Issues and Concerns

I'd make you red if I could. All over.

A newspaper. Hooray for Christmas Cracker jokes.

Quote from: Colonel Gaydafi on August 04, 2009, 07:27:43 AM

I'd make you red if I could. All over.

A newspaper. Hooray for Christmas Cracker jokes.

Nope, sunburn.  Either that or terribly embarrassed. 

Quote from: Lord Wilmore on August 04, 2009, 03:51:27 PM

Quote from: Colonel Gaydafi on August 04, 2009, 07:27:43 AM

I'd make you red if I could. All over.

A newspaper. Hooray for Christmas Cracker jokes.

Nope, sunburn.  Either that or terribly embarrassed. 

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. 

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.

Quote from: General Douchebag on August 23, 2009, 04:03:47 PM

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*

Quote from: Jack on August 23, 2009, 04:08:45 PM

I find the ban legitimate

SON I AM DISAPPOINT

Fixd to update the meme.

Oh good lord, Jack.  Jiggle the stick.

Quote from: WardoggKC130FE on August 23, 2009, 04:21:42 PM

Quote from: Jack on August 23, 2009, 04:08:45 PM

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:

Quote from: Galileo26 on August 09, 2009, 06:27:19 PM

Quote from: Lord Wilmore on August 09, 2009, 06:22:28 PM

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.

Quote from: taters343 on August 22, 2009, 12:54:50 PM

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.

Quote from: BanthaPoodoo on August 14, 2009, 11:29:57 AM

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.

Quote from: BanthaPoodoo on August 14, 2009, 11:29:57 AM

@ 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.

Quote from: Lord Wilmore on August 23, 2009, 05:19:00 PM

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.

Quote from: General Douchebag on August 23, 2009, 05:20:14 PM

Quote from: Lord Wilmore on August 23, 2009, 05:19:00 PM

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.

Quote from: General Douchebag on August 23, 2009, 05:27:09 PM

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.