-
My hobby is throwing in my two cents at inappropriate times. But seriously, cursive isn't that hard when you get the hang of it.
-
My hobby is throwing in my two cents at inappropriate times. But seriously, cursive isn't that hard when you get the hang of it.
You remind me of myself... Oh well, seeing as we've already clashed, I suppose this will be one of those times that 2 wrongs don't make a right! ;D
-
My hobby is throwing in my two cents at inappropriate times. But seriously, cursive isn't that hard when you get the hang of it.
You remind me of myself... Oh well, seeing as we've already clashed, I suppose this will be one of those times that 2 wrongs don't make a right! ;D
Two wrongs always make a right. That is the basis of the concept of war.
-
You wrongly accused us of banning you for a remark you made.
You are still yet to clarify which remark I was banned for. How can my accusation be wrong?
It was when I asked you to follow up on your denial that you locked it to avoid answering. The thread is still there for everyone to see. You were made to look a fool. You took no action. You could not even give me any straight answers. I was banned for a "racist post" for four days while "Jesus Crotch" was actively posting racist, anti-Christian rhetoric without consequence - indeed, he was smugly and publicly reporting others who objected to his posts' content for offenses he himself was committing. These are the facts. Is his self-assured arrogance in his connections truly justified?
It was locked to end drama.
You are the one prolonging this issue, not me.
I asked for justice. I got nothing.
I asked for your reasoning. I got nothing.
I asked for simple clarification. I got nothing.
You are too intent on protecting your bigoted little friend and saving face to do your job properly. Considering your position on this board, it's disgusting. Your shoddy handling of this has only caused me to take it further than I normally would have. My ban was bullshit and you know it. All I desire is equal treatment. Also, an apology is probably warranted at this point.
Hold on a minute. Didn't Raist say that you were banned for a post not made in the "Hate Speech" thread?
-
You wrongly accused us of banning you for a remark you made.
You are still yet to clarify which remark I was banned for. How can my accusation be wrong?
It was when I asked you to follow up on your denial that you locked it to avoid answering. The thread is still there for everyone to see. You were made to look a fool. You took no action. You could not even give me any straight answers. I was banned for a "racist post" for four days while "Jesus Crotch" was actively posting racist, anti-Christian rhetoric without consequence - indeed, he was smugly and publicly reporting others who objected to his posts' content for offenses he himself was committing. These are the facts. Is his self-assured arrogance in his connections truly justified?
It was locked to end drama.
You are the one prolonging this issue, not me.
I asked for justice. I got nothing.
I asked for your reasoning. I got nothing.
I asked for simple clarification. I got nothing.
You are too intent on protecting your bigoted little friend and saving face to do your job properly. Considering your position on this board, it's disgusting. Your shoddy handling of this has only caused me to take it further than I normally would have. My ban was bullshit and you know it. All I desire is equal treatment. Also, an apology is probably warranted at this point.
Here's what happened. You were new and made a rather racist post during a partial invasion. Therefore you were given a 3 day ban to cool off and see if you were going to stick around. No I do not remember which post I banned you for, I was in the middle of cleaning up the forums and was issuing several bans. You then came and said I banned you for a response to jesus crotch or whoever and he deserved a ban. Since it had nothing to do with that comment the discussion is over.
-
When I asked him to verify what post I was banned for, he locked the thread.
Toth, to further add to prove your retardedness, Raist never locked the thread to save face or whatever. I locked it because you're being the internets biggest faggot right now. You're no longer banned, so what difference does it make at this point? Shut up, any more posts about it will be deleted.
-
I would like to ask why Skeptek was banned. Really. I want a link to the post(s) that got him banned please.
-
I would like to ask why Skeptek was banned. Really. I want a link to the post(s) that got him banned please.
lol stfu
-
Please piss off Robosteve, I have a concern here and I came to the right thread asking the right question. I'm asking the mods why Skeptek was banned, and I expect the mods to answer me, not you.
-
Please piss off Robosteve, I have a concern here and I came to the right thread asking the right question. I'm asking the mods why Skeptek was banned, and I expect the mods to answer me, not you.
It says why in this topic:
http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=29869.0
He made a personal attack on a mod (apparently Raist), and Dogplatter banned him for it. If you look at his original post, it has since been edited by Jack, presumably because it was rude and stupid. Dogplatter is a good mod, and wouldn't have banned him unless he deserved it. Furthermore, it's only a week long suspension.
-
Every single post he made was nothing but rude, arrogant, obnoxiously hypocritical personal attacks. I'm surprised he made it as long as he did. I for one was personally fed up with seeing his threads and his advertisements for his threads in his threads. /rant
-
He didn't break any more forum rules than anybody here.
-
*Troublemaking
Starting problems for the sake of stirring up waves will get you removed.
DO NOT create inflammatory posts obviously intended to start a fight or get a reaction. Malicious users or those that obviously signed up to ridicule others will get banned on the spot, without warning.
-
*Troublemaking
Starting problems for the sake of stirring up waves will get you removed.
DO NOT create inflammatory posts obviously intended to start a fight or get a reaction. Malicious users or those that obviously signed up to ridicule others will get banned on the spot, without warning.
That's funny. Robosteve does this all the time, and I don't see him getting banned for it.
-
And it all comes down to someone's choice as to what to call trouble making and what isn't... I for one found his posts extremely truthful and thoughtful, aswell as informative.
You agree, through your use of this forum, that you will not post any material which is false, defamatory, inaccurate, abusive, vulgar, hateful, harassing, obscene, profane, sexually oriented, threatening, invasive of a person's privacy, adult material, or otherwise in violation of any International or United States Federal law
*Flaming
Heated discussion can be cool, but personal attacks are not.
Please DO NOT degrade/discourage others by posting things such as "you are an idiot", "GTFO", etc.
*Racism
DO NOT post anything racist in nature, including pictures (e.g. Nazi swastikas) and comments. No hate speeches or encouragements of hate are to be tolerated. Any member found posting racist comments will be banned immediately, without warning.
Get fucked, religionfag.
Woooooooow, it would appear that a MOD broke 2 forum rules AND the user end agreement all in ONE post. I hate to be an ass but this one is hard to miss... I suppose it's not ok for people to make personal attacks to mods, but it's ok for mods to make personal attacks to users.
*Flaming
Heated discussion can be cool, but personal attacks are not.
Please DO NOT degrade/discourage others by posting things such as "you are an idiot", "GTFO", etc.
lol stfu
I could do this all day...
-
If you feel you have a legitimate concern, bring it up with Daniel.
-
Dogman never bans people lightly. He only does it if there is a really good reason for it so there obviously was a really good reason for banning Skeptek. Maybe it was cos he had a really unoriginal name and was retarted.
-
He made a personal attack on a moderator and got banned for a week. Suck it up, and learn from his mistake. This is the final word on the matter.
-
I shall speak with Daniel then. Thank you!
-
The difference being he started a thread and insulted 2 people within his first post. Before anyone else responded.
-
Some of the mods on this forum insult many users, and that's perfectly ok, but when a user insults a mod, he gets banned. Anyways I just wanted to post it here as it's the official thread for it.
-
I insult mods all the time and don't get banned. If I get banned now I will hunt you down and kill you, all of you
-
That's because the mods are biased and prone to hate Skeptek, since he challenges their beliefs and points out flaws in those beliefs...
-
No they just don't appreciate retarted noods insulting them. You have to earn the right to insult people here.
-
The job of a moderator is to MODERATE. To enfore the rules in an unbiased and unselective manner. It's not fair that the newer people on this forum are more likely to get banned simply because they have been here for a short period of time.
-
The job of a moderator is to MODERATE. To enfore the rules in an unbiased and unselective manner. It's not fair that the newer people on this forum are more likely to get banned simply because they have been here for a short period of time.
They don't get banned because they have been here for a short period of time, they get banned because they act retarted.
-
Almost everyone on this forum acts retarded at one point or another. You know that.
-
Almost everyone on this forum acts retarded at one point or another. You know that.
Yes, but not all of us act retarted.
-
There's a difference between acting retarted and being retarted.
-
Skeptek wasn't retarded, nor did he act retarded...
-
Yes he was and yes he did.
-
Who are you to choose? I think he wasn't
-
Who are you to choose? I think he wasn't
A regular.
-
Once you understand this place properly then you'll know when people are retarts too.
-
Hey look, I voiced my concern, and it's not up to any of you to judge whether it's a legitimate concern or not ok? I didn't post in this thread to argue.
-
Hey look, I voiced my concern, and it's not up to any of you to judge whether it's a legitimate concern or not ok? I didn't post in this thread to argue.
your retarted
-
The mods or Daniel decide whether concerns are legitimate or not. You PM'd Daniel right?
-
I have everything I wanted to say written down, I'm just waiting for a bit of feedback before I send it...
-
I have everything I wanted to say written down, I'm just waiting for a bit of feedback before I send it...
The post was edited so I can't comment. Personal attacks vary in seriousness and context. These are all considered in addition to the offense taken by the targeted person. If someone is being intentionally malicious out of frustration then it is considered worse than the same words/phrases used jokingly or lightly in a post.
-
The only problem is that it's difficult to know whether someone is being sarcastic or not when they're typeing...
-
Thats why its a lot easier to tell when a regular is being sarcastic or is being offensive. With noobs you can't tell so sometimes you have to take the strict approach to let them know its wrong.
-
But a mod shouldn't issue a ban based on the assumption that the user isn't being sarcastic.
-
Anyone being sarcastically offensive risks being banned.
-
And then that's when it gets biased. It's the mods CHOICE to decide whether the user was sarcastic or not. Since Skeptek openly challanged FEers' theories and made posts that angered FEers, whilst not breaking the rules, guess what the mods chose. Silencing Skeptek's clever and observative posts, or letting him continue what he was doing?
-
They made their decision that he intentionally being offensive and their decision is final.
And 99% of RE'ers do not make clever and observative posts here and as far as I recall Skeptek was no exception.
-
Who are you to choose?
Hey look, I voiced my concern, and it's not up to any of you to judge whether it's a legitimate concern or not ok? I didn't post in this thread to argue.
We're running in circles.
-
This discussion is ridiculous. Skeptek was not banned for being a RE'er, nor was he banned for being clever or informative, as he was neither. He was banned for being rude, insulting, and obnoxious. This is not limited to RE'ers, we have banned FE'ers for similar reasons too. Now, as Dogplatter said, PM Daniel if you want to complain. Everyone disagrees with you, so I think you have your feedback.
-
Skeptek was banned as his account was obviously signed up for the purpose of insulting other members, which is pretty well stated in the user agreement. Look at the sheer number of Gayer's posts and you'll find that those insulting people are a remarkably insignificant portion of them. Robosteve has contributed more to FE and FET than pretty much every regular poster put together (the hardcore serious FEers generally don't post regularly, or at least rarely do over a long period. Skeptek, like 90% of the member list here, was a moronic retarded noob who came here to insult us and got butthurt when put in his place. He will not be mourned, missed or even remembered as he brought nothing new to the forum either. His ban was justified for he was in clear violation of the rules. Either stop bitching about your lover or piss off yourself.
-
Who is Skeptik?
-
Presumably Skeptek's alt/partner.
-
Presumably Skeptek's alt/partner.
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v358/AlexClarke/Starfighter/sarcasm_detector.jpg)
-
Mines overheated in WoM's mod-abuse-baww parody thread.
-
Robosteve has contributed more to FE and FET than pretty much every regular poster put together
Lol, it's amazing how that's true.
-
Robosteve has contributed more to FE and FET than pretty much every regular poster put together
Lol, it's amazing how that's true.
Yes, he's produced almost as many silly ideas as the great Rowbotham himself. :P
-
I like to think that I've contributed a lot....
Of course what I like to think has no bearing on reality.
-
No, we live in your reality, Solipsism is only arrogant when other people do it because they're just figments of your imagination.
-
Alrighty then
-
I am confused as to why so many people take these conspiracy theories seriously. The idea that the world is flat is completely insane. There is much evidence to the contrary, as if you go up several thousand feet, you can see the curviture of the earth, and the horizon proves curviture of the earth. Also, there are hundreds of people all around the world who have been into space and seen the earth as a globe with their own eyes. Don't you think that one of these people would have said the earth is flat by now?
-
I am confused as to why so many people take these conspiracy theories seriously. The idea that the world is flat is completely insane. There is much evidence to the contrary, as if you go up several thousand feet, you can see the curviture of the earth, and the horizon proves curviture of the earth. Also, there are hundreds of people all around the world who have been into space and seen the earth as a globe with their own eyes. Don't you think that one of these people would have said the earth is flat by now?
Lurk moar. You're not the first person to have thought of any of this.
-
I am confused as to why so many people take these conspiracy theories seriously. The idea that the world is flat is completely insane. There is much evidence to the contrary, as if you go up several thousand feet, you can see the curviture of the earth, and the horizon proves curviture of the earth. Also, there are hundreds of people all around the world who have been into space and seen the earth as a globe with their own eyes. Don't you think that one of these people would have said the earth is flat by now?
This thread is for issues and concerns regarding the forums. It is not to argue about the shape of the earth. Thank you, and have a pleasent day.
-
1. Skeptek and I are not the same person. Nor do we know eachother. I think I might make a thread about this to clear up the confusion. ::)
2. Sorry for wreaking havoc here and angering a few of you. I was expecting, judgeing by the thread's name that I would be able to adress my concerns concerning ( :D) the forums without causing the mob to go on a rampage. I'll know better next time.
-
1. Skeptek and I are not the same person. Nor do we know eachother. I think I might make a thread about this to clear up the confusion. ::)
2. Sorry for wreaking havoc here and angering a few of you. I was expecting, judgeing by the thread's name that I would be able to adress my concerns concerning ( :D) the forums without causing the mob to go on a rampage. I'll know better next time.
I'm quite certain you've been had. No one was angry.
-
;)
-
Stop being so retarded, Dann. It's CN. ::)
-
I just don't get it. Why are you being so rebellious all of a sudden? Are you still bitter from being banned?
-
Hey Mods. If you wanna get Serious about banning people, Here. Steve is asking members to commit violent acts on antoher members CHILD.
http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30362.msg743390#new (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30362.msg743390#new)
This crosses any borders of good taste, and if a member was banned for posting moonlits kid in the things you would hit thread, this is good for a permaban if i ever saw one.
And so no editing of the post can occur, a screenshot.
(http://i370.photobucket.com/albums/oo149/theonlydann/stevebeingsteve.jpg?t=1247230211)
You're right Dann, I'm going to sticky this and put up a poll asking for volunteers, this might just be our chance to save humanity.
-
Hi, just a quick question. Who is deleting all the posts and threads et all?
-
Yeah I've lost a couple hundred posts
-
That's Dann, he's taking his ball and going home. He's also deleting the hundreds of threads he'd made, the vast majority of which are spam.
-
I take it that he's done this before?
-
last time he just deleted his posts if I remember correctly
-
The last time he left FES, yes, he did something similar. He never contributes anything of value to the forum anyway, so no big loss.
-
The last time he left FES, yes, he did something similar. He never contributes anything of value to the forum anyway, so no big loss.
He did make me chuckle a couple of times, but this is bullshit.
Since he deleted it, I called him a retarded 6 year old in his fuck off thread. How immature and juvenile can you be. You know he'll be here with some new account within a week.
-
I love how the mods here will ban people when they have proven that FET is wrong. Not to mention that when FEer's start name-calling and what not, they let it go. But as soon as REer's get back, BOOM. They ban them. Now, that's not very fair is it?
-
I have never seen a mod that bans people for proving FET wrong.
-
Ordinarily, I would PM a mod, but there doesn't seem to be one on at the moment, so I'll just leave this here.
Does anyone know why Crudblud is still banned? He was banned three days ago and his ban description quite clearly stated that it was a two day ban.
-
Maybe he forgot, and hasn't tried to come back yet. Also, when is Semperound's ban over?
-
Nice. Now my post got moved. My point being. That the mods can post whatever the hell they want. Whilst the regular users got the short end of the stick. We present our evidence for a RE and then the FE people go trying to disprove it. And when they can't, they throw names out at them. And then we eventually get so frustrated over your ignorance, and retaliate back. And we get banned.
::)
You guys want to be taken seriously, how about enforcing your rules no matter who it is.
-
Nice. Now my post got moved. My point being. That the mods can post whatever the hell they want. Whilst the regular users got the short end of the stick. We present our evidence for a RE and then the FE people go trying to disprove it. And when they can't, they throw names out at them. And then we eventually get so frustrated over your ignorance, and retaliate back. And we get banned.
::)
You guys want to be taken seriously, how about enforcing your rules no matter who it is.
Examples?
-
Nice. Now my post got moved. My point being. That the mods can post whatever the hell they want. Whilst the regular users got the short end of the stick. We present our evidence for a RE and then the FE people go trying to disprove it. And when they can't, they throw names out at them. And then we eventually get so frustrated over your ignorance, and retaliate back. And we get banned.
::)
You guys want to be taken seriously, how about enforcing your rules no matter who it is.
Funny, I've managed to never be banned or have my posts moved or deleted by a mod. Maybe because the rules are pretty simple. You should read through them if you find them so hard to understand.
-
Nice. Now my post got moved. My point being. That the mods can post whatever the hell they want. Whilst the regular users got the short end of the stick. We present our evidence for a RE and then the FE people go trying to disprove it. And when they can't, they throw names out at them. And then we eventually get so frustrated over your ignorance, and retaliate back. And we get banned.
::)
You guys want to be taken seriously, how about enforcing your rules no matter who it is.
Funny, I've managed to never be banned or have my posts moved or deleted by a mod. Maybe because the rules are pretty simple. You should read through them if you find them so hard to understand.
The rule I was banned for is pretty plain although there are always loopholes. Originally I thought I had found one and it was also originally backed by a mod and then not stood up for...meh, what are you going to do.
-
Nice. Now my post got moved. My point being. That the mods can post whatever the hell they want. Whilst the regular users got the short end of the stick. We present our evidence for a RE and then the FE people go trying to disprove it. And when they can't, they throw names out at them. And then we eventually get so frustrated over your ignorance, and retaliate back. And we get banned.
::)
You guys want to be taken seriously, how about enforcing your rules no matter who it is.
Funny, I've managed to never be banned or have my posts moved or deleted by a mod. Maybe because the rules are pretty simple. You should read through them if you find them so hard to understand.
The rule I was banned for is pretty plain although there are always loopholes. Originally I thought I had found one and it was also originally backed by a mod and then not stood up for...meh, what are you going to do.
Just go bawww about it like Dann did. That always makes him feel better. ;)
-
Nice. Now my post got moved. My point being. That the mods can post whatever the hell they want. Whilst the regular users got the short end of the stick. We present our evidence for a RE and then the FE people go trying to disprove it. And when they can't, they throw names out at them. And then we eventually get so frustrated over your ignorance, and retaliate back. And we get banned.
::)
You guys want to be taken seriously, how about enforcing your rules no matter who it is.
Funny, I've managed to never be banned or have my posts moved or deleted by a mod. Maybe because the rules are pretty simple. You should read through them if you find them so hard to understand.
The rule I was banned for is pretty plain although there are always loopholes. Originally I thought I had found one and it was also originally backed by a mod and then not stood up for...meh, what are you going to do.
I said boobs covered in paint, not nipples with paint kind of touching them.
-
I am deeply, deeply offended by your moderation staff. A moderator moved my thread (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30512.0), where I had explained how the flat earth model truly is, into Complete Nonsense. The offending member of your staff implied that my beliefs and scientific opinions are not true, and not even worth discussion. I demand it be moved back, and an apology from the offending moderator.
-
Wasn't me that did it, and no.
-
I am deeply, deeply offended by your moderation staff. A moderator moved my thread (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30512.0), where I had explained how the flat earth model truly is, into Complete Nonsense. The offending member of your staff implied that my beliefs and scientific opinions are not true, and not even worth discussion. I demand it be moved back, and an apology from the offending moderator.
I'm sorry your thread was so bad it had to be moved, and I am also sorry for the fact that you are so dumb you could not realize where your thread went.
I didn't move it though.
-
I am deeply, deeply offended by your moderation staff. A moderator moved my thread (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30512.0), where I had explained how the flat earth model truly is, into Complete Nonsense. The offending member of your staff implied that my beliefs and scientific opinions are not true, and not even worth discussion. I demand it be moved back, and an apology from the offending moderator.
I'm sorry your thread was so bad it had to be moved, and I am also sorry for the fact that you are so dumb you could not realize where your thread went.
I didn't move it though.
Many people have said the same about levee's FAQ. Why is there a double standard? Regardless, my thread was valid, scientific theory.
-
I am deeply, deeply offended by your moderation staff. A moderator moved my thread (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30512.0), where I had explained how the flat earth model truly is, into Complete Nonsense. The offending member of your staff implied that my beliefs and scientific opinions are not true, and not even worth discussion. I demand it be moved back, and an apology from the offending moderator.
I'm sorry your thread was so bad it had to be moved, and I am also sorry for the fact that you are so dumb you could not realize where your thread went.
I didn't move it though.
Many people have said the same about levee's FAQ. Why is there a double standard? Regardless, my thread was valid, scientific theory.
No comment.
-
If there's anyone here whose threads deserve a little nepotism, it's me. My lack of special treatment just goes to show that complete faggotry isn't accepted anymore.
-
I also had numerous members agree with me. I demand my thread be moved back, and an apology.
-
I also had numerous members agree with me. I demand my thread be moved back, and an apology.
No, and no.
-
I also had numerous members agree with me. I demand my thread be moved back, and an apology.
Knock it off before you end up taking a much needed 2 day vacation.
-
Now I am being threatened with a ban, just because I want my ideas to be taken seriously? I find this very offensive.
-
Seriously stop, it's spam. Knock it off.
-
Nice. Now my post got moved. My point being. That the mods can post whatever the hell they want. Whilst the regular users got the short end of the stick. We present our evidence for a RE and then the FE people go trying to disprove it. And when they can't, they throw names out at them. And then we eventually get so frustrated over your ignorance, and retaliate back. And we get banned.
::)
You guys want to be taken seriously, how about enforcing your rules no matter who it is.
Funny, I've managed to never be banned or have my posts moved or deleted by a mod. Maybe because the rules are pretty simple. You should read through them if you find them so hard to understand.
The rule I was banned for is pretty plain although there are always loopholes. Originally I thought I had found one and it was also originally backed by a mod and then not stood up for...meh, what are you going to do.
I said boobs covered in paint, not nipples with paint kind of touching them.
C'mon Raist, are we seriously going to debate semantics. The boob I posted had paint on it. As a matter of fact, the pic that was "allowed and accepted" had more discernible nipples then the one that I posted.
-
It is not spam, I am simply expressing my extreme displeasure with a moderator action. Is that not what this thread is for? However, I shall stop posting in this thread for I see it is getting me no where. My opinion has been said, and I stand by them.
-
Nice. Now my post got moved. My point being. That the mods can post whatever the hell they want. Whilst the regular users got the short end of the stick. We present our evidence for a RE and then the FE people go trying to disprove it. And when they can't, they throw names out at them. And then we eventually get so frustrated over your ignorance, and retaliate back. And we get banned.
::)
You guys want to be taken seriously, how about enforcing your rules no matter who it is.
Funny, I've managed to never be banned or have my posts moved or deleted by a mod. Maybe because the rules are pretty simple. You should read through them if you find them so hard to understand.
The rule I was banned for is pretty plain although there are always loopholes. Originally I thought I had found one and it was also originally backed by a mod and then not stood up for...meh, what are you going to do.
I said boobs covered in paint, not nipples with paint kind of touching them.
C'mon Raist, are we seriously going to debate semantics. The boob I posted had paint on it. As a matter of fact, the pic that was "allowed and accepted" had more discernible nipples then the one that I posted.
I'm looking at the pic now, half the nipple is hanging out. You even said it'd be worth the ban. Don't even pretend you thought it was what I meant.
-
Nice. Now my post got moved. My point being. That the mods can post whatever the hell they want. Whilst the regular users got the short end of the stick. We present our evidence for a RE and then the FE people go trying to disprove it. And when they can't, they throw names out at them. And then we eventually get so frustrated over your ignorance, and retaliate back. And we get banned.
::)
You guys want to be taken seriously, how about enforcing your rules no matter who it is.
Funny, I've managed to never be banned or have my posts moved or deleted by a mod. Maybe because the rules are pretty simple. You should read through them if you find them so hard to understand.
The rule I was banned for is pretty plain although there are always loopholes. Originally I thought I had found one and it was also originally backed by a mod and then not stood up for...meh, what are you going to do.
I said boobs covered in paint, not nipples with paint kind of touching them.
C'mon Raist, are we seriously going to debate semantics. The boob I posted had paint on it. As a matter of fact, the pic that was "allowed and accepted" had more discernible nipples then the one that I posted.
I'm looking at the pic now, half the nipple is hanging out. You even said it'd be worth the ban. Don't even pretend you thought it was what I meant.
The fact is, if Dogplatter hadn't come back around, you know I wouldn't have gotten a ban for it. He doesn't know me. You do. It would have been a non-issue.
-
Nice. Now my post got moved. My point being. That the mods can post whatever the hell they want. Whilst the regular users got the short end of the stick. We present our evidence for a RE and then the FE people go trying to disprove it. And when they can't, they throw names out at them. And then we eventually get so frustrated over your ignorance, and retaliate back. And we get banned.
::)
You guys want to be taken seriously, how about enforcing your rules no matter who it is.
Funny, I've managed to never be banned or have my posts moved or deleted by a mod. Maybe because the rules are pretty simple. You should read through them if you find them so hard to understand.
The rule I was banned for is pretty plain although there are always loopholes. Originally I thought I had found one and it was also originally backed by a mod and then not stood up for...meh, what are you going to do.
I said boobs covered in paint, not nipples with paint kind of touching them.
C'mon Raist, are we seriously going to debate semantics. The boob I posted had paint on it. As a matter of fact, the pic that was "allowed and accepted" had more discernible nipples then the one that I posted.
I'm looking at the pic now, half the nipple is hanging out. You even said it'd be worth the ban. Don't even pretend you thought it was what I meant.
The fact is, if Dogplatter hadn't come back around, you know I wouldn't have gotten a ban for it. He doesn't know me. You do. It would have been a non-issue.
Not true. It was discussed in the mod section if I remember correctly before the ban was made.
-
Not true. It was discussed in the mod section if I remember correctly before the ban was made.
The point being there wouldn't have been a discussion if not for him.
-
Not true. It was discussed in the mod section if I remember correctly before the ban was made.
The point being there wouldn't have been a discussion if not for him.
Not true.
-
I know you and support the ban. *shrug*
-
I know you and support the ban. *shrug*
*shrug* Meh, I thought my picture was way more benign than the one that was already posted. Hence my comment about being banned. I honestly thought I wouldn't.
-
Dans ce pay-ci, il est bon de tuer de temps en temps un amiral pour encourager les autres.
I thought both images in question were, well, questionable. I'd prefer to err on the side of caution in these things. There are plenty of places to see pictures of naughty ladies on the internet; this need not be one.
-
If you aren't sure if a picture is appropriate or not, then don't post it.
-
edit: fixed back to my post. There is no rule against profanity inside posts, and I've spammed nothing. Do not fucking edit my posts.
I edited your post because you are using profanity in the serious forum Religion and Philosophy, which is against the rules. Edit it again and I shall give you a 7 day vacation.
-
You are using profanity in the serious forum Religion and Philosophy, which is against the rules.
I didn't know about this, but luckily I hardly ever swear.
Out of curiosity did the rules change? If so, there are places it needs to be updated.
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=1499.0
-
This is not even a change at all. Profanity, excessive or not, was never allowed in the any of the serious forums
-
I'm not trying to stir up trouble or anything, but all the expressed rules I can find are contradictory...
"Using profanity in the title of the thread is forbidden, but it is permitted within the thread itself."
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=1413.0
*Flaming
-Threads that include titles with profanity will be edited, moved, locked, or deleted.
...
"Excessive profanity
-Spamming profanity all over the place is an excellent way to get yourself banned."
http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=25355.msg563115#msg563115
-
The rule is uphold all the time by moderators. I just forgot to put it in the rules section. It is stated at the front page when you register the forums:
You agree, through your use of this forum, that you will not post any material which is false, defamatory, inaccurate, abusive, vulgar, hateful, harassing, obscene, profane, sexually oriented, threatening, invasive of a person's privacy, adult material, or otherwise in violation of any International or United States Federal law.
Just drop this conversation now to not derail the thread. I'm trying to fix this loophole.
-
The rule is uphold all the time by moderators. I just forgot to put it in the rules section. It is stated at the front page when you register the forums:
You agree, through your use of this forum, that you will not post any material which is false, defamatory, inaccurate, abusive, vulgar, hateful, harassing, obscene, profane, sexually oriented, threatening, invasive of a person's privacy, adult material, or otherwise in violation of any International or United States Federal law.
Just drop this conversation now to not derail the thread. I'm trying to fix this loophole.
The rules were updated just a few days ago, specifically at the request of the Admin. Why are you now trying to increase the rules to suit your desire? As I understand it, the rules as they were posted a couple of hours ago are approved by Daniel.
What is this? 90% of the threads in this forum include posts with profanity for worse than mine. Why was mine edited? Are you about to start editing the 'profanity' out of all the posts not in AR or CN? See you in a few centuries!
-
The rule is uphold all the time by moderators.
Really? Cos they use profanity in the serious forums all the time.
-
"Using profanity in the title of the thread is forbidden, but it is permitted within the thread itself."
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=1413.0
My lady, that's in Angry Ranting.. :-\
Why are you now trying to increase the rules to suit your desire? As I understand it, the rules as they were posted a couple of hours ago are approved by Daniel.
This has nothing to do with my desires. Some people gets banned for swearing in the serious forums (attackhoe, uncle nasty, etc), while others get away with it. It gets so biased. As I've stated, I'm discussing this with the other moderators and trying to fix this.
-
Jack, I know you mean well but you don't have to treat people like children. Are you this uptight in real life?
-
"Using profanity in the title of the thread is forbidden, but it is permitted within the thread itself."
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=1413.0
My lady, that's in Angry Ranting.. :-\
"The standard Forum rules apply." is right before that...
My primary concern is that profanity posted to be funny isn't deleted. :P
I don't disapprove if vulgar personal attacks are regulated to keep the boards civil, but every instance a word may be used is different. If it is used in the spirit of being humorous I would be inclined to think it would be acceptable. Is this the case?
-
"Using profanity in the title of the thread is forbidden, but it is permitted within the thread itself."
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=1413.0
My lady, that's in Angry Ranting.. :-\
No, it's not, or it wasn't until you changed it, if you changed it. The pertinent quote was from the sites rules post, not a specific forum's rules.
Why are you now trying to increase the rules to suit your desire? As I understand it, the rules as they were posted a couple of hours ago are approved by Daniel.
This has nothing to do with my desires. Some people gets banned for swearing in the serious forums (attackhoe, uncle nasty, etc), while others get away with it. It gets so biased. As I've stated, I'm discussing this with the other moderators and trying to fix this.
So, what, exactly would make it seem appropriate to choose my post, from a thread you hadn't posted in, when there were already two moderators in the discussion?
Are we now some politically correct, douchebag forum for goody-goody twats? Honestly, do you think any of the regulars will stick around for that?
LOL
-
No, it's not, or it wasn't until you changed it, if you changed it. The pertinent quote was from the sites rules post, not a specific forum's rules.
Yes it is. It's already agreed by moderators that you can use profanity all you want in Angry Ranting, as long as you don't include it in your thread title.
So, what, exactly would make it seem appropriate to choose my post, from a thread you hadn't posted in, when there were already two moderators in the discussion?
I already discussed in the mod forum about your post in that thread. It becomes apparent that RP and AS has been very lax on moderation. And thus we suggest that these two forums should be given as much moderation as the FE forums, as they are after all serious forums.
Are we now some politically correct, douchebag forum for goody-goody twats? Honestly, do you think any of the regulars will stick around for that?
LOL
Does everyone who come to this forum likes to read posts with profanity on them? You like to use profanity, but not everyone likes to read them. How is this fair?
-
No, it's not, or it wasn't until you changed it, if you changed it. The pertinent quote was from the sites rules post, not a specific forum's rules.
Yes it is. It's already agreed by moderators that you can use profanity all you want in Angry Ranting, as long as you don't include it in your thread title.
So, what, exactly would make it seem appropriate to choose my post, from a thread you hadn't posted in, when there were already two moderators in the discussion?
I don't believe you. No one has ever edited in that way in that forum, and you all just happened to pick my post? BS.
Are we now some politically correct, douchebag forum for goody-goody twats? Honestly, do you think any of the regulars will stick around for that?
LOL
Does everyone who come to this forum likes to read posts with profanity on them? You like to use profanity, but not everyone likes to read them. How is this fair?
Really? How many complaints have been about profanity in message bodies?
-
I don't believe you.
Don't believe me what?
No one has ever edited in that way in that forum
Moderators are privileged to edit or remove posts that are disruptive to the flow of legitimate discussions.
and you all just happened to pick my post? BS.
I don't give special treatment to any member. I picked your post and Saddam's because they happen to be the posts in the thread with profanity and vulgar in it. If you have serious concerns about my moderation, feel free to PM Daniel about it.
Really? How many complaints have been about profanity in message bodies?
I have received reports from regulars of people swearing in the upper forums and in AS/RP.
-
Just as a quick question why was the name change function dropped? I don't want to have to PM Daniel to change my name.
-
Well, you have to, as I don't think there's any other way. :(
Daniel adopted this new policy because he doesn't want people to change their identities excessively to confuse and annoy people.
-
How is change identities and confusing people bad? They ask in one post and I respond in one post, and then it's done.
-
You may have to talk to him about it.
-
Well, you have to, as I don't think there's any other way. :(
Daniel adopted this new policy because he doesn't want people to change their identities excessively to confuse and annoy people.
What, like dogplattr/J.McIntyre/James
-
Well, you have to, as I don't think there's any other way. :(
Daniel adopted this new policy because he doesn't want people to change their identities excessively to confuse and annoy people.
What, like dogplattr/J.McIntyre/James
Actually, I've been wondering, why do mods get to change their name all the time?
-
Because they, just like members (e.g. stupidface), have to PM Daniel for name changes. There's no difference; I don't think mods get any special privileges for this.
-
Jack, I know you mean well but you don't have to treat people like children. Are you this uptight in real life?
I have to say, I support Jack on this. The issue is not that we want to treat adults like children, it's that frequently adults here behave like children (furthermore, I know for a fact that a substantial number of the board's users are children). JesusCrotch used the word 'cock' a great deal in the post under discussion, and frankly it seemed excessive to me. Furthermore, I find it a little hard to believe that he is equating the use of the word 'cock' with adult behaviour.
-
OK then, if you are going to start enforcing the new rule regarding profanity are you also going to hold the moderators to the same standard as the regular members? Not all of you swear in your posts, but a couple of you do. How much swearing is too much? Is this going to be another rule that is open to a moderator's interpretation? Will any of you use this rule to punish the regulars you don't like and let your friends off easy?
-
I'd like to know how moderators police thread jacking. I believe it to be on of the most prolific acts in these forums and any sort of action against this would create a more debate friendly environment and would probably make the case for FE advance quicker
-
I'd like to know how moderators police thread jacking. I believe it to be on of the most prolific acts in these forums and any sort of action against this would create a more debate friendly environment and would probably make the case for FE advance quicker
We allow the free flow of discussion.
-
We allow the free flow of discussion.
More than fair enough, but if the topic strays so far or the op tries to bring it back on track, there needs to be some sort of control
-
OK then, if you are going to start enforcing the new rule regarding profanity are you also going to hold the moderators to the same standard as the regular members? Not all of you swear in your posts, but a couple of you do. How much swearing is too much? Is this going to be another rule that is open to a moderator's interpretation? Will any of you use this rule to punish the regulars you don't like and let your friends off easy?
I genuinely believe that I apply all of the rules to all of the members in the same way, though I perhaps try and make allowances for newcomers. As for "Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?", ultimately the conduct of other moderators is something which only Daniel can make decisions about. However, I assure you that such conduct does not go unnoticed by the rest of the staff- if it appears to, trust me when I say that we merely endeavour not to wash our dirty laundry in public.
I'd like to know how moderators police thread jacking. I believe it to be on of the most prolific acts in these forums and any sort of action against this would create a more debate friendly environment and would probably make the case for FE advance quicker
It depends on the forum to be honest. In D&D, moderation is strict, and of late we have tried to crack down on any thread derailing that takes place. In GD and Q&C, it's a little more subjective, as discussions often move from one subject to another very quickly, often at the prompting of the OP (especially in Q&C). In general we don't moderate in such instances, as it's important people don't feel they have to start a new thread every time they want to ask a question. That said, if the very first replies to a topic are an attempt to derail it, then we do step in, no matter what forum it's in.
-
We allow the free flow of discussion.
More than fair enough, but if the topic strays so far or the op tries to bring it back on track, there needs to be some sort of control
The OP is in no way in control of a thread or a forum. They simply made a post and wanted to start a discussion, their thread being derailed in lei of actual discussion is no different than if no one posted in it. If the thread is being derailed in spite of actual discussion happening then it can be split.
-
I only brought this up as a few threads i've seen tonight have been derailed spectacularly and very quickly. I would have thought all FE Discussion Forums should be serious and treated as such whether they be a general question or a debate; the question still stands as one that wants to be answered.
As a response to Raist's recent post. I believe if the op specifically (and justly) requests that the thread be brought back on topic where it has been taking off topic to now real value, it should be.
On the whole I am pleased with the policing of the forums, I would just like some more attention paid to this.
Thanks,
Nic
-
Jack, I know you mean well but you don't have to treat people like children. Are you this uptight in real life?
I have to say, I support Jack on this. The issue is not that we want to treat adults like children, it's that frequently adults here behave like children (furthermore, I know for a fact that a substantial number of the board's users are children). JesusCrotch used the word 'cock' a great deal in the post under discussion, and frankly it seemed excessive to me. Furthermore, I find it a little hard to believe that he is equating the use of the word 'cock' with adult behaviour.
LOL. When I'm talking about male genitalia, I use the terms 'cock' and 'balls' almost exclusively. I only use the term 'penis' when speaking with children, elderly relatives, and my doctor. Occasionally, when I'm trying to be funny, I'll call it a 'schlong' or a 'schvantz'.
Last time I checked, it was a commonly used term among adults, especially in England. I think it may be Jeremy Clarkson's favorite word, and as the US and UK post-production teams use different methods of censoring, I can tell that the word is broadcast in the UK, but censored in the US.
I could hardly have predicted, based on the history in the forum (a search will find several thousand posts containing the 'f' word in R&P) to have a word that can be used on UK television PLUS the word 'gay' which is likely allowed on TV in Iran, to be edited out. This is pure PC, douchebag, prudism, and has no place in the FES.
As Daniel has ignored my PM on the subject, though, it is clear that his concern right now is strictly the impending cash flow, not the happiness of the members.
Hey, does it seem a bit slow around here today? I wonder where everyone is...
VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV
-
Are you really equating Jeremy Clarkson with adult behaviour? I love him, but he's easily the most childish man on television. Honestly, if you really feel you can make declarations about what does or doesn't have a place at FES, I think you need to take a long hard look at yourself, and ask when exactly you became the most important person here. What we do, we do in the interest of the community, and the fact is that if profanity isn't moderated to some degree, the same thing eventually happens to content.
-
As Daniel has ignored my PM on the subject, though, it is clear that his concern right now is strictly the impending cash flow, not the happiness of the members.
I'll be posting a sort of 'state of the union' later today to clarify some things so people can stop freaking out over nothing, but I can assure you that "impending cash flow" is not a major concern of mine. I've been running this site for 4+ years completely out of my own pocket. If I wanted to make money, I would have thrown up ads and sold t-shirts and stuff like that last year when we were getting zillions of visitors every day because of the BBC/Fox News articles. I'll go into more detail about everything after I eat dinner. Stay tuned.
edit: And by "later today", I meant "tomorrow". I got sort of caught up arguing/chatting with people on IRC and now I have to go to bed because it's late here.
-
If your not into money can I get my t-shirt for free now? I'll take a small.
-
VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV
Did you forget to let go of the [V] key before submitting your post?
-
VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV
Did you forget to let go of the [V] key before submitting your post?
No, he's pointing towards the link in his sig.
-
VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV
Did you forget to let go of the [V] key before submitting your post?
No, he's pointing towards the link in his sig.
You thought my question was serious?
-
VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV
Did you forget to let go of the [V] key before submitting your post?
No, he's pointing towards the link in his sig.
You thought my question was serious?
You thought that my answer was serious?
...I was just making sure. You never know with the Internet. Anyway, I think you should join .me and spam goatse everywhere.
-
VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV
Did you forget to let go of the [V] key before submitting your post?
No, he's pointing towards the link in his sig.
You thought my question was serious?
You thought that my answer was serious?
...I was just making sure. You never know with the Internet. Anyway, I think you should join .me and spam goatse everywhere.
I have better things to spend my time on.
-
I have better things to spend my time on.
Like registering at .me and posting in Angry Ranting ::)
-
I have better things to spend my time on.
Like registering at .me and posting in Angry Ranting ::)
No.
-
I have better things to spend my time on.
Like registering at .me and posting in Angry Ranting ::)
No.
Oh that wasn't you? Must have been a pretender then, lame.
-
I have better things to spend my time on.
Like registering at .me and posting in Angry Ranting ::)
No.
Oh that wasn't you? Must have been a pretender then, lame.
When I went to .me to look at something someone linked to me and it told me I needed to register to see, I left.
I looked at the thread you are referring to, and that's most definitely not me. I rarely ever use emoticons in my posts, let alone several in one.
-
I have better things to spend my time on.
Like registering at .me and posting in Angry Ranting ::)
I considered registering at .me, but then I saw that Svenanders was a moderator there. Hasn't the RES forum taught us that giving Sven a banstick is a horribly bad idea?
-
I have better things to spend my time on.
Like registering at .me and posting in Angry Ranting ::)
I considered registering at .me, but then I saw that Svenanders was a moderator there. Hasn't the RES forum taught us that giving Sven a banstick is a horribly bad idea?
You idiot, that's Guessed. ::)
Also, Hara was me. Why was the thread deleted, anyway? We're allowed have alts.
-
Guessed isn't Jack anymore?
-
I have better things to spend my time on.
Like registering at .me and posting in Angry Ranting ::)
I considered registering at .me, but then I saw that Svenanders was a moderator there. Hasn't the RES forum taught us that giving Sven a banstick is a horribly bad idea?
You idiot, that's Guessed. ::)
Also, Hara was me. Why was the thread deleted, anyway? We're allowed have alts.
I'm sorry, is this the issue and conern thread for theflatearthsociety.me?
-
I'm sorry. I think it has been determined by now that .me is a baw site.
-
Jack constantly edits the forum rules, and it's usually hard to tell what is different. Can't you guys make it a little more obvious, like bold the new stuff, then unbold it when the rules change again.. I don't know. lol
-
Jack constantly edits the forum rules, and it's usually hard to tell what is different. Can't you guys make it a little more obvious, like bold the new stuff, then unbold it when the rules change again.. I don't know. lol
It's usually just something happens, then the rules change, then its punished the next time. it's not really a thought out process.
-
Jack constantly edits the forum rules, and it's usually hard to tell what is different. Can't you guys make it a little more obvious, like bold the new stuff, then unbold it when the rules change again.. I don't know. lol
Did you find the newly-appended Rules FAQ helpful?
-
Yeah the new FAQ is helpful, but it still doesn't tell me what just changed about the rules. Jack constantly edits something and we're supposed to keep up with the changes, but I don't know what he changed.
-
Revision histories are common in such situations and should be considered for this one.
-
So far, I've corrected the grammar mistakes and added a guide regarding image macros in serious discussions. Since Wilmore and I deleted image macros in some serious discussion threads, which I think is a completely right decision as these images contribute nothing but spam, I've added this new guide into the FAQ.
-
I think every time the rules are updated, a 'bump' post should be added to the topic saying what's been updated. When the next update happens, the old 'bump' post can be deleted and a new one added. That way people know what's happening when things are changed. It's what I did with the forum-specific rules when I tweaked them a little.
-
Affirmative.
-
Can a mod change my notice title in Q&C back to Notice for Newbies? I do not like the new name and I don't appreciate it being edited.
-
Can a mod change my notice title in Q&C back to Notice for Newbies? I do not like the new name and I don't appreciate it being edited.
Notice for newbies is a slightly combative title for a thread we actually want newcomers to read. It may as well be titled, "Read this or die, Losers!". The topic's going to be edited at some point, because the rules for the forum will inevitably need changing. Geez Louise.
-
Can a mod change my notice title in Q&C back to Notice for Newbies? I do not like the new name and I don't appreciate it being edited.
Notice for newbies is a slightly combative title for a thread we actually want newcomers to read. It may as well be titled, "Read this or die, Losers!". The topic's going to be edited at some point, because the rules for the forum will inevitably need changing. Geez Louise.
You don't have to change the title though, I can understand adding in links etc but changing the title is just rude in my opinion. If I had mod powers I wouldn't go around changing the title of your threads.
-
Can a mod change my notice title in Q&C back to Notice for Newbies? I do not like the new name and I don't appreciate it being edited.
Notice for newbies is a slightly combative title for a thread we actually want newcomers to read. It may as well be titled, "Read this or die, Losers!". The topic's going to be edited at some point, because the rules for the forum will inevitably need changing. Geez Louise.
You don't have to change the title though, I can understand adding in links etc but changing the title is just rude in my opinion. If I had mod powers I wouldn't go around changing the title of your threads.
Well look, I don't think it's the right image for us to portray. I've kept the content almost identical, so really, I don't see the problem.
-
Can a mod change my notice title in Q&C back to Notice for Newbies? I do not like the new name and I don't appreciate it being edited.
Notice for newbies is a slightly combative title for a thread we actually want newcomers to read. It may as well be titled, "Read this or die, Losers!". The topic's going to be edited at some point, because the rules for the forum will inevitably need changing. Geez Louise.
You don't have to change the title though, I can understand adding in links etc but changing the title is just rude in my opinion. If I had mod powers I wouldn't go around changing the title of your threads.
Well look, I don't think it's the right image for us to portray. I've kept the content almost identical, so really, I don't see the problem.
I think my title was much friendlier and more inviting to people to read. No one had a problem with it for a long long time.
-
I think every time the rules are updated, a 'bump' post should be added to the topic saying what's been updated. When the next update happens, the old 'bump' post can be deleted and a new one added. That way people know what's happening when things are changed. It's what I did with the forum-specific rules when I tweaked them a little.
Good idear.
-
Damn. How will we ever convey our points without insulting image macros?
-
I think my title was much friendlier and more inviting to people to read. No one had a problem with it for a long long time.
Well look, if you want, you can suggest a new title, and I will change it to that title (as long as it doesn't contain a word like 'newb'). It's just that we get enough agro from 'newbs' as is, without calling them 'newbs' in the one topic we want them to read.
-
I think my title was much friendlier and more inviting to people to read. No one had a problem with it for a long long time.
Well look, if you want, you can suggest a new title, and I will change it to that title (as long as it doesn't contain a word like 'newb'). It's just that we get enough agro from 'newbs' as is, without calling them 'newbs' in the one topic we want them to read.
Personally I think newbie is a friendly word that doesn't come across as aggro but fine, how about making it Notice for Newcomers? Sounds much nicer than a command to read.
-
Done. I kept the big 'IMPORTANT' bit though. Always helps- I'd make it red if could =)
-
I'd make you red if I could. All over.
Also, thank you.
-
I'd make you red if I could. All over.
A newspaper. Hooray for Christmas Cracker jokes.
-
I'd make you red if I could. All over.
A newspaper. Hooray for Christmas Cracker jokes.
Nope, sunburn. Either that or terribly embarrassed. :P
-
I'd make you red if I could. All over.
A newspaper. Hooray for Christmas Cracker jokes.
Nope, sunburn. Either that or terribly embarrassed. :P
I was just gonna paint him
-
Ah, so not stab him for changing thread title, then?
-
I didn't say what I was gonna paint him with
-
why is it that every time i join i am banned?
-
why is it that every time i join i am banned?
Because you were permab&, and now you're evading your ban.
-
why is it that every time i join i am banned?
Because you can't take a hint?
-
Aww... he didn't even send me a PM :(
-
Taters was warned for this post:
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=31683.msg780878#msg780878
which was fair enough, as it was in FEQ&C. However, he was then banned for the same post by Daniel, and it was a first offence. That seems unreasonable, to say the least.
Also, how long is the ban for?
-
And he conceded and said he screwed up...plus its not like it was nipples or anything...I mean anyone that does that, deserves it. ;D
-
Daniel's site, Daniel's call. I felt a warning was enough, but I can easily understand how someone would consider that post worthy of an immediate ban, and indeed I considered doing just that. In the end I decided just to post a general warning and ban the next offender. However, Daniel is the owner, so he is perfectly entitled to make that call even after I have warned him.
The ban is for about a week I think.
-
Daniel's site, Daniel's call. I felt a warning was enough, but I can easily understand how someone would consider that post worthy of an immediate ban, and indeed I considered doing just that. In the end I decided just to post a general warning and ban the next offender. However, Daniel is the owner, so he is perfectly entitled to make that call even after I have warned him.
The ban is for about a week I think.
If he felt such an offence warranted an immediate ban, shouldn't he have made that the official punishment for such a rule? Cursing and flaming, according to the FE discussion board rules, warrant post edit/deletion and a warning, with a ban for repeat offenders. His post was not edited, he apologised and it was his first offence.
-
I find the ban legitimate not because he is the owner of the website, but because the act was completely in contradiction to the rules. Mods should enforce in this manner for this kind of offense, as it was way out of line and the offender did it intentionally because the victim was a newcomer. This type of treatment to new members needs to stop. A warning may have been sufficient, but newcomers have been banned for the very same offense without warning, and I find that unjust. Furthermore, regulars always ignore warnings. There have been some warnings given in R&P, but the regulars still continue to violate the rules with cursing and flaming, particularly at ChristianRocker09 and some other people posting ideas that are inconsistent with the regulars'.
If he felt such an offence warranted an immediate ban, shouldn't he have made that the official punishment for such a rule? Cursing and flaming, according to the FE discussion board rules, warrant post edit/deletion and a warning, with a ban for repeat offenders. His post was not edited, he apologised and it was his first offence.
I shall edit the post now.
-
I find the ban legitimate not because he is the owner of the website, but because the act was completely in contradiction to the rules. Mods should enforce in this manner for this kind of offense, as it was way out of line and the offender did it intentionally because the victim was a newcomer. This type of treatment to new members needs to stop. A warning may have been sufficient, but newcomers have been banned for the very same offense without warning, and I find that unjust. Furthermore, regulars always ignore warnings. There have been some warnings given in R&P, but the regulars still continue to violate the rules with cursing and flaming, particularly at ChristianRocker09 and some other people posting ideas that are inconsistent with the regulars'.
The act was in contradiction of the clearly stated rules I agree, however the punishment is stated just as clearly that it is to be treated with a warning and a post edit, with a ban for repeat offenders. Taters had never broken any rules before, so it was not a repeat offence, your wild generalisation that he would ignore the warning was unfounded, and he has never in my experience mistreated a new member in the way Christianrocker is treated (I might add, he is treated as such for being wilfully ignorant, insanely arrogant and generally irritating, rather than for his beliefs).
Newcomers are often banned for such offences because they create profane/offensive usernames, spam serious discussion boards with bile and vitriol and fail to do any research before flinging themselves into the fray, often cursing extensively and using racist/homophobic language as they do so.
If he felt such an offence warranted an immediate ban, shouldn't he have made that the official punishment for such a rule? Cursing and flaming, according to the FE discussion board rules, warrant post edit/deletion and a warning, with a ban for repeat offenders. His post was not edited, he apologised and it was his first offence.
I shall edit the post now.
I think you missed the point.
-
I find the ban legitimate
*facepalm.jpg*
-
I find the ban legitimate
SON I AM DISAPPOINT
Fixd to update the meme.
-
Oh good lord, Jack. Jiggle the stick.
-
I find the ban legitimate
SON I AM DISAPPOINT
Fixd to update the meme.
Thanx.
-
Look guys, what he did was against the rules. Once you break the rules, you risk a ban. You should also note that taters was not banned for profanity, but for flaming. When it comes to flaming the rules say nothing about 'repeat offenders' etc, which means you can be banned straight away depending on how the moderator on the spot views things.
The last few posts are a case in point. I'm not sure I agree with Jack, largely because I no longer consider KatiePipkin a newcomer and she can give as good as she gets. But whether or not I agree with Jack is beside the point. Different mods will always interpret different situations in different ways, and act accordingly. Generally, unless a decision is especially objectionable, we respect each-other's decisions. The difference here is that Daniel is the owner, and so whether or not I warned taters is irrelevant. Daniel felt it warranted a ban, and that is his call to make.
-
Taters had never broken any rules before, so it was not a repeat offence and he has never in my experience mistreated a new member in the way Christianrocker is treated
So far in this month for flaming and cursing, and we let him slide:
The belief that the Earth is on the back of 4 elephants which are themselves on the back of a turtle is one held largely by some Hindus. I don't think anyone here believes that.
WoM is just trolling you. You are so incredibly stupid he decided it wasn't even worth it to argue and he started spouting religious nonsense that he doesn't actually believe.
But you can't disprove it, so it must be true.
Or you could stop being a dipshit.
I don't believe in God and I'm not a religious person.
Hence the comment, dumbass. It is the best nonreligious answer, meaning it came from someone who is nonreligious.
@ Raist: I said that everyone deserves a chance and he said "bullshit". So, by his logic no one deserves a chance, which includes living, breathing humans.
Why? Since the comment was that everyone deserves a chance, his comment of "bullshit" simply means that not everyone deserves a chance. In no way does it mean that no one does. Maybe you should stop spouting stupidity and be a bit less of a dick.
WoM is just trolling you. You are so incredibly stupid he decided it wasn't even worth it to argue and he started spouting religious nonsense that he doesn't actually believe.
Not flaming or cursing, but still inappropriate in the upper fora:
Oh my god! That is worse than I thought! >:( Just to clarify though, you mean penguin, right?
(I might add, he is treated as such for being wilfully ignorant, insanely arrogant and generally irritating, rather than for his beliefs).
And so Christianrocker must be treated that way?
-
He received no warning for these, so getting banned for that is still unfair. I'm not saying Christianrocker should be treated that way, but other members can hardly be blamed for retaliating.
-
Like I said, the rules say nothing about a warning being required.
-
Like I said, the rules say nothing about a warning being required.
Most of what Jack was referring to seemed to relate more to profanity than flaming.
-
Like I said, the rules say nothing about a warning being required.
Most of what Jack was referring to seemed to relate more to profanity than flaming.
The offence he was banned for, however, was flaming. When you call someone a 'fucking bitch' for no good reason, it's no longer a question of profanity.
-
Like I said, the rules say nothing about a warning being required.
Most of what Jack was referring to seemed to relate more to profanity than flaming.
The offence he was banned for, however, was flaming. When you call someone a 'fucking bitch' for no good reason, it's no longer a question of profanity.
Indeed it was, but Jack was attempting to justify it with "previous cases" of an entirely different problem.
In fairness to him, I've often thought exactly the same thing of her, there can be no doubt that she's only here to provoke people and troll. She has provided plenty of reason to call her as such, and has herself broken rules about troublemaking and flaming herself.
-
He received no warning for these, so getting banned for that is still unfair. I'm not saying Christianrocker should be treated that way, but other members can hardly be blamed for retaliating.
Yet, despite no warnings were given, he still committed the offense repeatedly, which means we gave him chances before this. We've been quite lax lately after the new rule update because we thought that, with the new rules, the regulars would behave fairly and appropriately in the serious discussion fora.
Indeed it was, but Jack was attempting to justify it with "previous cases" of an entirely different problem.
All of the ones I've posted, except the one with the C word, are classified as flaming.
-
I've often thought exactly the same thing of her, there can be no doubt that she's only here to provoke people and troll. She has provided plenty of reason to call her as such, and has herself broken rules about troublemaking and flaming herself.
Oh come now, that's not entirely fair. I admit that occasionally I do word my posts in a way that's designed to needle the recipient, but that's generally only when I'm replying to a comment which I consider to be scornful or rude to me. I don't come here to purposefully provoke people or troll - I come here to see how the flat earth community face challenging questions which I think are difficult to reconcile with a flat world view, which is not trolling, it's debate. And also to challenge myself to see if I can find holes in the flat theory. And to understand the psychology of flatters. But though I can sometimes be a bit insulting, I will never use bad language.
I do feel that a small number of the hardcore flatters view any sort of questioning of their theory to be provocation and trolling, though. Fortunately, most do not, but it only takes a few bad apples to spoil the bag.
-
I've often thought exactly the same thing of her, there can be no doubt that she's only here to provoke people and troll. She has provided plenty of reason to call her as such, and has herself broken rules about troublemaking and flaming herself.
Oh come now, that's not entirely fair. I admit that occasionally I do word my posts in a way that's designed to needle the recipient, but that's generally only when I'm replying to a comment which I consider to be scornful or rude to me. I don't come here to purposefully provoke people or troll - I come here to see how the flat earth community face challenging questions which I think are difficult to reconcile with a flat world view, which is not trolling, it's debate. And also to challenge myself to see if I can find holes in the flat theory. And to understand the psychology of flatters. But though I can sometimes be a bit insulting, I will never use bad language.
I do feel that a small number of the hardcore flatters view any sort of questioning of their theory to be provocation and trolling, though. Fortunately, most do not, but it only takes a few bad apples to spoil the bag.
I agree. Katie's not a troll, in fact, she's actually one of the better RE debaters on this site. I agree that Taters should probably just have been reprimanded, as he hadn't been warned before, but it's not fair to justify his actions by targeting the person he was insulting.
-
I missed the post, what did taters say that was so bad?
And Jack, if taters wasn't given warnings then thats a mistake made by you mods, he shouldn't be punished for your (I say your in the plural sense, not specifically referring to you) mistakes.
-
I missed the post, what did taters say that was so bad?
He called Katie a "fucking bitch" in one of the serious sections.
And Jack, if taters wasn't given warnings then thats a mistake made by you mods, he shouldn't be punished for your (I say your in the plural sense, not specifically referring to you) mistakes.
I think their point is that giving a warning isn't required. Also, Daniel overruled Lord Wilmore's decision to give Taters a warning.
-
I missed the post, what did taters say that was so bad?
He called Katie a "fucking bitch" in one of the serious sections.
And Jack, if taters wasn't given warnings then thats a mistake made by you mods, he shouldn't be punished for your (I say your in the plural sense, not specifically referring to you) mistakes.
I think their point is that giving a warning isn't required. Also, Daniel overruled Lord Wilmore's decision to give Taters a warning.
Was she being a fucking bitch?
And Daniel is a big meanie
-
Well, here's the quote:
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=31683.msg780878#msg780878
-
Someone quoted taters underneath his post so fucking bitch is still there, someone better tell Jack so he can edit it. And judging from that thread she was being a tad bitchy. And she reported his post, thats bitchy.
-
Am I seeing things, or does there appear to be a penis in those pictures?
-
Am I seeing things, or does there appear to be a penis in those pictures?
heh now I see it too. Ban her for explicit pictures!
-
Am I seeing things, or does there appear to be a penis in those pictures?
heh now I see it too. Ban her for explicit pictures!
Holy shit, I never noticed that!
-
That picture was posted in its original version by Wardogg! I got it from him! :-[
-
Ban them both!
-
Quiet down, you knuckleheads. He's unbanned a couple days early. But he's been here long enough to know that calling someone a "fucking bitch" is definitely not acceptable, so I don't know if a warning is really necessary. This wasn't a case where the infraction was in some sort of gray area in terms of the rules. Anyway, it's done with now so return to your homes. Nothing to see here. Move along, citizens.
-
Quiet down, you knuckleheads. He's unbanned a couple days early. But he's been here long enough to know that calling someone a "fucking bitch" is definitely not acceptable, so I don't know if a warning is really necessary. This wasn't a case where the infraction was in some sort of gray area in terms of the rules. Anyway, it's done with now so return to your homes. Nothing to see here. Move along, citizens.
Thank you for being merciful.
-
Mercy is a sign of weakness. Be strong Daniel. Do not succumb to these peons.
-
I would like to raise the concern that a certain member is continually spamming and necroposting in the debate forums, and since I reported one of his posts more than half an hour ago, despite two moderators having been on, none of his posts have been deleted and he is still spamming away.
-
This issue is being taken care of now. Thanks for the notice.
-
That picture was posted in its original version by Wardogg! I got it from him! :-[
SHE SHOOPED IT!!!!
-
Adblock is a wonderful tool.
-
Again, adblock is a wonderful tool.
-
Jack 09:56:54 Posting in Forum Standard Rules - Read Before Posting!.
-
Jack 09:56:54 Posting in Forum Standard Rules - Read Before Posting!.
Again? How many more times is he going to change the rules?
-
Possibly until every single person that makes this their first port of call is banned and only the uber elite survive.
-
I can't believe Daniel is letting him make all these ridiculous rules, lol.
-
Fuck the rules, they can't ban all of us.
-
Again? How many more times is he going to change the rules?
Actually, I just added a few things discussed on the mod forum this week, so chill out. Also, the rules are subject to change without notice as stated by in the rules, so there is nothing wrong if one of the moderators decide to add or change something in there according to the discussions on the mod forum, provided that the moderators reached an agreement in said discussions. We're kind enough to add an update log for those people that don't bother to dig the newly added gems.
EDIT: I guess I'll just say it here. As stated in the log, I've only added the rules on thread derailment and a paragraph written by Lord Wilmore, so don't worry about it.
-
Fuck the rules, they can't ban all of us.
My dear misguided boy, if he is doing it with the backing of the admin then the future for the fun part of this site is ominous to say the least.
My feelings on this have already been expressed. That is that the upper and lower boards depend on each other for survival, no matter how much the purists of the top five resent the flippancy of the lower boards.
However if the admin wish to undergo a purge of non relevant material pertaining to the original concept of this site there is not a lot we can do about it.
Daniel's project therefore he can do what he see's fit.
End of story.
-
I can't believe Daniel is letting him make all these ridiculous rules, lol.
What are you talking about?
-
Q: "What happens if someone asks to be banned?"
A: He or she will be banned permanently.
What's the point of this addition?
-
Q: "What happens if someone asks to be banned?"
A: He or she will be banned permanently.
What's the point of this addition?
I thought it would be necessary to have this included in the FAQ, since some newcomers may not understand it. The rules actually never stated before that people are permanently banned if they ask to be banned, although that's how we interpret it if someone does ask to be banned. Thus, I added it just in case. However, if the mods feel it's unnecessary, I'll take it off.
-
Q: "What happens if someone asks to be banned?"
A: He or she will be banned permanently.
What's the point of this addition?
I thought it would be necessary to have this included in the FAQ, since some newcomers may not understand it. The rules actually never stated before that people are permanently banned if they ask to be banned, although that's how we interpret it if someone does ask to be banned. Thus, I added it just in case. However, if the mods feel it's unnecessary, I'll take it off.
Yeah, I like that. When noobs troll and demand to be banned I say no reason to deny them.
-
Agreed. Also, whenever Jack changes the rules it's usually based on a suggestion by one or several of the other mods, and sometimes suggestions from the members. It just so happens that Jack is usually the one to do it. I don't think any of the changes are major, so I'm not sure what the problem is.
-
What if we request a one day ban for our own temporary reasons...?
-
What if we request a one day ban for our own temporary reasons...?
There are other ways of dealing with your internet addiction.
-
Why is a post I made in CN moved into a serious discussion? lol..
The problem with all these rule changes is that you guys are legislating the fun right out of this website. If that is Daniel's goal, then that's his right, but I don't see the forum surviving without the silly stuff.
-
Why is a post I made in CN moved into a serious discussion? lol..
The problem with all these rule changes is that you guys are legislating the fun right out of this website. If that is Daniel's goal, then that's his right, but I don't see the forum surviving without the silly stuff.
This is true. While the serious debates here are good, they're not so stimulating as to keep me here on their own what with all being the same and based in either RE ignorance or an as-yet unresearched area of FE, as opposed to actually debating or discussing FE itself. If you want to fix the forums, make FEQ&C the RE/FE debate forum and rule against any mention of RE in FED&D. As it is almost nothing is actually achieved in debates.
-
This forum has always been severely over-moderated, I'm used to it now. Also there has always been too many moderators.
-
Considering it is essentially one big fuckin' joke forum...
I think I've said it before but I might as well say it again. The whole place is one massive troll on the face of the internet, some take it far too seriously.
-
Considering it is essentially one big fuckin' joke forum...
I think I've said it before but I might as well say it again. The whole place is one massive troll on the face of the internet, some take it far too seriously.
this
-
This forum has always been severely over-moderated, I'm used to it now. Also there has always been too many moderators.
Always? For a long time we just had Engy.
-
This forum has always been severely over-moderated, I'm used to it now. Also there has always been too many moderators.
Always? For a long time we just had Engy.
I remember a few others such as dogplatter (now called James?), that Australian guy named after a singer who's name I can't remember, and some others I've forgotten. It was a long time ago in a galaxy far far away.
-
This forum has always been severely over-moderated, I'm used to it now. Also there has always been too many moderators.
Always? For a long time we just had Engy.
I remember a few others such as dogplatter (now called James?), that Australian guy named after a singer who's name I can't remember, and some others I've forgotten. It was a long time ago in a galaxy far far away.
Dogplatter and Rick_James left a long long time ago, you're right there. You were here when the year or so with pretty much only Engy and later Parsifal were mods though. Dark days indeed...
-
I must be honest I tend to be oblivious to mods half the time. The only thing we need them for is deleting spammers.
-
Then I became mod and sunshine and rainbows burst forth from barely legal girl's vaginas. All was good, and JJ could no longer spam his goats.
-
Then I became mod and sunshine and rainbows burst forth from barely legal girl's vaginas. All was good, and JJ could no longer spam his goats.
...why?
-
One day, I'll become a mod. And on that day, all will be right with the world.
-
One day, I'll become a mod. And on that day, I will abuse mah powahs
fix'd
-
I'd be a terrible mod, and would abuse my powers constantly.
-
I'd be a terrible mod, and would abuse myself constantly
I'm in a good mood right now.
-
I'd be a terrible mod, and would abuse myself constantly
I'm in a good mood right now because I'm abusing myself constantly.
-
I'd be a terrible mod, and would abuse myself constantly
I'm in a good mood right now because I'm abusing myself constantly.
fap fap fap
-
I'd be a terrible mod, and would abuse myself constantly
I'm in a good mood right now because I'm abusing myself constantly.
fap fap fap
Whatcha wearing?
A thong.
-
I'd be a terrible mod, and would abuse myself constantly
I'm in a good mood right now because I'm abusing myself constantly.
fap fap fap
Whatcha wearing?
You on my face hopefully.
Play your cards right...
-
General Discussion has now become Complete Nonsense.
-
General Discussion has now become Complete Nonsense.
Become?
-
Sorry your websites thread was deleted. Apparently you can only post about retarded sites that will guess imaginary characters or sites run by mods. :(
-
Why is this thread being spammed?
-
Off-topic aint spam and it doesn't stop people from being on-topic.
-
The problem with all these rule changes is that you guys are legislating the fun right out of this website. If that is Daniel's goal, then that's his right, but I don't see the forum surviving without the silly stuff.
But what about these rule changes takes the fun out of the website? If everyone behaved with common sense it would be fine, but the problem is that anytime anyone gets banned (even when they were obviously pushing it or taking the piss), a bunch of regulars come in here and argue how it wasn't actually against the rules as stated. It's all well and good saying we don't need such anal rules, but the reality is that a lot of members get just as anal about the rules as we do when it suits them.
If we didn't put rules up, people would constantly be moaning 'well, u didnt say it woz against da rulz'. 50% of what we do is moderate, and the other 50% is defend our moderation. Clear and explicit rules give us a systematic way to do the former, and give us a better basis on which to do the latter.
All of this is normal. You guys will never be satisfied with our moderation, and I accept that. Moaning is just the norm, on almost any forum, and especially on a forum as controversial as this one. The problem is that we require a set of rules that can be applied to the happy-go-lucky regulars such as yourself, AND the weekly shipment of angry newbs who hate this place for simply existing. In a spectrum that wide, naturally there has to be a compromise between strict 'legal interpretation' and common sense. We're never going to have a bum-chummy utopia here. To be honest, if there was no criticism from you guys it would probably be a bad thing, as it would indicate that we were more interested in making friends than being fair. I welcome criticim!
I see rules as something for us to fall back on. Moderation should always be a common sense affair, but that works both ways- if a member behaves without common sense, it becomes very hard for us to apply the rules in a common sense fashion. We have rules on the books so we can enforce them if needed.
As for the whole 'take the silly out of the site', that's not Daniel's aim, nor is that of any of the mods. The site needs a recreational aspect- the only problem I have with the lower forums is that I think there's a bit too much spam. But in general I would actually like to see the recreational aspect of the site expanded (something which got delayed due to the hack), because I think the current setup of the lower boards actually limits non-FET chat and discussion.
-
the only problem I have with the lower forums is that I think there's a bit too much spam.
I enjoy the spam, but I agree that it doesn't look particularly good. I would be fully supportive of making posts in CN and AR not contribute towards post count, and hiding those fora - or at least just CN - from guests.
-
The whole site is spam. Case closed.
-
Lord Wilmore,
The more rules you make, the more rules you'll have to make. Have a look at forums that have "constitutions", the members spend most of their time complaining about rule enforcement or lack thereof. They debate endlessly about making this or that against the rules.
You say moderation should always be a common sense affair, but it isn't. This very debate we're having now was moved into this thread from CN because some moderator didn't want people joking around about Jack constantly changing the rules. We're not allowed to discuss the mods in any thread except this one, not even jest apparently. I think there should be a new rule pertaining to moderators of this site, and that is: a moderator must remove the stick from his ass before making a decision.
-
It seems you keep saying that I constantly change the rules, but tell me, what rules did I change? There is a difference between "changing the rules" and "adding new rules." The only thing I changed was grammar in the definitions. I thought I made that clear in the update log. In addition, define what you mean by "constant." Do you think that I add rules as I see fit? If so, then I think you are mistaken. I always post a thread for discussion on the mod forum every time I see something is going wrong. If the mods agree that something needs to be changed and a new rule should be added to address such changes, then I will act immediately. If the mods do not agree, I will not continue. It is all about consensus.
I moved the thread here because it seems there were some complaints going on about me editing the rules section and I thought I would make my clarifications clear to everyone. That is what this thread is for. I did not move the discussion to here simply because I do not want people to make jokes about me; I am used to that, so I am not going to make a big deal out of it.
The state of the board (I call it 'A') shortly after the hack proved that rules are important. That would be the perfect example of what happens when enforcements no longer exist. There were no rules nor moderators except Daniel, so things were quite chaotic. I remembered someone posted "if there were no enforcements, FES will always be like this." Hobbes was right about this, as it was exactly like the State of Nature. Then, the backup was restored. However, there were still no moderators except Daniel, so there were spams and the occasional gay porn. The rules were barely enforced due to the lack of moderators, which is the same thing as having little to no rules. Our powers were restored after that, and things became much smoother. The less rules we have, the closer we get to A. However, I agree with you that the more rules we have, the less freedom of speech there is in FES. Thus, we do not constantly add or change rules as you would fondly say. Perhaps we have reached an equilibrium.
Furthermore, if you lurked in the upper fora, you would notice that fights and spams were increasing recently thanks to W, Crustinator, and others. Threads get derailed fast by these misbehavior and, as a result, less people participated in the debate. Some people complained about the state of the fora, and so I thought I would bring this to the mods' attention. The mods understood that it needs to be changed, and thus a new rule was added to the section. As Wilmore have said, it is really common sense.
I hope that I've addressed any confusions you may have. If you are still unsatisfied, I will try and explain more.
-
the only problem I have with the lower forums is that I think there's a bit too much spam.
I enjoy the spam, but I agree that it doesn't look particularly good. I would be fully supportive of making posts in CN and AR not contribute towards post count, and hiding those fora - or at least just CN - from guests.
I agree with hiding CN, I don't really care about my post count, although I don't post much anywhere else.
-
I think there should be a new rule pertaining to moderators of this site, and that is: a moderator must remove the stick from his ass before making a decision.
Marry me!
-
Lord Wilmore,
The more rules you make, the more rules you'll have to make. Have a look at forums that have "constitutions", the members spend most of their time complaining about rule enforcement or lack thereof. They debate endlessly about making this or that against the rules.
You say moderation should always be a common sense affair, but it isn't. This very debate we're having now was moved into this thread from CN because some moderator didn't want people joking around about Jack constantly changing the rules. We're not allowed to discuss the mods in any thread except this one, not even jest apparently. I think there should be a new rule pertaining to moderators of this site, and that is: a moderator must remove the stick from his ass before making a decision.
I love when women take one instance and act like it is how things always are. You aren't allowed to discuss the mods at all anymore? What website are you on SCG. Please stop with the drama queening. I will gladly make a thread in CN where you can say whatever you want about me serious or not, and I'll bet most of the other mods would be more than willing to do the same. He brought that to this thread probably to make the discussion serious so that your point would be heard. Bawww harder next time.
-
Furthermore, if you lurked in the upper fora, you would notice that fights and spams were increasing recently thanks to W, Crustinator, and others. Threads get derailed fast by these misbehavior and, as a result, less people participated in the debate. Some people complained about the state of the fora, and so I thought I would bring this to the mods' attention. The mods understood that it needs to be changed, and thus a new rule was added to the section. As Wilmore have said, it is really common sense.
The problem is that you're expecting serious responses to nonserious questions, FESUCKSMYBALLS making the claim that "U GUISE AR SO STOOPID I HAD SECKS WITH YORE MAW. LOOK AT DESE PHOTOS OF TEH EART *Various pictures of Earth taken from Star Trek*" does not expect anything other that what they get from "W, Crustinator and others" because it would be absurd to do so.
If you're going to be so rigorous about rule changes why not make these debates over new rules available or at least viewable to everyone, so we can give our feelings on the matter when it's debate, rather than here afterwards in the form of bitching and screams of "OLIGARCHY!"? You clearly value our opinions, this thread and the changes it has led to stand testament, but it seems like a lot of time and butthurt to waste putting the rules in action then listening to us.
-
I'd just like to say that I honestly was just kidding around when I "complained" about Jack. I really don't have a problem with him changing the rules at all, because, as he said, I trust him enough to know that he isn't going to make ridiculous changes to the rules without backup from the other mods and telling us.
Also, Kasroa, you've made it clear by now that you don't take this site seriously, but there are some people here who definitely do. You aren't really helping by calling this site "spam".
-
Lord Wilmore,
The more rules you make, the more rules you'll have to make. Have a look at forums that have "constitutions", the members spend most of their time complaining about rule enforcement or lack thereof. They debate endlessly about making this or that against the rules.
You say moderation should always be a common sense affair, but it isn't. This very debate we're having now was moved into this thread from CN because some moderator didn't want people joking around about Jack constantly changing the rules. We're not allowed to discuss the mods in any thread except this one, not even jest apparently. I think there should be a new rule pertaining to moderators of this site, and that is: a moderator must remove the stick from his ass before making a decision.
Jack said most of what I want to say. The only thing I'd add is that as I undertand it, there's no strict rule saying you can't discuss moderator conduct anywhere other than here. That rule was actually my suggestion, and what it states is that if a moderator tells you to stop doing something, e.g. thread derailing, you're not allowed to further derail the thread by having an argument about it. It annoys the hell out of me when people do that, because it just further ruins the topic and makes the initial (and hence all) moderation completely useless. Now, if you want to start a thread in EE or CN about how RAIST IS ABUSING HIS MAWD POWAZ, be my guest, but if you want a serious response, this is probably the best location to slag us off =)
The problem is that you're expecting serious responses to nonserious questions, FESUCKSMYBALLS making the claim that "U GUISE AR SO STOOPID I HAD SECKS WITH YORE MAW. LOOK AT DESE PHOTOS OF TEH EART *Various pictures of Earth taken from Star Trek*" does not expect anything other that what they get from "W, Crustinator and others" because it would be absurd to do so.
If you're going to be so rigorous about rule changes why not make these debates over new rules available or at least viewable to everyone, so we can give our feelings on the matter when it's debate, rather than here afterwards in the form of bitching and screams of "OLIGARCHY!"? You clearly value our opinions, this thread and the changes it has led to stand testament, but it seems like a lot of time and butthurt to waste putting the rules in action then listening to us.
The thing is, most people here are armchair anarchists. Any rule which might in any way apply to any of the regulars is going to be opposed. We have to decide if rules are needed or not based on our own experience and judgement. However, we're always open to criticism and suggestions. But in this instance (for example), the only valid criticism of the changes/new rule was based on a misunderstanding of said rule. Everything else was pretty much 'UGH, CHANGE'R COMIN'.
The other thing is, there really is no issue with changing the rules after the fact- it's not as if we have a complex bureacratic system to deal with. If there's a serious and genuine criticism, things can be taken down/adjusted. However, I'll take your point- from now on we'll make an effort to be more open about rule changes. Not sure what form that will take, but I'll chat with the other mods and try to do something.
-
I'd just like to say that I honestly was just kidding around when I "complained" about Jack. I really don't have a problem with him changing the rules at all, because, as he said, I trust him enough to know that he isn't going to make ridiculous changes to the rules without backup from the other mods and telling us.
Also, Kasroa, you've made it clear by now that you don't take this site seriously, but there are some people here who definitely do. You aren't really helping by calling this site "spam".
I know it doesn't really help but some things need to be said and not just once.
-
The thing is, most people here are armchair anarchists. Any rule which might in any way apply to any of the regulars is going to be opposed.
This didn't rub well with me. There are indeed some people here who feel regulars deserve special treatment or are exempt from rules, but we all know who they are and their baseless attacks can simply be disregarded or, if it gets serious, deleted. Calling us all as good as small children isn't going to help anybody's case here though, and it's only going to involve butthurt.
But in this instance (for example), the only valid criticism of the changes/new rule was based on a misunderstanding of said rule. Everything else was pretty much 'UGH, CHANGE'R COMIN'.
True, and that thread could equally be used for people to ask about rules before feeling forced to interpret new ones themselves, or change wording to make it clearer. If we felt more involved or at least knew in advance what was being discussed, we (I at least) would be a lot more comfortable with the changes.
-
The thing is, most people here are armchair anarchists. Any rule which might in any way apply to any of the regulars is going to be opposed.
This didn't rub well with me. There are indeed some people here who feel regulars deserve special treatment or are exempt from rules, but we all know who they are and their baseless attacks can simply be disregarded or, if it gets serious, deleted. Calling us all as good as small children isn't going to help anybody's case here though, and it's only going to involve butthurt.
I didn't mean to cause offence, but that's just how I see it. However, I wasn't implying anyone was behaving childishly with that 'armchair anarchist' remark (though that does happen). On most forums, just as in most societies, people are against what they perceive to be unnecessary rules. The trouble is that it can be very hard to understand what rules are or aren't necessary if you're not at the enforcement end of things, so members and moderators often have different ideas about what is 'necessary'.
As I said earlier, I don't have a problem with that, and I don't find it frustrating. I kind of expect members to be opposed to what they see as needless adjusments. It's part of the natural friction, and as long as it's all out open, I think it's actually good for the site. No butthurt intended, I assure you.
-
Wilmore, you realize all this debate is over about three posts Jack moved from COMPLETE NONSENSE and attached to this thread? Robosteve started the thread in CN for a reason, and that is because it wasn't important. No one was seriously complaining about Jack and his obsession with the rules thread. It's just funny that he changes the rules all the time. I can imagine him pouring over the rules searching for a misplaced comma.
I am on the enforcement end of the rules on several forums. You act as if being a mod on a forum is an important job, when most of the time it's just cleaning up after bots spammers and trolls. A forum is a form of entertainment, nothing more. There's no need to be so serious.
Jack, the world didn't end when FES was hacked, we didn't lose our minds over seeing a bit of gay porn. Anarchy was fun for a couple days. Lighten up.
Raist, drink your cough syrup, the grown ups are talking.
-
Wilmore, you realize all this debate is over about three posts Jack moved from COMPLETE NONSENSE and attached to this thread? Robosteve started the thread in CN for a reason, and that is because it wasn't important. No one was seriously complaining about Jack and his obsession with the rules thread. It's just funny that he changes the rules all the time. I can imagine him pouring over the rules searching for a misplaced comma.
I am on the enforcement end of the rules on several forums. You act as if being a mod on a forum is an important job, when most of the time it's just cleaning up after bots spammers and trolls. A forum is a form of entertainment, nothing more. There's no need to be so serious.
Jack, the world didn't end when FES was hacked, we didn't lose our minds over seeing a bit of gay porn. Anarchy was fun for a couple days. Lighten up.
Raist, drink your cough syrup, the grown ups are talking.
Wow, such a mature response. Throw an insult so that you don't have to admit to being a drama queen. Mod drama comes up and space cowgirl instantly is here.
-
My post was moved into this thread, I responded. Did you bother to read the thread or did you just want to troll a little?
-
My post was moved into this thread, I responded. Did you bother to read the thread or did you just want to troll a little?
I read your post, responded to it as it deserved to be responded to. Then you insulted me, and I responded again as you deserved. Continue your trolling of the mods though. I mean drama whoring is all the rage. You've gotten good at it.
-
Oh yeah I threw the first insult. I believe you called me a drama queen because I have an opinion. I don't see you saying the same thing to General Douchbag or Kasroa, and I think they agree with most of what I've said. Are you gonna troll their posts too?
-
The end.
-
Oh yeah I threw the first insult. I believe you called me a drama queen because I have an opinion. I don't see you saying the same thing to General Douchbag or Kasroa, and I think they agree with most of what I've said. Are you gonna troll their posts too?
They're not the ones that bawwwed about a post being moved so it could be discussed seriously. They are also not the ones claiming that "you can't talk about the mods anymore" again, until one of us stops you from talking about us, shut up.
-
No one was seriously complaining about Jack and his obsession with the rules thread. It's just funny that he changes the rules all the time. I can imagine him pouring over the rules searching for a misplaced comma.
I have no obsession with the rules thread, and I do not change it "all the time." I recommend you to either go back and read what I posted, or think before you post.
I am on the enforcement end of the rules on several forums. You act as if being a mod on a forum is an important job, when most of the time it's just cleaning up after bots spammers and trolls. A forum is a form of entertainment, nothing more. There's no need to be so serious.
Jack, the world didn't end when FES was hacked, we didn't lose our minds over seeing a bit of gay porn. Anarchy was fun for a couple days. Lighten up.
I'm curious, but do you act like this on every other board as well, acting like you're the only one that knows all the forum ethics and knows how to run a message board properly?
EDIT: missing word
-
Wilmore, you realize all this debate is over about three posts Jack moved from COMPLETE NONSENSE and attached to this thread? Robosteve started the thread in CN for a reason, and that is because it wasn't important. No one was seriously complaining about Jack and his obsession with the rules thread. It's just funny that he changes the rules all the time. I can imagine him pouring over the rules searching for a misplaced comma.
Yeah, god, Jack probably gets really anal over commas and spelling! Hehe, that Jack, he sure does get picky about that kind of stuff. Me, I'd certainly never do that, not me, no, never... <_< >_>
I am on the enforcement end of the rules on several forums. You act as if being a mod on a forum is an important job, when most of the time it's just cleaning up after bots spammers and trolls. A forum is a form of entertainment, nothing more. There's no need to be so serious.
SCG, you have to understand. People who moderate it don't do it because they are warped by a false sense of power (well, I don't at any rate). They do it because they enjoy doing it, either because they want to give something back to the community they genuinely care about, or because they find the task enjoyable in itself. For me, it's a little bit of both. I absolutely love wording rules and regulations, and thinking about the forum layout and moderation to anal lengths you can't possibly imagine.
You know how some people find it fun to build incredibly detailed models of WW2 aircraft/battleships and Napoleonic battlefields? That is what some moderators are like, and I am one such moderator. I take glee in thinking of ways to make this place run better. It's fun! Don't presume we're super-serious assholes who dress up in Judge Dredd costumes at night. Believe it or not, some people actually enjoy moderating. We're born bureaucrats:
http://www.comedycentral.com/videos/index.jhtml?title=bureaucrats-song&videoId=156361
-
You know how some people find it fun to build incredibly detailed models of WW2 aircraft/battleships and Napoleonic battlefields? That is what some moderators are like, and I am one such moderator. I take glee in thinking of ways to make this place run better. It's fun! Don't presume we're super-serious assholes who dress up in Judge Dredd costumes at night. Believe it or not, some people actually enjoy moderating.
Touche.
-
I have a few suggestions. This seems like the right place for them to go.
1) If you're going to ban someone for going off topic, make sure you ban the person that wilfully initiated the unacceptable deviance. I've never initiated a deviation, but if FE'ers want to take the debate in a new direction... fair enough...
One example:
John Davis deviates a question on the "infinite plane" into a debate on the variance of gravity...
Given an infinite earth, gravitation would not decrease with elevation. Since you are so knowledgable, I assume you already knew this. You must have simply forgotten.
John Davis is a senior member here. If he wants to claim that his proposition is valid because of some unrelated aspect, all I can do is follow.
2) If you're going to ban someone for posting images in the "upper fora" why not just disable image posting in the upper fora? This is a feature of SMF.
Here: http://www.simplemachines.org/community/index.php?topic=82548.0
Thanks guys! I know you mean well!
-
2) If you're going to ban someone for posting images in the "upper fora" why not just disable image posting in the upper fora? This is a feature of SMF.
It's not "image posting" that's really the problem, it's posting irrelevant or sarcastic images. Debaters can post images of diagrams, maps, etc. as long as they add to the debate. What we don't need, however, are people posting demotivational posters to illustrate "fail" or "facepalm" directed at another person. I think some good rules of thumb to consider if you ever want to post an image in the upper fora are "Will this picture add constructively to the debate?" and "Is this picture intended to be humorous or insulting?" (in which case, you'd want the answer to be "no", obviously).
-
Debaters can post images of diagrams, maps, etc. as long as they add to the debate. What we don't need, however, are people posting demotivational posters to illustrate "fail" or "facepalm" directed at another person.
Or pictures of the earth from space.
Sorry, couldn't resist. :P
-
No one was seriously complaining about Jack and his obsession with the rules thread. It's just funny that he changes the rules all the time. I can imagine him pouring over the rules searching for a misplaced comma.
I have no obsession with the rules thread, and I do not change it "all the time." I recommend you to either go back and read what I posted, or think before you post.
I am on the enforcement end of the rules on several forums. You act as if being a mod on a forum is an important job, when most of the time it's just cleaning up after bots spammers and trolls. A forum is a form of entertainment, nothing more. There's no need to be so serious.
Jack, the world didn't end when FES was hacked, we didn't lose our minds over seeing a bit of gay porn. Anarchy was fun for a couple days. Lighten up.
I'm curious, but do you act like this on every other board as well, acting like you're the only one that knows all the forum ethics and knows how to run a message board properly?
EDIT: missing word
(lol @ the EDIT)
Yes, I freely express my opinion on every board I actively post on. Is that not allowed and encouraged here? I don't think or post as if I'm the only person who knows forum ethics and how to run a board. I do have some experience as I am a mod (and an admin) on several boards, but I don't think this makes me an expert.
I don't understand why you are so defensive about the fact that you edit the rules regularly. You've probably edited them more in the last few months than in the entire time the thread has existed. I'm just giving you a hard time about it.. but I can tell it is impossible for you to lighten up.
Do you act this way on every other board as well? Do you think the internet is serious business, and you're the only person who understands just how serious it all is?
Raist wants you all to believe I'm just trolling, and the fact is I was messing with Jack a little, but not to piss him off (this started in CN after all). I think I've made some valid points about the rules and the importance of allowing the members to have some harmless fun in the lower forums. I don't understand why some of you get so defensive when I post an opinion.
-
Okay the following is all my opinion and shouldn't be taken as a whine or a complaint. I can put up with how the site is at the moment, I'm fine just living in my own world, pathetically trying to bolster my post count down in the off topic forums. I like to chip in on the serious ones too, usually when a topic has ran it's course or the OP is clearly retarded (or the debate and people debating it are). I don't spam because I hate it and find it boring, but off-topic banter, to me, is the heart of a place like this where the overall theme is one of hilarity. The People who claim to be believers have a right to their pseudo-serious discussions as much as anyone else though so I try not to interfere too much if the discussion is civilised.
What riles most people I think is that a forum like this even has rules that are on top of the usual general forum rules you get on any forum (no CP, no racism...etc).
There are two main types of forum I can think of. You've got your very public forums that need constant moderation in order to remove profanity, racism, spam, off-topic messages...ect, etc. Examples might be the 606 sports forum on the BBC sports website, or the SMF forums. You know what I mean, forums that generally have visitors who may not be adjusted to the kind of vile forum banter we all know and love, and also which may be owned by companies that could be liable for dodgy content or at least receive barrages of complaints when poor little Timmy repeats what he read to his mum and dad.
The other type of forum is one like this. It's of an obscure or not-mainstream topic, it has consistent group of regular posters and a fringe of never-stay-longs who spend most of their time in the FE discussion boards. Other examples might be the forum I post regularly on which is made up of a band of exiles from an old MMO we all used to play. We used to post on the official forum for the MMO ( which was a perfect example of the first type of forum: We had to be careful on there, it was moderated fairly strictly and rightly so) but when we stopped playing we made our own forum. We have two moderators, there's the site owner and then one extra who can keep on top of any spam if the admin aint around. When I say spam I mean bots and such. Apart from that it's a free for all. We're all mature adults and we can moderate ourselves. If one of my posts got deleted or unnecessarily moved on there I would be livid.
Now that's my opinion. Some may see this a serious forum that represents a serious organisation. Well fair enough and if that means we have OTT moderation then so be it but if there's one thing I wish people would learn it's that off-topic isn't spam and most people know when the right time is to derail a thread. There's nothing malicious about it, it's just the natural way for a lot of threads to go when we've seen the same discussion 34,000 times or when it gets to the point where the people debating are just going through the motions and starting to get petty.
If I had my way, the mods would just delete spam because I don't see any other use for them in a place like this. Having said that, the moderation isn't too bad most of the time and I can put up with it. Also I get the feeling that the mods here are a little tentative about joining in sometimes, especially in the on-topic boards. I'd love to see an end to that. I think it has something to do with a fear of accusations of hypocrisy but that's easy enough to dissipate.
-
So when is there going to be something new about all this that I haven't read at some point in the past year or so?
-
Can't complain.
-
Now that's my opinion. Some may see this a serious forum that represents a serious organisation. Well fair enough and if that means we have OTT moderation then so be it but if there's one thing I wish people would learn it's that off-topic isn't spam and most people know when the right time is to derail a thread. There's nothing malicious about it, it's just the natural way for a lot of threads to go when we've seen the same discussion 34,000 times or when it gets to the point where the people debating are just going through the motions and starting to get petty.
Most people isn't all people. The reality is that we need rules that cover all people. Everyone recognises that topics progress and evolve, and sometimes the discussion moves on quite naturally from the original point. However, one of main issues brought up (from newcomers and regulars alike) is that moderators don't do enough to stop thread derailing. We constantly receive complaints about this. Sometimes it's the case that person complaining really has no cause to do so, but sometimes members (in particular some regulars) are genuinely just trying to derail the thread as quickly as possible, so we need rules on the books.
-
Now that's my opinion. Some may see this a serious forum that represents a serious organisation. Well fair enough and if that means we have OTT moderation then so be it but if there's one thing I wish people would learn it's that off-topic isn't spam and most people know when the right time is to derail a thread. There's nothing malicious about it, it's just the natural way for a lot of threads to go when we've seen the same discussion 34,000 times or when it gets to the point where the people debating are just going through the motions and starting to get petty.
Most people isn't all people. The reality is that we need rules that cover all people. Everyone recognises that topics progress and evolve, and sometimes the discussion moves on quite naturally from the original point. However, one of main issues brought up (from newcomers and regulars alike) is that moderators don't do enough to stop thread derailing. We constantly receive complaints about this. Sometimes it's the case that person complaining really has no cause to do so, but sometimes members (in particular some regulars) are genuinely just trying to derail the thread as quickly as possible, so we need rules on the books.
Then moderate the minority. Which was my point.
-
1) If you're going to ban someone for going off topic, make sure you ban the person that wilfully initiated the unacceptable deviance. I've never initiated a deviation, but if FE'ers want to take the debate in a new direction... fair enough...
One example:
John Davis deviates a question on the "infinite plane" into a debate on the variance of gravity...
Given an infinite earth, gravitation would not decrease with elevation. Since you are so knowledgable, I assume you already knew this. You must have simply forgotten.
John Davis is a senior member here. If he wants to claim that his proposition is valid because of some unrelated aspect, all I can do is follow.
I backed it up with the appropriate and correct math to back my point up and heard no more from you. My math was correct and showed the correct point. Since one member asked, I suplied one that used a slab instead of a plane and apologized admitting it was not the best choice to use a plane.
You had every right to ask why I stated it did not vary due to altitude. You did not. You stated that it did vary due to altitude on an infinite earth and gave no backing in a condescending manner. You acted like a child and I will not apologize for my treatment towards you and will treat as such in the future if you act similarly.
-
One example:
John Davis deviates a question on the "infinite plane" into a debate on the variance of gravity...
John Davis is a senior member here. If he wants to claim that his proposition is valid because of some unrelated aspect, all I can do is follow.
I backed it up with the appropriate and correct math to back my point up and heard no more from you.
You heard no more from me because I was banned.
(You do understand what that means?)
I'm not going to debate whether your maths was correct, we can do that elsewhere. You derailed the thread. I was punished for your derailment.
You acted like a child and I will not apologize for my treatment towards you and will treat as such in the future if you act similarly.
From a moderator, this kind of response to a reasonable post is troubling.
-
So when is there going to be something new about all this that I haven't read at some point in the past year or so?
-
Do you act this way on every other board as well? Do you think the internet is serious business, and you're the only person who understands just how serious it all is?
This is perhaps the only board that I'm very serious about. I've put a lot of effort and thinking into FES since I first joined, and I'm not planning to throw them all into waste any time soon. I've learned much more from this board than I have from education. Really, I've been to other debate boards too, but they were not as enlightening as this one. As a result, I want to take great care of it, and possibly return my favor. I come here to read people's thoughts (I'm pleased, because many of you are intelligent) and learn something from them, whilst expressing my own thoughts along the way; I don't come here to be entertained.
In addition, Daniel takes this site very seriously, as he stated in his sticky. He recognized that a strict moderation should have happened a long time ago, but there were not enough moderators to make it happen. Unless he comes up and gives me a warning about my moderation, I will continue to moderate the way I normally do. Fortunately, I've never received any warnings from him, in PM or on the mod forums. I consider this an approval.
And of course, I don't think the internet is serious business, because I always enter six-digit figures in all of my monetary transactions online for my personal lulz. It's quite fun!
-
Sorry Jack, whoever you are, but you were right in your first post.
This website is a joke, right?
If you're saying this site converted you then you're one of two things: A liar or a fool. What does this have to do with this thread? Well nobody is ever going to take you seriously as a mod so maybe you should quit now.
You may now initiate condescending response.
-
Well, it seems I guessed wrong. Until Daniel announces that this site is actually nothing but a parody or joke, this site, according to his words, remains to be a serious place for FE discussion.
-
Sorry Jack, whoever you are, but you were right in your first post.
This website is a joke, right?
If you're saying this site converted you then you're one of two things: A liar or a fool. What does this have to do with this thread? Well nobody is ever going to take you seriously as a mod so maybe you should quit now.
You may now initiate condescending response.
Jack didn't say that this site converted his beliefs about the shape of the Earth. All he did was realize that this site wasn't a joke. There's nothing unusual about that. Many regulars thought that this site was a joke when they first joined, including me. There are some people who truly believe that the Earth is flat here. You calling them liars does not help anything. As Dogplatter said, George Scott fallacy.
-
Levee is posting his personal additions to the official FAQ. Is he supposed to be doing that?
-
One example:
John Davis deviates a question on the "infinite plane" into a debate on the variance of gravity...
John Davis is a senior member here. If he wants to claim that his proposition is valid because of some unrelated aspect, all I can do is follow.
I backed it up with the appropriate and correct math to back my point up and heard no more from you.
You heard no more from me because I was banned.
(You do understand what that means?)
I'm not going to debate whether your maths was correct, we can do that elsewhere. You derailed the thread. I was punished for your derailment.
You acted like a child and I will not apologize for my treatment towards you and will treat as such in the future if you act similarly.
From a moderator, this kind of response to a reasonable post is troubling.
I did not derail it, you did. I was answering his questions. You continuely harrassed me and drew it out instead of just taking it to the appropriate thread which already existed.
Your post was not reasonable. They seldom are.
I was unaware you were banned, but am glad you were. Next time don't spam image macros and post constantly off topic.
-
You acted like a child and I will not apologize for my treatment towards you and will treat as such in the future if you act similarly.
From a moderator, this kind of response to a reasonable post is troubling.
I did not derail it, you did. I was answering his questions. You continuely harrassed me and drew it out instead of just taking it to the appropriate thread which already existed.
There was no harassment, just simple questions. As to who derailed the thread, the thread is there for all to read, quoted and linked in an earlier post here. Lets close this embarrassing issue.
Your post was not reasonable. They seldom are.
I was unaware you were banned, but am glad you were.
This childish attitude, more pertaining to a visitor than a moderator, isn't one that does you any favours.
-
Sorry Jack, whoever you are, but you were right in your first post.
This website is a joke, right?
If you're saying this site converted you then you're one of two things: A liar or a fool. What does this have to do with this thread? Well nobody is ever going to take you seriously as a mod so maybe you should quit now.
You may now initiate condescending response.
Jack didn't say that this site converted his beliefs about the shape of the Earth. All he did was realize that this site wasn't a joke. There's nothing unusual about that. Many regulars thought that this site was a joke when they first joined, including me. There are some people who truly believe that the Earth is flat here. You calling them liars does not help anything. As Dogplatter said, George Scott fallacy.
I never called anyone a liar. Not even Dogplatter. I gave Dogplatter the same opinion featuring the same two choices but not in those exact words I admit. If you claim to believe the Earth is flat then you are either a liar or an idiot. That's all I've ever said. No fallacy, unless you think it's a false dichotomy but seeing as there is not one piece of evidence in favour of the FE hypothesis (and for that matter, not one example of RE evidence being disputed), I think I'm right. These few people may believe it but in that case they are dumb shits.
-
You acted like a child and I will not apologize for my treatment towards you and will treat as such in the future if you act similarly.
From a moderator, this kind of response to a reasonable post is troubling.
I did not derail it, you did. I was answering his questions. You continuely harrassed me and drew it out instead of just taking it to the appropriate thread which already existed.
There was no harassment, just simple questions. As to who derailed the thread, the thread is there for all to read, quoted and linked in an earlier post here. Lets close this embarrassing issue.
Your post was not reasonable. They seldom are.
I was unaware you were banned, but am glad you were.
This childish attitude, more pertaining to a visitor than a moderator, isn't one that does you any favours.
My attitude is not childish, it is realistic.
I made a single statement that was drawn out by clarification to other parties. I am sorry no one cared enough to respond to the OPs other concerns. Neither of these are hardly my fault.
-
Levee is posting his personal additions to the official FAQ. Is he supposed to be doing that?
-
You acted like a child and I will not apologize for my treatment towards you and will treat as such in the future if you act similarly.
From a moderator, this kind of response to a reasonable post is troubling.
I did not derail it, you did. I was answering his questions. You continuely harrassed me and drew it out instead of just taking it to the appropriate thread which already existed.
There was no harassment, just simple questions. As to who derailed the thread, the thread is there for all to read, quoted and linked in an earlier post here. Lets close this embarrassing issue.
Embarrassing for who? I've read it, and I agree with John. As neither he nor I was the person who banned you, somebody else obviously agreed too. It seems to me that several people reached the same opinion quite independently, and that you were on the wrong side of that consensus. Deal with it. No-one is responsible for your behaviour but you.
-
Sorry Jack, whoever you are, but you were right in your first post.
This website is a joke, right?
If you're saying this site converted you then you're one of two things: A liar or a fool. What does this have to do with this thread? Well nobody is ever going to take you seriously as a mod so maybe you should quit now.
You may now initiate condescending response.
Jack didn't say that this site converted his beliefs about the shape of the Earth. All he did was realize that this site wasn't a joke. There's nothing unusual about that. Many regulars thought that this site was a joke when they first joined, including me. There are some people who truly believe that the Earth is flat here. You calling them liars does not help anything. As Dogplatter said, George Scott fallacy.
I never called anyone a liar. Not even Dogplatter. I gave Dogplatter the same opinion featuring the same two choices but not in those exact words I admit. If you claim to believe the Earth is flat then you are either a liar or an idiot. That's all I've ever said. No fallacy, unless you think it's a false dichotomy but seeing as there is not one piece of evidence in favour of the FE hypothesis (and for that matter, not one example of RE evidence being disputed), I think I'm right. These few people may believe it but in that case they are dumb shits.
Okay, that claim might be a little controversial, but all I'm saying is that the website isn't a joke, which is all that Jack was saying. I'll agree that Jack might seem to be somewhat stiff or humorless in comparison to more laid-back mods, but he's right to take his mod duties seriously.
-
No-one is responsible for your behaviour but you.
Correct. And no one is responsible for handing out bans but the moderators.
If a ban seem to be unfair, in disagreement with the posted rules or too heavy then I'll raise it as an issue.
-
Has anyone stopped you from rasing it as an issue? The point is we all seem have independently decided that you deserved said ban.
-
The point is we all seem have independently decided that you deserved said ban.
And my point is well made that anyone can read the quote above and see that it wasn't me that hijacked the thread.
Ergo: Mods are abusing their powaz?
-
But nobody agrees with you. If they did, I have no doubt there would be people in here sticking up for you if they thought you'd been 'wronged' (which happens all the time; read over the topic if you don't believe me). However, nobody else seems to share your point of view.
Ergo: you are wrong.
-
But nobody agrees with you. If they did, I have no doubt there would be people in here sticking up for you if they thought you'd been 'wronged'
The Silent Majority have spoken?
-
The point is we all seem have independently decided that you deserved said ban.
And my point is well made that anyone can read the quote above and see that it wasn't me that hijacked the thread.
Ergo: Mods are abusing their powaz?
I read the thread, and I really don't see what you're complaining about. You asked John questions about gravitation, and he answered them.
-
Levee just made an addition to his alternative FAQ on the .net site (with an associated post informing us of said addition on this one), claiming that the Beatles did not write their own music and that three of the band members were replaced. Can I ask what exactly this has to do with Flat Earth Theory, and if nothing then what somebody who is spamming the boards with irrelevant nonsense is doing in a moderator position?
-
Levee just made an addition to his alternative FAQ on the .net site (with an associated post informing us of said addition on this one), claiming that the Beatles did not write their own music and that three of the band members were replaced. Can I ask what exactly this has to do with Flat Earth Theory, and if nothing then what somebody who is spamming the boards with irrelevant nonsense is doing in a moderator position?
He's right though.
-
Levee just made an addition to his alternative FAQ on the .net site (with an associated post informing us of said addition on this one), claiming that the Beatles did not write their own music and that three of the band members were replaced. Can I ask what exactly this has to do with Flat Earth Theory, and if nothing then what somebody who is spamming the boards with irrelevant nonsense is doing in a moderator position?
He seems to believe strongly in his cause:
http://only1rad.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=lyrics&action=display&thread=1562
-
Levee just made an addition to his alternative FAQ on the .net site (with an associated post informing us of said addition on this one), claiming that the Beatles did not write their own music and that three of the band members were replaced. Can I ask what exactly this has to do with Flat Earth Theory, and if nothing then what somebody who is spamming the boards with irrelevant nonsense is doing in a moderator position?
He seems to believe strongly in his cause:
http://only1rad.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=lyrics&action=display&thread=1562
From what I've heard, all of the Beatles songs are based on the tune of Three Blind Mice.
-
Simple solution to the Levee problem would be remove mod powers and initiate ignore protocol 1.3
-
Simple solution to the Levee problem would be remove mod powers and initiate ignore protocol 1.3
First, we need to convince Daniel that levee is indeed a problem.
-
Petition?
-
Simple solution to the Levee problem would be remove mod powers and initiate ignore protocol 1.3
First, we need to convince Daniel that levee is indeed a problem.
Yeah, like the way Hara and Raist convinced Daniel that you were a problem.
-
I read the thread, and I really don't see what you're complaining about. You asked John questions about gravitation, and he answered them.
*sigh*
No that's not what happened. I suggest you reread the thread.
John Davis deviated a topic about coordinates, air, ozone, navigation, stars, magma etc by insisting that uniform gravity was proof that the earth was an infinite plane. When I questioned these claims I was banned for deviation. ???
-
It could've been worse. levee could have answered you.
-
For now, Levee's work has been added to the religion section in the FAQ. As discussed on the mod forum, we'll make some changes to this in the future.
-
For now, Levee's work has been added to the religion section in the FAQ. As discussed on the mod forum, we'll make some changes to this in the future.
I don't have that much of a problem with levee's work on FET being included in the FAQ, provided it's made clear that it's not the view of the majority. I'm just wondering what his work on the Beatles not writing their own material has to do with anything on a Flat Earth forum.
-
I would like for the 30 second flood control to be lifted for Complete Nonsense, that I may better aid the moderation team in their efforts to fill it with as many posts as possible.
-
Speaking of which - second highest poster on the site is still a mod, Steve. What say you to that, considering the nature of your sacking?
*stirs the pot*
-
For legal reasons I think slandering VERY rich celebrities should be avoided in our official sections.
If The Flat Earth Society itself is shown slandering them, this could be used against us to completely ruin anything we could start. If there is indeed a conspiracy against us, and the Beatles are somehow involved, let's not tempt them.
-
Levee answered my concerns about his Beatles post. Apparently, (and I haven't checked this) he claims the conspiracy came from a similar source as some FE conspiracies.
-
I still find it legally unwise to associate the site with slandering of celebrities with no evidence to back our claims. If they demanded damages from Daniel he would be in a very tight spot. The fact that they are also british would make the lawsuits a lot more feasible.
-
I'd be more concerned about Richard Branson, personally.
-
I don't think we should condone in any way the attacking of public figures without documentation and evidence. I don't say we should censor anyone's views, just make sure that we do not endorse it.
-
You got a point. However, like all other conspiracy theories, I don't know if the company would care about what he wrote on the Beatles.
-
They would never be able to make that stick- the disclaimers written everyone would ensure that. Besides, I'm having trouble envisaging a legal assault by Thomas the Tank Engine and his Zombie friends. You never know with Macca though...
-
I don't think we really have to worry about getting sued. If a celebrity was going to push a case of libel on us (not slander, by the way), they would have to show not only that our claim was false, but that we knew it was false when posting it. Knowing levee, I don't know if they'd be able to prove that. They'd also have to show damages as a direct result of our libel.
-
We have here a moderator flinging insults and ad hominems in the serious debate forums:
squat...listen butterball...you have shown yourself to be just a dope, with a mediocre belief in the round earth system...how dumb or brainless do you have to be, to believe that 1000 trillion billion liters of water can stay ''glued" right next to the surface of a sphere, using a nonexistent attractive gravitation? How dumb can you be, since you have at your disposal the trajectories of the clouds which categorically and immediately contradict the theory which tells us that the Earth rotates around its own axis.
As far as I'm concerned, this is unacceptable. Any other member would be warned, and subsequently banned for this sort of posting.
-
We have here a moderator flinging insults and ad hominems in the serious debate forums:
squat...listen butterball...you have shown yourself to be just a dope, with a mediocre belief in the round earth system...how dumb or brainless do you have to be, to believe that 1000 trillion billion liters of water can stay ''glued" right next to the surface of a sphere, using a nonexistent attractive gravitation? How dumb can you be, since you have at your disposal the trajectories of the clouds which categorically and immediately contradict the theory which tells us that the Earth rotates around its own axis.
As far as I'm concerned, this is unacceptable. Any other member would be warned, and subsequently banned for this sort of posting.
I agree, but then it was a moderator who said I was "staggeringly ignorant". Personally, I take nothing that levee says seriously, or in fact James who made the other comment. They both make ridiculous assertions and I think, are an embarrassment to the FES.
Whilst I'm not worried about the comments (partly because I know nothing will happen over them) it would be nice to see Moderators setting an example and if necessary being made an example.
-
If a celebrity was going to push a case of libel on us (not slander, by the way), they would have to show not only that our claim was false, but that we knew it was false when posting it.
To win defamation they'd just have to show that it was false and that it caused damage.
Failure to fact check is no defence.
Oh and there are lawyers out there that google the names of their clients just to drum up cases.
Macca would most likely sue the hosts (they have the most money) who would immediately pull the plug on the site.
-
If a celebrity was going to push a case of libel on us (not slander, by the way), they would have to show not only that our claim was false, but that we knew it was false when posting it.
To win defamation they'd just have to show that it was false and that it caused damage.
Failure to fact check is no defence.
Oh and there are lawyers out there that google the names of their clients just to drum up cases.
Macca would most likely sue the hosts (they have the most money) who would immediately pull the plug on the site.
No, that wouldn't work because neither the host nor the site are responsible for what a single member posts. We have disclaimers posted on the FAQ that say that we do not necessarily accept the views of individual members as what we officially endorse. As for not fact checking, I believe they'd have to show that either what levee wrote was published "with malice", or that it was with "reckless disregard for the truth", or something like that. At least, I think that's American law, but presumably British law is similar. Levee almost definitely believes in what's he writing, and he's more concerned with spreading the "truth" than he is with defaming the Beatles.
Also, as you just said, he'd have to prove damages. What levee wrote is no more "damaging" to the Beatles than are the numerous websites exclaiming "Paul is dead". Are they going to prove that FES members are no longer buying albums from the Beatles because of what levee said? They have no case, and our host isn't just going to casually "pull the plug" on us to avoid some ridiculous lawsuit from Paul McCartney.
-
No, that wouldn't work because neither the host nor the site are responsible for what a single member posts.
Doesn't matter. Ignorance is no defence.
We have disclaimers posted on the FAQ that say that we do not necessarily accept the views of individual members as what we officially endorse.
Doesn't matter. Cases are brought against the people with the most money. Macca writes to ISP telling them it's defamatory. If it's not pulled he'll pursue it further.
As for not fact checking, I believe they'd have to show that either what levee wrote was published "with malice", or that it was with "reckless disregard for the truth", or something like that.
Nope. Malice doesn't enter it. It just has to cause damage.
Levee almost definitely believes in what's he writing, and he's more concerned with spreading the "truth" than he is with defaming the Beatles.
Personal believe has no grounds.
Are they going to prove that FES members are no longer buying albums from the Beatles because of what levee said?
More likely members of the general public not buying records, not attending concerts, not buying books, generally dirtying the good reputation of a knight of the realm etc.
The sole defence (and it's a good one) is that this place couldn't cause damage because the site is so preposterous.
They have no case, and our host isn't just going to casually "pull the plug" on us to avoid some ridiculous lawsuit from Paul McCartney.
Wrong. ISP's have scant interest in protecting the freedoms of subscribers.
-
Doesn't matter. Ignorance is no defence.
Doesn't matter. Cases are brought against the people with the most money. Macca writes to ISP telling them it's defamatory. If it's not pulled he'll pursue it further.
But surely the host isn't liable for what someone writes on a website that they happen to host. McCartney would have to convince a judge or jury that he deserves money from a site because a crazy person wrote something ridiculous on one of the hundreds of websites that they happen to host.
Nope. Malice doesn't enter it. It just has to cause damage.
I might be wrong, but I always assumed that either the defamation has to be intended to cause damage or else that the writer has to be "reckless" with the truth before it's truly considered libel.
Personal believe has no grounds.
Isn't an opinion a personal belief?
More likely members of the general public not buying records, not attending concerts, not buying books, generally dirtying the good reputation of a knight of the realm etc.
They have to show causation, though. There's absolutely zero evidence to suggest that the public is influenced by what levee writes.
Wrong. ISP's have scant interest in protecting the freedoms of subscribers.
So the host won't care about protecting a customer's freedoms, but they will care enough about a celebrity's wild threats that they'll quickly just get rid of a paying customer? Not every filed lawsuit has to be argued about in court. Ridiculous cases-like this one-are supposed to be weeded out and dismissed before they come to trial.
-
Most people isn't all people. The reality is that we need rules that cover all people.
When are these rules going to start being applied equally to moderators?
-
Most people isn't all people. The reality is that we need rules that cover all people.
When are these rules going to start being applied equally to moderators?
When the admin is around to approve it.
-
Most people isn't all people. The reality is that we need rules that cover all people.
When are these rules going to start being applied equally to moderators?
When the admin is around to approve it.
Are you saying that it is the current policy of this site not to apply the rules of conduct to moderators?
-
You got a point. However, like all other conspiracy theories, I don't know if the company would care about what he wrote on the Beatles.
Lets keep IC for this discussion. If the conspiracy ever wants to shut us down, and the Beatles ARE part of the conspiracy, that would be a very convenient way to do so.
-
Most people isn't all people. The reality is that we need rules that cover all people.
When are these rules going to start being applied equally to moderators?
When the admin is around to approve it.
Are you saying that it is the current policy of this site not to apply the rules of conduct to moderators?
No, I am saying that the current policy as far as moderation of moderators go is that it's only up to the admin to decide what to do.
-
No, I am saying that the current policy as far as moderation of moderators go is that it's only up to the admin to decide what to do.
So what you're saying is that levee can continue spamming and flaming people until Daniel finally wakes up and notices that something is amiss?
-
No, I am saying that the current policy as far as moderation of moderators go is that it's only up to the admin to decide what to do.
So what you're saying is that levee can continue spamming and flaming people until Daniel finally wakes up and notices that something is amiss?
Pot, kettle, etc.
-
Pot, kettle, etc.
Hey, at least what I post is usually related to the overall theme of the message board and, when in the upper fora, I refrain from using ad hominems.
-
Most people isn't all people. The reality is that we need rules that cover all people.
When are these rules going to start being applied equally to moderators?
Like Hara said, moderators cannot 'moderate' other moderators. We can make our opinions clear (and we do), but ultimately enforcement is Daniel's call and Daniel's alone.
-
But surely the host isn't liable for what someone writes on a website that they happen to host.
Yes they are.
http://www.cyber-rights.org/reports/demon.htm
McCartney would have to convince a judge or jury that he deserves money from a site because a crazy person wrote something ridiculous on one of the hundreds of websites that they happen to host.
Yep.
I might be wrong, but I always assumed that either the defamation has to be intended to cause damage or else that the writer has to be "reckless" with the truth before it's truly considered libel.
No.
Isn't an opinion a personal belief?
Perhaps. But you can't get away with parentheses-ing libelous statements with "I believe..." Eg, "I believe that Charlie Celebrity meets gay men online under the pseudonym "HairyBear408". That would be a genuinely libellous statement if it weren't printed here for purposes of example.
Nothing in levee's stuff suggests he's posting his beliefs.
They have to show causation, though. There's absolutely zero evidence to suggest that the public is influenced by what levee writes.
No. Causation is not a part of defamation law. If the material were read by an average member of the public would it change their opinion of the claimant? However, the impact would probably come into an assessment of the damages once it's established that defamation took place.
Not every filed lawsuit has to be argued about in court. Ridiculous cases-like this one-are supposed to be weeded out and dismissed before they come to trial.
Exactly. Plug pulled - end of story.
-
If you guys want to discuss the finer points of the law as it pertains to defamation, I suggest doing so elsewhere.
-
If you guys want to discuss the finer points of the law as it pertains to defamation, I suggest doing so elsewhere.
I'm only trying to help TFES by pointing out where they might stand should action be taken. (Although I hasten to point out I am not giving legal advice)
It does seem to be a concern for members here.
-
Like Hara said, moderators cannot 'moderate' other moderators. We can make our opinions clear (and we do), but ultimately enforcement is Daniel's call and Daniel's alone.
??? Why can't mods moderate other mods? Is it a limitation of the board software or is it just not Daniel's policy to do so? I've said it before and I'll say it again: in my opinion, since they are in a position of authority, the mods should be held to a higher standard than the regulars.
-
Like Hara said, moderators cannot 'moderate' other moderators. We can make our opinions clear (and we do), but ultimately enforcement is Daniel's call and Daniel's alone.
??? Why can't mods moderate other mods? Is it a limitation of the board software or is it just not Daniel's policy to do so?
most d youshoulc be able to mod other mods
I dont' ses any reason hw not
i mean the ban sthit doesn't stop it
-
??? Why can't mods moderate other mods? Is it a limitation of the board software or is it just not Daniel's policy to do so? I've said it before and I'll say it again: in my opinion, since they are in a position of authority, the mods should be held to a higher standard than the regulars.
As far as I know, both. Besides, that's the way it should be. I agree that moderators should be held to a higher standard, however it is simply bad policy to have mods modding mods unless they are given the specific authority to do so. It leads to bad vibes and bad decisions. On every forum I've ever moderated at, admins have always made those kind of calls.
-
Not both, you can delete other mods posts and such. You can also ban them. It's just against SOP.
-
Oh really...
(>_>)
(<_<)
*ban*
-
Oh really...
(>_>)
(<_<)
(http://blufiles.storage.live.com/y1pCuBPk-02cngxInnzCuPREOneRARVfF1rhSB48OI4QXndrSRzw52MSYP8CZD6BXQw)
Fixed.
-
As far as I know, both. Besides, that's the way it should be. I agree that moderators should be held to a higher standard, however it is simply bad policy to have mods modding mods unless they are given the specific authority to do so. It leads to bad vibes and bad decisions. On every forum I've ever moderated at, admins have always made those kind of calls.
You were an admin for a while Wilmore. If you still had any admin powers what would you do to levee?
-
He shall promote him to admin and rule FES together.
-
Has someone with a sense of humour taken over Jack's account?
-
Has someone with a sense of humour taken over Jack's account?
Oh no you di'ent!
-
As far as I know, both. Besides, that's the way it should be. I agree that moderators should be held to a higher standard, however it is simply bad policy to have mods modding mods unless they are given the specific authority to do so. It leads to bad vibes and bad decisions. On every forum I've ever moderated at, admins have always made those kind of calls.
You were an admin for a while Wilmore. If you still had any admin powers what would you do to levee?
I was an admin in name only. I had/have no more authority than any other moderator. I was given admin privledges so stuff like users with pornographic avatars could be dealt with quickly (mods cannot adjust that kind of stuff). It isn't, and never was, my call.
-
Is it just me, or is the use of alts on the rise or something? We've had two regulars get caught with alts over the past two weeks or so. Maybe we should increase the punishment of alt use in the future. I'm not trying to hint that we should do something retroactive to Johannes or Wendy, but a five-day ban really doesn't really seem like much of a deterrent to me. I'm not exaggerating when I say that about a year ago, this site was literally dying from, among other things, way too many alts.
-
??? I thought that alts were a permaban offense.
-
Oh really...
(>_>)
(<_<)
*ban*
*pulls out my robe and wizard hat*
Unbant
-
??? I thought that alts were a permaban offense.
Permaban for making an alt? That would be a little harsh. Anyway, Johannes only got five days, and presumably so did Wendy.
-
Sorry Guest, you are banned from posting or sending personal messages on this forum.
Ban, 7 days, Breaking posting rules in upper fora twice, Repeat offender
Will the mod who banned me please indicate:
1) Which rule I broke the first time, and where I broke it.
2) Which rule I broke the second time, and where I broke it.
-
Sorry Guest, you are banned from posting or sending personal messages on this forum.
Ban, 7 days, Breaking posting rules in upper fora twice, Repeat offender
Will the mod who banned me please indicate:
1) Which rule I broke the first time, and where I broke it.
2) Which rule I broke the second time, and where I broke it.
Seeing as it's you, it'd be low content posts both times.
-
Seeing as it's you, it'd be low content posts both times.
My question was addressed to the moderator who banned me. Your speculation is not sought here.
Thanks awfully!
-
Seeing as it's you, it'd be low content posts both times.
My question was addressed to the moderator who banned me. Your speculation is not sought here.
Thanks awfully!
It's not speculation if evidence backs it up. And one need only look as far as "View Recent Posts" to find some really low-content ones of yours.
-
Seeing as it's you, it'd be low content posts both times.
My question was addressed to the moderator who banned me. Your speculation is not sought here.
Thanks awfully!
I can ban you, then I'd be able to answer your question.
-
I don't know if this has been mentioned before, but the first rule, the one against racism:"-DO NOT post anything ironically, satirically, humorously, or blatantly racist in nature. No hate speeches or encouragements of hate are to be tolerated. Any member found posting racist comments or pictures will be banned immediately, without warning."
The "without warning" at the end is mostly understandable, but what if you do something that someone considers racist, but you didn't think it was, and didn't mean it to be? What if they are just being oversensitive? I understand that most posts under this category should be easily seen to be racist, but what if it was an honest mistake?
A company called "TrekStor" once produced an mp3 player, with their typical "i", then "beat" for the "hip beats" it would play, and then "blaxx", due to it's black design. The company was made to change the name, but I don't think that TrekStor was meaning to be racist, I just believe it was an honest mistake, and they fixed it.
Without a warning, then a person doesn't get a chance to fix their mistake.
-
I don't know if this has been mentioned before, but the first rule, the one against racism:"-DO NOT post anything ironically, satirically, humorously, or blatantly racist in nature. No hate speeches or encouragements of hate are to be tolerated. Any member found posting racist comments or pictures will be banned immediately, without warning."
The "without warning" at the end is mostly understandable, but what if you do something that someone considers racist, but you didn't think it was, and didn't mean it to be? What if they are just being oversensitive? I understand that most posts under this category should be easily seen to be racist, but what if it was an honest mistake?
A company called "TrekStor" once produced an mp3 player, with their typical "i", then "beat" for the "hip beats" it would play, and then "blaxx", due to it's black design. The company was made to change the name, but I don't think that TrekStor was meaning to be racist, I just believe it was an honest mistake, and they fixed it.
Without a warning, then a person doesn't get a chance to fix their mistake.
Whether or not it is blatantly racist is left to the discretion of our (somewhat insensitive) mods. If it's a grey area, it's probably going to be left alone or at worst casually warned against.
-
I don't know if this has been mentioned before, but the first rule, the one against racism:"-DO NOT post anything ironically, satirically, humorously, or blatantly racist in nature. No hate speeches or encouragements of hate are to be tolerated. Any member found posting racist comments or pictures will be banned immediately, without warning."
The "without warning" at the end is mostly understandable, but what if you do something that someone considers racist, but you didn't think it was, and didn't mean it to be? What if they are just being oversensitive? I understand that most posts under this category should be easily seen to be racist, but what if it was an honest mistake?
The new "no racism" rule, which comes from Daniel himself, states very clearly that you get banned for posting comments that are considered racist by people, even if you did not mean to be blatantly racist. I know there could be some gray areas that are up for interpretation, but I think overall this rule is pretty straightforward: just don't post anything that are normally considered racist, in jest or not. If you want to post something (e.g. in a debate about race) and you're not sure whether or not it is considered racist, feel free to ping the staff about it.
-
It's not speculation if evidence backs it up. And one need only look as far as "View Recent Posts" to find some really low-content ones of yours.
My question was addressed to the moderator who banned me.
I can ban you, then I'd be able to answer your question.
I repect your mighty powaz Raist. Long may they prevail. But I humbly submit that that would not explain the original ban.
-
hehehe I beat blaxx. Thats a brilliant name
-
Crusty, what raist meant to say was
stop being all inferior
(i hope you get that)
-
hehehe I beat blaxx. Thats a brilliant name
RACISM! It's a horrible name. >:I
-
Does he beat them to make them better?
-
Does he beat them to make them better?
Gayer would.
-
Does he beat them to make them better?
Gayer would.
That doesn't make them better, that makes them limp and flacid.
-
Why are Bimbly2 and Frostee not banned yet? They, as well as dr0wningprincess, are the same person, as was admitted on IRC.
-
Why are Bimbly2 and Frostee not banned yet? They, as well as dr0wningprincess, are the same person, as was admitted on IRC.
Not that I disagree with you, but the mods will probably need more evidence than a "confession" on IRC.
-
Not that I disagree with you, but the mods will probably need more evidence than a "confession" on IRC.
How about the fact that they post in a similar fashion to Frostee, and he's been having conversations with them in a style that people never actually have with other people? To be honest, I didn't pick up on dr0wningprincess right away, but Bimbly2 is an obvious alt, and even a cursory inspection of its posts points to Frostee as the protagonist.
-
Check their IPs, if they're proxies, ban their IPs. I know the mods have banned proxies in the past.
-
Not that I disagree with you, but the mods will probably need more evidence than a "confession" on IRC.
How about the fact that they post in a similar fashion to Frostee, and he's been having conversations with them in a style that people never actually have with other people? To be honest, I didn't pick up on dr0wningprincess right away, but Bimbly2 is an obvious alt, and even a cursory inspection of its posts points to Frostee as the protagonist.
I haven't seen any of those conversations, do you have a link? And no one banned Dann for making the alt "moonysbeau", in spite of the fact that it was almost definitely him.
Also, a little off-topic, but I don't think that "protagonist" is the right word choice.
-
I haven't seen any of those conversations, do you have a link? And no one banned Dann for making the alt "moonysbeau", in spite of the fact that it was almost definitely him.
Moonysbeau was not Dann.
Also, here is plain evidence that Bimbly2 is an alt (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=33287.msg819736#msg819736) (also note how quickly frostee responded here, and then Bimbly2 again). Also, I could have sworn I saw frostee conversing with Bimbly2 more extensively, but I don't recall what thread it was in. Still, he is making a heck of a deal out of making it out to be an alt account; I mean, would anybody really make an "alt/alt" poll for such an obvious alt?
-
Lol why wasn't Frostee in the poll?
-
Moonysbeau was not Dann.
Wasn't it? I know that "planetbeast" wasn't him, but "moonysbeau" showed up about five minutes after Dann made his thread insulting Moonlit, and typed his one sentence with retard-style language, just like Dann.
Also, here is plain evidence that Bimbly2 is an alt (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=33287.msg819736#msg819736).
I'm not arguing that Bimbly2 is an alt, just that it might not be frostee. He is obviously an alt, although it was kind of odd to see Raist having a long conversation with him in CN and not do anything to investigate.
Also, I could have sworn I saw frostee conversing with Bimbly2, but I don't recall what thread it was in. Still, he is making a heck of a deal out of making it out to be an alt account; I mean, would anybody really make an "alt/alt" poll for such an obvious alt?
He might just feel strongly about the issue. I argued a lot back when bridget was fairly new, because Roundy and Raist were making comments about bridget being an obvious alt and yet doing nothing about it. When they said that bridget was Bushido's alt, I thought they were joking.
-
Not that I disagree with you, but the mods will probably need more evidence than a "confession" on IRC.
How about the fact that they post in a similar fashion to Frostee, and he's been having conversations with them in a style that people never actually have with other people? To be honest, I didn't pick up on dr0wningprincess right away, but Bimbly2 is an obvious alt, and even a cursory inspection of its posts points to Frostee as the protagonist.
I haven't seen any of those conversations, do you have a link? And no one banned Dann for making the alt "moonysbeau", in spite of the fact that it was almost definitely him.
Also, a little off-topic, but I don't think that "protagonist" is the right word choice.
Everyone knows you were moonysbeau.
-
Crustinator, repeat low content posting all over the place. In the instance you got banned for it, you were banned for continually posting low content, then arguing when I gave you a warning about it. I don't really feel like looking it up, considering what will be obvious later in this post.
At first the ban was for 2 days, but when I brought it up to the other administrators I found out you had been banned for this before. This raised it to a week.
As I can see from looking over your posts lately, you obviously have not learned your lesson. You continue to make low content posts, lack of content posts, trouble making posts, derailments, etc. Some of these instances in and of themselves are not banable, but as a whole I feel they are and have asked for review for my ban from other moderators. Other instances are, especially to a repeat offender that has been warned repeatedly.
Here are a few of the posts in question. I have no posted them all since, to be honest, I couldn't be bothered.
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=33259.msg820026#msg820026
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=33246.msg820024#msg820024
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=25785.msg819994#msg819994
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=33028.msg819991#msg819991
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=25785.msg819978#msg819978
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=33195.msg820600#msg820600
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=19384.msg818762#msg818762
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=33028.msg819526#msg819526
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=25785.msg819436#msg819436
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=33215.msg817856#msg817856
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=33195.msg818731#msg818731
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=25785.msg818673#msg818673
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=25785.msg819397#msg819397
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=33212.msg817615#msg817615
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=33180.msg816599#msg816599
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=25785.msg817568#msg817568
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=33212.msg817478#msg817478
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=33246.msg820592#msg820592
You seem fairly intelligent if you could keep your posts on topic and within your realm of knowledge. I would hate to have to make this ban permanent if behavior continues.
-
Why are Bimbly2 and Frostee not banned yet? They, as well as dr0wningprincess, are the same person, as was admitted on IRC.
We cannot act on actions taken in the IRC as we do not currently run it.
We also don't have sufficient evidence that the poster is indeed frostee.
If any evidence turns up that bimbly2 is in fact an alt of anyone it will be handled appropriately.
-
I'd like to add that we're not going to engage in witch hunts based on circumstantial evidence, so while we commend all this enthusiastic character analysis and wish you future luck in the field of criminal psychology, you may as well save your breath. Buy a boxset of Cracker (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cracker_%28UK_TV_series%29) and get it out of your system.
-
Everyone knows you were moonysbeau.
I think that was originally sokarul's idea, you know.
We cannot act on actions taken in the IRC as we do not currently run it.
We also don't have sufficient evidence that the poster is indeed frostee.
If any evidence turns up that bimbly2 is in fact an alt of anyone it will be handled appropriately.
I agree that IRC logs aren't good evidence, and there doesn't seem to be much connecting frostee to "her", but bimbly2 is still definitely suspicious. She is the fourth new user in the past month or so to be aggressively female, by which I mean that she made it very, very obvious from her first post that she is a teenage girl, what with the stereotypical female teenager slang and MySpace pictures for an avatar. Kathleen Wilcox and the Pink Elephant (I don't know if anything was ever proved with dr0wningprincess) all tried to make it very clear that they were girls, and they were revealed to be alts. In contrast, genuine females like Moonlit, Gayer, Soze, etc. don't have "I AM AN ATTRACTIVE GIRL ON THE INTERNET, PLEASE FLIRT WITH ME" stamped on their foreheads. I think it would be an amazing coincidence if someone who matches exactly with a guy's poor impression of a girl turned out to really be a girl, especially after this recent onslaught of lame traps.
Also, her behavior so far has been very strange. She hasn't said anything about the theories or content of this site, she just went immediately to CN and started talking about the community, who's the best member, and random stuff like that. She even said the FES mini-meme "This insolence..." Really, doesn't any of this seem suspicious at all to you? At the very least, you could check her IP address to see if she's using a proxy.
-
Here's my question, does it matter?
-
Here's my question, does it matter?
Are you talking about moonysbeau or bimbly2?
-
Here's my question, does it matter?
Are you talking about moonysbeau or bimbly2?
Truthfully, any of them. There's a difference between cracking down on members that made 20+ alts and enforcing rules simply for rules sake.
The reason we banished alts was so new members could come here without all being called an alt. Since you guys are doing it anyways, you are completely defeating the point of the rule.
-
Here's my question, does it matter?
Are you talking about moonysbeau or bimbly2?
Truthfully, any of them. There's a difference between cracking down on members that made 20+ alts and enforcing rules simply for rules sake.
The reason we banished alts was so new members could come here without all being called an alt. Since you guys are doing it anyways, you are completely defeating the point of the rule.
That seems like an awfully cynical view of the logic behind that rule. Alts weren't the problem, members complaining about alts were?
As for you not wanting to "[enforce] rules for rules sake"...well, no one wants you to be a stickler, like giving a member a warning for saying "lol" in a debate thread, but aren't alts a little more serious?
-
Here's my question, does it matter?
Are you talking about moonysbeau or bimbly2?
Truthfully, any of them. There's a difference between cracking down on members that made 20+ alts and enforcing rules simply for rules sake.
The reason we banished alts was so new members could come here without all being called an alt. Since you guys are doing it anyways, you are completely defeating the point of the rule.
That seems like an awfully cynical view of the logic behind that rule. Alts weren't the problem, members complaining about alts were?
As for you not wanting to "[enforce] rules for rules sake"...well, no one wants you to be a stickler, like giving a member a warning for saying "lol" in a debate thread, but aren't alts a little more serious?
No. They aren't. Do you not remember there being almost no new members and all of them being called alts because we had like 3 new alts a day? That is why there was a huge crackdown on alts.
How is making a second account that serious if you aren't breaking any rules with that account?
-
So this means I can start making alts again? Sweet.
-
So this means I can start making alts again? Sweet.
No. I'll ban you.
-
I know me, James, Jack and Wilmore will ban any alt accounts found. However, like Wilmore says, we are not in the game of witch hunting.
-
I know me, James, Jack and Wilmore will ban any alt accounts found. However, like Wilmore says, we are not in the game of witch hunting.
This.
-
At the very least, I'm wondering why Bimbly2 is not banned, even if it is not Frostee. It's an exceedingly obvious alt.
-
At the very least, I'm wondering why Bimbly2 is not banned, even if it is not Frostee. It's an exceedingly obvious alt.
Innocent until proven guilty?
-
At the very least, I'm wondering why Bimbly2 is not banned, even if it is not Frostee. It's an exceedingly obvious alt.
Then you have a situation where we're banning people because they look suspicious, and whilst I admit it is as plain as day that at least one of these accounts is an alt, it hasn't actually been proven. Besides, the alt account itself is not the problem, and banning it really makes no difference. However, if you get caught, expect a lengthy ban on your own account.
-
At the very least, I'm wondering why Bimbly2 is not banned, even if it is not Frostee. It's an exceedingly obvious alt.
Then you have a situation where we're banning people because they look suspicious, and whilst I admit it is as plain as day that at least one of these accounts is an alt, it hasn't actually been proven. Besides, the alt account itself is not the problem, and banning it really makes no difference. However, if you get caught, expect a lengthy ban on your own account.
S'true. I'm not an alt and it has yet to be proven really. It's not frostee. If I would expect anyone I'd expect Parsifal, the guy is constantly angry, so i'd suspect he'd make an alt where everything he posts is nice.
But alas, I am not Parsifal, I am just me.
-
Also, her behavior so far has been very strange. She hasn't said anything about the theories or content of this site, she just went immediately to CN and started talking about the community, who's the best member, and random stuff like that. She even said the FES mini-meme "This insolence..." Really, doesn't any of this seem suspicious at all to you? At the very least, you could check her IP address to see if she's using a proxy.
So here's my story. Once upon a time a friend and I were joking about how old fashioned another friend of ours was. Then we started talking about "HE'S SO OLD FASHIONED HE PROLLY BELIEVES THE EARTH IS STILL FLAT LOLOLOLOLOL" so I google flat earth to post the inside joke to my friend and stumble upon this board. HURRAH! I lurked for a day then decided to post! I stay in Complete nonsense because frankly I'm not fully educated on this wonderful idea that the world is flat. But what a fun(ny) community you have.
I've been nothing but nice really and it's not like I go stomping around your little FE/RE debate threads. So I don't see a problem other than Sadaam being Sadaam and wanting to kill off people he doesn't like.
-
How is making a second account that serious if you aren't breaking any rules with that account?
For one thing, its very existence is breaking the rules. Also, there's a paragraph in the rules explaining:
Alts are forbidden in FES. They serve no purpose other than to stir up trouble or confuse people for no good reason. They drive serious debaters away, and they can confuse the members whether or not they are actually newcomers. That, of course, decreases the level of seriousness in the fora, mainly because the members will no longer take these "newcomers" seriously: the members are unable to determine whether or not they are worthy opponents of debate.
I know me, James, Jack and Wilmore will ban any alt accounts found. However, like Wilmore says, we are not in the game of witch hunting.
Fair enough.
-
OK Bimbly2, welcome to TFES, I hope you enjoy your stay.
-
So I can make as many alts as I want? You can't prove they're mine, so you can't ban me. You can't even prove they're alts, so you can't ban them.
-
At the very least, I'm wondering why Bimbly2 is not banned, even if it is not Frostee. It's an exceedingly obvious alt.
Then you have a situation where we're banning people because they look suspicious, and whilst I admit it is as plain as day that at least one of these accounts is an alt, it hasn't actually been proven. Besides, the alt account itself is not the problem, and banning it really makes no difference. However, if you get caught, expect a lengthy ban on your own account.
I don't mean to contradict you, but didn't Johannes and Wendy get a five-day ban? That doesn't seem like much of a deterrent to me.
-
This insolence needs to stop and it needs to stop right now. We now have a George Clooney alt making a mockery of this website with his behaviour. Is something going to be done about this complete disgrace?
-
This insolence needs to stop and it needs to stop right now. We now have a George Clooney alt making a mockery of this website with his behaviour. Is something going to be done about this complete disgrace?
Do you have 100% proof that George Clooney is an alt? Stop accusing new members of being alts.
In all seriousness, we've got a bunch of alts and trolls spamming us.
-
In all seriousness, we've got a bunch of alts and trolls spamming us.
And no moderators online. Fantastic.
-
Kudos to Singularity for single-handedly stopping the invasion.
-
Do you have 100% proof that George Clooney is an alt?
We have.
-
OOH so who was it Jack? ???
-
Do you have 100% proof that George Clooney is an alt?
We have.
That was a joke.
-
We all know it was a satirical stand against the policies towards alts.
It just failed.
-
OOH so who was it Jack? ???
You're gonna have to be a little more creative next time.
-
Like a bribe? pics for info.
-
By the way guys, if you see an obvious alt, just ignore it; don't respond to their posts. They will get bored soon enough and leave. The mods will take care of the mess.
-
In all seriousness, we've got a bunch of alts and trolls spamming us.
And no moderators online. Fantastic.
I have a life too, dick.
-
In all seriousness, we've got a bunch of alts and trolls spamming us.
And no moderators online. Fantastic.
I have a life too, dick.
Indeed, Parsifal should stop BAWWWing about mods
-
At the very least, I'm wondering why Bimbly2 is not banned, even if it is not Frostee. It's an exceedingly obvious alt.
Then you have a situation where we're banning people because they look suspicious, and whilst I admit it is as plain as day that at least one of these accounts is an alt, it hasn't actually been proven. Besides, the alt account itself is not the problem, and banning it really makes no difference. However, if you get caught, expect a lengthy ban on your own account.
I don't mean to contradict you, but didn't Johannes and Wendy get a five-day ban? That doesn't seem like much of a deterrent to me.
It will likely be a month or similar in the future.
-
At the very least, I'm wondering why Bimbly2 is not banned, even if it is not Frostee. It's an exceedingly obvious alt.
Then you have a situation where we're banning people because they look suspicious, and whilst I admit it is as plain as day that at least one of these accounts is an alt, it hasn't actually been proven. Besides, the alt account itself is not the problem, and banning it really makes no difference. However, if you get caught, expect a lengthy ban on your own account.
I don't mean to contradict you, but didn't Johannes and Wendy get a five-day ban? That doesn't seem like much of a deterrent to me.
I'm aware of this, but as John indicated, in future any regulars will be getting a long ban if they're caught. I'll be pushing for bans of at least a few months.
-
Crustinator, repeat low content posting all over the place. In the instance you got banned for it, you were banned for continually posting low content, then arguing when I gave you a warning about it. I don't really feel like looking it up, considering what will be obvious later in this post.
At first the ban was for 2 days, but when I brought it up to the other administrators I found out you had been banned for this before. This raised it to a week.
As I can see from looking over your posts lately, you obviously have not learned your lesson. You continue to make low content posts, lack of content posts, trouble making posts, derailments, etc. Some of these instances in and of themselves are not banable, but as a whole I feel they are and have asked for review for my ban from other moderators. Other instances are, especially to a repeat offender that has been warned repeatedly.
You seem fairly intelligent if you could keep your posts on topic and within your realm of knowledge. I would hate to have to make this ban permanent if behavior continues.
Your ban has been expanded another 30 days for again taking your issues with the staff out in other areas of the site and for troublemaking and attacking my name as well as flaming all during your previous ban. Add onto this your extensive record for breaking the rules here.
This may be expanded to a permanent ban if the issue is not corrected when you are again able to log in.
I could care less if I lost an argument. I did not, in fact, but that is besides the point. You are free to say whatever you want about me to a degree, but questioning the terms of your ban outside of this thread is not allowed.
EDiT:
I have decided to remove your ban. I suggest you don't cause any more issues.
Edit 2:
I only removed the ban concerning your signature as I felt that this was an unjustified ban. Any previous bans are still in affect until their duration expires.
-
Eddy_Baby Anyway, make me unbanned
Eddy_Baby on account of me not having done anything wrong
Eddy_Baby I'm banned for the reason 'proxy.'
Unban him this instant, he doesnt know how to use a proxy. Oh and he is pretty cool yo
-
This is an outrage!
-
So what, using a proxy is now a bannable offence?
-
Bumped for great justice
-
This is an outrage!
(http://s.bebo.com/app-image/7931205358/5411656627/PROFILE/i.quizzaz.com/img/q/u/08/04/12/tony_harrison.jpg)
-
Is this confirmation that Eddy Baby was Bimbly2?
-
I'm unbanned, because I did literally nothing wrong!
Although I suggested the Jews were behind everything.
Did a mod explain to you why you were banned in the first place?
-
But when you were unbanned, I mean, if you got a PM explaining. If you didn't, you should ask in the "issues" thread.
-
Don't hold your breath. I got banned for "threatening the site" though I only found this out afterwards from John Davis. When I asked what I had done to threaten the site, no answer was given.
-
Don't hold your breath. I got banned for "threatening the site" though I only found this out afterwards from John Davis. When I asked what I had done to threaten the site, no answer was given.
Yeah, but nobody really likes you.
-
Don't hold your breath. I got banned for "threatening the site" though I only found this out afterwards from John Davis. When I asked what I had done to threaten the site, no answer was given.
Yeah, but nobody really likes you.
Says the man who's alleged hanging was televised worldwide.
Fix'd.
-
Don't hold your breath. I got banned for "threatening the site" though I only found this out afterwards from John Davis. When I asked what I had done to threaten the site, no answer was given.
Yeah, but nobody really likes you.
Says the man whose alleged hanging was televised worldwide.
Fix'd.
Fix'd some mo.
-
But the point remains. Everyone wanted to see you hang.
Not everyone here. :'(
-
So what, using a proxy is now a bannable offence?
No, but certain proxies are banned. He wasn't banned, but the proxy he was using is.
-
I was banned for a few hours this morning, and I was just wondering what went on there?
Can't see why you would be. I'll make a post in mod forums to figure out why.
We have been banning proxies here and there lately to cut down and identify alternate accounts. Perhaps it had to do with that?
-
A new board has been created for this specific purpose, so I'm locking this. Fare thee well, I&C thread!