The Three Abusers.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
10-01-2015, 02:03 PM
RE: The Three Abusers.
(10-01-2015 01:51 PM)Anjele Wrote:  
(10-01-2015 01:39 PM)Atothetheist Wrote:  You are right on that. I do take back the statement that you are a bad leader. I just believe that have made bad decisions.

I think I was too harsh on ya, I apologize. My view still stands that those were bad calls, but other than that, I do believe you have made good calls in the past. Again, this is from the vastly skewed opinion of me not being able to see the inside governmental assessments. Maybe I would have sung a different tune had more information been appearent.

I'm just calling it how I see it, Stark.

I respect you enough to give you my honest opinion.

I am going to throw an honest opinion or two out there.

First, there are a couple decisions Stark has made that I am actually kinda pissy about. But that's the way things are. I don't have to agree with everything he says or does. Things are still better here with him in charge than they have been in a while.

Second, I can't help but think that if Hughsie had made the decisions that Stark did, Ato, you would say 'Yes, boss, how can I help boss?' I have seen you do it. That's some of the favoritism you claim to be against.

First half: Umm, did I talk shit ABOUT EVERY DECISION HE MADE? Nah. I was giving my opinion, and was more than willing to let this shit go. I said explicitly I didn't want to be persistent and rail about this, but people just won't let me. They keep responding and I am compelled to defend myself.

Second half: I bolded it. I have made it no secret that I am friends with Hughsie, but I have also expressed my very strong opinions that Hughsie was not a good super-mod. Incompetenant in areas. So no, I wouldn't have bent over and took it from him like the little bitch you are trying to make me out to be.

And fuck you for that insinuation.
I backed Hughsie on decisions I AGREE WITH, not because he is my friend.

[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
10-01-2015, 02:07 PM
RE: The Three Abusers.
(10-01-2015 01:48 PM)Revenant77x Wrote:  
(10-01-2015 01:45 PM)Atothetheist Wrote:  Do trolls get more than one chance when they create socks?

TTT was give 5 at least.

I don't exactly recall that, but that might have been the case. I can not say either way.

If we give all members that, then my point is rendered moot.

[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
10-01-2015, 02:08 PM
RE: The Three Abusers.
(10-01-2015 01:10 PM)Atothetheist Wrote:  
(10-01-2015 12:33 PM)houseofcantor Wrote:  [Image: 3v83u2.jpg]

Ain't up to you, is it? Tongue

Besides, that's a ridiculous concept.

Exempting me from punishment simply because I am a contributing member is a ridiculous concept to me.

So then are we allowed to tear you a new one for being overly concerned on an issue because, quite frankly, you've had plenty of answers and you just keep singing the same song.
While I like rules to be clear & easy, there should be some wiggle room here & there. Mostly, because people are human. I'm guessing you'd like us to see you as human too.
lol

There's a time to state your case and there's a time to Listen to what you've been told and STFU!

cause....... damn

When I want your opinion I'll read your entrails.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like WitchSabrina's post
10-01-2015, 02:09 PM
RE: The Three Abusers.
(10-01-2015 02:03 PM)Atothetheist Wrote:  
(10-01-2015 01:51 PM)Anjele Wrote:  I am going to throw an honest opinion or two out there.

First, there are a couple decisions Stark has made that I am actually kinda pissy about. But that's the way things are. I don't have to agree with everything he says or does. Things are still better here with him in charge than they have been in a while.

Second, I can't help but think that if Hughsie had made the decisions that Stark did, Ato, you would say 'Yes, boss, how can I help boss?' I have seen you do it. That's some of the favoritism you claim to be against.

First half: Umm, did I talk shit ABOUT EVERY DECISION HE MADE? Nah. I was giving my opinion, and was more than willing to let this shit go. I said explicitly I didn't want to be persistent and rail about this, but people just won't let me. They keep responding and I am compelled to defend myself.

Second half: I bolded it. I have made it no secret that I am friends with Hughsie, but I have also expressed my very strong opinions that Hughsie was not a good super-mod. Incompetenant in areas. So no, I wouldn't have bent over and took it from him like the little bitch you are trying to make me out to be.

And fuck you for that insinuation.
I backed Hughsie on decisions I AGREE WITH, not because he is my friend.

Temper, temper.

See here they are the bruises some were self-inflicted and some showed up along the way. - JF

We're all mad here. The Cheshire Cat
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-01-2015, 02:12 PM (This post was last modified: 10-01-2015 02:33 PM by Tartarus Sauce.)
RE: The Three Abusers.
(09-01-2015 08:37 PM)Atothetheist Wrote:  I asked for information and clarification. I did not receive any information besides that which I researched myself. Naturally, I made a call based on the information I had.

Then allow me to enlighten you, because maybe you'll stop being so judgmental of Stark if I do.


Quote:Besides you basically revealing that I indeed had a second account during the drama, you did indeed compromise that. And fair enough. It falls under admin description, which I do not dispute as a fact. However, was it favoritism, or an actual assessment of a scenario or judgement accordingly.

And if my scenario was favoritism, then fuck that. It genuinely sucks that the admins would not have done that for anyone else in need.

Depending on how one is to define favoritism, I guess you could say Stark's decision was applicable to this categorization. However, clearly your definition is what is relevant at the moment, and according to your definition it was not favoritism, but, as you state, an "assessment of the scenario." I won't discuss what the assessment Stark came to was, since I don't want to violate his discretion, but he did describe his reasoning to the rest of the FT, and as far as I'm aware, the entire FT is in agreement with his judgement call. And in accordance with what Muffs was saying, when the admin knows somebody better since they've been here longer, it's easier for the admin to make judgement calls on that person.

Quote:And the dude wasn't banned for being a sock, he was banned for being a suspected sock. I wonder what evidence they used? I wonder why it wasn't conclusive. If the IP matched anyone else, it would have been, so the IP must not have matched anyone. This means they did it purely based on behavior.

Well it sounds like Stark isn't going to be your only problem then on the Forum Team. You seem to be emulating Hughsie's ideal of running the forum like a courtroom. Nobody that I'm aware of on the FT at the moment, now that he's stepped down, has any intention of carrying on that torch.

I'm going to speak frankly since Hughsie is no longer on the forum team; running the forum like a courtroom has led to some of the worst periods in this forum's history. Instances like Wicked Clown and the pedophiles revealed the glaring flaw in courtroom style management: it prioritized sticking to procedure over the health and well being of the forum and its users. It was a sterile, detached method of administration that time after time again ignored the most obvious need of precise and reasonable decisions to be delivered in a timely manner while actually taking into the account the concerns of forum members.

Madame Woof was banned due to circumstantial evidence that strongly indicated it was Mr. Woof. Yes, the IP's were the same, but that didn't mean anything since Madame Woof was claiming to be his wife. We shouldn't restrict ourselves to IP matching to catch socks anyway, it's a very limited tool. Many trolls use proxies to bypass that method of detection completely and we still manage to ban them anyway. Sometimes, when it walks like a duck, talks like a duck, quacks like a duck, swims like a duck, flies like a duck, and shits like a duck; it's a goddamn duck. We've known Woofs for a long time, we've seem him have these type of meltdowns and outbursts before; I have, you have, and Stark sure as hell has as well. As has been said before knowing somebody well makes it that much easier to come to a decision, and this too was no exception. It was a fucking duck, so Stark made a decision based on that. And in the same vein that he knew Woofs well enough to identify his socks, he knew Woofs well enough to assess the scenario and determined that despite the flagrant rule violation, Woof's shouldn't be permanently banned.

Stark doesn't wait around for a golden-bullet piece of evidence to plop down on his desk before he figures out action needs to be taken. He doesn't restrict himself to only one framework in which to base his administrative decisions off of. He recognizes a situation needs to be dealt with, he analyzes the situation, and then he acts. This ain't a fucking courtroom, it's a forum, and Stark runs it like a forum.

I'm not gonna argue with you on the standpoints you've voiced in this thread, but I will tell you that you can back down now because you've made unfair assumptions about Stark's judgement.

[Image: giphy.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 11 users Like Tartarus Sauce's post
10-01-2015, 02:12 PM
RE: The Three Abusers.
(10-01-2015 02:09 PM)Anjele Wrote:  Temper, temper.

Free speech dontcherknow? We pride ourselves on that hereabouts Tongue

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-01-2015, 02:16 PM
RE: The Three Abusers.
(10-01-2015 02:12 PM)morondog Wrote:  
(10-01-2015 02:09 PM)Anjele Wrote:  Temper, temper.

Free speech dontcherknow? We pride ourselves on that hereabouts Tongue

It would appear that some honest 'opinions' warrant a high, hard one.

See here they are the bruises some were self-inflicted and some showed up along the way. - JF

We're all mad here. The Cheshire Cat
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-01-2015, 02:16 PM
RE: The Three Abusers.
(10-01-2015 02:12 PM)morondog Wrote:  
(10-01-2015 02:09 PM)Anjele Wrote:  Temper, temper.

Free speech dontcherknow? We pride ourselves on that hereabouts Tongue

I'm freespeechin.....are you freespeechin? We's all freespeechin.

I'm a pepper, you're a pepper.....

When I want your opinion I'll read your entrails.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-01-2015, 02:20 PM
RE: The Three Abusers.
(10-01-2015 02:16 PM)Anjele Wrote:  
(10-01-2015 02:12 PM)morondog Wrote:  Free speech dontcherknow? We pride ourselves on that hereabouts Tongue

It would appear that some honest 'opinions' warrant a high, hard one.

That's why I stand on my head when I get a boner...

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-01-2015, 02:20 PM
RE: The Three Abusers.
(10-01-2015 02:16 PM)WitchSabrina Wrote:  I'm freespeechin.....are you freespeechin? We's all freespeechin.

I'm freeballing it today.

There is only one really serious philosophical question, and that is suicide. -Camus
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes GirlyMan's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: