The Flat Earth Society
The Flat Earth Society => Suggestions & Concerns => Topic started by: PizzaPlanet on October 02, 2010, 04:56:57 PM
-
First of all, my ban description was inaccurate. It said I was banned for racism, which is false because I did not make any racist comments. I was banned for using a word that, in certain cultures and contexts, has racist connotations attached to it.
I would like to raise the issue that the relevant word is, to the best of my knowledge, rarely used outside North America. I can only assume that the magnitude of its perceived impact is strictly a part of American culture, because to me it is no worse than a lot of other words that are permitted on these fora. The question I have to pose to the moderators is this: would the response have been the same had I used a word which had comparable connotations in some other culture, or is North American culture being imposed on all users of this website, that being an act far closer to racism than anything I have ever posted here?
Instead of using this as a learning opportunity, I will continue to press my luck seemingly oblivious to the fact this is, in fact, what generally leads to my being banned.
Agreed.
It would seem that our moderators have set new standards of replying to S&C posts.
I would like to submit a suggestion that you return to civilized replies.
I would also like to ask you, if that's not too much of a problem, not to reply to this thread in such fashion.
Thank you,
PizzaPlanet
-
It would seem that our moderators have set new standards of replying to S&C posts.
Agreed.
-
Baw
;)
Steve knows what the rules are. He knew the rule existed. He did it anyway. I don't have any sympathy for him in this case. It's a repeated pattern wherein he presses the boundaries until he gets banned. Then he plays the victim. It's tiring.
I enjoy Steve. I think he's good for the site, and frequently even manage to grasp the humour in his antics. For the record, I've never banned a member (apart from an upset member who retroactively inserted offensive images into most of his posts), but I don't have any problem with his ban.
-
Steve knows what the rules are. He knew the rule existed. He did it anyway. I don't have any sympathy for him in this case. It's a repeated pattern wherein he presses the boundaries until he gets banned. Then he plays the victim. It's tiring.
I enjoy Steve. I think he's good for the site, and frequently even manage to grasp the humour in his antics. For the record, I've never banned a member (apart from an upset member who retroactively inserted offensive images into most of his posts), but I don't have any problem with his ban.
Personally I see many things wrong with this ban, but that's not what this thread is about.
I just think it's flat out wrong for a moderator to resort to cynicism in S&C, no matter what the context, but especially when the context is someone being banned for using a word out of context. You see, in my opinion, the whole "context doesn't matter" thing should either be universal or not present at all.
Also, I'd like a moderator not directly involved in this matter to respond, too, if that's possible. :)
-
but especially when the context is someone being banned for using a word out of context.
It seems pretty well spelled out here: http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=1499.0
You'll have to excuse me for my (well-founded) cynicism in the matter of repeated luck-pressing.
Also, I'd like a moderator not directly involved in this matter to respond, too, if that's possible. :)
I'm sure you'll get your wish, I'm just the only one on at the moment :P
-
Ski effectively conveyed his point without being insulting. I see no problem with it.
-
Also, I'd like a moderator not directly involved in this matter to respond, too, if that's possible. :)
I'm sure you'll get your wish, I'm just the only one on at the moment :P
Oh, I didn't mean to make it sound like you shouldn't respond. I welcome all discussion. I'd just like to see an opinion of someone unbiased. I'm really sorry if it sounded like anything else.
As for the ban, the decision is pretty much up to moderators, and I can't argue with that. My suggestion is only about the manner of speech you've used. I believe the same message could be conveyed by, for example: "You broke the rules, you got banned. That's all there is to it". You could add "again" here and there to increase the impact, if necessary.
-
Perhaps I should have simply said: "Steve, use this as a learning opportunity instead of again pressing your luck, which generally leads to your being banned." But I don't see much difference there, other than delivery.
-
The difference is subtle, but there.
-
In other words, those in possession of a caustic wit should be disallowed from employing it in making a point.
When a moderator is expressing his stance in S&C, which is probably one of the most official situations, yes.
-
How come everytime Steve gets banned there are some noobs that rush to defend him? Steve, how do you make noobs dance like puppets?
-
How come everytime Steve gets banned there are some noobs that rush to defend him? Steve, how do you make noobs dance like puppets?
Using Free Software of course. :P
-
I respect you a lot, PP, but this is frivolous at best. If you have an actual issue with the moderating staff, please address it directly and don't take it out on Ski. It's not fair.
I'm not taking it out on anyone. Again, I'm sorry if any of my wording implies a personal attack; that's not what I'm trying to do here. Just because Ski happened to be the most recent example doesn't mean this is directed just at him. The problem, as I quite clearly articulated in the OP, is "Mods: please be civil in S&C".
BAWWWW SOMEONE SHOULD SUPPORT ME NOW AND THEN
Hmm.
-
Why are you bitching?
-
Why are you bitching?
Welcome to S&C. You must be new here.
-
Double standards among FES moderators? By no means!
-
What double standard? Although Ski isn't around much lately, he's always been pretty cool. I really can't believe you're bitching because he posted "agreed". How is that "uncivil"?
-
I really can't believe you're bitching because he posted "agreed".
...
-
Sorry, missed the fix'd thing. Still it's something members do here constantly. I still don't see how it can be considered uncivil. He didn't call you a faggot or anything.
-
The problem, as I quite clearly articulated in the OP, is "Mods: please be civil in S&C".
I too am having trouble understanding your concern. What exactly was uncivil about quote-editing Parsifal to make the his point? :-\
If you reduce it to attitude within a serious subject, Parsifal's initial post was a less serious defense than ski's dismissal of it.
-
It's just a low-standard/low-content reply (pick one), which shouldn't happen if a mod is replying to a suggestion/concern. Again, this is not about this one particular case. It's a general suggestion backed up with an example (and apparently a poor one, since most people seem not to see the problem.). The way things are now we could as well merge S&C with the Lounge without noticing much of a change. Maybe not RM just yet, but that's only a matter of time if S&C remains unmoderated.
-
All these garbage complaint threads make me miss Angry Ranting even moar.
-
It's just a low-standard/low-content reply (pick one), which shouldn't happen if a mod is replying to a suggestion/concern. Again, this is not about this one particular case. It's a general suggestion backed up with an example (and apparently a poor one, since most people seem not to see the problem.). The way things are now we could as well merge S&C with the Lounge without noticing much of a change. Maybe not RM just yet, but that's only a matter of time if S&C remains unmoderated.
Since this thread reached an impasse pretty early on, would you be alright with resuming this line of examination later, if and when an example that better illustrates your point emerges? If your concerns are preemptive for what might become more noticeable, this thread can always be revived.
-
Since this thread reached an impasse pretty early on, would you be alright with resuming this line of examination later, if and when an example that better illustrates your point emerges? If your concerns are preemptive for what might become more noticeable, this thread can always be revived.
Well, I've said all I had to say anyway, and I think you might be right about the preemption. I'm fine with leaving this for now, if that's what you wish.
-
Baw
;)
Steve knows what the rules are. He knew the rule existed. He did it anyway. I don't have any sympathy for him in this case. It's a repeated pattern wherein he presses the boundaries until he gets banned. Then he plays the victim. It's tiring.
I enjoy Steve. I think he's good for the site, and frequently even manage to grasp the humour in his antics. For the record, I've never banned a member (apart from an upset member who retroactively inserted offensive images into most of his posts), but I don't have any problem with his ban.
Agreed!
-
Wilmore, sometimes I just want to snuggle you.
-
Wilmore, sometimes I just want to snuggle you.
Awww, huggles.
-
Since this thread reached an impasse pretty early on, would you be alright with resuming this line of examination later, if and when an example that better illustrates your point emerges? If your concerns are preemptive for what might become more noticeable, this thread can always be revived.
ka-BUMP!
A serious complaint of mine has just been moved to RM with no response from the staff.
This is exactly the kind of degeneration I was talking about before. My concern is now no longer preemptive.
EDIT: Also, I would appreciate it if the offending mod would admit to the deed. I'm just curious.
-
And so the topic arises again. Again, Ski will be mentioned. This time he is referring to non-existent rules in an attempt to restrict an essential freedom - the freedom of speech.
Another examples would be markjo's constant low-content posting combined with reprimanding everyone else for low-content posting, Gayer's banning on demand (Saddam's, namely), and probably other things I've missed.
The concern I've raised quite a long time ago is certainly not preemptive, as situations that confirm my fears are constantly emerging. Isn't it about time we fix it?
-
If you don't like it why don't you just leave?
Berny
We used to quietly shank the jail-house lawyers
-
If you don't like it why don't you just leave?
I am an FE'er, believe it or not. Just because the Society's site is horribly moderated does not mean I don't wish to discuss things with members.
Also, is there an alternative? I mean, other than the pretty much inactive .net and Parsifal's... *ahem*... forum.
-
If you don't like it why don't you just leave?
I am an FE'er, believe it or not. Just because the Society's site is horribly moderated does not mean I don't wish to discuss things with members.
Also, is there an alternative? I mean, other than the pretty much inactive .net and Parsifal's... *ahem*... forum.
RoundEarthSociety? It looks like it needs a shot in the arm or something.
Berny
RES has tumbleweeds blowing in it
-
And so the topic arises again. Again, Ski will be mentioned. This time he is referring to non-existent rules in an attempt to restrict an essential freedom - the freedom of speech.
Another examples would be markjo's constant low-content posting combined with reprimanding everyone else for low-content posting, Gayer's banning on demand (Saddam's, namely), and probably other things I've missed.
The concern I've raised quite a long time ago is certainly not preemptive, as situations that confirm my fears are constantly emerging. Isn't it about time we fix it?
Yes, banning on demand. I ordered Gayer to ban Beorn, and she obeyed. ::)
-
Yes, banning on demand. I ordered Gayer to ban Beorn, and she obeyed.
Precisely the case. Thank you for your admission.
-
Quick someone demand I ban PizzaPlanet!
Quit being retarted PizzaPlanet, I didn't ban on demand, Saddam just drew my attention to the post (and I could then see in quarantine the other offending posts). Its the same as him reporting the post, or do you think if moderators respond to reports they are banning on demand?
-
Quick someone demand I ban PizzaPlanet!
Quit being retarted PizzaPlanet, I didn't ban on demand, Saddam just drew my attention to the post (and I could then see in quarantine the other offending posts). Its the same as him reporting the post, or do you think if moderators respond to reports they are banning on demand?
This post is full of reason and win.
-
Quick someone demand I ban PizzaPlanet!
I vote to ban PizzaPlanet (2)
-
Quick someone demand I ban PizzaPlanet!
I vote to ban PizzaPlanet (2)
Ah, I'm a sucker for this game, sorry PP.
I vote to ban PizzaPlanet (3)
-
I vote not to ban PizzaPlanet. (-3)
-
I abstain. (e)
-
Wow PizzaPlanter, we'll miss you when you're gone.
-
Quit being retarted PizzaPlanet, I didn't ban on demand, Saddam just drew my attention to the post (and I could then see in quarantine the other offending posts). Its the same as him reporting the post, or do you think if moderators respond to reports they are banning on demand?
That strongly depends on the context. You generally don't do much work as a moderator. In fact, you generally do no work as a moderator. Suddenly, someone "brings something to your attention", and for a change you actually react. How very suspicious.
Here's a very relevant example:
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=42693.0
Instead of being dumb and posting off-topic in this thread (which is about the utter degeneration and lack of civility among some moderators [which, mind you, you have yet again exemplified with the post quoted above. What a mature and responsible way to address criticism <even if you disagree with it>]), you could join the thread in which I berate you for this ban. You know, present your case, explain your opinions. So far the others have been puppeting for you there, and all you seem to have to say is "Stop being retarted". Well, I'll answer that in the way you (in my opinion) deserve:
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=13788.msg1186870#msg1186870
Also, this thread isn't about Gayer. Feel free to address the rest of my points as well.
-
You have no idea what I do as a moderator as generally you don't see it. All you people see is the high profile bans, all the other stuff goes unnoticed unless we don't do it.
And how was my post off topic? I was directly responding to a post in the thread and correcting its misconception.
I'm pretty sure I already posted in that thread and explained the ban, or at least I did it in one of the moaning threads. You can keep going on about this but you've already been told several times what the deal is and its not going to change until Daniel changes his mind so get over it.
-
You have no idea what I do as a moderator as generally you don't see it. All you people see is the high profile bans, all the other stuff goes unnoticed unless we don't do it.
In fact, everyone can see what you do as a moderator, because you didn't hide your online status. You know, the number game and Get Involved.
And how was my post off topic? I was directly responding to a post in the thread and correcting its misconception.
Incorrect.
I'm pretty sure I already posted in that thread and explained the ban, or at least I did it in one of the moaning threads. You can keep going on about this but you've already been told several times what the deal is and its not going to change until Daniel changes his mind so get over it.
The deal has been stated over and over a few times by now. You just did something completely different than what "the deal" is about. Not surprising, really. Anyway, 46670.
-
The moderating stuff is hidden, you can't see it in the online status ::)
Did any of the other moderators say that Beorn shouldn't have been banned? If they did then you'll have a point, but if they didn't then (I was indeed comforming to the deal.
-
OMG.. this shit is stupid. Gayer is a good mod, mainly because she didn't let becoming a mod give her a goderator complex. Pls stop bitching at the coolest mod FES has.
-
Did any of the other moderators say that Beorn shouldn't have been banned? If they did then you'll have a point, but if they didn't then (I was indeed comforming to the deal.
A logical fallacy (argumentum ad verecundiam) is exactly the kind of response I expected from you. Well, either that or 44671.
OMG.. this shit is stupid. Gayer is a good mod, mainly because she didn't let becoming a mod give her a goderator complex. Pls stop bitching at the coolest mod FES has.
That would be Singy or Ichi.
Also, 44672.
-
I don't know what your numbers stand for. Ichi is also cool, and Singularity is alright.
-
I don't know what your numbers stand for.
Then clearly you don't hang out with Gayer enough. Here, I'll take you to her lair:
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=13788.46660
-
Do you think she shouldn't post in the number game?
-
Do you think she shouldn't post in the number game?
She can do what she wants, but being a moderator should (in my opinion) imply a priority list of:
1. Real life
2. Moderating
3. Number game
and with an extra clause saying that "Don't be retarded lol retard" is not a valid answer to a moderation dispute.
The issue is quite precisely described in this thread: http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=42693.0
-
Do you think she shouldn't post in the number game?
She can do what she wants, but being a moderator should (in my opinion) imply a priority list of:
1. Real life
2. Moderating
3. Number game
and with an extra clause saying that "Don't be retarded lol retard" is not a valid answer to a moderation dispute.
The issue is quite precisely described in this thread: http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=42693.0
From that very thread:
I'm with Gayer on that one, because I love Gayer.
-
Please stop being retarded PP.-+
-
Do you think she shouldn't post in the number game?
She can do what she wants, but being a moderator should (in my opinion) imply a priority list of:
1. Real life
2. Moderating
3. Number game
and with an extra clause saying that "Don't be retarded lol retard" is not a valid answer to a moderation dispute.
The issue is quite precisely described in this thread: http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=42693.0
Again, you don't know what Gayer's "priority list" is.
-
Again, you don't know what Gayer's "priority list" is.
Again, her online status is not hidden. It's very simple to conduct a simple experiment to find out.
1. See Gayer in the number game
2. Report a post that is undisputably report-worthy (for example, a spambot post before the spambot thread existed, or when someone says "nigger", God forbid.)
3. Wait 3 hours
4. See Gayer in the number game and the post untouched
Been there, done that, got the T-shirt, others have done it too. QED
-
Gayer isn't the only mod who doesn't get to the reported posts.
-
Gayer isn't the only mod who doesn't get to the reported posts.
Correct. She is merely a well-documented example.
-
I don't check my emails every 5 minutes. If someone PMs me I respond straight away though as I'm sure a few people can comfirm. Besides the fact real life gets in the way now anyway, you try examining a thread to see if someone should be banned when you're feeding a baby, its not easy.
-
Yup, but that wasn't exactly any different before you had a baby to feed.
-
I don't check my emails every 5 minutes. If someone PMs me I respond straight away though as I'm sure a few people can comfirm. Besides the fact real life gets in the way now anyway, you try examining a thread to see if someone should be banned when you're feeding a baby, its not easy.
I shall let NATO know.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-13397327
-
I don't check my emails every 5 minutes. If someone PMs me I respond straight away though as I'm sure a few people can comfirm. Besides the fact real life gets in the way now anyway, you try examining a thread to see if someone should be banned when you're feeding a baby, its not easy.
If I PM you instructions on how to scroll up in irssi, will you stop thinking that PuTTY should be handling the scrollback?
-
Again, how would you know? Like I said, you people only notice the high profile bans, 90% of moderation goes unnoticed.
Also its hard to moderate when you're hiding from NATO bombs.
I don't check my emails every 5 minutes. If someone PMs me I respond straight away though as I'm sure a few people can comfirm. Besides the fact real life gets in the way now anyway, you try examining a thread to see if someone should be banned when you're feeding a baby, its not easy.
If I PM you instructions on how to scroll up in irssi, will you stop thinking that PuTTY should be handling the scrollback?
Yes :-*
-
Again, how would you know? Like I said, you people only notice the high profile bans, 90% of moderation goes unnoticed.
Like I said in my experiment, all it takes is to observe spambot threads. Considering how many of them we get (courtesy of Simple Machines) and how few "high-profile" bans ever occur, it's likely more than 90% of all moderation.
-
The spambot threads that we are constantly deleting?
-
The spambot threads that we are constantly deleting?
No, the ones that you aren't deleting when you're spending hours in the number game. The ones you delete are all right.
-
Pls stop bitching at the coolest mod FES has.
Enjoy your ban! >:(
-
The spambot threads that we are constantly deleting?
No, the ones that you aren't deleting when you're spending hours in the number game. The ones you delete are all right.
If you notice some spambot threads while I'm spending hours in the number game feel free to PM me to tell me about them :-*
-
Pls stop bitching at the coolest mod FES has.
Enjoy your ban! >:(
OMG >:(
If you were here more I'd have remembered your ultra-coolness.
-
If you notice some spambot threads while I'm spending hours in the number game feel free to PM me to tell me about them :-*
Can I PM you with nudes instead?
-
If you notice some spambot threads while I'm spending hours in the number game feel free to PM me to tell me about them :-*
Can I PM you with nudes instead?
Only if they're of you
-
Only if they're of you
That's what I meant :-*
-
If you notice some spambot threads while I'm spending hours in the number game feel free to PM me to tell me about them :-*
What is the point of having a report function if nobody bothers to read the reports?
-
If you notice some spambot threads while I'm spending hours in the number game feel free to PM me to tell me about them :-*
What is the point of having a report function if nobody bothers to read the reports?
Checking emails every 5 minutes is a bit unreasonable so if you want something dealt with straight away (for instance someone is posting porn) then PMing is a much better idea. Otherwise don't be impatient.
-
Checking emails every 5 minutes is a bit unreasonable
Get a mail client that notifies you when you have new mail.
-
So does making a report only send an email to the mods? All this time I thought something flashed up on the FES page like getting a PM.
-
That would be cool but no, just sends an email
-
So does making a report only send an email to the mods? All this time I thought something flashed up on the FES page like getting a PM.
I kind of wish it did work that way, but alas, no.
-
How many reports do you guys have to wade through everyday? I bet there are loads of them.
-
If you notice some spambot threads while I'm spending hours in the number game feel free to PM me to tell me about them :-*
What is the point of having a report function if nobody bothers to read the reports?
False hope.
-
How many reports do you guys have to wade through everyday? I bet there are loads of them.
a LOT
-
How many reports do you guys have to wade through everyday? I bet there are loads of them.
About a gazillion
-
How many reports do you guys have to wade through everyday?
None at all. If you were to ask how many reports they get, that would be a different question altogether.
-
Are most of them legitimate reports? I only report spambots, but I'm sure there are some who report every time they get mad.
-
A lot of times it's noobs reporting b/c they're butthurt that they'r losing a debate, other times it's new accounts reporting FE ers for being retards (I'm reporting this man because he needs mental health help, no one can be this much of an idiot!), old members just trying to be annoying and getting others banned for lulz, spambot threads etc.
-
That and Saddam.
-
That and Saddam.
Once again, I didn't report you. Please get over it.
-
A lot of times it's noobs reporting b/c they're butthurt that they'r losing a debate, other times it's new accounts reporting FE ers for being retards (I'm reporting this man because he needs mental health help, no one can be this much of an idiot!), old members just trying to be annoying and getting others banned for lulz, spambot threads etc.
How terrible that you're actually expected to do work as a moderator. Terrible. Just terrible.
-
A lot of times it's noobs reporting b/c they're butthurt that they'r losing a debate, other times it's new accounts reporting FE ers for being retards (I'm reporting this man because he needs mental health help, no one can be this much of an idiot!), old members just trying to be annoying and getting others banned for lulz, spambot threads etc.
How terrible that you're actually expected to do work as a moderator. Terrible. Just terrible.
Unnecessary work, it sounds like. It actually is terrible in this case.
-
A lot of times it's noobs reporting b/c they're butthurt that they'r losing a debate, other times it's new accounts reporting FE ers for being retards (I'm reporting this man because he needs mental health help, no one can be this much of an idiot!), old members just trying to be annoying and getting others banned for lulz, spambot threads etc.
How terrible that you're actually expected to do work as a moderator. Terrible. Just terrible.
Unnecessary work, it sounds like. It actually is terrible in this case.
Terrible that people actually use the report button? I agree that it shouldn't be abused, but they can always warn or ban people that do abuse. Whining about it actually being used is pathetic.
-
A lot of times it's noobs reporting b/c they're butthurt that they'r losing a debate, other times it's new accounts reporting FE ers for being retards (I'm reporting this man because he needs mental health help, no one can be this much of an idiot!), old members just trying to be annoying and getting others banned for lulz, spambot threads etc.
How terrible that you're actually expected to do work as a moderator. Terrible. Just terrible.
Unnecessary work, it sounds like. It actually is terrible in this case.
Terrible that people actually use the report button? I agree that it shouldn't be abused, but they can always warn or ban people that do abuse. Whining about it actually being used is pathetic.
So, we agree.
-
I agree that it shouldn't be abused...
Yet, sometimes it is.
...but they can always warn or ban people that do abuse.
This happens too.
-
Since this thread reached an impasse pretty early on, would you be alright with resuming this line of examination later, if and when an example that better illustrates your point emerges? If your concerns are preemptive for what might become more noticeable, this thread can always be revived.
ka-BUMP!
A serious complaint of mine has just been moved to RM with no response from the staff.
This is exactly the kind of degeneration I was talking about before. My concern is now no longer preemptive.
EDIT: Also, I would appreciate it if the offending mod would admit to the deed. I'm just curious.
You provided no links to the thread in question, and consequently no way to investigate.
-
You provided no links to the thread in question, and consequently no way to investigate.
Yes, well, that was very recent and easy to trace back 6 months ago. I'd actually made that post 3 minutes after my thread was moved I made a new thread on the same topic, so whoever had done it was almost certain to see the post as well.
EDIT: fix'd for accuracy
-
You provided no links to the thread in question, and consequently no way to investigate.
Yes, well, that was very recent and easy to trace back 6 months ago. I'd actually made that post 3 minutes after my thread was moved, so whoever had done it was almost certain to see the post as well.
I'm aware that this is an older topic, as I rarely venture into S&C. Are you suggesting that you are no longer concerned about it and I can abandon my efforts? This late investigation is only derived from a sense of obligation.
On a more practical note, people can feel free to PM me prompting suggestions and concerns threads since I often forget it even exists.
-
No, I'm not. All I'm saying that I hadn't planned for this particular post being addressed half a year later.
Anyway, I managed to find the thread I have created right after the other one was deleted/moved (I don't actually remember which one it was), so here's some evidence: http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=44120.0
While it doesn't contain a link to the one that did get dealt with incorrectly, I believe it bears sufficient markings of it being a repost to be considered evidence (especially in the OP and Saddam's bawwing).
Of course, it goes to say that the new thread has been addressed with professionalism. However, that happened after my complaint here (perhaps in effect of it, perhaps not).
-
Of course, it goes to say that the new thread has been addressed with professionalism. However, that happened after my complaint here (perhaps in effect of it, perhaps not).
Good.
-
As per markjo's special request:
Unless you provide some conclusive evidence that moonlight is the product of moonshrimp and not some other form of luminescence (biological or otherwise), I'm not interested in your low content ramblings.
Abuse of moderator privileges at its finest. That's in a thread he first personally derailed to enable himself to start throwing stuff like this around, too. Y'know, just adding up to the pool of evidence.
-
PP, what the hell is your problem with markjo?
-
PP, what the hell is your problem with markjo?
He's not Ichi.
-
hi i am sadaam i cant read and what is a lurking how do i lurk
All in all, I have no beef with markjo. However, he does post off-topic and then warns others for catching his bait. Also, he specifically requested that I mention his abuse in S&C, so I did.
-
As per markjo's special request:
Unless you provide some conclusive evidence that moonlight is the product of moonshrimp and not some other form of luminescence (biological or otherwise), I'm not interested in your low content ramblings.
Abuse of moderator privileges at its finest. That's in a thread he first personally derailed to enable himself to start throwing stuff like this around, too. Y'know, just adding up to the pool of evidence.
How is it him derailing it since he didn't bring up the moonshrimp. This was in answer to Tausami bringing up moonshrimp when speculating existence of things without any evidence. EG brought the low content posting with the short response to bring peoples attention of speculation of moonshrimp can be found in another thread.
This was followed by some ramblings about moonshrimp and Markjo merely stated ..."Also, let's get back on topic, please."
Berny
Thinks PP is seeking attention at an absurd rate.
-
How is it him derailing it since he didn't bring up the moonshrimp.
Of course. He invoked a twisted, irrelevant, and in no way correct, version of the scientific method.
If we don't understand ether's properties (or even confirm its existence), then how can we speculate as to what it can or can't do?
This was in answer to Tausami bringing up moonshrimp when speculating existence of things without any evidence.
Which was in response to markjo's derailment, yes.
EG brought the low content posting with the short response to bring peoples attention of speculation of moonshrimp can be found in another thread.
Incorrect. Please read the thread in question prior to commenting on it.
This was followed by some ramblings about moonshrimp and Markjo merely stated ..."Also, let's get back on topic, please."
No, that's the least important part of the post. For your convenience, the important bit has been quoted here.
Thinks PP is seeking attention at an absurd rate.
Ah, a low-content accusation of low-content posting in a post about low-content posting. How elegantly ironic.
-
How is it him derailing it since he didn't bring up the moonshrimp.
Of course. He invoked a twisted, irrelevant, and in no way correct, version of the scientific method.
If we don't understand ether's properties (or even confirm its existence), then how can we speculate as to what it can or can't do?
I'm sorry, but what is "twisted", "irrelevant" or otherwise wrong with my statement? ???
This was in answer to Tausami bringing up moonshrimp when speculating existence of things without any evidence.
Which was in response to markjo's derailment, yes.
How was my statement a derailment when I was directly commenting on the unknown properties of ether (which someone else brought up as a possible explanation of the question in the OP?)
EG brought the low content posting with the short response to bring peoples attention of speculation of moonshrimp can be found in another thread.
Incorrect. Please read the thread in question prior to commenting on it.
Actually, EG was the one that brought up moonshrimp all on his own. There are many other unknown phenomena that he could have brought up, but he chose moonshrimp, even after I warned him about it in another thread.
PP, if you could harness some of this rage that you seem to have at my thread derailments and aim it at everyone else who derails threads (just about every one here, including you), then maybe we could get some serious questions about FET resolved. If not, then just get over it.
-
I'm sorry, but what is "twisted", "irrelevant" or otherwise wrong with my statement? ???
Your error has been addressed in the appropriate thread.
How was my statement a derailment when I was directly commenting on the unknown properties of ether (which someone else brought up as a possible explanation of the question in the OP?)
Your error has been addressed in the appropriate thread.
after I warned him about it in another thread.
It is you who should have been warned in the first place.
my thread derailments
I'm glad you admit it.
get over it.
And thus we return to this thread's topic. A moderator is not supposed to tyrannise the forum and tell everyone to "get over" his moronic abuse. Nope. A moderator is someone who's supposed to try and keep order in the forum - not invoke chaos.
-
Continuing:
I will always read Apple's T&Cs from now on. I don't want to end up as part of a HUMANCENTiPAD. :o
*image removed* Save this nonsense for RM.
Interesting, seeing how markjo does enjoy posting enormous image macros himself (Which has previously been addressed here (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=46844.msg1157608)), and Thork's picture was relevant in a humorous way.
-
Continuing:
I will always read Apple's T&Cs from now on. I don't want to end up as part of a HUMANCENTiPAD. :o
*image removed* Save this nonsense for RM.
Interesting, seeing how markjo does enjoy posting enormous image macros himself (Which has previously been addressed here (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=46844.msg1157608)), and Thork's picture was relevant in a humorous way.
I was wondering how long it would take for you to bring this up. I didn't remove the image because of its size. I removed it because of its content. I didn't feel that the image was appropriate given the nature of the thread and the forum.
-
I was wondering how long it would take for you to bring this up.
Well, now you know.
I didn't remove the image because of its size. I removed it because of its content.
I had seen the picture. Otherwise, I wouldn't have said anything about its content.
I didn't feel that the image was appropriate given the nature of the thread and the forum.
As opposed to that huge smiley face in the moonlight warning thread, eh? The picture was perfectly appropriate as it provided a visual explanation to the wordplay in the post in question. Sure, the post itself was very light-hearted and not part of an incredibly serious discussion, but as far as I know, having a sense of humour is not banned yet.
-
(http://www.jacksbookreviews.com/uploads/4/5/7/6/4576069/157405.jpg)
That one's quite recent, too.
-
(http://www.jacksbookreviews.com/uploads/4/5/7/6/4576069/157405.jpg)
The OP wanted to know what caused dinosaur extinction. That seems as reasonable an explanation and had as much evidence to support it as any other posted in that thread.
-
(http://www.jacksbookreviews.com/uploads/4/5/7/6/4576069/157405.jpg)
The OP wanted to know what caused dinosaur extinction. That seems as reasonable an explanation and had as much evidence to support it as any other posted in that thread.
It's an image macro. Much like you didn't edit Thork's post except for the image, I would expect you to apply the same to yourself for the sake of intellectual honesty and consistency.
In case these words proved to be a little bit too complicated: Since you hate image macros so much, feel free to express your own thoughts using words and words only.
Of course, that is entirely ignoring the fact that your explanation is a bullshit excuse (which is also what this thread is about!).
-
Y'know, just adding up to the pool of evidence.
That you are incredibly unhappy here of late and are looking intently for reasons to continue to be so?
-
It's an image macro. Much like you didn't edit Thork's post except for the image, I would expect you to apply the same to yourself for the sake of intellectual honesty and consistency.
In case these words proved to be a little bit too complicated: Since you hate image macros so much, feel free to express your own thoughts using words and words only.
Of course, that is entirely ignoring the fact that your explanation is a bullshit excuse (which is also what this thread is about!).
??? When did I ever say that I hate image macros? One of the functions of a mod is to monitor the site for inappropriate content. I felt that the image in question was inappropriate, so I removed it. If any of the rest of the mod staff feel that any content that I post is inappropriate, then they are free to modify or remove that content. Perhaps I made an error in not moving that image to the Quarantine for further review, but I never claimed to be a perfect mod.
The fact that you are whining about this more than Thork is suggests (to me, at least) that Thork agrees that I was justified in my action.
-
That you are incredibly unhappy here of late and are looking intently for reasons to continue to be so?
I'm not really unhappy. I'm just pointing out things that need fixing, and badly. It's a shame that rather than fixing them, you continue to make (bad) attempts at being sarcastic.
??? When did I ever say that I hate image macros?
Just ran a quick search. Let me amend my original claim: You love image macros. Sorry about the confusion.
One of the functions of a mod is to monitor the site for inappropriate content.
Well, here's some inappropriate content for you to take care of. Just makin' your life easier and all:
Just like many of the FE'ers read this, got excited and decided to write some fan fiction.
(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41JsIMZoulL._SS500_.jpg)
(http://imagemacros.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/no_u.jpg?w=491&h=398)
I've been meaning to write about this more extensively in the Believers' section, but I just haven't got round to it.
Here you go.
(http://myweb.westnet.com.au/roundtu-it/images/TUIT.gif)
Now you don't have any excuses. :P
Did not not see the guy holding the pitchfork? ???
Do you mean this guy?
(http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/sisterwendy/works/images/aic_ame.jpg)
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=44679.msg1105806#msg1105806 (too lazy to manually produce a quote of a locked thread)
Lrn2PrincipleofExplosion
(http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/principle_of_explosion.png)
I'm sure that a fair number of women have smaller boobs than this guy.
(http://www.comicbookmovie.com/images/users/uploads/10959/ManBoobs.png)
Are there any pictures of a 40,000 foot wall of ice?
Yes, it looks something like this:
(http://sekai.insani.org/wp-content/uploads/2006/05/crosschannel_bgcc0000e.png)
I never claimed to be a perfect mod.
You're one of the best mods this forum has. If only you could accept a bit of criticism and not do things like this (To clarify: I believe you've only edited that picture out to annoy Thork), you could easily call yourself a perfect mod.
The fact that you are whining about this more than Thork is suggests (to me, at least) that Thork agrees that I was justified in my action.
That's a poor argument. Thork has questioned the moving/editing of his threads many times before, and to no avail. It's very likely that he just gave up.
-
Continuing:
I will always read Apple's T&Cs from now on. I don't want to end up as part of a HUMANCENTiPAD. :o
*image removed* Save this nonsense for RM.
Interesting, seeing how markjo does enjoy posting enormous image macros himself (Which has previously been addressed here (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=46844.msg1157608)), and Thork's picture was relevant in a humorous way.
I was wondering how long it would take for you to bring this up. I didn't remove the image because of its size. I removed it because of its content. I didn't feel that the image was appropriate given the nature of the thread and the forum.
Wait a minute ... Markjo has been tampering with my posts again?
The fact that you are whining about this more than Thork is suggests (to me, at least) that Thork agrees that I was justified in my action.
That's a poor argument. Thork has questioned the moving/editing of his threads many times before, and to no avail. It's very likely that he just gave up.
Actually the reason I hadn't mentioned it, is because it has only just come to my attention that it has been deleted.
Why was my humorous image removed? It was a picture about both apple, their products and their t&cs. It contained no gore, no sex, no vulgar text, no nudity, it wasn't large, or illegal, or from a dangerous site.
This constant assault to expunge me and my views from FES is unjustified. I have more than 2500 posts. The maintenance involved in making sure that Markjo has not altered any of them each day is becoming some burden. A polite PM would not have gone amiss. This sneaky stealth moderation must stop. Lord only knows what else has been changed.
-
...The maintenance involved in making sure that Markjo has not altered any of them each day is becoming some burden. ...
Hum along with me:
All my troubles will be over
When I lay my burden down
All my troubles will be over
When I lay my burden down
Feel better now? Glad to help.
Edited for edification
(http://)
-
Is Thork a paranoid-schizophrenic?
-
The picture Thork is crying about was the image from South Park? Grow up Thork.
-
My God sillyrob, why won't you lurk moar?
-
*sigh* Here is the image in question. Does anyone here honestly believe that it belongs anywhere but RM?
(http://www.mauritiushot.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/the-human-centipede-south-park-ipad.jpg)
-
*sigh* Here is the image in question. Does anyone here honestly believe that it belongs anywhere but RM?
If you think it doesn't belong anywhere apart from RM, why have you posted it again in here?
Do you think it is completely inappropriate in a thread about Apple, discussing terms and conditions of contract? The person who posted underneath in that very thread said:
New south park episode is so relevant to this thread
Now, the real question is, when you thought it so inappropriate for me to post in an Apple thread about T&Cs (the entire point of South Park's Episode), why is it appropriate for you to post it in S&C? Clearly it is not the picture itself, as you deem it fit for the site. You just used it yourself. And I think it unlikely that you found it irrelevant to the thread. You deleted that picture because I posted it.
-
*sigh* Here is the image in question. Does anyone here honestly believe that it belongs anywhere but RM?
(http://www.mauritiushot.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/the-human-centipede-south-park-ipad.jpg)
Yep.
-
Hmm...Arts & Entertainment? Science & Alternative Science, perhaps?
Of course, deciding what constitutes an obscene image is subjective, but it doesn't seem too bad to me. I do question its serious relevance to the original thread, however, and I imagine that this makes an already-questionable image more likely to get snipped.
And I'd guess that posting the image here is permissible since we're discussing it, much like typing "nigger" was okay in its own little discussion.
-
I think the only solution to the constant moderator problems is to have elected moderators.
-
Hell no, Cap'n Crunch.
-
And I think it unlikely that you found it irrelevant to the thread. You deleted that picture because I posted it.
Yes. Markjo is ten years old.
-
Hell no, Cap'n Crunch.
Why not? It would bring accountability to the moderators.
-
No it wouldn't. It would be a joke.
-
Only 10-year-olds are capable of acts of spite and no moderator has ever done anything just to annoy the others.
In other words: hi i am sadaam i cant read
-
No it wouldn't. It would be a joke.
We will never know till we try.
-
Only 10-year-olds are capable of acts of spite and no moderator has ever done anything just to annoy the others.
In other words: hi i am sadaam i cant read
*insert customary bitching about low content posting here*
I wonder what Pizza will quote me as saying this time. Judging from the others, it will most likely begin with "hi i am sadaam" and be distinctly unfunny.
-
*insert customary bitching about low content posting here*
I wonder what Pizza will quote me as saying this time. Judging from the others, it will most likely begin with "hi i am sadaam" and be distinctly unfunny.
Would you mind steering away from S&C unless you have something useful to say? This may or may not mean "forever".
To address your confusion further: "Yes. Markjo is ten years old." is low-content posting. Your customary bitching would largely be targeted at yourself.
-
hi i am pizza planted i am whining about low content posts in a thread that is the very definition of low content
Hey, I can do it too!
-
hi i am pizza planted i am whining about low content posts in a thread that is the very definition of low content
Hey, I can do it too!
A very interesting unsubstantiated claim. It would be an excellent attempt at trolling, were it not for the fact that it's you who's complaining about low-content posting.
Allow me to remind you that you've been bawwing in every single complaint/suggestion of mine, many of which were viewed as reasonable as moderators and resolved accordingly. If you think I'm not making any sense, just leave it be. Unless you're wrong, that is. Which you are.
However, considering the fact that you are, indeed, wrong, it would be best if you remained silent.
Also, you don't know how to hyphenate adjectives. Why?
Now, skedaddle.
-
My God sillyrob, why won't you lurk moar?
About your paranoid-schizophrenia or you growing up?
-
My God sillyrob, why won't you lurk moar?
About your paranoid-schizophrenia or you growing up?
Lurk moar. >:(
-
My God sillyrob, why won't you lurk moar?
About your paranoid-schizophrenia or you growing up?
Lurk moar. >:(
My lurking confirmed that you need to grow up and that you're a paranoid-schizophrenic.
-
ITT: BAAAWWWW!!
Seriously, people are whining about mods tolerating low content posts in the upper fora, and when a mod actually gives a shit people still baww? Grow up, lads.
-
Welcome to the BAWWWfest society.
-
Update! Wilmore threatens people with bans because he likes to lock threads with no conclusion. Apparently demanding a conclusion is a bannable offence.
-
And racism is tolerated as long as it's not directed toward black people.
-
Because black people are very sensitive people and we must not hurt their sensitive feelings.
-
Update! Wilmore threatens people with bans because he likes to lock threads with no conclusion. Apparently demanding a conclusion is a bannable offence.
I hate to tell you this, but your suggestion was discussed, considered and ultimately rejected. Everyone gets their brilliant ideas shot down from time to time. That's life. Get used to it.
-
Which one of the ideas posted in that threat have you in mind? Not all were mine, not all were rejected, and not all were answered at all.
More importantly: Have you read the thread in question? Moderators and administrators (lol, plural) like not to do that and still share their "opinions".
-
Which one of the ideas posted in that threat have you in mind? Not all were mine, not all were rejected, and not all were answered at all.
More importantly: Have you read the thread in question? Moderators and administrators (lol, plural) like not to do that and still share their "opinions".
Well, since I was responding to your post about a thread that you created, I'd say that it's a pretty safe bet that I was referring to your n* word filter. Yes, I've read the thread and had been commenting within it pretty much from the beginning. Again, yes, we do appreciate any serious suggestions to make this site a better place to visit. Just don't take it personally if some suggestions aren't implemented.
-
Oh, no, I'm perfectly fine with the lack of the filter. That part of the discussion has ended a very long time ago.
-
BAWWWW SOMEONE SHOULD SUPPORT ME NOW AND THEN
Hmm.
Hrmmmm, bit late of a retort, but all my bans have been very well deserved. I do not ask for support. I just don't understand though, if a word isn't allowed then don't use it. I happen to agree with Steve's point, but sadly it's the rules. I liken it to pictures of Muhammad. It's not offensive to me, or most of my culture, but I am still censored from seeing pic's of him.
-
Wait, so the word is banned? The mods should have a get together so that they all follow the same rules instead of this inconsistency.
-
Wait, so the word is banned? The mods should have a get together so that they all follow the same rules instead of this inconsistency.
*sigh* The word itself is not banned. Inappropriate use of the word is a bannable offense. I thought that we settled this already.
-
*sigh* The word itself is not banned. Inappropriate use of the word is a bannable offense. I thought that we settled this already.
The moderators continuing to repeat this mantra and then acting in a way which is contradictory to it does not constitute settlement.
-
Wait, so the word is banned? The mods should have a get together so that they all follow the same rules instead of this inconsistency.
*sigh* The word itself is not banned. Inappropriate use of the word is a bannable offense. I thought that we settled this already.
You've stated it, but if you are not acting accordingly nothing got settled.
-
Wait, so the word is banned? The mods should have a get together so that they all follow the same rules instead of this inconsistency.
*sigh* The word itself is not banned. Inappropriate use of the word is a bannable offense. I thought that we settled this already.
What constitutes inappropriate use?
-
And racism is tolerated as long as it's not directed toward black people.
Obviously, your remarks towards whites were left unpunished.
-
The moderators and the administrator continuing to repeat this mantra and then acting in a way which is contradictory to it does not constitute settlement.
fix'd
-
The moderators and the administrator continuing to repeat this mantra and then acting in a way which is contradictory to it does not constitute settlement.
fix'd
You keep saying that, but you haven't given a single example of someone being banned for using the word in an appropriate context.
-
You keep saying that, but you haven't given a single example of someone being banned for using the word in an appropriate context.
Incorrect.
-
And racism is tolerated as long as it's not directed toward black people.
Obviously, your remarks towards whites were left unpunished.
As I did not make any racist remarks towards whites it is quite obvious.
-
You keep saying that, but you haven't given a single example of someone being banned for using the word in an appropriate context.
Incorrect.
Okay, what example have you given?
-
And racism is tolerated as long as it's not directed toward black people.
Obviously, your remarks towards whites were left unpunished.
As I did not make any racist remarks towards whites it is quite obvious.
Sweeping generalizations about a race aren't racist? I see. So what did I say that was so racist?
-
Okay, what example have you given?
Lurk moar.
-
And racism is tolerated as long as it's not directed toward black people.
Obviously, your remarks towards whites were left unpunished.
As I did not make any racist remarks towards whites it is quite obvious.
Sweeping generalizations about a race aren't racist? I see. So what did I say that was so racist?
Please quote where I made a sweeping generalization about a race.
-
People on this site are the exact stereo type of the sorry white man who is sooo against discrimination while at the same time seeing themselves above actually socializing with black people. Nigger is quite a common word when I'm around black friends.
Also I love how you refer to your friends that are black as your "black friends." I simply have friends, some of which happen to be darker in color than others. You also don't treat them too well calling them all niggers all the time, but it's whatever.
-
People on this site are the exact stereo type of the sorry white man who is sooo against discrimination while at the same time seeing themselves above actually socializing with black people. Nigger is quite a common word when I'm around black friends.
Also I love how you refer to your friends that are black as your "black friends." I simply have friends, some of which happen to be darker in color than others. You also don't treat them too well calling them all niggers all the time, but it's whatever.
It is a very specific group I made the comment about, how is that generalizing? And you never took over the lingo that your friends are using?
-
People on this site are the exact stereo type of the sorry white man who is sooo against discrimination while at the same time seeing themselves above actually socializing with black people. Nigger is quite a common word when I'm around black friends.
Also I love how you refer to your friends that are black as your "black friends." I simply have friends, some of which happen to be darker in color than others. You also don't treat them too well calling them all niggers all the time, but it's whatever.
It is a very specific group I made the comment about, how is that generalizing? And you never took over the lingo that your friends are using?
So if you're really specific it's not racist?
-
People on this site are the exact stereo type of the sorry white man who is sooo against discrimination while at the same time seeing themselves above actually socializing with black people. Nigger is quite a common word when I'm around black friends.
Also I love how you refer to your friends that are black as your "black friends." I simply have friends, some of which happen to be darker in color than others. You also don't treat them too well calling them all niggers all the time, but it's whatever.
It is a very specific group I made the comment about, how is that generalizing? And you never took over the lingo that your friends are using?
So if you're really specific it's not racist?
Would you say that the sentence "black people that steal are criminals" is racist?
-
People on this site are the exact stereo type of the sorry white man who is sooo against discrimination while at the same time seeing themselves above actually socializing with black people. Nigger is quite a common word when I'm around black friends.
Also I love how you refer to your friends that are black as your "black friends." I simply have friends, some of which happen to be darker in color than others. You also don't treat them too well calling them all niggers all the time, but it's whatever.
It is a very specific group I made the comment about, how is that generalizing? And you never took over the lingo that your friends are using?
So if you're really specific it's not racist?
Would you say that the sentence "black people that steal are criminals" is racist?
I don't know why you would need to mention that the people are black. Anyone that steals is a criminal.
-
Anyone that steals is a criminal.
So, you agree that black people who steal are criminals. Excellent.
-
Okay, what example have you given?
Lurk moar.
You make stupid comments like this, and then you complain that your threads get locked.
-
You make stupid comments like this, and then you complain that your threads get locked.
Incorrect. Please be sure to read the threads prior to commenting on them. It goes a long way, and is a very uncommon practice among people of your kind.
-
Anyone that steals is a criminal.
So, you agree that black people who steal are criminals. Excellent.
Why do you keep bringing race into this? What is your issue?
-
Anyone that steals is a criminal.
So, you agree that black people who steal are criminals. Excellent.
Why do you keep bringing race into this? What is your issue?
You're in the middle of a discussion about race, remember?
-
Anyone that steals is a criminal.
So, you agree that black people who steal are criminals. Excellent.
Why do you keep bringing race into this? What is your issue?
You're in the middle of a discussion about race, remember?
Yes but the sentence he is talking about has nothing to do with race. "People who steal are criminals" conveys all of the same meaning as "black people who steal are criminals" without the horribly racist undertones. That sentence is inherently racist even if he thinks it is not.
-
Anyone that steals is a criminal.
So, you agree that black people who steal are criminals. Excellent.
Why do you keep bringing race into this? What is your issue?
You're in the middle of a discussion about race, remember?
Yes but the sentence he is talking about has nothing to do with race. "People who steal are criminals" conveys all of the same meaning as "black people who steal are criminals" without the horribly racist undertones. That sentence is inherently racist even if he thinks it is not.
Err, no, that statement by itself is not racist at all. Facts cannot be racist.
-
Anyone that steals is a criminal.
So, you agree that black people who steal are criminals. Excellent.
Why do you keep bringing race into this? What is your issue?
You're in the middle of a discussion about race, remember?
Yes but the sentence he is talking about has nothing to do with race. "People who steal are criminals" conveys all of the same meaning as "black people who steal are criminals" without the horribly racist undertones. That sentence is inherently racist even if he thinks it is not.
Err, no, that statement by itself is not racist at all. Facts cannot be racist.
Throwing in an irrelevant racial modifier is racist.
-
Anyone that steals is a criminal.
So, you agree that black people who steal are criminals. Excellent.
Why do you keep bringing race into this? What is your issue?
You're in the middle of a discussion about race, remember?
Yes but the sentence he is talking about has nothing to do with race. "People who steal are criminals" conveys all of the same meaning as "black people who steal are criminals" without the horribly racist undertones. That sentence is inherently racist even if he thinks it is not.
Err, no, that statement by itself is not racist at all. Facts cannot be racist.
Throwing in an irrelevant racial modifier is racist.
Irrelevant to what? The discussion about race? The statement was given with very little context, it basically exists on its own. Relevance is, well, irrelevant. I'll say again, facts can not be racist, even if they make you uncomfortable.
-
Anyone that steals is a criminal.
So, you agree that black people who steal are criminals. Excellent.
Why do you keep bringing race into this? What is your issue?
You're in the middle of a discussion about race, remember?
Yes but the sentence he is talking about has nothing to do with race. "People who steal are criminals" conveys all of the same meaning as "black people who steal are criminals" without the horribly racist undertones. That sentence is inherently racist even if he thinks it is not.
Err, no, that statement by itself is not racist at all. Facts cannot be racist.
Throwing in an irrelevant racial modifier is racist.
Irrelevant to what? The discussion about race? The statement was given with very little context, it basically exists on its own. Relevance is, well, irrelevant. I'll say again, facts can not be racist, even if they make you uncomfortable.
The fact is not racist, the way he presents it is racist.
What if I said "Irish people that drink more than they should and don't bathe as often as they should are dirty alcoholics."
Technically it is a factual statement but I would say it has severe racial undertones.
-
Anyone that steals is a criminal.
So, you agree that black people who steal are criminals. Excellent.
Why do you keep bringing race into this? What is your issue?
You're in the middle of a discussion about race, remember?
Yes but the sentence he is talking about has nothing to do with race. "People who steal are criminals" conveys all of the same meaning as "black people who steal are criminals" without the horribly racist undertones. That sentence is inherently racist even if he thinks it is not.
Err, no, that statement by itself is not racist at all. Facts cannot be racist.
Throwing in an irrelevant racial modifier is racist.
Irrelevant to what? The discussion about race? The statement was given with very little context, it basically exists on its own. Relevance is, well, irrelevant. I'll say again, facts can not be racist, even if they make you uncomfortable.
The fact is not racist, the way he presents it is racist.
What if I said "Irish people that drink more than they should and don't bathe as often as they should are dirty alcoholics."
Technically it is a factual statement but I would say it has severe racial undertones.
He presented it like this: Would you say that the sentence "black people that steal are criminals" is racist?
I severely doubt any black person would be offended by reading this, or find it racist. As for your Irish comment, it seems racist to you because you're aware of that particular Irish stereotype. If there were no such stereotype, or if you weren't aware of it, the statement would seem odd but probably not racist.
-
i think we should have a 50/50 split of moderators
between disc earth and spherical...
after all we all have to live on this rock, we might as all get along.
enough with the haters, lets live with love.
-
i think we should have a 50/50 split of moderators
between disc earth and spherical...
after all we all have to live on this rock, we might as all get along.
enough with the haters, lets live with love.
I think that's more or less the case now, as long as active moderators are concerned.
-
I'm pretty sure it is.
Edit: it is.
-
I'm pretty sure it is.
Edit: it is.
Are you a DA or are you fully converted?
-
I'm pretty sure it is.
Edit: it is.
Are you a DA or are you fully converted?
Lurk moar.
-
I'm pretty sure it is.
Edit: it is.
Are you a DA or are you fully converted?
Lurk moar.
You could have answered my question and typed less actually.
-
I'm pretty sure it is.
Edit: it is.
Are you a DA or are you fully converted?
Lurk moar.
You could have answered my question and typed less actually.
Lurk moar.
-
Your avoidance of the question leads me to believe that you're Zetetic.
-
Don't mind me, just posting more evidence for this ancient case.
Its none of your business why Crustinator got banned. Locked.
-
I was absolutely waiting on a response to that from you, haha.
You know what would be cool, though, is like a ban log or something, somebody should suggest that. TONGUEFACE
-
I have a distinct problem with virtually any thread in a board specifically designed for complaints and concerns being given an answer like "none of your business." Of course, I'm sure we all agree with the obvious exception of not divulging someone's personal information or the like, but wanting to know why someone was banned? Making sure that mods are following the rules? That's none of our business? Really?
-
Just because he dislike Crustinator doesn't mean there aren't others who are concerned as to why he was banned. This is clearly bias. Can the mod team look into this?
-
Don't mind me, just posting more evidence for this ancient case.
Its none of your business why Crustinator got banned. Locked.
I was protecting Crustinators privacy (and all our users privacy.)
You were being nosey and trying to qq.
In the past I have not thought this information important enough to withhold (especially with crustinator) but your recent cry fest about privacy on the site (specifically concerning facebook posts) has made me reassess the issue of privacy here on many levels. If someone wishes to talk about their ban, they can do so themselves.'
I'm sure brother Crustinator doesn't need you running in to gallantly rescue him from the evil dragon moderation team.
-
I was protecting Crustinators privacy (and all our users privacy.)
Incorrect. You were protecting Ski's buttocks. Do you have enough decency to admit it?
In the past I have not thought this information important enough to withhold (especially with crustinator) but your recent cry fest about privacy on the site (specifically concerning facebook posts) has made me reassess the issue of privacy here on many levels. If someone wishes to talk about their ban, they can do so themselves.'
Ah, of course, an attempt at misdirection. A very poor one, but an attempt nonetheless. Hats off for effort.
Also, what you're suggesting is circumvention of a ban. Please re-read the rules; this time, try to understand them.
I'm sure brother Crustinator doesn't need you running in to gallantly rescue him from the evil dragon moderation team.
Oh, but I'm not trying to "rescue" anyone. I'm merely asking a question, and you're merely displaying yourself as incredibly incompetent or insincere, or both.
Also, moderators changing the rules on a whim (that is, without an administrator's approval and an announcement, or even a change in the rules thread; of course, that is keeping in mind that the law doesn't act retroactively), just so that the rules match their views is one of the arguments I've made in this thread, and one of the arguments that was discounted as unjustified. Hey, here's an example, and such a fresh one!
In the past I have not thought this information important enough to withhold (especially with crustinator) but your recent cry fest about privacy on the site (specifically concerning facebook posts) has made me reassess the issue of privacy here on many levels. If someone wishes to talk about their ban, they can do so themselves.'
-
Now, since you still need guidance on the rules, here's a friendly reminder about the privacy rule I managed to push across:
You are not allowed to release such things as another user's full name, address, phone number, email address or anything else that can be used to personally identify someone. This will receive a ban.
Now, let's review my question:
Why was Crustinator banned?
This question does in no way request "such things as another user's full name, address, phone number, email address or anything else that can be used to personally identify someone".
Now, let's review the thread that got him banned. That is according to the moderation team. I am not part of the moderation team and as such am not accountable for the moderation team's announcements:
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=50650.0
Not only does this thread not contain any information that could be used to personally identify a user, nor does it contain any bannable offences.
John, do I really have to teach you the site rules?
Also, inb4 I get banned for expecting elementary decency from mods.
-
I already told you why he was banned. For posting that nonsense in S&C's. If you don't like my or John's (or any other moderator's) moderation, feel free to take the issue up with Daniel. Or find somewhere else to spend your free time.
-
I already told you why he was banned. For posting that nonsense in S&C's. If you don't like my or John's (or any other moderator's) moderation, feel free to take the issue up with Daniel. Or find somewhere else to spend your free time.
And I asked you: what nonsense? I apologise for being "nosey" (which is highly encouraged by the forum rules, mind you. Check it yourself! The forum rules say that if we have any questions about another member's ban, we should post in S&C!), but it was Saddam who derailed the thread. Crustinator asked a question: "What happened to Verrine?". That's really all he has done. Having received no answer except for Saddam's joke (which was an accusation of Verrine being Crusty's alt), he played along.
Taking advantage of your kindness and willingness to answer - has Verrine been banned? I can guess the reason if he has, but still - has he?
-
Well our definitions of nonsense are yet again at odds, and unfortunately for you, I'm a moderator. We'll have to agree to disagree.
-
Well our definitions of nonsense are yet again at odds, and unfortunately for you, I'm a moderator. We'll have to agree to disagree.
Oh, I'm not trying to get him unbanned, or anything like that. In fact, what I'm trying to squeeze out of you is an explanation of what, in your eyes, he's done wrong. It would serve as an excellent example to help me and others understand the unwritten rules of this place.
-
If you want to have a joke thread about your missing friend kidnapped by the conspiracy, then do it in the lounge or RM. S&C's is not the place to post it. Do your catching up somewhere else.
-
Okay then, to put Crustinator's question in a civil way: Has Verrine been banned?
-
It would serve as an excellent example to help me and others understand the unwritten rules of this place.
The only unwritten rule that anyone here should have to worry about is this: don't be an ass. Follow that one simple rule and there shouldn't be any problems.
-
It would serve as an excellent example to help me and others understand the unwritten rules of this place.
The only unwritten rule that anyone here should have to worry about is this: don't be an ass. Follow that one simple rule and there shouldn't be any problems.
The problem with that is that it's incredibly subjective. The actual wording of the rules should, of course, be "don't be an ass according to the mods".
-
While I'd like to keep out of this as much as I can, I'd just like to meekly defend myself by saying that my post in that thread was no more inappropriate than the OP. If Crusty asking if Verrine has been kidnapped by the conspiracy is a valid way of asking if Verrine was banned, then me comparing Verrine's fate to two previously banned members is a valid way of saying yes.
-
While I'd like to keep out of this as much as I can, I'd just like to meekly defend myself by saying that my post in that thread was no more inappropriate than the OP. If Crusty asking if Verrine has been kidnapped by the conspiracy is a valid way of asking if Verrine was banned, then me comparing Verrine's fate to two previously banned members is a valid way of saying yes.
That is correct.
-
I was protecting Crustinators privacy (and all our users privacy.)
Incorrect. You were protecting Ski's buttocks. Do you have enough decency to admit it?
I was doing no such thing. I happen to agree with Skis decision. I have no need to protect his buttocks from anything. He did nothing wrong, as has been stated again and again.
In the past I have not thought this information important enough to withhold (especially with crustinator) but your recent cry fest about privacy on the site (specifically concerning facebook posts) has made me reassess the issue of privacy here on many levels. If someone wishes to talk about their ban, they can do so themselves.'
Ah, of course, an attempt at misdirection. A very poor one, but an attempt nonetheless. Hats off for effort.
Also, what you're suggesting is circumvention of a ban. Please re-read the rules; this time, try to understand them.
I am suggesting no such thing.
I'm sure brother Crustinator doesn't need you running in to gallantly rescue him from the evil dragon moderation team.
Oh, but I'm not trying to "rescue" anyone. I'm merely asking a question, and you're merely displaying yourself as incredibly incompetent or insincere, or both.
You are asking for information of which you have no right to have. I am not giving it out.
Also, moderators changing the rules on a whim (that is, without an administrator's approval and an announcement, or even a change in the rules thread; of course, that is keeping in mind that the law doesn't act retroactively), just so that the rules match their views is one of the arguments I've made in this thread, and one of the arguments that was discounted as unjustified. Hey, here's an example, and such a fresh one!
In the past I have not thought this information important enough to withhold (especially with crustinator) but your recent cry fest about privacy on the site (specifically concerning facebook posts) has made me reassess the issue of privacy here on many levels. If someone wishes to talk about their ban, they can do so themselves.'
I have changed no rules on a whim. I have denied giving you information. This has hurt your feelings apparently.
Now, since you still need guidance on the rules, here's a friendly reminder about the privacy rule I managed to push across:
You are not allowed to release such things as another user's full name, address, phone number, email address or anything else that can be used to personally identify someone. This will receive a ban.
You managed to push no rule across. That rule was created by me before you were even on this site iirc. Furthermore the agenda you were pushing was opposing the rule in place now.
Now, let's review my question:
Why was Crustinator banned?
This question does in no way request "such things as another user's full name, address, phone number, email address or anything else that can be used to personally identify someone".
Irrelevant. For example, your password or private messages are not "another users full name, address, phone number, email address or anything else that can be used to personally identify someone" yet I would deny a request for that information as well.
Now, let's review the thread that got him banned
Lets not.
In short, you have no god given right to any information we have and you don't concerning this site, its operation, and moderation. Usually we act transparently, but I see no reason why we should give out information a user may or may not want given out concerning things that have nothing to do with you in the slightest. You aren't important.
I don't have any time to discuss this further with you. Its a gigantic waste of my time towards something of completely no fruit. Perhaps some other moderator will agree that greedy hunger for private information is valid, but I do not.
-
To clarify, my opinion on the matter is that the member should have to right to disclose information on why he got banned or not. People make mistakes and they should have the right to tell everyone of their mistake or not (in this case) imho.
99% of the time this won't matter. I'm worried about the 1% it would.
That said, this isn't a rule. I also realize this may be over the top. If the rest of the moderation staff agrees its useless for me to protect this information I won't, or you can simply wait for them to reply.
You were told why they were banned despite all of this. What we are doing now is wasting my time by arguing whether you think its fair. Ski made a judgement call (one I happen to agree with and will defend right out). He was put into his position because his judgement is trusted.
-
5. Forum Issues and Concerns
[...]
Q: "It seems that member X has been banned. Why is that? What did he do?"
A: Please don't start a thread about it. Post your questions and complaints in here.
Considering that this is a bannable offense, isn't it a bit misleading to suggest it in the rules?
-
5. Forum Issues and Concerns
[...]
Q: "It seems that member X has been banned. Why is that? What did he do?"
A: Please don't start a thread about it. Post your questions and complaints in here.
Considering that this is a bannable offense, isn't it a bit misleading to suggest it in the rules?
Looking now.
Its not a bannable offense however.
-
I was wrong about the privacy idea concerning this. Reviewing the original threads.
I apologize for locking the thread for this reason. Instead, it has now been locked for a legitimate reason, in that it was addressed.
-
Crustinator was not asking why someone was banned. If he had genuine interest in why verrine was banned, he would not have trolled while posting. This kind of trash trolling is not allowed. This is not the venue to ask if x member was abducted.
Of note is also that Crustinator has broken the S&C rule more times than I cared to count many in very recent history. There is no doubt of his intentions. If he wishes to be taken seriously in S&C, perhaps he shouldn't be constantly making a fool of it. The boy who cried wolf comes to mind. We all know he has no wish to be taken seriously. If he does, he can post in an appropriate manner.
We are tired with idiots thinking its funny to fuck around in S&C. We gave you this venue so people could have a voice in how this was run, ask questions and voice concerns. Not for a playground for kiddies that think they are clever and funny. If people can't use this forum appropriately, maybe its time for us to talk about dumping it.
We all have real lives. We don't want to spend all our time sifting through junk posts in S&C.
-
I apologize
Apology accepted. Please be more careful and less vindictive in the future.
-
I apologize
Apology accepted. Please be more careful and less vindictive in the future.
I always attempt to be as careful as possible.
I was not vindictive at all and never am in my moderative duties.
-
I was not vindictive at all and never am in my moderative duties.
Perhaps we just differ in manners of speech. Anyway, I'm glad we reached a conclusion.
-
After Crusty was banned apparently without being told why...
For how much longer must we tolerate this abuse of Daniels good site?
Probably until the next time you are banned or until your warning level gets too high for you to post again.
...zzing!
-
If you want to have a joke thread about your missing friend kidnapped by the conspiracy, then do it in the lounge or RM.
Please do not joke about kidnapping. That is a trigger word. Many senior members here, including myself, John Davis and John McIntyre have been stalked and/or threatened by Agents of The Conspiracy (NASA). It was not beyond the realm of possibility that Verrine had suffered a worse fate. All you needed to do was confirm that he had been banned.
We must all be actively concerned for each others safety. A concern forum seems an ideal place for such a post...
Suggestions & Concerns
For any suggestions or problems you may have related to the forum or the Society in general.
That is all.
-
Do you really want to go down this road again in S&C?
-
You implied that it was a joke. I resent that implication for the reasons stated. I gave an explanation for the thread's creation and we are now discussing the cynical behaviour of moderators that followed.
-
Update: I have edited the thread's title to match markjo's naming convention of the issues in question.
-
Since when is cynicism intellectually dishonest? ???
-
Since when is cynicism intellectually dishonest? ???
The behaviours described here fall under both categories, but "Cynical and intellectually dishonest behaviour of moderators" would be too long a title. I chose to follow your naming convention so that it feels more familiar to readers of your posts.
-
OK PizzaPlanet, if you don't like my "intellectual dishonestey" approach to ninja quote editing, then please tell me how the few ninja quote fixes that I've scolded you about don't violate these official rules:
The Forum Rules
...
5. Flaming and Harassment
Do not use insulting or denigrating personal attacks against other members. Harassment or bullying of other members is forbidden.
...
7. Troublemaking
Do not post or behave in a manner obviously intended to start a fight, get a reaction, or cause problems (e.g. making facetious complaints, adjusting/creating a profile so as to impersonate other members, etc.).
8. Low-content Posting/Derailment
Do not make spammy, non-contributive or low-quality posts, or derail threads by deliberately dragging discussion away from the original topic.
-
FFS can this thread be locked?
-
OK PizzaPlanet, if you don't like my "intellectual dishonestey" approach to ninja quote editing, then please tell me how the few ninja quote fixes that I've scolded you about don't violate these official rules:
The Forum Rules
...
5. Flaming and Harassment
Do not use insulting or denigrating personal attacks against other members. Harassment or bullying of other members is forbidden.
...
7. Troublemaking
Do not post or behave in a manner obviously intended to start a fight, get a reaction, or cause problems (e.g. making facetious complaints, adjusting/creating a profile so as to impersonate other members, etc.).
8. Low-content Posting/Derailment
Do not make spammy, non-contributive or low-quality posts, or derail threads by deliberately dragging discussion away from the original topic.
Quite simply: They weren't harassing, they had content to them, and they caused no trouble until you butted your head against them (likely because you forgot to read the thread).
Also, neither of these rules were the reason why you've "scolded" me. You've stated your reason and it has been invalidated by a quick rule-check, so now you're making stuff up. More intellectual dishonesty right there.
-
OK PizzaPlanet, if you don't like my "intellectual dishonestey" approach to ninja quote editing, then please tell me how the few ninja quote fixes that I've scolded you about don't violate these official rules:
The Forum Rules
...
5. Flaming and Harassment
Do not use insulting or denigrating personal attacks against other members. Harassment or bullying of other members is forbidden.
...
7. Troublemaking
Do not post or behave in a manner obviously intended to start a fight, get a reaction, or cause problems (e.g. making facetious complaints, adjusting/creating a profile so as to impersonate other members, etc.).
8. Low-content Posting/Derailment
Do not make spammy, non-contributive or low-quality posts, or derail threads by deliberately dragging discussion away from the original topic.
Quite simply: They weren't harassing, they had content to them, and they caused no trouble until you butted your head against them (likely because you forgot to read the thread).
Also, neither of these rules were the reason why you've "scolded" me. You've stated your reason and it has been invalidated by a quick rule-check, so now you're making stuff up. More intellectual dishonesty right there.
The rule isn't against causing trouble its against intending to cause trouble something you obviously did. Just because there "wasn't trouble until he butted in" doesn't mean you didn't intend to make trouble.
-
The rule isn't against causing trouble its against intending to cause trouble something you obviously did. Just because there "wasn't trouble until he butted in" doesn't mean you didn't intend to make trouble.
In fact, causing trouble was probably markjo's intention. My intention was to have a conversation with Parsifal, which was going perfectly fine (all according to my master plan of having a conversation) until markjo butted in. Then I took my time to tell him to go away, he went away, and everything was going perfectly fine again. Let me just ask you: Have you read the thread we were talking about here?
I'm not sure why you're so confused with this as to bump this thread.
-
The rule isn't against causing trouble its against intending to cause trouble something you obviously did. Just because there "wasn't trouble until he butted in" doesn't mean you didn't intend to make trouble.
In fact, causing trouble was probably markjo's intention. My intention was to have a conversation with Parsifal, which was going perfectly fine (all according to my master plan of having a conversation) until markjo butted in. Then I took my time to tell him to go away, he went away, and everything was going perfectly fine again. Let me just ask you: Have you read the thread we were talking about here?
I'm not sure why you're so confused with this as to bump this thread.
I'm not confused and it isn't really bumping a thread when i haven't been on the site in 10 days and the last post falls within that range of time.
-
Looks like this is still an issue. Trying to ask a moderator to split a sub-topic I started from a thread that's currently in an inappropriate forum resulted in the following:
*yawn*
I mean, fair enough, it's a lot of work. I would still think saying "no" isn't that hard.
-
Looks like this is still an issue. Trying to ask a moderator to split a sub-topic I started from a thread that's currently in an inappropriate forum resulted in the following:
*yawn*
I mean, fair enough, it's a lot of work. I would still think saying "no" isn't that hard.
If you feel it's a topic that needs to be addressed in S&C, make a topic for it in S&C. It would be a great deal less work than a mod going post by post in the thread already in existence to decide which ones should be moved and which shouldn't. The subject's presence hardly damages the thread in question; it's just a troll thread in the lounge after all (and the request made is relevant to the topic anyway, so what exactly warrants a move?).
-
I bet shop owners shudder when PP enters the shop. I can imagine you are the worst customer.
-
If you feel it's a topic that needs to be addressed in S&C, make a topic for it in S&C.
This exact idea is what made you yawn in the first place. Why are you experiencing this sudden change of heart?
It would be a great deal less work than a mod going post by post in the thread already in existence to decide which ones should be moved and which shouldn't.
1. No, it wouldn't. It takes pretty much the same amount of time to quote every single post as it would to move them. The conversation would, however, be much easier to follow for people that haven't participated yet, and since both Wilmore and I feel that more people should be able to speak up on this before a decision is made, accessibility is important.
2. It didn't take that much time at all. 10 minutes in total, with a poo break in the middle. Plus, all I asked of you in the end was a simple yes/no answer. Is that too much effort too? Y'know, basic courtesy and elementary human communication?
The subject's presence hardly damages the thread in question;
The subject's location damages the subject in question. The subject is important to the interest of this forum. Your job is, to an extent, taking care of the forum's interest. It should logically go against your principles to deliberately troll it. Of course, I realise you're doing this as a volunteer, which is why I (twice) said "it's okay if it's too much work - just let me know and I'll take care of it myself". It's simply annoying that saying something like "Yeah, could you take care of it? We're too busy" is so difficult for you.
(and the request made is relevant to the topic anyway, so what exactly warrants a move?).
The respective definitions of S&C and The Lounge, as found in their respective guideline threads. You know, the forum rules you're supposed to enforce. I'd say that "I asked you really nicely" is a semi-decent reason too.
I bet shop owners shudder when PP enters the shop. I can imagine you are the worst customer.
I don't talk to shop owners, but half of my students' union (with which I'm fairly involved) hates me with a passion. The other half thinks I'm "the guy that gets shit done". It's basically a question of whether or not you can get over my constant cranky ranting and focus on the logic of my arguments, or the things I actually get done when no one else can be bothered.
-
ha yeah i can imagine