Moderators

[Anonymous]

This made me lol. Bravo.

Of course as usual I think you (and others like Berzin upthread) overplay the "troll" logic, and agree with Francois that people with different opinions should not be considered trolls per se. That is a position I have long taken. For example, I really do disagree with some of the things posted in this forum, so it is not a contrived disagreement to stir stuff up. Flicker has been so consistent for so long he has to believe what he says. Does that make him a troll because of that? I'm not sure about Polish, I admit....I found BPC funny though, mainly because of the wad you guys would get wound up in "debating" him.

Oh.....Hugh I disagree with alot of your titles of the various members in the previous post.

My question on the troll thing is: Do you ever post anything of substance in any other thread, or do you just bait? Fortunately, there appear to be some mods who follow this paradigm. Others don't. BPC was nothing but disruptive. He wasn't amusing. He was a pure troll. In fact, he wasn't just a troll here, he was a troll on many forums involving a myriad of topics. His whole reason for existence is to disrupt threads anywhere he can. You may admire that, but I don't because I like to be able to read a thread without having to wade through pages of posts meant only to disrupt for disruption's sake.

And if my description made you laugh, you should have seen the actual post. Quite honestly, I think it was one of my finest. The picture *** edited by mod *** was something to behold. It was my piece de resistance.

 

[JeffreyPerry]

Susan Westemeyer
Administrator

MacRoadie
Senior Member

cat6cx
Junior Member

palmerq
Moderator

Race Radio
Inner Circle Conduit

ChrisE
Contrarian

Thoughtforfood
Forum Hit Man

Polish
Official Forum Troll

flicker
Logic Suspension Device

Hugh Januss
Member at Large



Perhaps all we need is a wider range of titles, so that everyone can go about their various forum jobs without the constant specter of the ban hanging over them. As long as it is understood what their jobs are new members would find it easier to follow along.

THIS POST SHOULD BE A STICKY--Mandatory reading for new members.

 

[ChrisE]

My question on the troll thing is: Do you ever post anything of substance in any other thread, or do you just bait? Fortunately, there appear to be some mods who follow this paradigm. Others don't. BPC was nothing but disruptive. He wasn't amusing. He was a pure troll. In fact, he wasn't just a troll here, he was a troll on many forums involving a myriad of topics. His whole reason for existence is to disrupt threads anywhere he can. You may admire that, but I don't because I like to be able to read a thread without having to wade through pages of posts meant only to disrupt for disruption's sake.

And if my description made you laugh, you should have seen the actual post. Quite honestly, I think it was one of my finest. The picture *** edited by mod *** was something to behold. It was my piece de resistance.

Not sure if you are directing the bold at me, but I assume you are talking in general about a "you" that could be considered a troll. The thing I have seen around here is "troll" is many times used to describe people one doesn't agree with as a lazy way out of defending their position. OK, so their position has been stated many times so what fun is an echo chamber? You would like to read a thread where everybody agrees with you? If I jump into a thread and disagree am I a troll?

I for one welcome it if the mods are taking a different approach, and they look to be more even handed with the suspensions as well (hi python ). I am against all suspensions except the most egregious as I am sure you would know, but if people are being banned it should be equal across the board and if opinions are gonna be tolerated it should be equal, no matter what side of the fence one is on. "Troll" seems to be somebody that has a different opinion than the majority in here, and that is not a debating method I prescribe to. You're in law school and seem to be pretty liberal, so I am not quite sure why you feel like you do in a general sense in terms of how to handle people you disagree with.

We have different opinions about BPC's "contributions". I did agree with some of his posts, others I did not. So what? I don't give a rat's &% if anybody agrees with me or not, or what people think of me outside of circumstances that directly effect me. Forums do not. You have the power to determine how others effect you, but he had power over alot of you emotionally and that is pretty funny. So does Polish and flicker. The BPC fallout is what I enjoyed. I found him humurous because of the reasons I listed, which still gets under your skin. That is my point, and I am smiling as I write this.

Now, enough of this phylisophical social interaction crap; it's making my head hurt. I will pm you my email address. Send me that picture.

 

[Anonymous]

Not sure if you are directing the bold at me, but I assume you are talking in general about a "you" that could be considered a troll. The thing I have seen around here is "troll" is many times used to describe people one doesn't agree with as a lazy way out of defending their position. OK, so their position has been stated many times so what fun is an echo chamber? You would like to read a thread where everybody agrees with you? If I jump into a thread and disagree am I a troll?

I for one welcome it if the mods are taking a different approach, and they look to be more even handed with the suspensions as well (hi python ). I am against all suspensions except the most egregious as I am sure you would know, but if people are being banned it should be equal across the board and if opinions are gonna be tolerated it should be equal, no matter what side of the fence one is on. "Troll" seems to be somebody that has a different opinion than the majority in here, and that is not a debating method I prescribe to. You're in law school and seem to be pretty liberal, so I am not quite sure why you feel like you do in a general sense in terms of how to handle people you disagree with.

We have different opinions about BPC's "contributions". I did agree with some of his posts, others I did not. So what? I don't give a rat's &% if anybody agrees with me or not, or what people think of me outside of circumstances that directly effect me. Forums do not. You have the power to determine how others effect you, but he had power over alot of you emotionally and that is pretty funny. So does Polish and flicker. The BPC fallout is what I enjoyed. I found him humurous because of the reasons I listed, which still gets under your skin. That is my point, and I am smiling as I write this.

Now, enough of this phylisophical social interaction crap; it's making my head hurt. I will pm you my email address. Send me that picture.

I wasn't, and wondered if I was clear enough about that.

 

[Anonymous]

Not sure if you are directing the bold at me, but I assume you are talking in general about a "you" that could be considered a troll. The thing I have seen around here is "troll" is many times used to describe people one doesn't agree with as a lazy way out of defending their position. OK, so their position has been stated many times so what fun is an echo chamber? You would like to read a thread where everybody agrees with you? If I jump into a thread and disagree am I a troll?

I for one welcome it if the mods are taking a different approach, and they look to be more even handed with the suspensions as well (hi python ). I am against all suspensions except the most egregious as I am sure you would know, but if people are being banned it should be equal across the board and if opinions are gonna be tolerated it should be equal, no matter what side of the fence one is on. "Troll" seems to be somebody that has a different opinion than the majority in here, and that is not a debating method I prescribe to. You're in law school and seem to be pretty liberal, so I am not quite sure why you feel like you do in a general sense in terms of how to handle people you disagree with.

We have different opinions about BPC's "contributions". I did agree with some of his posts, others I did not. So what? I don't give a rat's &% if anybody agrees with me or not, or what people think of me outside of circumstances that directly effect me. Forums do not. You have the power to determine how others effect you, but he had power over alot of you emotionally and that is pretty funny. So does Polish and flicker. The BPC fallout is what I enjoyed. I found him humurous because of the reasons I listed, which still gets under your skin. That is my point, and I am smiling as I write this.

Now, enough of this phylisophical social interaction crap; it's making my head hurt. I will pm you my email address. Send me that picture.

The part I smile about is the fact that I was able to get under his to a greater extent than he gets under mine. See, I still get to post here. Freely. Heck, I even admit trolling sometimes, and yet he cannot post. In fact, it bothers him so badly that he began emailing his posts to my personal email account because he wanted me to read the ones that were directed specifically at me before they were deleted. I don't engage the dude at all. All I ever do is point out his posts and flag them because I like to see them deleted. The hate makes me feel all warm inside.

 

[Francois the Postman]

I want to note that, contrary to Francois' assertion that I broke the rules, the pictures I posted contained ONLY animals. If there had been humans and animals, then I would have broken the rules. As such, the last ban was complete bull****. Sorry Francois doesn't understand the difference between the two. What I posted was funny as hell. What Francois did was his typical over reaction. He seems to over moderate sometimes, and that was one of those times.

I will pull your protestation away from the general line against trolling, if you don't mind, as your week suspension had nothing to do with the trolling issue at all. It was purely for a single post by you that hotlinked to several inappropriate images. It is your choice of images that drew my attention, nothing else.

And yes, I do understand the difference between the two, and no, they didn't even come anywhere near to offending me personally. I personally find it hard to attach the word obscene to many things people and animals get up to, but I don't pretend not to know what is probably considered to be obscene to the general perception out there, which is what defines what is obscene, and isn't, as it is subjective in essence. You also might want to look up the word obscene if you think it needs to involve the presence of human beings, before it possibly can be so.

Counter question: do you understand the difference between your choices in your own life or in places where you set the rules, and what you do here?

I am totally mystified you even think that the pictures you hotlinked to were appropriate for this site. I would seriously suggest to think harder before you post, in that case. You are clever enough to know that "funny" and "obscene" are highly subjective for starters, and the only subject that matters in this question here is CN.

I considered how appropriate your pictures were here, and considered them to be well beyond acceptable. [And also falling under the "generally jarring" that is briefly referred to under pictures, if you cannot get the general drift without having it spelled out to the letter, Geneva Convention style]. In another place, in another role, I would have reacted differently. But that isn't the point. It was unacceptable here, and you should have picked that up by now.

If you don't trust my judgement or this, or that of the mods that have also seen the post in question, feel free to draw CN's attention to the post in question, and see how they respond to it. I will be the first to say sorry if I got it wrong. If I was you, I wouldn't try it, and that is friendly advise. I suspect my week will be seen as on the lenient side, to be honest. I certainly took your overall posting contributions here into account, which gave you more leniency than I would have extended to some others, if they had made the same post. For starters.

We are not just lenient in one direction, but I take it is harder to see that if you have just been slapped on the wrist and you feel aggrieved.

As for the general "trolling" issue, since that is still being debated in the staff room, I will refrain from commenting on it much until we have brought that to a conclusion.

In the meantime, and although I don't recognize my actual posts in the characterization you gave, nor the time-line, nor its overall effect, nor the base assumption that things were ticking along swell when I made it (and why I made - on behalf of all mods btw).

But if you genuinely feel I was the worst choice for mod ever, feel free to take it up with the powers that be, and argue your case.

 

[ChrisE]

The part I smile about is the fact that I was able to get under his to a greater extent than he gets under mine. See, I still get to post here. Freely. Heck, I even admit trolling sometimes, and yet he cannot post. In fact, it bothers him so badly that he began emailing his posts to my personal email account because he wanted me to read the ones that were directed specifically at me before they were deleted. I don't engage the dude at all. All I ever do is point out his posts and flag them because I like to see them deleted. The hate makes me feel all warm inside.

Yeah, you still get to post here and that is part of the problem. Thanks for illustrating the basic issue.

Not that you get to post here being the problem, but the fact others can no longer post here that have a different opinion, ie "trolls" or other opinions that have a shorter leash when "rules" are enforced. "Troll" is not a universally accepted definition here, and that in the past effected the punishment doled out on this forum.

I will concede the fact that BPC may have been just a troll to stir things up to prove a point using you and me as an example.

You have alot more posts than me. If we extrapolated my post count up to yours, and then we summarized the amount of insults we hurled in our posts, I will bet my 401k that the insulting posts that you post that violate the forum rules far outnumber my insulting posts that do the same thing. By a long shot. As another example look at the leash buckwheat had. He was way in double digits with the deleted posts by mod in the JV thread alone. It took him to attack somebody on twitter to get banned.

So, why have I been banned 3 and 6 months on different occasions, with minor bans scattered in since I joined the forum, vs the amount of days you have been banned?

We are the perfect example of the problem in this forum in the past, which jives with my support for Francois' position. Only because it is more evenhanded, not because I support bans.

I made this point a year or so ago way earlier in this thread, and was told by the mods there was no bias whatsoever in handing out bans in reference to the opinion of the poster.

I called bs then, and that is plain to see just by comparing you to me. Anybody that denies uneven treatment in this forum in the past depending on the opinion of the poster has no credibility.

I support more evenhandedness and Francois' position. Maybe the next time I fly too close to the GL god sun, or call out the LA pitchfork crowd when they are falling into the psycho ditch, my wings won't melt off per Franois' new evenhanded approach.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Yeah, you still get to post here and that is part of the problem. Thanks for illustrating the basic issue.

Not that you get to post here being the problem, but the fact others can no longer post here that have a different opinion, ie "trolls" or other opinions that have a shorter leash when "rules" are enforced. "Troll" is not a universally accepted definition here, and that in the past effected the punishment doled out on this forum.

I will concede the fact that BPC may have been just a troll to stir things up to prove a point using you and me as an example.

You have alot more posts than me. If we extrapolated my post count up to yours, and then we summarized the amount of insults we hurled in our posts, I will bet my 401k that the insulting posts that you post that violate the forum rules far outnumber my insulting posts that do the same thing. By a long shot. As another example look at the leash buckwheat had. He was way in double digits with the deleted posts by mod in the JV thread alone. It took him to attack somebody on twitter to get banned.

So, why have I been banned 3 and 6 months on different occasions, with minor bans scattered in since I joined the forum, vs the amount of days you have been banned?

We are the perfect example of the problem in this forum in the past, which jives with my support for Francois' position. Only because it is more evenhanded, not because I support bans.

I made this point a year or so ago way earlier in this thread, and was told by the mods there was no bias whatsoever in handing out bans in reference to the opinion of the poster.

I called bs then, and that is plain to see just by comparing you to me. Anybody that denies uneven treatment in this forum in the past depending on the opinion of the poster has no credibility.

I support more evenhandedness and Francois' position. Maybe the next time I fly too close to the GL god sun, or call out the LA pitchfork crowd when they are falling into the psycho ditch, my wings won't melt off per Franois' new evenhanded approach.

Well actually isn't part of your problem that you continue to suggest there are sides and that one side is favored?

As an aside - is that just trolling? ie bringing in an argument that does not exist to provoke a response.

You mention BPC - which was an extreme case - but they were allowed post for quite some time as 'Eyjafjallajokull' even though they were identified very early.

Also when you make this remark - "Anybody that denies uneven treatment in this forum in the past depending on the opinion of the poster has no credibility" - not only is that petty, it is incorrect.
Long before you joined there were many people banned for (IMO) petty things, what made their situation worse was that they were hit with permanent bans.
Moreso - many of those would have been Armstrong detractors and even thought fondly of GL.

 

[Anonymous]

I will pull your protestation away from the general line against trolling, if you don't mind, as your week suspension had nothing to do with the trolling issue at all. It was purely for a single post by you that hotlinked to several inappropriate images. It is your choice of images that drew my attention, nothing else.

And yes, I do understand the difference between the two, and no, they didn't even come anywhere near to offending me personally. I personally find it hard to attach the word obscene to many things people and animals get up to, but I don't pretend not to know what is probably considered to be obscene to the general perception out there, which is what defines what is obscene, and isn't, as it is subjective in essence. You also might want to look up the word obscene if you think it needs to involve the presence of human beings, before it possibly can be so.

Counter question: do you understand the difference between your choices in your own life or in places where you set the rules, and what you do here?

Sure, but that doesn't change abject reality. Those animal pictures were not obscene by definition. In fact, it is impossible for them to be "obscene" unless you relate "morality" to animal behavior. I don't, and neither does anyone else with an understanding of animals and morality, but hey, make it "subjective" if that is what you need to justify your position. I will stick with reality.

I am totally mystified you even think that the pictures you hotlinked to were appropriate for this site. I would seriously suggest to think harder before you post, in that case. You are clever enough to know that "funny" and "obscene" are highly subjective for starters, and the only subject that matters in this question here is CN.

See the definition above and then explain to me how it is what you suggest. In fact, find me a relevant definition that supports your position. I'd like to see it.

I considered how appropriate your pictures were here, and considered them to be well beyond acceptable. [And also falling under the "generally jarring" that is briefly referred to under pictures, if you cannot get the general drift without having it spelled out to the letter, Geneva Convention style]. In another place, in another role, I would have reacted differently. But that isn't the point. It was unacceptable here, and you should have picked that up by now.

If you find animal behavior "generally jarring," you have lived a sheltered life.

If you don't trust my judgement or this, or that of the mods that have also seen the post in question, feel free to draw CN's attention to the post in question, and see how they respond to it.

My whole point was their reaction to it. I find it disgusting that they would use a program to take my words and use them for advertisement. I find that much more disgusting than the pictures that I linked (not posted). That was the social commentary inherent in my post. It wasn't about looking at animal sexual acts. That was not the point at all. In fact, if they are "journalists" I would expect they would understand.

I will be the first to say sorry if I got it wrong. If I was you, I wouldn't try it, and that is friendly advise. I suspect my week will be seen as on the lenient side, to be honest. I certainly took your overall posting contributions here into account, which gave you more leniency than I would have extended to some others, if they had made the same post. For starters.

We are not just lenient in one direction, but I take it is harder to see that if you have just been slapped on the wrist and you feel aggrieved.

I can count the times I have complained about being banned (and I have been banned more times than I can count). Twice. Yep, that's right, TWO times. The other times, I agreed completely with the ban. I have never shied away from taking my medicine.

As for the general "trolling" issue, since that is still being debated in the staff room, I will refrain from commenting on it much until we have brought that to a conclusion.

In the meantime, and although I don't recognize my actual posts in the characterization you gave, nor the time-line, nor its overall effect, nor the base assumption that things were ticking along swell when I made it (and why I made - on behalf of all mods btw).

But if you genuinely feel I was the worst choice for mod ever, feel free to take it up with the powers that be, and argue your case.

Maybe the "worst decision" comment was hyperbole made in a moment of anger. I will grant you that. The worst decision was to allow skimwords. That being said, I actually appreciate your candor here. We definitely disagree, and honestly, I am less angry after reading this. I cannot say the same for the PM Martin sent, as it was different in character, but hey, everyone is not the same. I realize that I am a **** hair from being permanently banned. Martin made that clear. There is nothing I can do to change that. I am who I am, and will always post things even I think I deserve a vacation for. I do not however feel I deserve a permanent ban, but if that is where I am, that is where I am. I like posting here, and DO recognize the difference between this and my personal life. I just disagree VEHAMENTLY about the post in question. I wish I could see it again, as it was a great post that intimated opinions I have clearly and creatively.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Susan Westemeyer
Administrator

MacRoadie
Senior Member

cat6cx
Junior Member

palmerq
Moderator

Race Radio
Inner Circle Conduit

ChrisE
Contrarian

Thoughtforfood
Forum Hit Man

Polish
Official Forum Troll

flicker
Logic Suspension Device

Hugh Januss
Member at Large



Perhaps all we need is a wider range of titles, so that everyone can go about their various forum jobs without the constant specter of the ban hanging over them. As long as it is understood what their jobs are new members would find it easier to follow along.

I am really disappointed with this list.

 

[ChrisE]

Well actually isn't part of your problem that you continue to suggest there are sides and that one side is favored?
.

*snip other off topic irrelevant blah blah*

Problem with verb tense? We will see how things are now.

I can see it is obvious you have nothing to add to the comparison to TFF and myself. I don't blame you...it is a no winner for you.

Don't feel compelled to divert the topic with your typical tactics that are no more refined than they were 6 months ago. That is what happens when all the trolls are banned and the regular denizens lose their debating edge due to lack of practice.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Well actually isn't part of your problem that you continue to suggest there are sides and that one side is favored?

As an aside - is that just trolling? ie bringing in an argument that does not exist to provoke a response.

You mention BPC - which was an extreme case - but they were allowed post for quite some time as 'Eyjafjallajokull' even though they were identified very early.

Also when you make this remark - "Anybody that denies uneven treatment in this forum in the past depending on the opinion of the poster has no credibility" - not only is that petty, it is incorrect.
Long before you joined there were many people banned for (IMO) petty things, what made their situation worse was that they were hit with permanent bans.
Moreso - many of those would have been Armstrong detractors and even thought fondly of GL.

In the time honored tradition ........... I am going to ask just like you do in the clinic and maybe you was waiting for this but errrrrrrrrr here it goes. Can you give me a link to those "many people banned" for petty things?
Just asking Dr.

 

[Anonymous]

I am a person who loves the writings of Jim Carroll, Charles Bukowski, Hunter S. Thompson, Palahniuk, and comedians like Lenny Bruce, and many others. My sense of propriety and how I express my social commentary were shaped by reading them at an early age. Does that make me caustic? Sure. But in this case, I specifically chose those pictures for calculated reasons that had nothing to do with expressing obscenity (because they aren't). I wanted to contrast something that is perceived as obscene and isn't with something that, on a moral level, I find much more obscene. I hate having to explain my jokes, but I was that calculated about that post. You didn't appreciate it, fine. I find the ban however ridiculous, and always will.

 

[Race Radio]

In the time honored tradition ........... I am going to ask just like you do in the clinic and maybe you was waiting for this but errrrrrrrrr here it goes. Can you give me a link to those "many people banned" for petty things?
Just asking Dr.

Where is that Bro Deal Guy?....I have lost count of the number of times TFF has been banned. The guy who lost it on JV...well, you get the picture.

I see only 3 repeat trolls that get banned that are groupies. BPC, The Spartacus guy and the CarbonCrank guy who threaten to rape TFF wife.

Personally I appreciate a little comedy now and then....but when the only contribution is the same babble with the sole goal of disruption it adds no value to the discussion.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Where is that Bro Deal Guy?....I have lost count of the number of times TFF has been banned. The guy who lost it on JV...well, you get the picture.

I see only 3 repeat trolls that get banned that are groupies. BPC, The Spartacus guy and the CarbonCrank guy who threaten to rape TFF wife.

No Race he said "before" ChrisE joined. I Know the current status it is easy to know the score now. What of all these numerous members who were banned before that?

I must have missed the CarbonCrank rape post? I do not doubt it but I personally would never say something like that. That is going very personal and I am glad he was banned forever if he made such a post.

 

[Cal_Joe]

I am a person who loves the writings of Jim Carroll, Charles Bukowski, Hunter S. Thompson, Palahniuk, and comedians like Lenny Bruce, and many others. My sense of propriety and how I express my social commentary were shaped by reading them at an early age. Does that make me caustic? Sure. But in this case, I specifically chose those pictures for calculated reasons that had nothing to do with expressing obscenity (because they aren't). I wanted to contrast something that is perceived as obscene and isn't with something that, on a moral level, I find much more obscene. I hate having to explain my jokes, but I was that calculated about that post. You didn't appreciate it, fine. I find the ban however ridiculous, and always will.

Before this idiocy proceeds any further, a few facts. For those of you who did not see it, the post that resulted in the most recent TFF banning had a hyperlink labeled "CN Staff" - that link was to a picture of a chimpanzee involved in an act of sexual self gratification.

Was that a a violation of the forum posting rules? I'll let you decide.

Was that a deliberate poke in the eye to CN staff? I'll let you decide.

The ban, according to the official post was "for confusing criticism and/or being funny with breaking several rules and general indecency."

First year law students can probably write several hundred pages on definitions of obscenity as decided over the last few decades by courts, all of which do not appear to have anything to do with the banning.

Some students would be better served by addressing their ban in terms of the forum rules rather than their personal philosophy regarding sexed up chimps and their personal definition of obscenity.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Problem with verb tense? We will see how things are now.

I can see it is obvious you have nothing to add to the comparison to TFF and myself. I don't blame you...it is a no winner for you.

Don't feel compelled to divert the topic with your typical tactics that are no more refined than they were 6 months ago. That is what happens when all the trolls are banned and the regular denizens lose their debating edge due to lack of practice.

Ok - I brought up a point which you haven't addressed. Instead you do you're time honored role of trying to make it personal.
Have at it - because you won't last long and its not because you are on a side, its because you troll.

In the time honored tradition ........... I am going to ask just like you do in the clinic and maybe you was waiting for this but errrrrrrrrr here it goes. Can you give me a link to those "many people banned" for petty things?
Just asking Dr.

And in the time honored tradition GW I have no problem helping except that as it was almost 2 years ago, so, I don't remember many of the names.

Maybe others will chime in but off the top of my head there was Nearly, Iceaxe and Turd Ferguson, there was also someone with Cipolini avatar

 

[AussieGoddess]

Before this idiocy proceeds any further, a few facts. For those of you who did not see it, the post that resulted in the most recent TFF banning had a hyperlink labeled "CN Staff" - that link was to a picture of a chimpanzee involved in an act of sexual self gratification.

Was that a a violation of the forum posting rules? I'll let you decide.

Was that a deliberate poke in the eye to CN staff? I'll let you decide.

The ban, according to the official post was "for confusing criticism and/or being funny with breaking several rules and general indecency."

First year law students can probably write several hundred pages on definitions of obscenity as decided over the last few decades by courts, all of which do not appear to have anything to do with the banning.

Some students would be better served by addressing their ban in terms of the forum rules rather than their personal philosophy regarding sexed up chimps and their personal definition of obscenity.

Seriously? and TFF You are arguing that that kind of post DOESNT deserve a ban ?????

Even if you dont think its obscene .... its certainly offensive and rude

At the end of the day, the mods moderate ATTITUDE. If you post politely, rationally and address the actual issue ... your post is likely to stay. If you are rude, nasty, insulting or offensive - its likely to be deleted. If you consistantly post rude, nasty insulting or offensive, or consistently off topic, you are likely to get a forced vacation. Its not rocket science ....

I just dont understand the constant whinge about this stuff. I moderate a forum made up primarily of women and dont get this amount of whininess from them .....

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Ok - I brought up a point which you haven't addressed. Instead you do you're time honored role of trying to make it personal.
Have at it - because you won't last long and its not because you are on a side, its because you troll.


And in the time honored tradition GW I have no problem helping except that as it was almost 2 years ago, so, I don't remember many of the names.

Maybe others will chime in but off the top of my head there was Nearly, Iceaxe and Turd Ferguson, there was also someone with Cipolini avatar

I understand.

I knew you would not be able to come up with a full list of names. I just thought it would be interesting to see the answer. I see you had a few that were your friendly posters that would be just off the top of you're head.

I am sure there are others as I am not in the most favored group around here at the CN forums.

 

[Cal_Joe]

Seriously? and TFF You are arguing that that kind of post DOESNT deserve a ban ?????

Even if you dont think its obscene .... its certainly offensive and rude

At the end of the day, the mods moderate ATTITUDE. If you post politely, rationally and address the actual issue ... your post is likely to stay. If you are rude, nasty, insulting or offensive - its likely to be deleted. If you consistantly post rude, nasty insulting or offensive, or consistently off topic, you are likely to get a forced vacation. Its not rocket science ....

I just dont understand the constant whinge about this stuff. I moderate a forum made up primarily of women and dont get this amount of whininess from them .....

Yes, seriously. Kind of surprised that TFF didn't volunteer that info.

 

[patricknd]

Ok - I brought up a point which you haven't addressed. Instead you do you're time honored role of trying to make it personal.
Have at it - because you won't last long and its not because you are on a side, its because you troll.


And in the time honored tradition GW I have no problem helping except that as it was almost 2 years ago, so, I don't remember many of the names.

Maybe others will chime in but off the top of my head there was Nearly, Iceaxe and Turd Ferguson, there was also someone with Cipolini avatar

Don't remember? hmmm..........might want to be careful with those claims, doc.

And may I say that other than banning me for no good reason, the mods do an outf#%*ingstanding job here. Go get 'em Mr. Postman!!!!!

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Don't remember? hmmm..........might want to be careful with those claim, doc.

And may I say that other than banning me for no good reason, the mods do an outf#%*ingstanding job here. Go get 'em Mr. Postman!!!!!

Yes - I said I don't remember many of their names - it doesn't mean I don't remember many posters getting permanently banned.

I have no problem standing by what I said.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Ok - I brought up a point which you haven't addressed. Instead you do you're time honored role of trying to make it personal.
Have at it - because you won't last long and its not because you are on a side, its because you troll.


And in the time honored tradition GW I have no problem helping except that as it was almost 2 years ago, so, I don't remember many of the names.

Maybe others will chime in but off the top of my head there was Nearly, Iceaxe and Turd Ferguson, there was also someone with Cipolini avatar

I am surprised you can make these types of threats and labeling.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Yes - I said I don't remember many of their names - it doesn't mean I don't remember many posters getting permanently banned.

I have no problem standing by what I said.

I respect this type of answer. I actually believe you (which I am sure you could care less) when you say many of the Armstrong detractors were banned.

I honestly was not even questioning it. I was and I THINK YOU KNOW what I was doing......was trying to point out how you will jump all over anyone with ...."give me a link" or "show me some posts" requests if they try and go against the "logical consensus". That is the end of debate and all it becomes is a non stop "shaking each others hands" aka circle........Jer!!.....

 

[Dr. Maserati]

I am surprised you can make these types of threats and labeling.

Its not a threat, its an observation and its pretty easy to make.
ChrisE is right back to doing what they do and thats why they got banned before.