A Possible Change In The Rules - RatSkep tangent

[Pensioner]

:I-love-pork:

[charlou]

[Gallstones]

Tell me, people from RatSskep, could this thread right here exist in your forum without the ban hammer or the thread-locked hammer falling?

Hmmmm?

Yes, and there's two of them right now.

Do you have any idea what you're talking about?

Hint: no.

[Gallstones]

And there has been unfair punitive treatment of Seth.

Bull-fucking-shite! He's a nasty abusive poster
*snip*
What a fucking load of shite.

He abuses other posters personally, not their arguments. There's a difference.

NineOneFour abuses posters personally, not their arguments. There is a difference--NineOneFour isn't sanctioned for it.

[Gallstones]

And there has been unfair punitive treatment of Seth.

Bull-fucking-shite! He's a nasty abusive poster who derails just about every thread he gets invovled in. He got banned from RD.net. He's about one warning away from being banned from RS.org. There's a pattern there, you know? To think that he is being unfairly targeted is the stuff of conspiracy theories. He gets warning after warning to change his posting style, and he refuses to do it. He's only got himself to blame. What a fucking load of shite.

I disagree.

Oh, go get yourself some Sethlove and leave the rest of us in peace.

[95Theses]

Tell me, people from RatSskep, could this thread right here exist in your forum without the ban hammer or the thread-locked hammer falling?

Hmmmm?

Yes, and there's two of them right now.

Do you have any idea what you're talking about?

Hint: no.

Could you be any more disingenuous at all?

That thread was briefly locked so that the discussion could be sorted out into appropriate threads, and there was a modnote inserted during the time it was locked saying exactly that. That thread is re opened and is still open.

If you have a point to make then make it, but trying to imply that that thread was locked down to stifle discussion is pure and utter bullshit, if you have to lie to make an argument should you really be making it in the first place?

According to the moderator logs it was shut for a total of one hour, during that hour there was a modnote as the last post saying 'Don't panic, just locked to make it easier to shift all the posts into the right threads, it will re open soon' and now has this modnote :


[quote="stijndeloose";p="417244"]                       

!!1!

NOTMOD Ok. All off-topic posts have been moved to the "Protect us from the Protectors" thread, which is a bit of a mixed salad of all things critical of the current moderation practices and policy anyway To make this a bit clearer: We have a thread discussing the locking of threads in the Feedback forum (this one); We have a thread about replacing public advisories and warnings with PMs here; We have a thread about group attacks and whether moderation should be less strict than it is now here. I'm going to ask this nicely one more time, ladies and gentlemen, boys and girls: this thread is about whether or not locking threads in the Feedback forum is rational and justified. Stick to the topic, will you? Thanks. Stijn. ETA: A couple of posts pointing out the derail have been removed, as they were no longer relevant. I'm sure you understand.

[/quote]

[Gallstones]

I think I remember seeing a thread over at RatSkep where they were discussing the merits of banning the term "teabagger" when referring to right wing cranks under the leadership of Glenn Beck.

Anyone care to share how that worked out?

You're kidding? That's crazy.

That was crazy. I don't know how it ended up, but virtually all of us on mass just ignored that rule, and as far as I know, no one else got pinged for it.

But there was still a rule against attacking a group that one can freely join or leave. I understand that it came from a more general rule against group attacks, which probably seemed like a good idea at the time.

This is how that came about.

The socialists and liberals were getting bent out of shape over Seth's comments about socialists and liberals. He was not attacking RDF persons, just those political groups because they are the bane of his existence. To keep everything copacetic and fair that meant that no political groups for which a member knowingly identified could be subject to negative comments as that would be considered an attack on said known members--as the socialists and liberals wanted it to be.

Therefore, I enforced that standard as requested and as discussed and decided on by a quorum of the staff.

Imagine my surprise when there were cries of "foul" when some were advised they could no longer post negative comments about libertarians or tea baggers.

Hang on a minute here, it was you as a mod that pushed for a rule to ban attacks on groups of people, it was you that suggested and then implemented the rule that 'You can attack ism's but not ist's'

It was you that insisted on being the one and only sole mod for P&CA (the busiest forum on the site) in fact so much so that when other mods were appointed to help you deal with the reports on that forum, and offset accusations that as the sole mod you were being biased towards certain people, you chucked the toys out of the pram and quit being a mod.

All of this is fair enough, but to now come over here and make posts about how terrible the moderation rules are when you pushed for and implemented the rule in the first place is more than a little disingenous I think. If you have changed your mind and you think the rule should be changed then by all means state that you have changed your mind and you think the rule should be rescinded, but please don't run about trying to cause drama elsewhere about how shit the moderation rules are.

You were not a part of any such rule decision so how would you know what went on in the ivory tower?
It all started way back in the first other place and imported to the next other place.

I haven't changed my mind on anything. The Socialists and Liberals where the ones who felt they were being personally attacked because they were self proclaimed members of the groups getting the criticism. OK, fine. I thought that was ridiculous but others wanted it to be policy, and so it became policy. I just took it from there. The problem now is--see the OP to this thread--that no groups can be criticized because there might be members of those groups on the site who would have their feelings hurt. It is so broad that it can encompass any damn thing and it is ridiculous. And I don't think, ultimately tenable.

Yes, I did insist on being the sole mod. Again you are ignorant of the history of that so you speculate.

You also continually misrepresent my reason for resigning. You weren't staff then, I did not tell you my reason. My reason was as I said it was. I don't choose to make that reason public because it is personal and private. Continuing to misrepresent my reason is dishonest. And since I didn't tell you, and it was relayed confidentially to those who were staff at the time--it is none of your business and most certainly none of your business to presume to broadcast to anyone else.

Please don't presume to tell me what I can and can not do, here or elsewhere.

[Gallstones]

Tell me, people from RatSskep, could this thread right here exist in your forum without the ban hammer or the thread-locked hammer falling?

Hmmmm?

Yes, and there's two of them right now.

Do you have any idea what you're talking about?

Hint: no.

Could you be any more disingenuous at all?

That thread was briefly locked so that the discussion could be sorted out into appropriate threads, and there was a modnote inserted during the time it was locked saying exactly that. That thread is re opened and is still open.

If you have a point to make then make it, but trying to imply that that thread was locked down to stifle discussion is pure and utter bullshit, if you have to lie to make an argument should you really be making it in the first place?

According to the moderator logs it was shut for a total of one hour, during that hour there was a modnote as the last post saying 'Don't panic, just locked to make it easier to shift all the posts into the right threads, it will re open soon' and now has this modnote :


[quote="stijndeloose";p="417244"]                       

!!1!

NOTMOD Ok. All off-topic posts have been moved to the "Protect us from the Protectors" thread, which is a bit of a mixed salad of all things critical of the current moderation practices and policy anyway To make this a bit clearer: We have a thread discussing the locking of threads in the Feedback forum (this one); We have a thread about replacing public advisories and warnings with PMs here; We have a thread about group attacks and whether moderation should be less strict than it is now here. I'm going to ask this nicely one more time, ladies and gentlemen, boys and girls: this thread is about whether or not locking threads in the Feedback forum is rational and justified. Stick to the topic, will you? Thanks. Stijn. ETA: A couple of posts pointing out the derail have been removed, as they were no longer relevant. I'm sure you understand.

[/quote]


Can you try to have a sense of humor and expand your vocabulary?

[95Theses]

Sure,

but i'm sure as hell going to point out when you are dishonestly representing facts to further your own twisted little agenda. Like you just did trying to post a pic of a thread that was locked for an hour for tidy up as being locked to stifle dissent, and it can't have been an 'honest' mistake because there was a mod note in place saying 'Don't panic, only shut briefly to put posts in the relevant threads'

That is plain flat our lying.

[Gallstones]

Sure,

but i'm sure as hell going to point out when you are dishonestly representing facts to further your own twisted little agenda. Like you just did trying to post a pic of a thread that was locked for an hour for tidy up as being locked to stifle dissent, and it can't have been an 'honest' mistake because there was a mod note in place saying 'Don't panic, only shut briefly to put posts in the relevant threads'

That is plain flat our lying.

It's humor.

I didn't take that screen shot, it was sent to me by someone else. As a joke.



Can I know what my twisted agenda is?
I'm dying to know.

[95Theses]

No.

I'm having as little to do with you as possible, as long as we are all clear that the thread wasn't locked for censorship and is still open and available to comment that's all the dramaz you are going to extract from me I'm afraid.

[ozewiezeloose]

To be completely honest, it was locked for exactly 1 hour and 20 minutes. The thread had 'suffered' a major derail, and over 40 posts needed to be moved to another thread in the feedback forum. Apart from three posts (including a modnote) pointing to the derail, and thus rendered irrelevant after the merge, no posts were removed.

EDIT: The reason why it took 1 hour and 20 minutes is that the forum isn't all I do all the time. Real life matters distracted yours truly a couple of times. If that caused anyone any serious trouble, I apologize.

[Gallstones]

I'm done. I have nothing left to say.

[ozewiezeloose]

Fair enough.

[Trolldor]

Ateist/agnostics vs tribal bullshittists? Remember that?

Why, if we have criticisms, does that automatically equate to being 'better'?

Please. Note the tone of the foregoing discussion. This is holier-than-thou bullshit indistinguishable from that our theist brethren indulge in.

Uh..huh.

The tone of the foregoing discussion seems pretty standard for the whiney internet atheists that this community was on RDF all those years ago. Secondly, there's deep irony in the this phrase:

This is holier-than-thou bullshit indistinguishable from that our theist brethren indulge in.