The Three Abusers.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
09-01-2015, 04:56 PM
RE: The Three Abusers.
(09-01-2015 04:45 PM)Atothetheist Wrote:  
(09-01-2015 04:36 PM)earmuffs Wrote:  You're wrong. This is the best moderation the forum has ever seen (in terms of bans. No offense to the other mods (except Hughsie) because you guys were working within the parameters provided). Stark and Moms are doing a fantastic job right now. This kind of moderation is exactly what a forum of this size needs.

And besides, you of all people should understand admin discretion regarding sock accounts.

Did you fucking read my first post? I said BAD INTENTIONS. The rules allowed for exceptions. Wolf neither petitioned for one (like some others MIGHT have done, asshole), nor did he make it public that it was a sock. He intentionally concealed his identity from us publicly. If this is not an indicator of bad intentions, I personally don't know what is.

I understand discretion, I WAS in favor of this system, asshat. However, I thought admin discretion wouldn't just be a cloak word for favoritism.

And yeah, I am throwing that word around because it is what it is.

Now, I PROMISED I would let this go. If anyone else has a problem with my point of view, and you want to convince me otherwise, PM me. I am nothing if not a man of my word.

I don't see why this is just becoming a problem now.
This forum has always had a culture of "favoritism" and I really don't see what your problem with it is. But than again you were always weird like that.

I personally would have been banned by either Scot or KC had they followed the rules to the letter. Hell probably all admins at some point for that matter.
I'm sure there are other regulars that would have been as well. I know you would of.

When you become prevalent in something, such as an internet forum, you gain certain perks that come with being considered "a regular". Vet status for example. When that was a thing that was blatant favoritism and yet you didn't seem to have a problem with that. Admin discretion allows the admins to offer certain privileges to regulars at their discretion and cut them some slack when they do stupid shit because they're having a bad week.

But I'm not gonna call it "favoritism" and play your stupid little word game because admin discretion has always allowed for favoritism.

Not everything is white and black Ato, most of the time it's grey as fuck. You need to get the fuck over yourself. This is stupid.

[Image: oscar.png]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-01-2015, 05:00 PM (This post was last modified: 09-01-2015 05:07 PM by Atothetheist.)
RE: The Three Abusers.
(09-01-2015 04:56 PM)earmuffs Wrote:  
(09-01-2015 04:45 PM)Atothetheist Wrote:  Did you fucking read my first post? I said BAD INTENTIONS. The rules allowed for exceptions. Wolf neither petitioned for one (like some others MIGHT have done, asshole), nor did he make it public that it was a sock. He intentionally concealed his identity from us publicly. If this is not an indicator of bad intentions, I personally don't know what is.

I understand discretion, I WAS in favor of this system, asshat. However, I thought admin discretion wouldn't just be a cloak word for favoritism.

And yeah, I am throwing that word around because it is what it is.

Now, I PROMISED I would let this go. If anyone else has a problem with my point of view, and you want to convince me otherwise, PM me. I am nothing if not a man of my word.

I don't see why this is just becoming a problem now.
This forum has always had a culture of "favoritism" and I really don't see what your problem with it is. But than again you were always weird like that.

I personally would have been banned by either Scot or KC had they followed the rules to the letter. Hell probably all admins at some point for that matter.
I'm sure there are other regulars that would have been as well. I know you would of.

When you become prevalent in something, such as an internet forum, you gain certain perks that come with being considered "a regular". Vet status for example. When that was a thing that was blatant favoritism and yet you didn't seem to have a problem with that. Admin discretion allows the admins to offer certain privileges to regulars at their discretion and cut them some slack when they do stupid shit because they're having a bad week.

But I'm not gonna call it "favoritism" and play your stupid little word game because admin discretion has always allowed for favoritism.

Not everything is white and black Ato, most of the time it's grey as fuck. You need to get the fuck over yourself. This is stupid.
Who opposed the veterans simply becoming a popular kids table? Me. Who argued that if it had no governmental purpose, it should be removed? Me. Yeah, I certainly enjoyed being favored and getting special perks and breaking the rules. Oh wait.....Dodgy. I enjoyed getting my "well-deserved" three strikes.

And tell me, muffs. What would have I gotten banned over? Did I spam? Did I break any rules? Inquiring minds want to know.

I know not everything is black or white, but this WAS a clear violation. this wasn't something to be debated about. He either broke the rules and was slapped on the wrist and received no punishment other than his sock getting banned, or you guys banned a member based on the idea that "it could only escalate."

Either option is not boding well of my opinion on the leadership. And its not a word game, its fact. I am for admin discretion. I argued for it, and was happy it was enabled, because I believed in Starks leadership. And I was happy with his leadership until he banned a dude for being racist (again, only suspected for being a sock too) cunt, and then this.

Like I said, I understand that this is the way it is, Stark is in charge, and if I don't like it, I can leave. I understand all of that, and I deal, because I love you guys too much to really hammer home my point.

If you want to talk more about this, take it to the PMs, please.

[Image: 0013382F-E507-48AE-906B-53008666631C-757...cc3639.jpg]
Credit goes to UndercoverAtheist.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-01-2015, 06:17 PM
RE: The Three Abusers.
Quote:Who opposed the veterans simply becoming a popular kids table? Me. Who argued that if it had no governmental purpose, it should be removed? Me.

Who accepted vet status and posted fairly regularly in the vet only section? You.
Yea, you really stood up and showed them! Way to stick to your principles!
The only person, that I know of, that actually had a problem with Vet status and didn't actually partake due to his displeasure of it was DLJ. Don't partake and than try to hold yourself as above it all, it's stupid.

Quote:And tell me, muffs. What would have I gotten banned over? Did I spam? Did I break any rules? Inquiring minds want to know.

How about that sock account?

Quote:I know not everything is black or white, but this WAS a clear violation.

Not what I mean. I mean people do things for different reasons. Yea this was a blatant violation but Stark understands that Woof is an old man with problems and was just having a bad time at the time. Stark understands that Woof just needed some time to cool off.

Some people come here for the purpose of spamming and trolling, others come here for different reasons.
This is what I mean by not everything is black and white.

It would serve no purpose to give Woof a perma-ban when it has been shown in the past that after an amount of time he can sort himself out.

Rules (and this is a general rule for all rules) are designed to improve things. That is their goal, to improve a certain situation. Stop people from spamming a forum, or stop people from going 220 on the highway. Both of these things are bad and so need rules in place so action can be taken to fix these issues.
Rules are not suppose to hinder. ie: Here it's illegal to go over 100km/ph in a 100 zone. If you get caught going 140km/ph you could be a speeding douche in which case you'll lose your licence for 6months and be slapped with a fine OR you could have a person in the backseat who if they do not get to a hospital they will die in which case the judge would use his discretion and let you off under "one time extreme circumstances" or whatever.

Same here. You could be a troll douche like Matt or TTT in which case you get banned and that's that. OR you could be a harmless weird old man with some issues.

Following rules to the letter all the time can be just as bad as having none and we can become restricted and contained by them rather than them being tools we use to make our life easier/safer/better.

Quote:Either option is not boding well of my opinion on the leadership. And its not a word game, its fact. I am for admin discretion. I argued for it, and was happy it was enabled, because I believed in Starks leadership. And I was happy with his leadership until he banned a dude for being racist (again, only suspected for being a sock too) cunt, and then this.

Nobody has been banned for being a "racist cunt"?? I don't get where you're getting this from.
Woof was given a temporary ban for spamming threads about rep.

[Image: oscar.png]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like earmuffs's post
09-01-2015, 06:25 PM
RE: The Three Abusers.
Wait, so now Muffs is arguing in favour of Woofs staying on the forum!

Holy shit, now I have seen it all. Huh

Best and worst of Ferdinand .....
Best
Ferdinand: We don't really say 'theist' in Alabama. Here, you're either a Christian, or you're from Afghanistan and we fucking hate you.
Worst
Ferdinand: Everyone from British is so, like, fucking retarded.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Hughsie's post
09-01-2015, 06:27 PM
RE: The Three Abusers.
(09-01-2015 05:00 PM)Atothetheist Wrote:  If you want to talk more about this, take it to the PMs, please.

You brought it up here. If MuffStuffer wants to keep it here, don't see nothing wrong with that.

#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 7 users Like GirlyMan's post
09-01-2015, 06:32 PM
RE: The Three Abusers.
(09-01-2015 06:25 PM)Hughsie Wrote:  Wait, so now Muffs is arguing in favour of Woofs staying on the forum!

Holy shit, now I have seen it all. Huh

Way to miss the point.

See here they are the bruises some were self-inflicted and some showed up along the way. - JF
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Anjele's post
09-01-2015, 06:56 PM
RE: The Three Abusers.
(09-01-2015 06:32 PM)Anjele Wrote:  
(09-01-2015 06:25 PM)Hughsie Wrote:  Wait, so now Muffs is arguing in favour of Woofs staying on the forum!

Holy shit, now I have seen it all. Huh

Way to miss the point.

[Image: whoosh_by_medli20-d520mia_zpsxvw0dnbk.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like pablo's post
09-01-2015, 06:57 PM (This post was last modified: 09-01-2015 07:27 PM by Atothetheist.)
RE: The Three Abusers.
(09-01-2015 06:17 PM)earmuffs Wrote:  
Quote:Who opposed the veterans simply becoming a popular kids table? Me. Who argued that if it had no governmental purpose, it should be removed? Me.

Who accepted vet status and posted fairly regularly in the vet only section? You.
Yea, you really stood up and showed them! Way to stick to your principles!
The only person, that I know of, that actually had a problem with Vet status and didn't actually partake due to his displeasure of it was DLJ. Don't partake and than try to hold yourself as above it all, it's stupid.

Veteran's back then WERE AN ADVISORY GROUP. It served a purpose, a governmental purpose. The moment it was determined that vets were no longer allowed that purpose, I argued it should be deleted. Also, a quick overview of my time as a vet shows that my posts in the section were, in the VAST MAJORITY, advisory. The only time I even created a thread in there was to talk about my drama and solutions for it, as it affected my viewing of the forum.

Also, when I was going on hiatus, I PMed Kingsy and said that my vet status should be removed because I would be failing to fulfill the advisory position I was there for. I wasn't there to socialize, I was there to do what I had been told was the goal of the vets, advise and offer insights. I argued that vets either needed to have a purpose, or be disbanded.

So fuck you.

Quote:And tell me, muffs. What would have I gotten banned over? Did I spam? Did I break any rules? Inquiring minds want to know.

Quote:How about that sock account?
It says in the rules that exceptions can be made IF YOU PETITION THEM FOR IT. And speaking of a sock account way to possibily compromise any way of me participating in the forum in case of fucking parental drama. I never touched that account after I was allowed to come back. That's how I recall it, if that's NOT the case, then I apologize for my actions, and yeah, you would be right, I do deserve to be banned.

However, I would not see that as favoritism, as much as actual assessing of the scenario. I would like to believe that if a newer, less popular member was in the same situation as me, the admins would take the same measures.

But if it was strictly because it was me, then yeah, I don't like that.

Quote:
Quote:I know not everything is black or white, but this WAS a clear violation.

Not what I mean. I mean people do things for different reasons. Yea this was a blatant violation but Stark understands that Woof is an old man with problems and was just having a bad time at the time. Stark understands that Woof just needed some time to cool off.

Fair enough. I can understand compassion.

Quote:Some people come here for the purpose of spamming and trolling, others come here for different reasons.
This is what I mean by not everything is black and white.

Pointing out the obvious is not helping. I made a post about intention. Again, I maintain that his intentions were not of a merely "make another account nature" if he lied about his indentity. This indicated a deliberate act of deciet. This removed any ideas of "wanting to participate in the forum." I don't like liars, and I am sure I am not the only one.

Quote:It would serve no purpose to give Woof a perma-ban when it has been shown in the past that after an amount of time he can sort himself out.

TTT came clean and was a contributing member for a while as Li_Holodomer, we should bring that guy back then... Or I guess we won't. he seems happy exactly where he is at.
Quote:Rules (and this is a general rule for all rules) are designed to improve things. That is their goal, to improve a certain situation. Stop people from spamming a forum, or stop people from going 220 on the highway. Both of these things are bad and so need rules in place so action can be taken to fix these issues.
Rules are not suppose to hinder. ie: Here it's illegal to go over 100km/ph in a 100 zone. If you get caught going 140km/ph you could be a speeding douche in which case you'll lose your licence for 6months and be slapped with a fine OR you could have a person in the backseat who if they do not get to a hospital they will die in which case the judge would use his discretion and let you off under "one time extreme circumstances" or whatever.
I personally don't think it is fair for certain members to get benefits others members are denied. I agreed to the same rules as everybody else, they should be treated exactly I should and vice versa. Regardless of my beliefs, I see that as a valid situation in which discretion is to be used. Its one of the reasons I argued for DISCRETION. I see discretion as a solution to that. Was this an extreme circumstance?

Like I said, I didn't get all the information. All I got was " I made a call." And so did I, based off of what I knew.

Again, am I going to rail about this and spam the forum? Hell no dude. I just expressed my opinion. You have every right to
Quote:Same here. You could be a troll douche like Matt or TTT in which case you get banned and that's that. OR you could be a harmless weird old man with some issues.
I agree with both statements, but I would not give any exceptions to someone who should know the rules, and really has no excuse to not be familiar with them by now.

Quote:Following rules to the letter all the time can be just as bad as having none and we can become restricted and contained by them rather than them being tools we use to make our life easier/safer/better.
I do not follow rules because they are rules. I follow them because I either agree with it, or I protest against them (which is what essentially I am doing now).

Quote:Either option is not boding well of my opinion on the leadership. And its not a word game, its fact. I am for admin discretion. I argued for it, and was happy it was enabled, because I believed in Starks leadership. And I was happy with his leadership until he banned a dude for being racist (again, only suspected for being a sock too) cunt, and then this.

Quote:Nobody has been banned for being a "racist cunt"?? I don't get where you're getting this from.
Ban log for Cuntsmasher. Post 76, earmuffs. Another suspected sock, but racist cunt.
Quote:Woof was given a temporary ban for spamming threads about rep.
Obviously was not talking about Woof if you read my post carefully.

[Image: 0013382F-E507-48AE-906B-53008666631C-757...cc3639.jpg]
Credit goes to UndercoverAtheist.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-01-2015, 07:12 PM
RE: The Three Abusers.
(09-01-2015 06:27 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  
(09-01-2015 05:00 PM)Atothetheist Wrote:  If you want to talk more about this, take it to the PMs, please.

You brought it up here. If MuffStuffer wants to keep it here, don't see nothing wrong with that.

Nah, I can understand that. I just didn't want to go back on my word is all. I know he has ever right to respond, and I am taking liberties with responding to him.

[Image: 0013382F-E507-48AE-906B-53008666631C-757...cc3639.jpg]
Credit goes to UndercoverAtheist.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-01-2015, 07:18 PM
RE: The Three Abusers.
(09-01-2015 06:25 PM)Hughsie Wrote:  Wait, so now Muffs is arguing in favour of Woofs staying on the forum!

Holy shit, now I have seen it all. Huh

Doesn't matter what kind of beef he has. I respect earmuffs for voicing his opinion of preserving a man whom he had beef with. It shows me that he truly believes in his ideas.

[Image: 0013382F-E507-48AE-906B-53008666631C-757...cc3639.jpg]
Credit goes to UndercoverAtheist.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Atothetheist's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: