The Three Abusers.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
10-01-2015, 02:24 PM
RE: The Three Abusers.
(10-01-2015 02:12 PM)Tartarus Sauce Wrote:  
(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 Woof's 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 Woof's well enough to identify his socks, he knew Woof's 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.

Thanks for the additional background T.

“I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a man’s reasoning powers are not above the monkey’s.”~Mark Twain
“Ocean: A body of water occupying about two-thirds of a world made for man - who has no gills.”~ Ambrose Bierce
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Full Circle's post
10-01-2015, 02:24 PM
RE: The Three Abusers.
(10-01-2015 02:20 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  
(10-01-2015 02:16 PM)WitchSabrina Wrote:  I'm freespeechin.....are you freespeechin? We's all freespeechin.

I'm freeballing it today.

TMI

Bechased

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
[+] 2 users Like Anjele's post
10-01-2015, 02:24 PM
RE: The Three Abusers.
(10-01-2015 02:12 PM)Tartarus Sauce Wrote:  
(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 Woof's 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 Woof's well enough to identify his socks, he knew Woof's 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.

BowingBowingBowingBowingBowing

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
10-01-2015, 02:28 PM
RE: The Three Abusers.
(10-01-2015 02:08 PM)WitchSabrina Wrote:  
(10-01-2015 01:10 PM)Atothetheist Wrote:  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

Fair enough.

[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
[+] 1 user Likes Atothetheist's post
10-01-2015, 02:31 PM (This post was last modified: 10-01-2015 02:36 PM by Atothetheist.)
RE: The Three Abusers.
(10-01-2015 02:12 PM)Tartarus Sauce Wrote:  
(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 Woof's 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 Woof's well enough to identify his socks, he knew Woof's 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.

Good, that was all I needed to know. Clarification from the FT. So it was an easement of the situation.

And of Madam Woof, I got clarification on that, but it didn't match what the banlog states (which I thought was the official reason behind the ban). As far as I know, she/he was banned because she was spamming as well. Would have loved to have seen that in the explanation as well.

Thanks, Tarty.

[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
[+] 1 user Likes Atothetheist's post
10-01-2015, 02:55 PM
RE: The Three Abusers.
Oh, and I am sorry, Stark. It seemed I was grossly misinformed.

I'll be going now.

Sorry for being a dick.

[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
[+] 2 users Like Atothetheist's post
10-01-2015, 04:18 PM
RE: The Three Abusers.
(10-01-2015 02:55 PM)Atothetheist Wrote:  Oh, and I am sorry, Stark. It seemed I was grossly misinformed.

I'll be going now.

Sorry for being a dick.

You know what you have to do.




#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes GirlyMan's post
10-01-2015, 04:59 PM
RE: The Three Abusers.
(10-01-2015 04:18 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  
(10-01-2015 02:55 PM)Atothetheist Wrote:  Oh, and I am sorry, Stark. It seemed I was grossly misinformed.

I'll be going now.

Sorry for being a dick.

You know what you have to do.




Yes, sir. Right away, sir.

[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, 05:46 PM
RE: The Three Abusers.
Quote:I don't have faith in anything muffs, I base my own judgements by my own research. It's just what I do.

Call it trust or confidence than if you don't have "faith".
When you second guess everything people do and do shit like "research" every single person banned it shows a lack of confidence in that person. I know you think you're doing it because you want to see the evidence for yourself, question everything blah blah blah but all you're doing is showing you have absolutely no trust/confidence in Stark and Moms and the other staff members, but especially Stark and Moms.
And these are people you've known for years.

Question everything is fine when it's religion or someone gives you a fact that doesn't sound entirely accurate. It's another thing when you question their ability to do their job and make judgement calls in said job.

Quote: Call that having a pole in my ass or whatever.

It's called you having a pole up your ass.

Quote:And I let them do their job. Am I blocking them from doing it? Am I saying they can't? No. I freely admit that they can. I said that multiple times.

Oh that's very nice of you A2 to allow Stark and Moms to do their jobs...

Quote:It'll probably amount to nothing, but I would have liked to have been careful, muffs.

Than you shouldn't have escalated it. It was fine and unsuspicious from what I said. You made it worse.

Quote:Do you understand?

I understand that you were slandering on about someone receiving favoritism treatment despite yourself receiving it. You were being hypocritical and I'm not to fond of hypocrites.

Quote:Did I say you were a bad person? Absolutely not. I still think highly of you as a person. I am only criticizing the judgment calls you have made as a leader, not you as a person. I am sorry if I have offended you emotionally.

That IS saying he is a bad person.

Quote:I was ready to drop the subject at the first post, but I was enticed to respond.

You brought it up, you weren't "enticed" into anything.

Quote:I am sorry that I believe in a government that is supposed to be impartial, or rather using discretion without relying on favoritism.

This isn't a country, this is an internet forum. Please remove pole from ass and try again.

Quote:My view still stands that those were bad calls

Well, you are entitled to your wrong opinion.

Quote:They keep responding and I am compelled to defend myself.

You brought it up bitch, don't go playing the "people just wont drop it" card now.
You don't have the privilege to use that card, you lost it when you made claims about out admin being incompetent.

Quote:Oh, and I am sorry, Stark. It seemed I was grossly misinformed.

I'll be going now.

Sorry for being a dick.

You weren't misinformed, I informed your ass before.
You just wanted an out because people are piling ontop of you.


Ato, you have a very immature view of the world. It comes back to the black and white thing again. The world isn't black or white, it's grey. School teaches black and white, but you gotta work out the grey for yourself.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like earmuffs's post
10-01-2015, 05:54 PM
RE: The Three Abusers.
(10-01-2015 05:46 PM)earmuffs Wrote:  
Quote:I don't have faith in anything muffs, I base my own judgements by my own research. It's just what I do.

Call it trust or confidence than if you don't have "faith".
When you second guess everything people do and do shit like "research" every single person banned it shows a lack of confidence in that person. I know you think you're doing it because you want to see the evidence for yourself, question everything blah blah blah but all you're doing is showing you have absolutely no trust/confidence in Stark and Moms and the other staff members, but especially Stark and Moms.
And these are people you've known for years.

Question everything is fine when it's religion or someone gives you a fact that doesn't sound entirely accurate. It's another thing when you question their ability to do their job and make judgement calls in said job.

Quote: Call that having a pole in my ass or whatever.

It's called you having a pole up your ass.

Quote:And I let them do their job. Am I blocking them from doing it? Am I saying they can't? No. I freely admit that they can. I said that multiple times.

Oh that's very nice of you A2 to allow Stark and Moms to do their jobs...

Quote:It'll probably amount to nothing, but I would have liked to have been careful, muffs.

Than you shouldn't have escalated it. It was fine and unsuspicious from what I said. You made it worse.

Quote:Do you understand?

I understand that you were slandering on about someone receiving favoritism treatment despite yourself receiving it. You were being hypocritical and I'm not to fond of hypocrites.

Quote:Did I say you were a bad person? Absolutely not. I still think highly of you as a person. I am only criticizing the judgment calls you have made as a leader, not you as a person. I am sorry if I have offended you emotionally.

That IS saying he is a bad person.

Quote:I was ready to drop the subject at the first post, but I was enticed to respond.

You brought it up, you weren't "enticed" into anything.

Quote:I am sorry that I believe in a government that is supposed to be impartial, or rather using discretion without relying on favoritism.

This isn't a country, this is an internet forum. Please remove pole from ass and try again.

Quote:My view still stands that those were bad calls

Well, you are entitled to your wrong opinion.

Quote:They keep responding and I am compelled to defend myself.

You brought it up bitch, don't go playing the "people just wont drop it" card now.
You don't have the privilege to use that card, you lost it when you made claims about out admin being incompetent.

Quote:Oh, and I am sorry, Stark. It seemed I was grossly misinformed.

I'll be going now.

Sorry for being a dick.

You weren't misinformed, I informed your ass before.
You just wanted an out because people are piling ontop of you.


Ato, you have a very immature view of the world. It comes back to the black and white thing again. The world isn't black or white, it's grey. School teaches black and white, but you gotta work out the grey for yourself.

Yes, sir. I understand, sir. I will stop doing research, I will trust whatever Stark and Moms puts on the board.

I clearly shouldn't have said anything. I know my place now, sir. I will no longer open my mouth about moderation.

Thank you for educating me, sir.

Sorry for doubting you, sir. I wanted official FT confirmation, and they confirmed you were right. It was definitely me getting an out, sir.

I learn even more from you, sir.

Thank you.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: