:shrug: Mine address your arguments, constantly. Meanwhile, your responses often address neither argument nor bigotry, but involve new topics less related to the matter.
Mods Gone Wild
- Thread starter Gustav
- Start date
- Status
:shrug: Mine address your arguments, constantly. Meanwhile, your responses often address neither argument nor bigotry, but involve new topics less related to the matter.
This and that
It's a shame you can't tell the difference between the fact and form of disagreement.
Well, it's quite clear that you can't handle the implications of your own behavior.
Come now. You're misreprenting facts and demanding a record that, at best, would be severely bowdlerized to protect the guilty among my colleagues:
As an example, I considered posting the topic post of the ban thread you whimper and mewl about, but it would still be expurgated in order to protect others, who are quoted directly.
And as to the topic post that led Avatar to start a riot, I thought it was already on the record. There were screenshots posted, as I recall. Dig 'em up, let me know if they're incomplete or lost to Interweb Black Hole #404.
I have nothing to hide. And perhaps you feel the same way about yourself. But you're asking for a broken, contextually insecure record, as we did not discuss, consider, or argue in a vacuum.
Take it up with James, and remember that the present standard set by the administration for opening any portion of the back room record to the public is that others must be protected to the point that entire posts are removed. (See "No confidence in James R as administrator [public copy]", specifically the header at #7.
And hey, since you mentioned the Avatar riot, I'd ask you to consider how flustered people got because I called Baron Max my least favorite troll. And then consider what a moderator had to say about S.A.M. Indeed, it's alluded to in #7 from the public copy, but not quoted directly.
Context, madam, is everything.
But, yes, if the administration will agree to unexpurgated reproductions of those discussions, we can certainly go through it page by page, and post by post, if you want to.
It doesn't have to do with sides, Mordea. Rather, it concerns the nature and content of people's arguments.
I would ask you to consider something about the larger situation you're trying to address:
I rejected the pretense then, and I reject it now; I have no intention of ever trying to invoke that standard for something so petty as the administration chose.
So tell me about truth, justice, and honor, Mordea. One of the reasons these discussions don't annoy me as much as they do the administration—e.g., to the point of vendetta—is that I am quite accustomed to the plethora of talk and the dearth of shock.
The underlying issue is one of implications. You, and Bells, perceive and assert certain implications about my actions. I disagree with the assessment. By the administrative standard, I might demand an apology from both of you for willfully lying about me, and without ever demonstrating that will, send you for thirty days apiece if you don't grovel for my forgiveness. I have, quite obviously, refused such pretentious abuse of authority, and will continue to do so.
In the meantime, feel free to keep on wailing about whatever you like. One of these days, someone might actually substantiate their argument and compel me to answer a charge. But as long as people want to keep playing the game of reiterating their accusations as if that is sufficient to prove their case, I will continue to hold such excrement in contempt.
Bells said:
It's a shame you can't tell the difference between the fact and form of disagreement.
Well, it's quite clear that you can't handle the implications of your own behavior.
Come now. You're misreprenting facts and demanding a record that, at best, would be severely bowdlerized to protect the guilty among my colleagues:
As an example, I considered posting the topic post of the ban thread you whimper and mewl about, but it would still be expurgated in order to protect others, who are quoted directly.
And as to the topic post that led Avatar to start a riot, I thought it was already on the record. There were screenshots posted, as I recall. Dig 'em up, let me know if they're incomplete or lost to Interweb Black Hole #404.
I have nothing to hide. And perhaps you feel the same way about yourself. But you're asking for a broken, contextually insecure record, as we did not discuss, consider, or argue in a vacuum.
Take it up with James, and remember that the present standard set by the administration for opening any portion of the back room record to the public is that others must be protected to the point that entire posts are removed. (See "No confidence in James R as administrator [public copy]", specifically the header at #7.
And hey, since you mentioned the Avatar riot, I'd ask you to consider how flustered people got because I called Baron Max my least favorite troll. And then consider what a moderator had to say about S.A.M. Indeed, it's alluded to in #7 from the public copy, but not quoted directly.
Context, madam, is everything.
But, yes, if the administration will agree to unexpurgated reproductions of those discussions, we can certainly go through it page by page, and post by post, if you want to.
• • •
Mordea said:
It doesn't have to do with sides, Mordea. Rather, it concerns the nature and content of people's arguments.
I would ask you to consider something about the larger situation you're trying to address:
• If I chose to invoke a standard enforced by the administration, to which I objected vociferously, I could demand an apology from both you and Bells at the stake of sending you both for thirty days apiece.
I rejected the pretense then, and I reject it now; I have no intention of ever trying to invoke that standard for something so petty as the administration chose.
So tell me about truth, justice, and honor, Mordea. One of the reasons these discussions don't annoy me as much as they do the administration—e.g., to the point of vendetta—is that I am quite accustomed to the plethora of talk and the dearth of shock.
The underlying issue is one of implications. You, and Bells, perceive and assert certain implications about my actions. I disagree with the assessment. By the administrative standard, I might demand an apology from both of you for willfully lying about me, and without ever demonstrating that will, send you for thirty days apiece if you don't grovel for my forgiveness. I have, quite obviously, refused such pretentious abuse of authority, and will continue to do so.
In the meantime, feel free to keep on wailing about whatever you like. One of these days, someone might actually substantiate their argument and compel me to answer a charge. But as long as people want to keep playing the game of reiterating their accusations as if that is sufficient to prove their case, I will continue to hold such excrement in contempt.
What are the most grievous examples of mods abusing their power? Would someone summarize a few top examples, since I'm too lazy to fish for the trout at this late hour?
Well, I belive Plazma Inferno actually killed somone for using insulting language. Cant remember the link though, sorry.
I think you're joking.
No! Really - it's true! You don't remember? I think James was a co-conspirator, but no proof has yet come to light...
No! Really - it's true! You don't remember? I think James was a co-conspirator, but no proof has yet come to light...
Really??? Why haven't I heard about this? Doesn't anyone think we should call the police??? How did he do it? Why did he do it?
Quite the contrary. It has everything to do with sides. One side consists of you and anyone who possesses the supposed wisdom, integrity and honesty that allows them to agree whole-heartedly with your ideological stance and supporting statements.
On the opposing side are those are those who have the audacity to disagree with your subjective and likely biased interpretations.
Don't know about you in particular, although many have tried to keep it quiet...
Absolutely not! The Sci men in black will show up at your door, erase avery bit of evidence, including your memory of the event. Is this what you want?
We will probably never know the details, but I've heard rumor of a secret Mod thread on the subject. If you cozy up to one, you may find out the particulars - but then you would be one of them!
I would suspect that a white Muslim would be less likely to harbour such strong anti-Western sentiment.
I disagree. I'm simply making an association. I have made no claims of racial inferiority.
We are all allowed our little obsessions. Granted, she is a tad more obsessed then some. Okay. A lot more obsessed..
Yes. But if you continually express a very unpopular opinion about a sensitive issue in an undiplomatic manner while arguing in a disingenous manner, don't be surprised if you cop flak from the membership. It's not your colour that is upsetting them, it's the fact that you're perceived to be a douche.
I disagree. You can try and deduce why a person believes what they do from certain exposures.
I don't think that such behaviour is appropriate. However, I don't see anything inherently racist about making an association between certain beliefs/attitudes and ones cultural/religious background. S.A.M's cultural and religious background do bias her in favour of certain views and attitudes.
Because Australians are untainted by the mass media brainwashing that Americans are subjected to by Zionists and their allies. Indeed, I'd suspect that Australians as a population would be more pro-Palestinian than Americans.
Agreed.
Bells
Staff member
Yep. I guess I am not as intelligent as you are.
And what behaviour would that be Tiassa?
Am I breaking any of the forum rules at the moment? I had a warning for calling Oth a 'fucktard', but I believe that has been about it. So please, enlighten me.
Oh wait, I know. Daring to disagree with Sam and you and in your opinion, trolling because I am not bowing down to the rising sun out of both your respective backsides? I believe Gustave does that well enough to cover the forum as a whole.
Not at all. The records, stand for themselves in that forum.
I would suggest you post everything you and I have posted in the mod forum since I became a moderator. I don't have anything to hide. Do you?
If you have nothing to hide, you would not be making excuses.
You are a moderator. You can make the request in the private forum. I doubt any of the other moderators would have issues with it since it will only involve all of my posts and your own.
From what I remember about the Avatar riot, both Sam and Avatar had to protest fairly violently, Avatar went a little bith further, as we all remember, to stop you from banning Baron. The rest of us were not online at the time where it all kind of fell apart.
And I remember you being pissy about it for a long time after. You're still pissy about it.
As for what James did post, it is lucky for you that he did not post the other post you made in that thread, one that I remember having to tell you that you had gone too far and so had he, because it had gone that far, which you acknowledged in #7 as having gone too far.
You were saying about context. Granted, what was said prior to that particular post was quite racist and bigoted, but frankly, your response was just as bad.
As I said Tiassa, I have no objections.
All you'd need to do would be to remove the names of any other moderator involved or members involved who we may have quoted or addressed a post to. You appear to have plenty of time on your hands so it should not take you too long.**** Edit to add ****
I missed this..
And what exactly would I be apologising for? Where have I lied about you? Have you apologised to me yet for what you have said to me and the names you have called me? No. So for you to demand an apology?.. HAHAHAA!
I'll apologise to you when you apologise to me. So I guess you and I will both be banned for 30 days apiece "by the administrative standard".
WillNever:
I would like ALL members of the "High Society" group who support WillNever in this "Official Statement" to publically say so in the current thread.
I wish to determine whether WillNever actually speaks for a group or not. If it turns out that he does, we can have a separate discussion about his personal accusations against me. If not, then this is little more than WillNever making a grab for an authority he does not possess. I wish to confirm that WillNever does in fact speak for a group of people with genuine concerns, and is not merely inventing a shadowy, anonymous group in order to appear to have support.
I would like ALL members of the "High Society" group who support WillNever in this "Official Statement" to publically say so in the current thread.
I wish to determine whether WillNever actually speaks for a group or not. If it turns out that he does, we can have a separate discussion about his personal accusations against me. If not, then this is little more than WillNever making a grab for an authority he does not possess. I wish to confirm that WillNever does in fact speak for a group of people with genuine concerns, and is not merely inventing a shadowy, anonymous group in order to appear to have support.
I woud like for monkeys to fly out my "But" an then i coud join the circus... eh
An nuthin is what you got... huh :shrug:
superstring01
Moderator
James:
The group exists, as you probably know. However, it is unknown (at least to me) whether WillNever has been elected spokesman for said group. To the other, I agree with your opinion that WillNever will invent "shadowy" positions for himself in order to bolster his ego. Or attempt to bolster, whichever. I am surprised that Tiassa is a member of this group, for many reasons.
In any event, whether you find that WillNever is making "a grab for authority" or not, his post stands. How will you respond to it differently if Will is not HeadCheese? You can't ignore it - well,I guess you could - but that would give a very unfavorable flavor to the way people view Admin. Don't you agree?
So now that you have acknowledged the post's existence, you are going to have to deal with it. Who cares whether WillNever "officially" represents this nebulous group? You still have to answer the challenge, right?
- Status