huh? did i not say two in favor?
where did i say 3 people voted?
what was said? what am i misrepresenting?
i just read your garbage with clueless and figure you plan on trolling me like you did him.
what other idle talk?
S.a.m.
- Thread starter Michael
- Start date
- Status
huh? did i not say two in favor?
where did i say 3 people voted?
what was said? what am i misrepresenting?
i just read your garbage with clueless and figure you plan on trolling me like you did him.
what other idle talk?
Right here,Post #206
Right here.
Or is your basic arithmetic not up to scratch?
If there was a 2/3rds majority vote, and 'The vindictive administrator' and one other moderator voted to permaban her, then how many votes were cast?
Two is two thirds of how many?
First off, S.A.M wasn't permabanned, S.A.M was only banned for a month.
Secondly, what James R actually said was that S.A.M would have been permabanned if there had been a two thirds majority in favour of it among the moderators. There wasn't so S.A.M was banned for only one month instead.
You're still here? So then I take it you're not planning on leaving?
(And here's a clue, I asked "Or is this more idle talk" not "Or is this more of your idle talk" there's a subtle difference in the language of the two statements that makes them mean different things. See if you can spot it, although, if your literacy is on par with your numeracy I don't hold high hopes).
Bells
Staff member
Only 1 person voted for an outright permanent ban. We will never know who that one person was since what was said in the thread itself looked to be in all different directions.
Idle speculation can lead you down incorrect paths.
Events..
Thread is started asking for moderators to vote if they want to ban Sam permanently and the OP stated quite clearly that if a 2/3's majority was not gained to ban her permanently, then she would be banned for 1 month. Also stated that his intentions would be made clear to her and an ultimatum was given to her.. as is my understanding..
Moderator's responded..
Some fence sitting.. some said they want a permanent ban but it would not be fair unless others were also banned permanently (as in if we are going to push for this kind of thing, then it needs to be applied to all who have caused issues).. others said they did not want a permanent ban but would prefer 'some time away from this forum'.. Some others stated 'no' outright and gave their reasons.
Not once.. not a single time did anyone protest the 1 month ban that was proposed in the OP if a 2/3 majority was not obtained.
I suspect if those who are now protesting this ban had spoken up and a discussion or some form of cohesion could have been had.. maybe even a middle ground could have been found. But no one spoke up about the 1 month ban, only about the proposal for the permanent ban.
See, this is what I find the most annoying. The opportunity was there at the time to address this, to disagree or offer alternative proposals. Nothing was said.. by anyone. All I saw when I came back was absolute chaos and a hell of a lot of finger pointing.. and the god damn hypocrisy.
Deflection? Bogus? Troll? So says the one who can't string even the simplest of words together to form a coherent paragraph.
Oh, please add my name to the list and "snipe" me some more. I so enjoy being "sniped" you airhead.
:wtf: :roflmao:
Accepting your request is the only way to get you to quit asking.
IMHO the majority of the "friends" on your list accepted your invitation to rid themselves of your begging. It is a form of mockery. For proof, ask yourself this - how many of your "friends" inititiated the request, hmmm, Timmy, old boy?
Would like to "not" be my friend? Oh please, Timmy, it would make a great belated Christmas present... Provided you don't ask again!
Was anyone ever asked? James R brashly delivered an ultimatum to S.A.M, without asking regular posters for any input.
bells, i havent been following this thread closly and its way to late to read through the whole thing but if you are speaking of the general members then there HAVE been protests against this. I for one wrote to tiassa as soon as i read about this because this is the hight of stupidity. I havent complained ONCE about what you guys have done, even when string banned me. Its not up to me to complain even though i was SACKED for doing EXACTLY what string et al are doing now ANYWAY (ie trying to clean up WE and P)
So i have stayed out of it inspite of the glaring hypocrasy floating out of the mod team as a group. However if you want complaints made public then fine: this is compleate BULLSHIT, to ban someone because they wouldnt apologise is the hight of arrogance and personally i think james has LOST HIS FUCKING MIND. Is that a strong enough protest for you bells? If you want im happy (with tiassa's aproval) to post (or send to you) the entire series of PMs he and I exchanged over this.
Are you accusing me of lying? About what? Be specific.
Off you go. Nobody is stopping you.
Correct. You'll find that on most, if not all, forums, moderators and administrators make such decisions as a matter of course without consulting the general membership.
Do you think you ought to be consulted every time a moderator wants to ban somebody temporarily?
Bells in complaining that people didn't speak up for S.A.M and offer alternative proposals until it was too late. I observed that nobody sought out our advice in the first place. You don't give us the opportunity to have any say, and when we do have our say, you disregard whatever we say because it's 'too late'. Well golleeee...
Bells
Staff member
You seem to have forgotten that the ultimatum was given to her and proposed in the moderator's forum. In other words, regular posters were never to be asked for any input.
And before you start ranting about this.. this is what happens all the time in the mod forum. Things are discussed.. permanent ban proposals for members are discussed and sometimes, as in this case, a poll is created and all moderators and administrators are invited to respond/vote.. agree or disagree.
"Well golleeee".. I had assumed you had realised that when I discussed the vote and the proposal that was held in the moderator's forum, that the people I meant were the moderators, to whom it was given to.. I had assumed that was kind of obvious.
And I am not complaining. I am commenting on what actually happened. No one actually demanded that James not ban her for 1 month either. Not a single moderator. Hence my surprise at some who are now protesting vehemently about it and projecting it as if it was some kind of revenge.. when it was proposed in the initial OP in the mod forum... and it was ignored. It could have been discussed. The proposal for 1 month could have been discussed. But everyone ignored it until she was banned for 1 month. And then.. "AMG.. He did it out of spite because he lost the vote".. "blah blah".. "blah".. ermm sorry? The fact that for nearly 2 weeks no one (no moderator) even discussed it (the proposal that if she wasn't to be banned permanently, then she would face a 1 month ban), even though it was proposed in the first thread in the mod forum seems to have slipped people's memory. That is what pisses me off the most about all of this. That is what annoys me the most.
Last edited:
Mrs.Lucysnow
Valued Senior Member
No not controlled it she has made me indifferent. Big difference. My opinions are the same. I think the US should get out of Afghanistan but not because of the people there but because its not good for the West. I think the US should stop financially supporting Israel and no longer engage as a peace broker, not because of concern for the Palestinians but because its a waste of our money and a has us in a political quagmire. The biggest difference now for me is that I am more concerned for the West than muslim nations. She is concerned for muslim nations. What has changed is that I no longer take her seriously as I see her only concern for muslims. Before I also used to be concerned for muslims but no longer, she desensitized me. Now if that was the response she was looking for fine.
Not mind reading, its an opinion based on her style.
absolutely
when i see you express a positive sentiment towards sci's welfare and then embark on a series of actions that clearly do not contribute towards this forums well being, i am left with just one conclusion....you seek to deceive.
and no, incompetence is not an alternative explanation as some would have it
heh
all in good time, bucko
there is work to be done
pardon. my mistake. its even worse
The final vote was one in favor, three against, three declared abstentions, three declared "other", and broad non-participation. (tiassa)
just one for the permaban vote and i presume that to be james
so?
where do i make the assertion to the contrary?
crap
you are addressing me. your lack of rigor allows my interpretation quite easily
you deserve nothing more
a curt dismissal is entirely fitting as a response to your trollish garbage
sorry
ahh
i see how this works
we are not allowed to consider implications nor make logical inferences of presented statements to the best of our ability.
doing so, even mistakenly, would bring charges of libel upon oneself unless profuse apologies are offered
this is the new and improved sci that james wishes to foster upon us
grounding all discussion to a halt save.....
what did you mean by this?
what did you mean by that?
.....that.
devious and utterly retarded
so
know any good internet libel lawyers?
shall we invite to appraise situ?
Gustav your fooling yourself into thinking your opinion matters. The mods are generally going to continue to be lazy and take the easy road rather than fairly enforcing the rules. If that means banning someone because a lot of people are shrill in their complaints and can't stand being disagreed with so be it. True problem posters will be protected and those they cry and whine about will be the ones that get hit. Just adapt and wait for everything to go to shit. If we truely wanted to fix the problem getting rid of the mods for the entire philisosphy and world section plus the admins and replacing them with people who were consistent in modderating that would be a great start.
And so, it was for one month, rather than forever.
And yet, it remains your assumption about what i've said, rather than what I actually said.
Hmm, so, I see now. When Clueluss Husband lacks rigor, and I point it out, I'm at fault (and trolling). When you consider that I lack rigor, i'm at fault. Am I trolling? Am I responsible for all the evils of the world then?
So you're still here then?
- Status