Whoops. I "accidentally" banned FZUMedia. My bad.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
31-12-2012, 04:58 AM
RE: Whoops. I "accidentally" banned FZUMedia. My bad.
If he didn't break any rules then you shouldn't have banned him. you should have waited until A) the forum rules changed and it was allowed or B) the rest of the forum team wholeheartedly agrees.

Being rude and dickish is not a crime here.

But hey, I can't complain either way.

The dude was a real douche to a lot of awesome people on here.

[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
31-12-2012, 05:13 AM
RE: Whoops. I "accidentally" banned FZUMedia. My bad.
You people do realise that posts get reported quite frequently right? People upset each other on here all the time.

On the reported posts first pages the are reports against; Janus, Chas, Frankiej, Undercover Atheist, Xinoftruden, Magoo, Julius, Earmuffs, Logisch, and Bucky Ball. Don't ask for any more info cos it's supposed to be confidential and I'm not gonna break that, I'm just making a point.

That list doesn't even include the people reported by FZU. How would you really like it if we all just swung the banhammer whenever we felt like it? What if I decided one of those reports had been made by a friend and so I banned the reported person out of hand to defend my friend?

That is what we are moving towards.

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
[+] 1 user Likes Hughsie's post
31-12-2012, 05:33 AM
RE: Whoops. I "accidentally" banned FZUMedia. My bad.
Your choice of words thus far has been rather interesting. You've used "willy-nilly", "on a whim" and "whenever we feel like it".

If that were in fact the context of THIS issue, then I would agree with you. But it's not. As I've said, the guy was a cunt; he was a cunt for an extended period of time; and bullshit politics were allowing him to continue to be a cunt due to technicalities.

His ban was not done on a whim. It was a much-needed act of justice; trenscending the politics which kept the aggressor protected - or at least unimpeded thus far. No, you shouldn't go around banning people on a whim. Yes, we'd take issue with that. But if someone is a total douche, simply for the sake of being a douche, and it negatively effects members of this forum day after day, then I would fully stand behind the act of ridding the forum of such a cancer. It'd more unethical to not act.

Through profound pain comes profound knowledge.
Ridi, Pagliaccio, sul tuo amore infranto! Ridi del duol, che t'avvelena il cor!
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Misanthropik's post
31-12-2012, 05:37 AM
RE: Whoops. I "accidentally" banned FZUMedia. My bad.
(31-12-2012 05:33 AM)Misanthropik Wrote:  Your choice of words thus far has been rather interesting. You've used "willy-nilly", "on a whim" and "whenever we feel like it".

If that were in fact the context of THIS issue, then I would agree with you. But it's not. As I've said, the guy was a cunt; he was a cunt for an extended period of time; and bullshit politics were allowing him to continue to be a cunt due to technicalities.

His ban was not done on a whim. It was a much-needed act of justice; trenscending the politics which kept the aggressor protected - or at least unimpeded thus far. No, you shouldn't go around banning people on a whim. Yes, we'd take issue with that. But if someone is a total douche, simply for the sake of being a douche, and it negatively effects members of this forum day after day, then I would fully stand behind the act of ridding the forum of such a cancer. It'd more unethical to not act.

You realise that, unless you wanna scrap all rules and have everything at the discretion of whichever mod is online, you cannot impede on the free speech of one person without affecting everyones, even your own.

His ban WAS done on a whim. BC just decided to go and do it on a spur of the moment.

Also, been a cunt, or a douche, or a prick is a completely subjective thing. I think FZU was a prick to don't get me wrong, but what happens if you say something I don't like and I decide I think you're a cunt or a douche or a prick? Suddenly this "if they're a douche then ban them" idea doesn't sound so good any more?

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
31-12-2012, 05:44 AM
RE: Whoops. I "accidentally" banned FZUMedia. My bad.
(31-12-2012 05:37 AM)Hughsie Wrote:  
(31-12-2012 05:33 AM)Misanthropik Wrote:  Your choice of words thus far has been rather interesting. You've used "willy-nilly", "on a whim" and "whenever we feel like it".

If that were in fact the context of THIS issue, then I would agree with you. But it's not. As I've said, the guy was a cunt; he was a cunt for an extended period of time; and bullshit politics were allowing him to continue to be a cunt due to technicalities.

His ban was not done on a whim. It was a much-needed act of justice; trenscending the politics which kept the aggressor protected - or at least unimpeded thus far. No, you shouldn't go around banning people on a whim. Yes, we'd take issue with that. But if someone is a total douche, simply for the sake of being a douche, and it negatively effects members of this forum day after day, then I would fully stand behind the act of ridding the forum of such a cancer. It'd more unethical to not act.

You realise that, unless you wanna scrap all rules and have everything at the discretion of whichever mod is online, you cannot impede on the free speech of one person without affecting everyones, even your own.

His ban WAS done on a whim. BC just decided to go and do it on a spur of the moment.

Also, been a cunt, or a douche, or a prick is a completely subjective thing. I think FZU was a prick to don't get me wrong, but what happens if you say something I don't like and I decide I think you're a cunt or a douche or a prick? Suddenly this "if they're a douche then ban them" idea doesn't sound so good any more?
Being a prick is one thing. Back when Vera and I had that big falling-out, she and I were being pricks. But, we've ignored each other ever since. We've not stalked and harassed one another.

However, had I stalked her and harassed her, I would fully expect to be barred from doing so again. In that context, yes, it sounds like a great idea.

This guy was liked by few (none, if I may speak so boldly), and hated by many. He stirred shit, harassed people, and through his actions caused some to leave the forum. Sorry, but I cannot fathom how or why we should allow this to continue for the sake of these rules - which it seems are in great need of revision.

As for a "whim" - the little cunt was banned precisely because he'd been a little cunt for an extended period of time. He wasn't going to change, and it was fucking things up for people. That's A LOT different than BC jumping online, scrolling through the members and just clicking "Ban" at random. And on that note, you assume that's "where this place is headed"? Because one cancer got carved out? The slippery-slope fallacy is precisely as its name would suggest.

Through profound pain comes profound knowledge.
Ridi, Pagliaccio, sul tuo amore infranto! Ridi del duol, che t'avvelena il cor!
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Misanthropik's post
31-12-2012, 05:45 AM
RE: Whoops. I "accidentally" banned FZUMedia. My bad.
Oh the irony! Jesus fucking Christ! I think a lot of people are in danger of breaking a leg or something if they don't get off their high horses pretty soon.

"E se non passa la tristezza con altri occhi la guarderĂ²."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Vera's post
31-12-2012, 05:48 AM
RE: Whoops. I "accidentally" banned FZUMedia. My bad.
(31-12-2012 05:44 AM)Misanthropik Wrote:  Being a prick is one thing. Back when Vera and I had that big falling-out, she and I were being pricks. But, we've ignored each other ever since. We've not stalked and harassed one another.

However, had I stalked her and harassed her, I would fully expect to be barred from doing so again. In that context, yes, it sounds like a great idea.

This guy was liked by few (none, if I may speak so boldly), and hated by many. He stirred shit, harassed people, and through his actions caused some to leave the forum. Sorry, but I cannot fathom how or why we should allow this to continue for the sake of these rules - which it seems are in great need of revision.

As for a "whim" - the little cunt was banned precisely because he'd been a little cunt for an extended period of time. He wasn't going to change, and it was fucking things up for people. That's A LOT different than BC jumping online, scrolling through the members and just clicking "Ban" at random. And on that note, you assume that's "where this place is headed"? Because one cancer got carved out? The slippery-slope fallacy is precisely as its name would suggest.

People should not be banned for being unpopular, period.

Harassed is a rather strong word. His PM was out of line but it was only one PM, then he was posting in a public thread where people were talking about him. He has every right to do that. How exactly is that harassment?

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
31-12-2012, 05:53 AM
RE: Whoops. I "accidentally" banned FZUMedia. My bad.
(31-12-2012 05:13 AM)Hughsie Wrote:  You people do realise that posts get reported quite frequently right? People upset each other on here all the time.

On the reported posts first pages the are reports against; Janus, Chas, Frankiej, Undercover Atheist, Xinoftruden, Magoo, Julius, Earmuffs, Logisch, and Bucky Ball. Don't ask for any more info cos it's supposed to be confidential and I'm not gonna break that, I'm just making a point.

That list doesn't even include the people reported by FZU. How would you really like it if we all just swung the banhammer whenever we felt like it? What if I decided one of those reports had been made by a friend and so I banned the reported person out of hand to defend my friend?

That is what we are moving towards.

Lol Magoo, who would complain about that leprechaun?

[Image: 3cdac7eec8f6b059070d9df56f50a7ae.jpg]
Now with 40% more awesome.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes earmuffs's post
31-12-2012, 05:54 AM (This post was last modified: 31-12-2012 06:00 AM by Vera.)
RE: Whoops. I "accidentally" banned FZUMedia. My bad.
Even though I have you on ignore, I can't help but read your BS when people quote it. Kindly don't put me in the same category with yourself.

"E se non passa la tristezza con altri occhi la guarderĂ²."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-12-2012, 05:54 AM
RE: Whoops. I "accidentally" banned FZUMedia. My bad.
(31-12-2012 05:48 AM)Hughsie Wrote:  
(31-12-2012 05:44 AM)Misanthropik Wrote:  Being a prick is one thing. Back when Vera and I had that big falling-out, she and I were being pricks. But, we've ignored each other ever since. We've not stalked and harassed one another.

However, had I stalked her and harassed her, I would fully expect to be barred from doing so again. In that context, yes, it sounds like a great idea.

This guy was liked by few (none, if I may speak so boldly), and hated by many. He stirred shit, harassed people, and through his actions caused some to leave the forum. Sorry, but I cannot fathom how or why we should allow this to continue for the sake of these rules - which it seems are in great need of revision.

As for a "whim" - the little cunt was banned precisely because he'd been a little cunt for an extended period of time. He wasn't going to change, and it was fucking things up for people. That's A LOT different than BC jumping online, scrolling through the members and just clicking "Ban" at random. And on that note, you assume that's "where this place is headed"? Because one cancer got carved out? The slippery-slope fallacy is precisely as its name would suggest.

People should not be banned for being unpopular, period.

Harassed is a rather strong word. His PM was out of line but it was only one PM, then he was posting in a public thread where people were talking about him. He has every right to do that. How exactly is that harassment?

"Your abusive husband stopped by your house and threatened you. And now he's following you around in public and hanging out on the street in front of your house. You can't sleep at night as a result and you're contemplating moving out of town altogether because of it. But when he stopped by your house an threatened you; that was only one time. Psh, come on. Plus, the streets are public places. It's his right to be there."

You and I would call "bullshit" if such a thing happened. And yet, something similar has occured here, and when the problem has been remedied, it's a big issue.

Perhaps this place is a little too open-minded. How ironic.

Through profound pain comes profound knowledge.
Ridi, Pagliaccio, sul tuo amore infranto! Ridi del duol, che t'avvelena il cor!
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Misanthropik's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: