Bullcrap

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
slvr_phoenix

slvr_phoenix

Splendid
Dec 31, 2007
6,223
1
25,780
This is a load of bull!

I closing this thread now since I am going to bed and I don't want to wake up to a huge number of posts.
Click to expand...
Thank you ever so much for not discussing the issue, and then locking the thread. I clearly see now just how fair the system is. You couldn't have expressed this better if you'd tried.

And I suppose you'll lock this thread too.

Or maybe just edit it, or delete it.

Because god forbid anyone talk about the issues seriously and openly.

Oh no. It's quite clear that minds are closed here.
 
Not discussing the issue? You voiced your opinion and I have replied to your post and I replied to the others as well.
 
Not discussing the issue? You voiced your opinion and I have replied to your post and I replied to the others as well.
Click to expand...
And then you locked it before I even had a chance to respond. Not to mention preventing anyone else from commenting later as well. As if no one else could possibly have an opinion. How is blocking people from discussing something considered to be discussing the issue to you? I mean, I just don't even begin to understand your argument here. We're talking about complete opposites.

Further, what possible reason was there for locking the thread? There were no breaches of ToS involved. It wasn't even a heated argument. All that I can see there is yet another example of an abuse of power, instead of anything even remotely assuaging my fears.

Well congratulations on giving substance to issues that I was trying so hard to be fair about and not take sides on.

Further, yet again, something was decided behind the scenes where regular users have no say and no recourse should anyone disagree with the decision. You're doing an ever so wonderful job of proving my point.

And since you've locked my thread I'm just going to continue it here.

When was this place ever democratic? This is a forum run by TG Publishing and the rules are laid down in the TOS. These rules are enforced by the moderators.
Click to expand...
Yes, but there are three problems that I see here:

1) The ToS was never even so much as remotely enforced until just recently. Until now there was virtually no goveernance, period. In extreme rare cases if the right people complained to you, you might do something about it. And the rest of the time we were left to just do our own things. So while it was never democratic (and I never claimed that it was, just that it would be nice if it moved into something more that way) the method of governance has certainly changed recently.

2) Even if we assume that from now on all of the most current ToS will be adhered to by the letter (which most definately isn't the case) the actual decisions of how to enforce the ToS do not seem to be applied fairly and equally. At least that's from what I can see. If public access were made to see the course of such discussions it would likely reduce the fear of abuse as well as to document a standard of guidelines for equal handling of related situations. Further, if public opinion were even allowed to be expressed, that would go even further to waylay these fears.

3) There is no system in place for anyone to disagree with the enforcement of the rules, and certainly no accountability for abuse. At least from a regular user's standpoint.

Now I'm not saying that TG has to do anything about any of this. It's your forum. Do as you will. But I am not impressed. And I'm not the only one.

People can always PM me if there's trouble, but if you do I don't want to receive baseless accusations or hearsay without any proof. I need links to messages or quotes that can be verified. I have yet to receive anything like this.
Click to expand...
Certainly not from me, because 1) I'm trying to remain neutral and address the flaws in the system of governance, and not dispute the actual decisions made. That would be an entirely different discussion. And 2) What possible access would someone like me have to private messages between other persons? Or to the moderator's private section of the forumz to discuss things? Can any regular user look there to quote them in a complaint to you? No. Because it's private, done in secret. What a nice circular argument you've made. We can only complain if we have proof, but we're not allowed access to any proof. All that we have is hearsay because of your ever so wonderful system.

But while you've brought up the topic of particular cases of abuse to report, here's a case of abuse for you to verify. Your own in locking my thread for no good reason.

So who, exactly, do we complain to when you're abusing things, hmm?

As far as I am concerned there's is no such thing as secret discussions. Moderators and I discuss cases on a regularly basis. A permanent ban is done on my final decision only.
Click to expand...
Oh, congratulations, you consider any conversation that you hold in private as not being a secret discussion because you're a part of it. But are we, the regular users, able to see or even take part in said discussion? No. Because it said discussion is a secret from all regular users. Hence secret discussions.

I've been trying to be nice, but you're not exactly making that easy, Fredi. Nor is Jake being insulting in PMs doing any better of a job of it. I've been trying to not take sides on any particular matter. I've been trying to simply keep this about concerns for the welfare of the community because of a potentially oppressive system of governance having no system in place, at all to protect the average Joe user. And instead of waylaying any fears about such a potential becoming a reality, you and your moderators have so far just proved my fears as being valid ones.

Congratulations.
 
Give some examples then. Not just rumour and second hand gossip, but actual examples where you feel that it's unfair. Let's hear it.
Click to expand...
I had been trying to keep this about theoretical potential and assuring that potential does not become a reality. I had been trying to keep this about the issue of governance in general, not about particular issues.

Just because your chummy-chummy clique of moderators happen to have hot topics doesn't mean I've been debating them. Too bad you're all so opinionated that you have to make it about that instead of addressing my actual (and clearly at this point legitimate) concerns.

Further, as stated, what possible evidence can I provide to any situation that I am not myself 'guilty' of, as I have no access to private information to link to, hmm? All that any concerned third party can produce is second-hand information.

And, in fact, I believe that even the ToS themselves specifically state not to reproduce PMs. So I couldn't even report an abusive PM without breaching the ToS. What a fair system.

But, if you want an example, how about Fredi locking a thread that didn't breach the ToS and didn't get hostile, simply because no one wants to address the actual issue or admit that even in theory there might be a problem?

I could further report what I feel is an abusive insulting PM from Jake, but again, I'm not giving anyone any excuses by breaching the ToS at this particular time. But do know that this PM is recorded offsite as well, so even if it mysterously gets edited or removed, it is not gone. Information is everlasting. It cannot be destroyed so easily.

So, thanks to the way in which the illustrious leaders have handled just my completely innocent and constructive post alone, it has quite thoroughly proven that the system is flawed. And, as usual, the flaw itself is the human factor. To err is human.

So if I can't trust the supposed two most important people to take my concerns to, because they've both abused their positions, then how am I even remotely supposed to trust any other position of power here? Please do answer that. I'd love to hear anyone try to answer that at this point. :lol: Go on. Just try.
 
First, I simply closed the thread to continue the discussion today. You beat me to the punch and making a big deal out of it. I gave the reason why, nothing secretive about it.

1) It has been made clear months ago that there's a TOS and moderators will enforce it. Things change, deal with it.

2) OK, your opinion is that it's not applied fairly and equally. Why do you say public opinion is not allowed? That's clearly not the case. In this case however we're talking about accusations and they need to be proven. In order for me to investigate I need examples. You need to backup your opinion.

3) People have posted messages in the past when they disagreed. I have answered to those posts.

3/1) So, you have no bad experience yourself, but you claim unfairness.

3/2) I look in the moderator discussion regularly. It's private but not secret. Again, the cases users contacted me have been solved by me directly. In case the moderators where unsure about what action to take I have made the final decisions after investigating.
Moderators keep telling people they can go to me and I believe they also give express permission that their PMs can be quoted to me.

I don't see closing the other thread with giving an explanation as an abuse. I simply didn’t want to get it blown out of proportion over night.

I consider a conversation with the user in question no secret. Why should I involve the public while I deal directly with specific individuals?

The moderation discussions are just that, they are discussions. So it comes down to that you have a problem with me as the highest authority. As you can see in the other thread, if I am asked direct questions to why certain decisions have been made you'll get a direct answer. Always has been that way, always will. If I get a PM that documents unacceptable behavior by anybody else I'll investigate. In the past I have not publicity discussed my dealings with individuals so I won't in the future.
 
And, in fact, I believe that even the ToS themselves specifically state not to reproduce PMs. So I couldn't even report an abusive PM without breaching the ToS. What a fair system.
Click to expand...

It doesn't. It's a courtesy not to post private communication between individuals without the permission of all parties involved. If I receive quotes from private communication I assure everybody there won't be any consequences. I keep saying I need links to messages or quotes that can be verified. It almost seems like you're implying I am trying to trick people into trouble.

I wish people would read the TOS. Then they wouldn't be surprised if it's actually is enforced.
 
Hello Fredi
I'm sorry to be taking more of your time on this issue.
I would like to say that your easy going , firm but fair method of moderation was one of the keys to this forum being a second home to many.
Thankyou for that.
The transition to the new mods has at times been disconcerting.
The departure of my friend Mozz has made it worrisome.
He alluded to some jackbooted, rightwing plan to control the forums.
The primary presence of (apparently) flagwaving republican mods did little to sooth that mood .
For Ned, I am sure that, when told by the mods that he could not keep the signature he had used for a long time, he felt the mods were bullying him.
I don't understand how a signature could be so important, but I do see how a question of principals could escalate to this.
For two years now, Ned has been a helpfull, valued member of our forum.
We can not truly afford to loose such people.
I ask that you reconsider his fate. I hope that he would be big enough to apologize for any and all pain he has caused you, and accept the conditions you impose.
 
If it comes down to enforcing the TOS we can not make a difference. I probably wouldn't have given so many chances to a newbie.
 
Give some examples then. Not just rumour and second hand gossip, but actual examples where you feel that it's unfair. Let's hear it.
Click to expand...
I had been trying to keep this about theoretical potential and assuring that potential does not become a reality. I had been trying to keep this about the issue of governance in general, not about particular issues.

Just because your chummy-chummy clique of moderators happen to have hot topics doesn't mean I've been debating them. Too bad you're all so opinionated that you have to make it about that instead of addressing my actual (and clearly at this point legitimate) concerns.

Further, as stated, what possible evidence can I provide to any situation that I am not myself 'guilty' of, as I have no access to private information to link to, hmm? All that any concerned third party can produce is second-hand information.

And, in fact, I believe that even the ToS themselves specifically state not to reproduce PMs. So I couldn't even report an abusive PM without breaching the ToS. What a fair system.

But, if you want an example, how about Fredi locking a thread that didn't breach the ToS and didn't get hostile, simply because no one wants to address the actual issue or admit that even in theory there might be a problem?

I could further report what I feel is an abusive insulting PM from Jake, but again, I'm not giving anyone any excuses by breaching the ToS at this particular time. But do know that this PM is recorded offsite as well, so even if it mysterously gets edited or removed, it is not gone. Information is everlasting. It cannot be destroyed so easily.

So, thanks to the way in which the illustrious leaders have handled just my completely innocent and constructive post alone, it has quite thoroughly proven that the system is flawed. And, as usual, the flaw itself is the human factor. To err is human.

So if I can't trust the supposed two most important people to take my concerns to, because they've both abused their positions, then how am I even remotely supposed to trust any other position of power here? Please do answer that. I'd love to hear anyone try to answer that at this point. :lol: Go on. Just try.

1. There is no chummy chummy clique of mods, as you describe. The mods talks about stuff, of course they do. We share opinions about issues. We ask each other advice. Moderating is new to all of us, so we ask each other for advice. We post questions. We seek guidance. It's about making sure we get it right and that everyone in the group is informed as to what and why we've done it. We need a place to ask questions. Contrary to certain beliefs, it's not a launchpad for forum domination. It's a place where we can discuss and make decisions to ensure that this place moves forward within the rules laid down in the ToS.

2. You alluded to having seen, or have examples of moderation that you consider to be heavy handed, or wrong, or, well, something or other... I'm asking you to share that, tell me and I'll give you an honest answer to your question. I'm not interested in rumours, there are way too many of those floating round. I daresay you've encountered them.

3. You can report an abusive PM. You don't need to send or show the PM, just give an account of what was said and the person who sent it will be spoken to.

4. Fredi locked that thread because certain people were jumping on the bandwagon and looking for an opportunity to subvert it for their own agenda. Had it been a simple conversation between you and Fredi, I'm certain it would have remained open. Fredi, quite rightly, didn't want a hundred replies all saying the same thing.

5. We all mod via PM differently. Jake is to the point with no messing around. due to the fact that Jake hasd been the subject of more abuse and plotting than the rest of us put together, and then some, then maybe his post could be miscontrued. He'll certainly be blunt! I'm not defending Jake and sure he wouldn't want me to. I'm just trying to give my take on how Jake operates. I'm different, RC is, so is BigMac, so is Riser. I don't know what else I can say.

6 & 7. I think it would have been better for you to address this to Fredi via PM, rather than airing this in public. In doing so, it enabled this to descend into a mud slinging match that fits with how some people want to operate. It's sad that people do that, as, as you rightly said, it was addressed constructively. Which is why I'm (hopefully) responding in kind. I hope some of this answers your questions.
 
Hello Fredi
I'm sorry to be taking more of your time on this issue.
I would like to say that your easy going , firm but fair method of moderation was one of the keys to this forum being a second home to many.
Thankyou for that.
The transition to the new mods has at times been disconcerting.
The departure of my friend Mozz has made it worrisome.
He alluded to some jackbooted, rightwing plan to control the forums.
The primary presence of (apparently) flagwaving republican mods did little to sooth that mood .
For Ned, I am sure that, when told by the mods that he could not keep the signature he had used for a long time, he felt the mods were bullying him.
I don't understand how a signature could be so important, but I do see how a question of principals could escalate to this.
For two years now, Ned has been a helpfull, valued member of our forum.
We can not truly afford to loose such people.
I ask that you reconsider his fate. I hope that he would be big enough to apologize for any and all pain he has caused you, and accept the conditions you impose.
Click to expand...

Mozz has his reasons for why he left (temporarily). He's back, although he doesn't spend as much time on here. I'm not going to give any credence to the "jackbooted rightwing agenda" unless you've got cold hard facts. The "flagwaving republican" ditto.

Ned. There was no bullying. You don't have all the facts, and you've been fed some rubbish. What you don't know is how many time I spoke to Ned privately trying to avert some of this. Ned was given more chances than most would have, as Fredi indicated.
 
I parallel many of your same sentiments and assure all I have no hidden agenda.
Fredi, tho I do not know him personally, I too have formed an image of a fun loving guy who moderated with a fair but firm hand in the past which indeed was an attraction to many and enabled them to transition from BBS and other lower key sites to a forum where other cool guys could chat and share ideas and info. Since it was a unique and comfortable audience, many things are said and virtually any could be considered offensive to many even when that usually was not the intent. Fredi understood this and the ones who really intended hateful things eventually proved themselves this time and time again.
Ned is not one of those types, and I think we all know this.
And BTW, is Ned the first permanently banned member ever?
This does concern me deeply, that I can not fathom the reason for the severity of the punishment for the crime that was in his Sig. How many people actually complained it was offensive? 2 or was it 3 members claiming offense...
I understand how being told you must modify your Sig can be construed to bullying or singling out one and in retaliation to your feelings, you resist. But if reasonable, in a few days rationality would sink in to all but the most extreme cases.
I too would like it to be reconsidered.
Rich
 
there are 4 or so usernames in the ban list right now. All but one are from spammers. Those are perm bans. However there may be more.

In the old forum I banned about 90 usernames. And some of the old folks may remember names like Fudder, Spud.
 
Are you familiar with George Carlin's skit on the 7 words you can not say on television?
It is true, there are only seven words that you can not say on television.
Are we to be held to a higher standard than that?
I would accept that those seven words might offend somebody. Did Ned use one or more of those words? No.
Have "others" here used phonetic spelling or miss- spelling of those words, to convey the concept? Yes.
I am not asking that the mods be fair. Fare is what you pay, when you get on the bus. I would however like to see a little consistancy.
I would also suggest that this is a bad time for the mods to be throwing thier weight arround.

To RobD Are you aware of Jake bringing up the issue at hand, before?
Was it a group code value then,that the word was not offensive?
What changed?
 
To RobD Are you aware of Jake bringing up the issue at hand, before?
Was it a group code value then,that the word was not offensive?
What changed?
Click to expand...
Man, where the hell do you get your information. I'm Jake. And I have discussed many issues about many people in private with other moderators and Fredi.

When you make reference to "Jake" ... why don't you just ask Jake?

That vulgar word, in a signiture, was offensive to many people, including me. See Fredi's comments. And it was on the web, not hidden in the Other Forum.

George Carlin will not set the standard for propriety around here. That standard will be set by TG Publishing. You did agree to their Terms of Service when you posted here.

When you make a hearsay reference to "Jake" - please address it to me!
 
Same question. Was there an earlier mods discusion about "the word"
Was the result a GCV that "the word" was not offensive? Should I consider WTF offensive.
Should you, a mod, show the type of decorum in PMs that you expect in the forum?
 
If anyone felt my earlier message accussed them of being a republican, when they are not, I apologize.
If anyone who is actually trying to take over the forum is offended because it seems I called them "jackbooted rightwinged" well tough, this forum is the property of THG, so if you are trying to take it over, you deserve much worse than namecalling.
 
George Carlin did not set that standard, he mocked it. Perhaps you should try to listen to it some day, It's quite funny.
The Standard was set by the body that oversees TV standards for viewing material, in the U.S., circa 1970.
It is a clear list of words that were considered offensive, at that time, and so were not to be used.
That seems a good measuring stick, to gauge what is acceptable language. If you are more easily offended than that, I would suggest you stay away from "the other" forum.
If your time in the other forum has rattled your concept of what society considers offensive, that list may help.
 
There is no conspiracy within the moderator group to take over this forum. There is a consiracy going on, you're just looking in the wrong direction. and please stop with the name calling. It's childish and pathetic.
 
Your questions have already been answered. I actually answered them several times.
Click to expand...
Your anwsers have no logic reasoning in relation to the ToS.

Why don't you post Ned's signature here so we can discuss if it violates ToS or not?
Without that, any reasonings you make are invalid.

You know full well what Ned's sig said, so that's a non-starter. He violated the ToS, end of.
 
If you search my post/activity history, I was away during the period when Ned's posted signature and removal+banning occured.
Click to expand...

What is your point, Fredi and others warned and cautioned him. Told him to change it - he refused, and now he has lost his posting privileges. Ned can still read this forum like any other person. He refused to adhere to the rules and now has lost the privilege to participate.

It remains a privilege to post here - not a right.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom