Moderators

[Martin318is]

you are comparing an image that nobody complained about - at least until you realised it might be a way to antagonise D_T - with your ongoing dragging of him into threads that dont involve him and insulting him whether he is in the conversation or not.

sounds more like sancho panza

 

[boomcie]

you are comparing an image that nobody complained about - at least until you realised it might be a way to antagonise D_T - with your ongoing dragging of him into threads that dont involve him and insulting him whether he is in the conversation or not.

sounds more like sancho panza

Avatar remains inappropriate. Everything else is irrelevant.

 

[Stingray34]

I'm thinking of changing my avatar and thought I might vet it here first: a bum with a fist coming out of it.

Kinda sums up how I feel about things in general.

Whadda ya reckon, yay or nay?

 

[kielbasa]

Please be aware that attempting to mob a forum user will not be tolerated.

Susan

I'm pretty sure Scott Socal gets mobbed in all political threads. It's OK though, 'cause he's kicking their behinds all the same.

 

[Susan Westemeyer]

I'm tempted to say that anyone who discusses politics publicly deserves what they get........

But that is no doubt the two glasses of wine speaking.

Susan

 

[Susan Westemeyer]

Avatar remains inappropriate.

Only in your opinion. The mods have ruled otherwise.

Susan

 

[ElChingon]

Only in your opinion. The mods have ruled otherwise.

Susan

You know you're opening a can of worms right? You yourself have a list of certain images which only offend you and they are removed... but no one else can have that option...

 

[Dr. Maserati]

I'd never even seen Boeing's avatar. But yes, naturally by extension it would have to go. I'll be Don Quixote if I have to.

Both avatars are offensive because they show a person making an offensive gesture. It's not even relevant whether they are offensive to me personally or not. It's all about double standards. Martin sent me a pm stating that the avatar(s) can remain as they are, because the mods have not received a complaint about them for long time. I say that is total bull. Tifosi didn't complain about my behavior for months either, don't see how that somehow makes it any less offensive.

@Havetts. Sorry Bro if i bother you, but I don't see how you are forced to read my posts here.

Signed,
The Don Quixote of double standards.

Here is Dictionary.coms reference for the word 'Offensive':

1. causing resentful displeasure; highly irritating, angering, or annoying: offensive television commercials.
2. unpleasant or disagreeable to the sense: an offensive odor.
3. repugnant to the moral sense, good taste, or the like; insulting: an offensive remark; an offensive joke.
4. pertaining to offense or attack: the offensive movements of their troops.
5. characterized by attack; aggressive: offensive warfare.

In my view nothing neither Avatar fits the word offensive - indeed, not only is that my view, it is the Mods view and even you don't appear to find them offensive.
Who are you attempting to moderate avatars for?

Also - when was the first time you highlighted these offensive avatars to the Mods?

 

[thirteen]

I'm tempted to say that anyone who discusses politics publicly deserves what they get........

But that is no doubt the two glasses of wine speaking.

Susan

it's saturday... i recommend a third

 

[boomcie]

Here is Dictionary.coms reference for the word 'Offensive':

In my view nothing neither Avatar fits the word offensive - indeed, not only is that my view, it is the Mods view and even you don't appear to find them offensive.
Who are you attempting to moderate avatars for?

Also - when was the first time you highlighted these offensive avatars to the Mods?

Lol, aspirations as a mod?

I'd say number 1, 2 and especially 3 are fit. Thanks for the reference doc.

This whole travesty kinda undermines the credibility of the mods. You guys should follow the rules first and then enforce them. I personally feel like there is some abuse of power going on here. No form of appeal is possible either. What ElChingon said is tragically true.

Now please don't silence me for being critical.

 

[usedtobefast]

The mods have discussed the matter and decided that the two existing avatars as described will be allowed to remain.

Susan

good for you!

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Lol, aspirations as a mod?

I'd say number 1, 2 and especially 3 are fit. Thanks for the reference doc.

This whole travesty kinda undermines the credibility of the mods. You guys should follow the rules first and then enforce them. I personally feel like there is some abuse of power going on here. No form of appeal is possible either. What ElChingon said is tragically true.

Now please don't silence me for being critical.

Don't worry - far from silencing you I would be very interested in you explaining why 1, 2 & 3 fit?

Also - you didn't answer my question - when was the first time you highlighted these offensive avatars to the Mods?

 

[boomcie]

Don't worry - far from silencing you I would be very interested in you explaining why 1, 2 & 3 fit?

Also - you didn't answer my question - when was the first time you highlighted these offensive avatars to the Mods?

I'm sorry doc. I reported it moments before Susan banned me.

To me, Thomas Dekker (or anyone else for that matter) flipping the bird is:
1. Highly irritating
2. Unpleasant
3. repugnant to the moral sense

Is that so hard to grasp?

 

[Dr. Maserati]

I'm sorry doc. I reported it moments before Susan banned me.

To me, Thomas Dekker (or anyone else for that matter) flipping the bird is:
1. Highly irritating
2. Unpleasant
3. repugnant to the moral sense

Is that so hard to grasp?

I think I am grasping it fine, thanks.
You reported it moments before you were banned - or to put it another way, after you had already received an infraction for insulting the same member.

If flipping the bird to you is "highly irritating, unpleasant, repugnant to the moral sense" and caused so much offense why did it take you so long to report it as both had their respective avatars long before that.

 

[boomcie]

I think I am grasping it fine, thanks.
You reported it moments before you were banned - or to put it another way, after you had already received an infraction for insulting the same member.

If flipping the bird to you is "highly irritating, unpleasant, repugnant to the moral sense" and caused so much offense why did it take you so long to report it as both had their respective avatars long before that.

Why did it take the member in question so long to report my behavior? Same thing. Maybe, like he got fed up with my 'insults', I got fed up with the avatar.

By the way, i seized insulting him after receiving my first infraction from palmerQ, but got banned for an insult i had also made before I had received my first infraction. Hardly fair, but I can understand the mix-up.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Why did it take the member in question so long to report my behavior? Same thing. Maybe, like he got fed up with my 'insults', I got fed up with the avatar.

Same thing?? Hardly - their avatar appears to have caused you great distress - "highly irritating, unpleasant, repugnant to the moral sense" - yet it took you some time to report it - sounds more like tit for tat.


Also, how do you know that you were reported?
Perhaps the Mods spotted one of these insulting posts and gave you the appropriate warning?

By the way, i seized insulting him after receiving my first infraction from palmerQ, but got banned for an insult i had also made before I had received my first infraction. Hardly fair, but I can understand the mix-up.

No you didn't.

You got your warning here -

I have just received an "infraction" for insulting Decker_Tifosi (or is that seriously too much of an insult?). I received a notice that I might get banned if I continue "insulting" him and was referred to this topic by PalmerQ.

What is this? Some kind of kindergarten?

.... and then gave out about the warning and continued the personal insults after.

 

[gregod]

I'm sorry doc. I reported it moments before Susan banned me.

To me, Thomas Dekker (or anyone else for that matter) flipping the bird is:
1. Highly irritating
2. Unpleasant
3. repugnant to the moral sense

Is that so hard to grasp?

how much of your taking offense at d_t's avatar is just that you don't like him? in other words, if it were the avatar of someone you like would you be offended?

even if you would be offended in that case, what makes you think that you should be free from being offended? it is just an image. you can ignore it.

furthermore, the avatar is not directed at you and even if it were, YOU are choosing to be offended by it. HTFU.

that is all.

 

[palmerq]

Also, how do you know that you were reported?
Perhaps the Mods spotted one of these insulting posts and gave you the appropriate warning?

Well I think I told him he was reported or dekker tifosi told him I forgot which, probably both.... Anyway on this subject I had seen a lot of these insults from boomcie aimed at dekker tifosi and I mistakenly thought they were friends in real life(or something along those lines) and it was all in good fun but after dt reported this and I sent him a pm to ask him about this I realized I was wrong and that boomcie was just taking shot at dt and insulting him at every opportunity and fully deserved his warning and subsequent banning.... To be honset I really don't see how mr boomcie can complain.

 

[180mmCrank]

Just read all of the above. Made me smile.

Quite a lot of what we do as mods is subjective. It's based on opinion. Often we check in with each other, sometimes we don't agree with each other but many more times than not we are able to agree. We always try to do things in good faith and with best intentions.

We welcome feedback. Hence this thread. We discuss the feedback we get and try to respond in a way that makes sense. Several of the mods work very hard at this.

I am not sure we can do much better than that.

T

 

[ElChingon]

Just read all of the above. Made me smile.

Quite a lot of what we do as mods is subjective. It's based on opinion. Often we check in with each other, sometimes we don't agree with each other but many more times than not we are able to agree. We always try to do things in good faith and with best intentions.

We welcome feedback. Hence this thread. We discuss the feedback we get and try to respond in a way that makes sense. Several of the mods work very hard at this.

I am not sure we can do much better than that.

T

1. Consistency.
2. Not picking sides, kick both out or remove both not one.
3. Not reading into things with a personal agenda just because the thread is not of a mod's choice or view. Need to pass it to someone else (other mod).
4. Not foundering on a decision.
5. Not fanning the flames.
6. Not derailing a thread with mod issues, the PM function was created for a reason.
7. Rules, not bouncing around with July or Tour rules then something else later, then nothing or what seems like nothing.

Hence the roller coaster we ride on this forum and how people get offended one day when there was no such rule/agenda the day before.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

....

Lets go through this one by one.

1. Consistency.

Sounds good.
Ok, where is there an inconsistency?

2. Not picking sides, kick both out or remove both not one.

Examples?
If we are taking TD & Boomcie - one has an inoffensive avatar that only caused offence when the other got reprimanded for their insults.

3. Not reading into things with a personal agenda just because the thread is not of a mod's choice or view. Need to pass it to someone else (other mod).

Ok, that sounds personal - can you show an example of that?

4. Not foundering on a decision.

The Mods appear to get flack for making a decision - not, not making one.
Again - if you can show an example I will be happy to consider it.

5. Not fanning the flames.

Again, where?

6. Not derailing a thread with mod issues, the PM function was created for a reason.

Definitely dont agree with that.
PMs are for private usage - the forum is public, a gentle reminder in a thread works wonders and makes i clear that it is not a personal issue, which goes against your point , 2 & 4.

7. Rules, not bouncing around with July or Tour rules then something else later, then nothing or what seems like nothing.

Why not?
I do prefer consistent rules that are applied in January as well as July.

But if you request such consistency then you cannot complain about the personal element of common sence that in my view should be applied.

Do you want rules - or do you want a forum?

Hence the roller coaster we ride on this forum and how people get offended one day when there was no such rule/agenda the day before.

No - an offensive remark is an offensive remark.

If you want your 1-7 above implemented then why not make that your own personal standard?

 

[pedaling squares]

Credibility is defined as the quality, capability, or power to elicit belief, and the notion that an avatar suddenly became offensive to a member (and his granny) only once that member was banned for having insulted the user of said avatar does anything but elicit belief. Sorry boomcie, but you just lack credibility on this issue and really need to let it go for everyone's sake.

 

[Martin318is]

Lol, aspirations as a mod?

I'd say number 1, 2 and especially 3 are fit. Thanks for the reference doc.

This whole travesty kinda undermines the credibility of the mods. You guys should follow the rules first and then enforce them. I personally feel like there is some abuse of power going on here. No form of appeal is possible either. What ElChingon said is tragically true.

Now please don't silence me for being critical.

of course there is - send an email to Daniel Benson and see what he thinks of the issue, how it has been handled, etc The moderators will happily enact whatever ruling Daniel would make on such an approach from a member regarding a personality conflict such as this one

 

[boomcie]

@Maser

I did get reported. D_T said he was fed up with me and then I received an infraction.

About the unfairnesS of my ban:
1. Palmer sent me a pm with my first infraction.
2. I did not receive an infraction for insults I made after my first infraction. Palmer did tell me I should stop calling him 'pecker_tifosi'. I stopped calling him that.
3. The next morning i reported the avatar and received my seconde infraction and subsequent ban. Both Susan's doing. Note that I received my second infraction for an insult that was clearly covered by the first infraction. That is seriously unfair. PalmerQ knew at time of my first infraction that I had made comments about D_T in several threads. I did not get banned for making insults AFTER my first infraction. That's à fact. This means i didn't get a fair treatment.

 

[palmerq]

you did call him that twice after I told you stop it :S