Moderators

[The Hitch]

On previous occasions that posters have used the "go die" line to others, the sentence has been one month. So I don't get the complaint about the lenght of the ban. It is entirely consistent with the forum history and rules. Dont want a month, dont go down that road. Its totally uncalled for and can cause people offense, especially relatively new and very young users like the one at which you directed it at, who did not expect to be told to go die for posting his opinion.

Also I would contest the idea that posters are leaving, and if they are, I definately contest the idea that the reason why they are doing so is because you got a ban.

finally I would like to discuss your first offense claim. Was it really your first offense? If it was I wouldn't make such a big deal of it considering how lucky you were to escape a ban 2 years ago when you called a moderator -palmerq, everything but a child of god in mutliple posts of abuse, directed at him under the justification that he had allegedly reinstated a perfectly legal and unoffensive post which you had complained about, that everyone agreed should never have been deleted in the first place.

Even as several posters including 2 moderators tried to explain to you that palmerq had not been the one to resintate the post (it was Susan) you continued to throw abuse at him.

that you never got banned or warned (though I doubt that) for it is purely down to the honour and generosity of the then moderators. A lengthy ban would have been perfectly justafiable under the circumstances. I wouldn't strut around boasting about being this saint poster considering how lucky you got there.

I'm still waiting for Palmer to publicly acknowledge that he was out of order, but sadly he's shown clearly both publicly and privately that he's not man enough.

What was out of order :S

I would also like to add I never deleted or reinstated the picture of babe on a bike :S

What a bunch of pathetic ****ers (there really is no other suitable term) here.

One or more posters here are simply LYING. There is no other word for it. I am in no position to know who is lying, but the fact is that the pig was twice removed and re-posted.

As usual, palmer is living up to his persona by being disingenuous and feigning ignorance despite being directly involved. His first reply above is unworthy of an 'admin'.

What's wrong with you?

I did not re-post anything. And if Palmer says so, I'm sure he did not reinstate anything.

Did it occur to you that another mod re-inserted that picture (twice), because there was nothing wrong with it?

you might be onto something :S


but really i never removed or readded the picture of babe, I didnt think there was anything wrong with it and I wouldn't have done anything to it, it was actually quite funny.

It might well be that the mod who did it "doesn't have the balls" as it may well have been me.

So now you can all hate on me.

I tried communicating with palmer by PM - a complete and utter waste of time as he was incapable of responding in a serious or mature manner, something he continues to demonstrate here. I really find it incredible that this person can be an admin. Really! He deleted a pic that was no different, certainly no more daring, than hundreds of others, on a momentary whim, simply because he had the power to do so.

It is also a fact, because I saw it with my own eyes, that the pig was twice re-posted after being removed. So Hitch (though God knows why I'm explaining this to the likes of you,) that is why I commented with regard to Ram's ban, which was given for reposting something that had been deleted by a mod, exactly what happened with the pig, but with no consequences - therefore, the obvious conclusion is that one or more mods were involved and are now not telling the truth. (I am not referring to Susan!)
.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

On previous occasions that posters have used the "go die" line to others, the sentence has been one month. So I don't get the complaint about the lenght of the ban. It is entirely consistent with the forum history and rules. Dont want a month, dont go down that road. Its totally uncalled for and can cause people offense, especially relatively new and very young users like the one at which you directed it at, who did not expect to be told to go die for posting his opinion.

Also I would contest the idea that posters are leaving, and if they are, I definately contest the idea that the reason why they are doing so is because you got a ban.

finally I would like to discuss your first offense claim. Was it really your first offense? If it was I wouldn't make such a big deal of it considering how lucky you were to escape a ban 2 years ago when you called a moderator -palmerq, everything but a child of god in mutliple posts of abuse, directed at him under the justification that he had allegedly reinstated a perfectly legal and unoffensive post which you had complained about, that everyone agreed should never have been deleted in the first place.

Even as several posters including 2 moderators tried to explain to you that palmerq had not been the one to resintate the post (it was Susan) you continued to throw abuse at him.

that you never got banned or warned (though I doubt that) for it is purely down to the honour and generosity of the then moderators. A lengthy ban would have been perfectly justafiable under the circumstances. I wouldn't strut around boasting about being this saint poster considering how lucky you got there.

You are perhaps the best poster on this forum, and in my view one of the fairest.

C'mon, you know better than anyone what digging up old comments will do?

To get us back on point - do you agree with the length of Amstres ban, on its own merits, forget others bans.
If yes, make a case - if no, what action would have been sufficient?

 

[The Hitch]

You are perhaps the best poster on this forum, and in my view one of the fairest.

C'mon, you know better than anyone what digging up old comments will do?

To get us back on point - do you agree with the length of Amstres ban, on its own merits, forget others bans.
If yes, make a case - if no, what action would have been sufficient?

Imo 1 month for that offense is understandable.

 

[mewmewmew13]

On previous occasions that posters have used the "go die" line to others, the sentence has been one month. So I don't get the complaint about the lenght of the ban. It is entirely consistent with the forum history and rules. Dont want a month, dont go down that road. Its totally uncalled for and can cause people offense, especially relatively new and very young users like the one at which you directed it at, who did not expect to be told to go die for posting his opinion.

Also I would contest the idea that posters are leaving, and if they are, I definately contest the idea that the reason why they are doing so is because you got a ban.

finally I would like to discuss your first offense claim. Was it really your first offense? If it was I wouldn't make such a big deal of it considering how lucky you were to escape a ban 2 years ago when you called a moderator -palmerq, everything but a child of god in mutliple posts of abuse, directed at him under the justification that he had allegedly reinstated a perfectly legal and unoffensive post which you had complained about, that everyone agreed should never have been deleted in the first place.

Even as several posters including 2 moderators tried to explain to you that palmerq had not been the one to resintate the post (it was Susan) you continued to throw abuse at him.

that you never got banned or warned (though I doubt that) for it is purely down to the honour and generosity of the then moderators. A lengthy ban would have been perfectly justafiable under the circumstances. I wouldn't strut around boasting about being this saint poster considering how lucky you got there.

Most mature post of the year..

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Imo 1 month for that offense is understandable.

Serious question.
Why?

 

[northstar]

I never knew I, knew I would get this big
I never knew I, knew I'd affect this kid
I never knew I'd, get him to slit his wrist
I never knew I'd, get him to hit this *****

Moderators – Netserk’s signature quoting Eminem’s Who Knew lyrics is inappropriate. Amsterhammer quotes an urban slang expression, FOAD, and gets a one month ban. Netserk intentionally posts offensive words in his signature after engaging Amster and ?...

 

[mewmewmew13]

Moderators – Netserk’s signature quoting Eminem’s Who Knew lyrics is inappropriate. Amsterhammer quotes an urban slang expression, FOAD, and gets a one month ban. Netserk intentionally posts offensive words in his signature after engaging Amster and ?...

do not forget Netserk's previous avatar ..a blood stained head w gun in mouth..(or similar)..

 

[kingjr]

Serious question.
Why?

Idd, why not just censor the post and hand out a warning via PM that these kinds of posts wont be tolerated. That should do the job.

 

[ebandit]

seriously?

Moderators – Netserk’s signature quoting Eminem’s Who Knew lyrics is inappropriate. Amsterhammer quotes an urban slang expression, FOAD, and gets a one month ban. Netserk intentionally posts offensive words in his signature after engaging Amster and ?...

so you think netserk deserves a ban for lacking maturity?

Mark L

 

[mewmewmew13]

so you think netserk deserves a ban for lacking maturity?

Mark L

along the same lines that Amster's outburst lacked maturity-- yes!

It would appear that net.erk posted that for an intentional 'effect'..

 

[del1962]

While given the context (someone crtising Mandela unfairly sfter his death) was the poster being a complete tool, you just can't say what Amsterhammer said on a properly moderated message board without expecting a lengthy ban.

 

[ebandit]

lyrical

but netserk is just quoting lyrics to a song.............they are not aimed at anyone

Mark L

 

[mewmewmew13]

but netserk is just quoting lyrics to a song.............they are not aimed at anyone

Mark L

It sounded as if the timing coincided with a 'reply' to his Amster convo…that was my take on it.
In my experience here I have noted many times netserk making a reply which I would equate with a 'trolling' comment.

just my opinion.

..along those lines I guess I can reply to posters here by pretty much saying anything I feel like- even inappropriate as long as i can find some song lyrics to smokescreen my intention..
I'll remember that

 

[hiero2]

A completely false equivalence - a one off, momentary, emotional outburst for a very specific reason, compared to nearly five years of incessant trolling and provocation. Did any of you happen to notice how much more laid back and hassle free the US politics forum became after BD stopped posting in it?

The hypocrisy is the different standards that are applied to different posters, as if you couldn't figure that out yourself.

You didn't answer my questions either - was it you?

Could I not at least have been afforded the courtesy of a PM or warning, instead of a month ban out of the blue a week after the 'offense'?

In this case, I believe Nets is right. Amster - this is not a one-off. You have a temper, and you've shown it before.

Telling someone to die, even when not meant in seriousness, is not the same thing as trolling. At the very least, it is bullying or attempting to bully.

I find myself in agreement with the Hitch on this one.

On previous occasions that posters have used the "go die" line to others, the sentence has been one month. So I don't get the complaint about the lenght of the ban. It is entirely consistent with the forum history and rules. Dont want a month, dont go down that road. . .

And, no, I've not noticed that the Politics thread(s) are any more civil or polite or readable. I find them to be exceptionally otherwise.

Last thought for now - as for BroDeal trolling for five years. We (at least, any members who've been active posters for a time) know your feelings on this matter. Some agree with you. Many do not. BroDeal has not been handed any special treatment, which means you have not proven a trolling case. That does not mean I think BroDeal is well behaved. But he does keep any malicious intent or disruptiveness in check. When he hasn't, he has received bans accordingly. I would have to say what we have here, at least in part, is a personality conflict.

To be fair minded, for BroDeal's take on trolling - you might read this.

The problem . . .is a lack of understanding of what trolling is. The acid test is not whether someone lobs a bomb occasionally into a thread. That type of post keeps the place lively and often elicits interesting responses. The acid test is whether it is persistently disruptive or not. BPC would not simply post distortions. He would post distortions then doggedly post followup after follow up until the thread was not worth reading.

A muckraker is not necessarily a troll.

And I can guarantee you that there have been many warnings over "muckraking" that seemed to push the envelope overly hard. Should you ever uncover the wikileaks stash of Brodeal twits that explicitly demonstrate malicious intent towards the forum - that might change the picture, ya know?

 

[Netserk]

Moderators – Netserk’s signature quoting Eminem’s Who Knew lyrics is inappropriate. Amsterhammer quotes an urban slang expression, FOAD, and gets a one month ban. Netserk intentionally posts offensive words in his signature after engaging Amster and ?...

Nope. I'm not certain when I changed it (other than it was done today), but I do think that it was before amster's post here. Either way it had absolutely nothing to do with anything here, but because I was listening to the song (which I like), and thought I would add the chorus to my sig.

Just like all the other times when I change my sig, it's not a response to someone or directed to someone, but because I either stumble upon some quotes here on the forum when looking through threads, or because of things completely outside of this forum.

edit: Just like the quote from Christian isn't a stab towards anyone, but simply because I read back in the mod thread and re-read our conversation, and thought it was a well crafted line. A little flavour. And it made me smile when I read it.

 

[hiero2]

It sounded as if the timing coincided with a 'reply' to his Amster convo…that was my take on it.
In my experience here I have noted many times netserk making a reply which I would equate with a 'trolling' comment.

just my opinion.

..along those lines I guess I can reply to posters here by pretty much saying anything I feel like- even inappropriate as long as i can find some song lyrics to smokescreen my intention..
I'll remember that

I happen to agree with you on this. But, at the same time - smokescreens also can tone down the meaning - intentionally making the conversation less controversial and more palatable - and possibly "lobbing a muckraker" rather than full-on trolling.

Personally, I find the eminem lyrics, as quoted, dark, and distasteful, but, with the exception of using the word "b*", not innapropriate. The whole song, while violent, is also something of a mea culpa. He is also self-justifying, so it isn't clear to me where the man's head is really at - and I don't think it is clear to him.

So, on the one hand, I would rather see Nets learn how to be more diplomatic. But on the other hand, would not censoring Nets take away some of the "excitement" that so many people say they want to see in posts, yes?

On the 3rd hand, I'm going to put YOUR name in the mod poll thread. I think you'd be good.

[edit: written before I saw Nets say his intent was not a smokescreen. And I believe him. ]

 

[the sceptic]

at the risk of Dr Vortex' wrath decsending upon me I have to point out that every single one of EnacheVs posts is nothing but idiotic trolling, and Im also pretty sure ventoux boar is a previously banned troll. Probably the same one that got nuked a day before he showed up.

so is there any reason to keep these posters around?

 

[Dr. Maserati]

at the risk of Dr Vortex' wrath decsending upon me I have to point out that every single one of EnacheVs posts is nothing but idiotic trolling, and Im also pretty sure ventoux boar is a previously banned troll. Probably the same one that got nuked a day before he showed up.

so is there any reason to keep these posters around?

You earn my wrath for calling me Vortex - for your post, scorn.

To be fair you make it easy.
Saying someone is "idiotic trolling" or suggesting that someone previously banned be banned- your not taking a risk, you are asking for your hypocrisy to be highlighted.

 

[mewmewmew13]

ok hiero I hear you
about netserk..so apologies to him since you say you believe him so I'll give him the benefit of the doubt…this time :roll eyes:

Many thanx for your vote of confidence in my mod abilities but I'm going to have to bow out for this round..going to be doing some busy work outside the forum…real life

 

[Netserk]

Just imagine the outrage if I had quoted Kim

 

[mewmewmew13]

Just imagine the outrage if I had quoted Kim

I don't do outrage but you're welcome to dream

 

[Netserk]

I don't do outrage but you're welcome to dream

If you're interested here's a link to the lyrics

http://artists.letssingit.com/eminem-lyrics-kim-csdfrtv#axzz2uLSNDV6y

BTW what's up with censoring an uncensored version of a song Or does anyone have a link to a completely uncensored version (with the dead four-year old line)?

 

[Christian]

Nope. I'm not certain when I changed it (other than it was done today), but I do think that it was before amster's post here. Either way it had absolutely nothing to do with anything here, but because I was listening to the song (which I like), and thought I would add the chorus to my sig.

Just like all the other times when I change my sig, it's not a response to someone or directed to someone, but because I either stumble upon some quotes here on the forum when looking through threads, or because of things completely outside of this forum.

edit: Just like the quote from Christian isn't a stab towards anyone, but simply because I read back in the mod thread and re-read our conversation, and thought it was a well crafted line. A little flavour. And it made me smile when I read it.

Mostly you need to change that Cancellara line... it makes it look like you know nothing about cycling

 

[Netserk]

Mostly you need to change that Cancellara line... it makes it look like you know nothing about cycling ;-)

You don't think he is really good?

 

[The Hitch]

Serious question.
Why?

Because I think that is a line that society accepts it is wrong to cross. In any sphere of debate, it is the nuke, which immediately ends all discussion. Imo it should carry a penalty that distinguishes it as unacceptable.