Dispute with Curatorship

  • 90 Replies
  • 13090 Views
?

Thork

Re: Dispute with Curatorship
« Reply #30 on: April 24, 2013, 04:27:48 PM »
That said, Thork, explicit warnings following removals, please. I know Kendrick knew full well he was doing something wrong, but it helps if you tell people what they are doing wrong.
I just don't like to bark at people all the time. I'm probably a bit mild mannered for policing the upper forums. :-\

If Thork doesn't want to discuss Wallace's relationship with the Flat Earth movement, then perhaps he shouldn't have started the thread in Flat Earth General.  If he wants to discuss its merit as a documentary, then Arts and Entertainment would seem appropriate.  If he wants to discuss Wallace's scientific contributions (outside of FET), then Science and Alternative Science would be appropriate.  If he wants to discuss Wallace as a person, then The Lounge might be a good choice.

My point is that there boards that are much more appropriate for that thread.  Even though FEG isn't necessarily for discussion of FET, it is still where Flat Earth General topics are discussed.   If Thork wants to have a non-FE Wallace discussion, then he should do it in a non-FE board.
You may discuss ANYTHING about Wallace except for the wager, which is already ongoing in another thread. Why is this unreasonable?
« Last Edit: April 24, 2013, 04:30:18 PM by Thork »

Re: Dispute with Curatorship
« Reply #31 on: April 24, 2013, 04:45:59 PM »
That said, Thork, explicit warnings following removals, please. I know Kendrick knew full well he was doing something wrong, but it helps if you tell people what they are doing wrong.

I suggested that Thork find someone to move his thread to a more appropriate forum if he objected so strongly to the angle in which people were discussing its content, and I was right.

If Thork doesn't want to discuss Wallace's relationship with the Flat Earth movement, then perhaps he shouldn't have started the thread in Flat Earth General.  If he wants to discuss its merit as a documentary, then Arts and Entertainment would seem appropriate.  If he wants to discuss Wallace's scientific contributions (outside of FET), then Science and Alternative Science would be appropriate.  If he wants to discuss Wallace as a person, then The Lounge might be a good choice.

My point is that there boards that are much more appropriate for that thread.  Even though FEG isn't necessarily for discussion of FET, it is still where Flat Earth General topics are discussed.   If Thork wants to have a non-FE Wallace discussion, then he should do it in a non-FE board.

Precisely.

Kindly elaborate what I did wrong and how I 'knew full well' I was doing it.

Curator abilities should not be used to censor posts that do not break the rules.


*

Lord Wilmore

  • Vice President
  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 12107
Re: Dispute with Curatorship
« Reply #32 on: April 24, 2013, 04:52:34 PM »
If Thork doesn't want to discuss Wallace's relationship with the Flat Earth movement, then perhaps he shouldn't have started the thread in Flat Earth General.  If he wants to discuss its merit as a documentary, then Arts and Entertainment would seem appropriate.  If he wants to discuss Wallace's scientific contributions (outside of FET), then Science and Alternative Science would be appropriate.  If he wants to discuss Wallace as a person, then The Lounge might be a good choice.

My point is that there boards that are much more appropriate for that thread.  Even though FEG isn't necessarily for discussion of FET, it is still where Flat Earth General topics are discussed.   If Thork wants to have a non-FE Wallace discussion, then he should do it in a non-FE board.


That Wallace is a significant figure regarding tFES is widely acknowledged. So discussing him in any light is as appropriate as discussing Rowbotham in any light.


However, Thork wanted to discuss something other than the wager, and sets out as much in his OP. And there are plenty of threads on the wager including a live one. It is no different to wanting to discuss aspects of SBR's life other than the Bedford Level Experiment. That would still go in FEG, so I don't see why this shouldn't.


This is a big fuss about nothing. Really.


Kindly elaborate what I did wrong and how I 'knew full well' I was doing it.


[you] repeatedly posted a request that should, per the rules, have been posted in here. [Your] posts were repeatedly moved, [you] obviously knew there was a problem with something [you were] doing, so [you] should have posted here first instead of six times in the thread in question.


You're not a fool, and you can read. I have made my criticism of Thorks lack of clarity; please don't ignore it and then bundle the reverse into your question.


This is silly, and you know it. Next time, the warning should be explicit, and if you have a complaint, you should post about it in here. Simple.
"I want truth for truth's sake, not for the applaud or approval of men. I would not reject truth because it is unpopular, nor accept error because it is popular. I should rather be right and stand alone than run with the multitude and be wrong." - C.S. DeFord

Re: Dispute with Curatorship
« Reply #33 on: April 24, 2013, 04:59:57 PM »
I had no idea my posts were being moved, I had no idea there was a problem until I started getting venomous personal messages.  I thought there might be a problem with my browser or internet connection.

Should Curator abilities be used to censor contributions that do not break the rules or forum guidelines?

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 42529
Re: Dispute with Curatorship
« Reply #34 on: April 24, 2013, 05:07:01 PM »
That Wallace is a significant figure regarding tFES is widely acknowledged. So discussing him in any light is as appropriate as discussing Rowbotham in any light.
Agreed.

Quote
However, Thork wanted to discuss something other than the wager, and sets out as much in his OP. And there are plenty of threads on the wager including a live one. It is no different to wanting to discuss aspects of SBR's life other than the Bedford Level Experiment. That would still go in FEG, so I don't see why this shouldn't.
This is where we seem to disagree.  For example, Brian May is best known as a founding member of Queen.  However, he is also a PhD in astrophysics.  Discussions about Brian May's contribution to astrophysics do not belong in Arts and Entertainment and in, the same way, discussion of Wallace's contributions to evolution do not belong in Flat Earth General.

BTW, there are currently several threads in The Lounge that are better suited for other boards as well.
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

*

Lorddave

  • 18127
Re: Dispute with Curatorship
« Reply #35 on: April 24, 2013, 05:07:58 PM »
I saw the thread title and thought "Damnit Thork!"

It seems to me that two things occurred.

1. Kendrick posted off topic.  It was a very specific topic so easy to post off topic in.
2. Thork reacted with threats of bans, which he does often.
3. Kendrick doesn't know Thork's barks are worse than his bites.

If I had to put anyone at fault, I'd put Thork for not being nice enough with a close second being Kendrick for posting off topic and annoying the OP.
You have been ignored for common interest of mankind.

I am a terrible person and I am a typical Blowhard Liberal for being wrong about Bom.

*

rooster

  • 5669
Re: Dispute with Curatorship
« Reply #36 on: April 24, 2013, 05:10:20 PM »
Should Curator abilities be used to censor contributions that do not break the rules or forum guidelines?
Yes. Off-topic posts are frequently moved.

Re: Dispute with Curatorship
« Reply #37 on: April 24, 2013, 05:10:53 PM »
I saw the thread title and thought "Damnit Thork!"

It seems to me that two things occurred.

1. Kendrick posted off topic.  It was a very specific topic so easy to post off topic in.
2. Thork reacted with threats of bans, which he does often.
3. Kendrick doesn't know Thork's barks are worse than his bites.

If I had to put anyone at fault, I'd put Thork for not being nice enough with a close second being Kendrick for posting off topic and annoying the OP.

I did not bring up the wager in any of my posts in that thread.

*

rooster

  • 5669
Re: Dispute with Curatorship
« Reply #38 on: April 24, 2013, 05:13:18 PM »
I saw the thread title and thought "Damnit Thork!"

It seems to me that two things occurred.

1. Kendrick posted off topic.  It was a very specific topic so easy to post off topic in.
2. Thork reacted with threats of bans, which he does often.
3. Kendrick doesn't know Thork's barks are worse than his bites.

If I had to put anyone at fault, I'd put Thork for not being nice enough with a close second being Kendrick for posting off topic and annoying the OP.

I did not bring up the wager in any of my posts in that thread.
But you did repeatedly tell him to move the thread which is also off-topic.

*

Lord Wilmore

  • Vice President
  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 12107
Re: Dispute with Curatorship
« Reply #39 on: April 24, 2013, 05:13:41 PM »
I had no idea my posts were being moved, I had no idea there was a problem until I started getting venomous personal messages.  I thought there might be a problem with my browser or internet connection.

Should Curator abilities be used to censor contributions that do not break the rules or forum guidelines?


You were breaking the rules, as your post was off-topic. But Thork should have warned you explicitly from the start. I have said as much.


Calling this censorship is nonsensical dramatics given how often the issue is discussed. It is important for the forum that threads are not clogged with disputes about what should be posted where. This is a contentious place, and such bickering sours discussion.


He should have warned you, that is all.


This is where we seem to disagree.  For example, Brian May is best known as a founding member of Queen.  However, he is also a PhD in astrophysics.  Discussions about Brian May's contribution to astrophysics do not belong in Arts and Entertainment and in, the same way, discussion of Wallace's contributions to evolution do not belong in Flat Earth General.

BTW, there are currently several threads in The Lounge that are better suited for other boards as well.


It is my understanding that the documentary is about Wallace the man, not just his contributions to the theory of evolution. Thork explicitly expressed the hope that the wager gets a mention in the documentary.
"I want truth for truth's sake, not for the applaud or approval of men. I would not reject truth because it is unpopular, nor accept error because it is popular. I should rather be right and stand alone than run with the multitude and be wrong." - C.S. DeFord

?

Thork

Re: Dispute with Curatorship
« Reply #40 on: April 24, 2013, 05:17:45 PM »
Wow. Still going huh? ::)

If I was a mod, Kendrick and Markjo would be banned by now, this thread would be closed and any dissenters would be cowering in the nonsense forums grumbling amongst themselves.

Just something for you to think about, Big Guy. ;)

Re: Dispute with Curatorship
« Reply #41 on: April 24, 2013, 05:23:52 PM »
You were breaking the rules, as your post was off-topic. But Thork should have warned you explicitly from the start. I have said as much.


Calling this censorship is nonsensical dramatics given how often the issue is discussed. It is important for the forum that threads are not clogged with disputes about what should be posted where. This is a contentious place, and such bickering sours discussion.


He should have warned you, that is all.

I broke no rules - my response was to this post in his thread

I ask you to lurk moar? There are so many threads about Wallace and that case. Get out of my thread with your petulance. This thread is about the other things Wallace did in his life. Its about everything except that case.

To which I responded

Quote
If you desire serious discussion about aspects of AR Wallace career aside from his role in flat-earth folklore, perhaps you could ask a moderator to move this thread to the science portion of the lower forums.

So yes - it was on topic.

I'm not objecting to him moving my posts as much as the others in the thread dealing with the wager.  Like Markjo said, if he didnt want to have a discussion about the flat earth movement he shouldnt have posted his thread in flat earth general. 

Do curators have the ability to move their own threads?



« Last Edit: April 24, 2013, 05:26:22 PM by Kendrick »

*

Lord Wilmore

  • Vice President
  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 12107
Re: Dispute with Curatorship
« Reply #42 on: April 24, 2013, 05:30:21 PM »
That counts as a warning regarding what the topic was about. Meaning you should have posted in here afterwards (no matter who the warning was addressed to). As per the rules.


Your subsequent contributions were also off-topic, and belonged in S&C. Finally, it is totally reasonable to lay out specific topic-boundaries in an OP (and this frequently occurs).


You were not even banned. You were threatened with being banned, otherwise known as a warning. Thork can do that. He should have done so earlier, but that is all that seems wrong in this case. This is a fuss over nothing.
"I want truth for truth's sake, not for the applaud or approval of men. I would not reject truth because it is unpopular, nor accept error because it is popular. I should rather be right and stand alone than run with the multitude and be wrong." - C.S. DeFord

*

Saddam Hussein

  • Official Member
  • 35374
  • Former President of Iraq
Re: Dispute with Curatorship
« Reply #43 on: April 24, 2013, 05:59:51 PM »
At the end of the day, it's really not that big of a deal.  Let Thork play with his toys.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 42529
Re: Dispute with Curatorship
« Reply #44 on: April 24, 2013, 06:03:36 PM »
It is my understanding that the documentary is about Wallace the man, not just his contributions to the theory of evolution. Thork explicitly expressed the hope that the wager gets a mention in the documentary.
Thork also explicitly stated that he did not want to discuss the wager.  Thork has a bad habit of bringing up things that he doesn't want to discuss and then raging when they get discussed.

If I was a mod, Kendrick and Markjo would be banned by now, this thread would be closed and any dissenters would be cowering in the nonsense forums grumbling amongst themselves.
Thork, you are one of the reasons that I find it increasingly difficult to care about this place any more.
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

*

Saddam Hussein

  • Official Member
  • 35374
  • Former President of Iraq
Re: Dispute with Curatorship
« Reply #45 on: April 24, 2013, 06:11:17 PM »
If I was a mod, Kendrick and Markjo would be banned by now, this thread would be closed and any dissenters would be cowering in the nonsense forums grumbling amongst themselves.
Thork, you are one of the reasons that I find it increasingly difficult to care about this place any more.

If Thork actually manages to drive you away, it will truly be the greatest act of redemption since the death of Jesus Christ.

*

rooster

  • 5669
Re: Dispute with Curatorship
« Reply #46 on: April 24, 2013, 07:42:26 PM »
If I was a mod, Kendrick and Markjo would be banned by now, this thread would be closed and any dissenters would be cowering in the nonsense forums grumbling amongst themselves.
Thork, you are one of the reasons that I find it increasingly difficult to care about this place any more.

If Thork actually manages to drive you away, it will truly be the greatest act of redemption since the death of Jesus Christ.
Damn, those are some strong words.

Kendrick, you're a noob. Markjo, you're a permanoob. Let it go.

*

Pongo

  • Planar Moderator
  • 6753
Re: Dispute with Curatorship
« Reply #47 on: April 24, 2013, 08:13:31 PM »
This thread about off-topic posting is meandering further away from the concern in question. Lets not bring it down any deeper.
« Last Edit: April 24, 2013, 08:15:33 PM by Pongo »

?

Sean

  • Official Member
  • 10740
  • ...
Re: Dispute with Curatorship
« Reply #48 on: April 24, 2013, 08:16:55 PM »
Thork has done nothing outrageous, stop being rabble rousers.
Quote from: sokarul
Better bring a better augment, something not so stupid.

Re: Dispute with Curatorship
« Reply #49 on: April 25, 2013, 09:00:23 AM »
That counts as a warning regarding what the topic was about. Meaning you should have posted in here afterwards (no matter who the warning was addressed to). As per the rules.

Usually official voices of the forum are portrayed in a cogent manner with your usual standards of candor and decorum.   

Quote
Your subsequent contributions were also off-topic, and belonged in S&C. Finally, it is totally reasonable to lay out specific topic-boundaries in an OP (and this frequently occurs).

No such guidelines were layed out in his OP - it was only after his original assertion was contested that he started censoring replies.  Flat Earth General is a debate forum, and the censored replies to his OP were indeed on topic as they addressed the content in the OP within the boundries set by both the rules and forum guidelines.

Quote
You were not even banned. You were threatened with being banned, otherwise known as a warning. Thork can do that. He should have done so earlier, but that is all that seems wrong in this case. This is a fuss over nothing.

You state that like the abilities and role of the Curator are clear.  Prior to this dispute I had no idea concerning the role of the Curator.  kindly direct me to where they are documented so I can educate myself.

I stand by my correct assertion that if he made his original post in the correct forum he would be justified in the manner in which he used his abilities as curator to police it.   I should not have been censored or threatened with banning. 

As it appears that the Curator is in fact impotent and his threats were empty, the point is moot anyway.


?

Thork

Re: Dispute with Curatorship
« Reply #50 on: April 25, 2013, 09:02:06 AM »
People better stop describing me as impotent. >:(

*

Lord Wilmore

  • Vice President
  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 12107
Re: Dispute with Curatorship
« Reply #51 on: April 25, 2013, 03:10:02 PM »
Usually official voices of the forum are portrayed in a cogent manner with your usual standards of candor and decorum.


I'm not really sure what you're saying here (genuinely). Could you clarify?


Quote
Your subsequent contributions were also off-topic, and belonged in S&C. Finally, it is totally reasonable to lay out specific topic-boundaries in an OP (and this frequently occurs).

No such guidelines were layed out in his OP - it was only after his original assertion was contested that he started censoring replies.  Flat Earth General is a debate forum, and the censored replies to his OP were indeed on topic as they addressed the content in the OP within the boundries set by both the rules and forum guidelines.


If your point is that Thork should have stated his problem openly from the off, then all I can do is say that I agree, that I have already agreed, and that I cannot do more than agree.


Quote
You were not even banned. You were threatened with being banned, otherwise known as a warning. Thork can do that. He should have done so earlier, but that is all that seems wrong in this case. This is a fuss over nothing.

You state that like the abilities and role of the Curator are clear.  Prior to this dispute I had no idea concerning the role of the Curator.  kindly direct me to where they are documented so I can educate myself.


So by now you've probably noticed that we have a new membergroup, the Flat Earth Veterans. Basically, this is a sort of 'community watch'-style initiative, whereby some members who post regularly in the upper boards are being given the powers to remove spam, lock/merge/move/split topics, and generally keep things tidy.


They can't ban people or delete posts completely, nor can they moderate outside Flat Earth General, Flat Earth Q&A, and Flat Earth Debate. They cannot issue bans, but they can request them if they feel someone's repeated petty offences have not been picked up on.
"I want truth for truth's sake, not for the applaud or approval of men. I would not reject truth because it is unpopular, nor accept error because it is popular. I should rather be right and stand alone than run with the multitude and be wrong." - C.S. DeFord

*

PizzaPlanet

  • 12260
  • Now available in stereo
Re: Dispute with Curatorship
« Reply #52 on: April 27, 2013, 08:19:03 AM »
I cannot do more than agree.
Wait, so even now when you effectively run the forum on your own, you still use the "I can't do anything about S&C, please stop making S&C" defence?

So by now you've probably noticed that we have a new membergroup, the Flat Earth Veterans. Basically, this is a sort of 'community watch'-style initiative, whereby some members who post regularly in the upper boards are being given the powers to remove spam, lock/merge/move/split topics, and generally keep things tidy.


They can't ban people or delete posts completely, nor can they moderate outside Flat Earth General, Flat Earth Q&A, and Flat Earth Debate. They cannot issue bans, but they can request them if they feel someone's repeated petty offences have not been picked up on.
Funny you should mention this. It doesn't suggest that Curators/Veterans can issue warnings, or shake their fist at people and insinuate (read: directly threaten) that they'll be banned. You said they can request bans, which pretty much everyone else can. If you want to dismiss people's complains about Thork's wanton behaviour by claiming he's only doing his job, then please, before you do so, clearly state what his job entails.
« Last Edit: April 27, 2013, 08:27:22 AM by PizzaPlanet »
hacking your precious forum as we speak 8) 8) 8)

*

Lord Wilmore

  • Vice President
  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 12107
Re: Dispute with Curatorship
« Reply #53 on: April 27, 2013, 04:51:59 PM »
I cannot do more than agree.
Wait, so even now when you effectively run the forum on your own, you still use the "I can't do anything about S&C, please stop making S&C" defence?


Sorry? I've said that I agree, and told Thork as much. Anything more would be a ridiculous over-reaction. My point was that beyond that, there is nothing more I can do, so there is no point in Kendrick trying to convince me about something I've already agreed with him about.


Funny you should mention this. It doesn't suggest that Curators/Veterans can issue warnings, or shake their fist at people and insinuate (read: directly threaten) that they'll be banned. You said they can request bans, which pretty much everyone else can. If you want to dismiss people's complains about Thork's wanton behaviour by claiming he's only doing his job, then please, before you do so, clearly state what his job entails.


First of all, I didn't dismiss any complains. I agree that Thork should have warned Kendrick, and told Thork as much. It's a proportionate response to the problem. It is not a dismissal.


Secondly, regarding the fact that I don't explicitly state that they can issue warnings, fair enough, but it's long been understood that they can (and has been standard practice since the position was introduced), and the fact that Kendrick seems to be completely unaware of my announcement or what they can or can't do suggests that the real issue was him not being aware of the role, probably through absence.
"I want truth for truth's sake, not for the applaud or approval of men. I would not reject truth because it is unpopular, nor accept error because it is popular. I should rather be right and stand alone than run with the multitude and be wrong." - C.S. DeFord

*

PizzaPlanet

  • 12260
  • Now available in stereo
Re: Dispute with Curatorship
« Reply #54 on: April 28, 2013, 12:55:08 AM »
My point was that beyond that, there is nothing more I can do
There is a lot more you can do. If you don't want to do it, be honest about it.

First of all, I didn't dismiss any complains. I agree that Thork should have warned Kendrick, and told Thork as much. It's a proportionate response to the problem. It is not a dismissal.
I'll leave the proportionality out of the equation for now. Fair enough, you've responded to Kendrick's complaint in some fashion.

Secondly, regarding the fact that I don't explicitly state that they can issue warnings, fair enough, but it's long been understood that they can
Evidently, it hasn't, or this thread (and the recent bump of the original anti-FEV thread) wouldn't exist.

him not being aware of the role, probably through absence.
Still, he should be able to have a look at the forum rules (or somewhere similar) and find out what Curators can and can't do. Currently, he has no such option, and neither do I. Since there is no definitive point of information, it's quite likely that many people here don't actually know what Curators do. Can we have a thread somewhere that provides a sound and complete explanation of the FEC role?
hacking your precious forum as we speak 8) 8) 8)

*

Lord Wilmore

  • Vice President
  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 12107
Re: Dispute with Curatorship
« Reply #55 on: April 28, 2013, 02:29:04 PM »
My point was that beyond that, there is nothing more I can do
There is a lot more you can do. If you don't want to do it, be honest about it.


Yes, there are other things I could do. I could do a barrel-roll. I could fly to Helsinki. I could make Kendrick admin, Thork a mod, and ban Daniel. When I say there is nothing more I can do beyond the actions I have already taken, it is obviously clear that this is the degree of action I regard as appropriate, possible, or practical, and my meaning is completely clear in context.


If your real intention is to be completely non-constructive and pointlessly pedantic, could you be honest about that? I am not going to hyper-qualify every statement I make when you could just be reasonable instead of an ass. It's perfectly clear what I meant, something further evidenced by your rather choice editing of my post. I am going to ignore this kind of crap from now on; you're wasting my time to no good end.


Secondly, regarding the fact that I don't explicitly state that they can issue warnings, fair enough, but it's long been understood that they can
Evidently, it hasn't, or this thread (and the recent bump of the original anti-FEV thread) wouldn't exist.


That is dumb. Just because one person hasn't realised something, doesn't mean it isn't adequately apparent. We get people disputing bans in here all the time when they were obviously breaking the rules. It doesn't mean the rules aren't clear or that they aren't generally understood, just that they didn't pay sufficient (or any) attention to them.


him not being aware of the role, probably through absence.
Still, he should be able to have a look at the forum rules (or somewhere similar) and find out what Curators can and can't do. Currently, he has no such option, and neither do I. Since there is no definitive point of information, it's quite likely that many people here don't actually know what Curators do. Can we have a thread somewhere that provides a sound and complete explanation of the FEC role?


I agree, I'll just edit the announcement linked earlier.
"I want truth for truth's sake, not for the applaud or approval of men. I would not reject truth because it is unpopular, nor accept error because it is popular. I should rather be right and stand alone than run with the multitude and be wrong." - C.S. DeFord

*

PizzaPlanet

  • 12260
  • Now available in stereo
Re: Dispute with Curatorship
« Reply #56 on: April 28, 2013, 02:49:39 PM »
Yes, there are other things I could do.
I agree.

I could do a barrel-roll. I could fly to Helsinki. I could make Kendrick admin, Thork a mod, and ban Daniel.
While some of those sound like good ideas, I'd appreciate if you followed the forum rules and did not post off-topic.

When I say there is nothing more I can do beyond the actions I have already taken, it is obviously clear that this is the degree of action I regard as appropriate, possible, or practical, and my meaning is completely clear in context.
I'm glad we agree on that matter. We have zetetically established that we have the same meaning of being able to do something in mind. Now, as I was saying, there was a lot you can do to help the situation. It seems that you've agreed to do one of those things, so I'm relatively happy.

If your real intention is to be completely non-constructive and pointlessly pedantic, could you be honest about that?
I will be certain to inform you in the event of such an occurrence.

I am not going to hyper-qualify every statement I make when you could just be reasonable instead of an ass. It's perfectly clear what I meant
Once again, I agree.

Just because one person hasn't realised something, doesn't mean it isn't adequately apparent.
Then it's a good thing that it's not one person, and that I continue to elaborate on that further in my post. Luckily, we both agree that the FEC job needs elaboration, so I guess this part of your post was just you being you.

I agree, I'll just edit the announcement linked earlier.
Thank you! Good God(tm), it sure does take a lot of talk to get you to do simple things. Can you include a link in the forum rules, too?
« Last Edit: April 28, 2013, 02:57:19 PM by PizzaPlanet »
hacking your precious forum as we speak 8) 8) 8)

*

PizzaPlanet

  • 12260
  • Now available in stereo
Re: Dispute with Curatorship
« Reply #57 on: April 28, 2013, 02:56:17 PM »
To further elaborate, here's an example of something you can do: Issue Thork a warning. Don't tell him nicely that you'd appreciate it if he stopped being a pest to everyone. Make it a "three strikes and you're out" kind of thing. Suddenly, everyone would be happy - you wouldn't have to deal with complaints (on this subject), Thork would have to start playing by the rules with no immediate negative consequences for his behaviour so far, and it would be clear that you have actually done something about an issue. This is not rocket science. There are hundreds, if not thousands, of actual solutions available that would take you less effort than your current approach, while yielding more results. There are things you can do.
hacking your precious forum as we speak 8) 8) 8)

?

Thork

Re: Dispute with Curatorship
« Reply #58 on: April 28, 2013, 03:13:46 PM »
To further elaborate, here's an example of something you can do: Issue Thork a warning.
How about you get a warning for memberating? How about you get a warning for trouble-making? How about you get a warning for abusing S&C? I don't remember the announcement where you get to decide who gets warned for what.

Suddenly, everyone would be happy
I wouldn't be happy. I'm sure other members don't care very much. Who made you the voice of the society?

- you wouldn't have to deal with complaints (on this subject),
You'd just make complaints about another subject. That's mostly what you do here. Complain.

Thork would have to start playing by the rules with no immediate negative consequences for his behaviour so far, and it would be clear that you have actually done something about an issue.
I wouldn't change my behaviour in the slightest. I post here for my own enjoyment. I'm not going to allow you, Wilmore or anyone else to dictate how I decide to use the forum. If Wilmore starts heeding your advice and being a dick over every little thing, I'll just post less, moderate less, use the site less. I've been here long enough for everyone to know what I'm like. I'm not changing it because you want to moan about a topic that has absolutely nothing to do with you. I was asked to help clean up spam and keep order in the upper forums. Its a favour. I don't get paid. It actually takes my time. I do it because I use the forum a lot and its a way I can contribute in return.

This is not rocket science. There are hundreds, if not thousands, of actual solutions available that would take you less effort than your current approach, while yielding more results. There are things you can do.
He picked the solution he likes best. Ignoring you. Please respect it.

*

Lord Wilmore

  • Vice President
  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 12107
Re: Dispute with Curatorship
« Reply #59 on: April 28, 2013, 03:22:34 PM »
It seems that you've agreed to do one of those things, so I'm relatively happy.


Thank you! Good God(tm), it sure does take a lot of talk to get you to do simple things. Can you include a link in the forum rules, too?


I already agreed to do both of those things before your last post. One I had done before I even began talking to you, and the other I had agreed was a good idea, and just hadn't done. What exactly did your last post accomplish, other than bolstering your record of being needlessly objectionable?


To further elaborate, here's an example of something you can do: Issue Thork a warning. Don't tell him nicely that you'd appreciate it if he stopped being a pest to everyone. Make it a "three strikes and you're out" kind of thing. Suddenly, everyone would be happy - you wouldn't have to deal with complaints (on this subject), Thork would have to start playing by the rules with no immediate negative consequences for his behaviour so far, and it would be clear that you have actually done something about an issue. This is not rocket science. There are hundreds, if not thousands, of actual solutions available that would take you less effort than your current approach, while yielding more results. There are things you can do.


There are two points to make here. First of all, that is a bad solution for reasons that would be obvious to anyone less anti-social and deliberately abrasive as you. It is the kind of thing that is poisonous in any job-situation, never mind a voluntary position. That is not rocket-science.


Secondly, I am going to say, all jokes aside, I am not really interested in your advice on how to deal with other people, for reasons that are equally obvious.
"I want truth for truth's sake, not for the applaud or approval of men. I would not reject truth because it is unpopular, nor accept error because it is popular. I should rather be right and stand alone than run with the multitude and be wrong." - C.S. DeFord