Wicked Clown
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
30-08-2014, 03:23 PM
RE: Wicked Clown
(30-08-2014 02:22 PM)Stevil Wrote:  If the purpose of this thread were to build a case on why WC is to be permabanned, I think this thread is failing because it isn't presenting the evidence. It raises lots of questions about WTF happened however.

Agreed. But the evidence cannot be posted because it puts someone in jeopardy. So what you see is all you get, but be assured admin knows the whole story.

[Image: dobie.png]Science is the process we've designed to be responsible for generating our best guess as to what the fuck is going on. Girly Man
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Dom's post
30-08-2014, 03:35 PM
RE: Wicked Clown
(30-08-2014 03:23 PM)Dom Wrote:  Agreed. But the evidence cannot be posted because it puts someone in jeopardy. So what you see is all you get, but be assured admin knows the whole story.
Fine by me.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-08-2014, 04:04 PM
RE: Wicked Clown
(30-08-2014 02:42 PM)Tartarus Sauce Wrote:  
(30-08-2014 01:56 PM)Chas Wrote:  They have the de facto ability since they have admin access.

Yes and despite that Hughsie claims that no such capability exists for him. Is he just lying, or is there just a serious misunderstanding here?

Quote:The main purpose of the 3 SMs is to break a deadlock between the 2 Admins. That is why it was set up. I know - I was there. Drinking Beverage


They do NOT have the power to override admin decisions though.

Quote:So SMs have that authority already granted. They should also have the authority to oust a rogue Admin, though the other Admin should do so.
They do NOT have the authority just because you think they should. As far as I know, only Deep even has the capacity to do it.

Quote:
I'm sorry you don't like checks and balances or democracy. That is sad.

Excuse me? I don't recall stating a dislike for either, just that neither are the case.

Please read my posts more carefully.

The distinction is between can and may, between the ability and the authority to do something.

If the Admins are deadlocked, say on whether or not to ban, the SMs have the ability and the authority to ban that person. Or not ban.

I never claimed they had the authority to override an Admin decision.
However, what happens when an Admin breaks the rules? Let's say aurora bans Revenant, just because.
Is that an irrevocable action with no consequences for aurora?

The SMs have the ability to oust the Admins, they have not clearly been given that authority, though it was discussed when the structure was set up.

There are few (any?) rules of governance set down for the structure of management of this forum - there is no constitution. It is more like tradition and precedent.



It can be changed.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-08-2014, 04:29 PM
RE: Wicked Clown
(30-08-2014 03:01 PM)morondog Wrote:  Further bear in mind that if you edit a post fast enough that little message doesn't appear, so there are probably more posts that he edited.

I remember timing that...

I believe that the message doesn't come up if the edit is made within about three-five minutes after the initial post; it's quite a bit of leeway if you want to remove anything incriminating...

The people closely associated with the namesake of female canines are suffering from a nondescript form of lunacy.
"Anti-environmentalism is like standing in front of a forest and going 'quick kill them they're coming right for us!'" - Jake Farr-Wharton, The Imaginary Friend Show.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Free Thought's post
30-08-2014, 04:43 PM
RE: Wicked Clown
(29-08-2014 11:29 PM)earmuffs Wrote:  
(29-08-2014 02:58 PM)Hughsie Wrote:  the con Chas' approach is that a select few people choose what constitutes an undesirable.

Because a select few dictating what goes on around here doesn't happen already?

I can point out a few examples if you like.

(29-08-2014 03:31 PM)Ferdinand Wrote:  Regardless, I don't think criticizing the admins is really necessary.

I disagree.
Aurora was a poor admin choice. She's a nice lady (when she's not talking shit about you behind your back) but she was never very active.
And Dark Light was a poor admin choice because his personal life situation has changed from the time he became a mod leaving him less active then what he used to be. (though this could change with his new position)

This leaves the forum "weak" because Aurora is never gonna step down because that would mean she'd have to log on, and Dark Light just got the position.

Hughsie and Deep are effectively the admins.
Which is disappointing for the forum considering they're literally the only two on the whole forum who don't want him banned.

(29-08-2014 03:39 PM)Anjele Wrote:  Wasn't Ferdi once banned and is now a mod?

WC is unlikely to sleep with the boss so different circumstances.

Opps, almost forgot the ":P"

(29-08-2014 03:39 PM)Stevil Wrote:  OK, I haven't been following this drama, I've managed to avoid him for the most part.
But if he has been harrassing people, then make a case and I'm sure the admins will deal with it appropriately.

Except they haven't dealt with it appropriately.
There in lays the rub.

Quote:Maybe we could ban that topic for two weeks and then see how it goes.

Well played.

Quote:The hope I had was that people may actually give him a fair chance to demonstrate improved behaviour on his return.

Given how this thread is going, somehow I don't see that happening. Undecided

I can't speak for anyone else, but I sure as shit aint gonna give him a second chance once he gets back. I'll likely just hurl insults at him in the hope that he'll bite so he gets banned sooner.

Quote:Hughsie, I'm sorry, but I find this post extremely insulting. Is this the opinion you have of the forum members? That we are absolutely unable to consider a person objectively if they truly tried to reform behavior? That we lack the critical thinking and reasoning it takes to give someone a fair shot?

I can count at least six forum members that I truly did not like, that I thought were abrasive, disruptive, and not nice people to have around the forum. I had the capacity to watch posts and behavior, and change my opinion. I've changed negative reps to positive ones.

There is no excuse for his behavior. As Rev said, he has made his own bed.

Preach it sister.




This 2 week thing is the Ato Red Celt re-banning situation all over again.
Stupid, pointless and a waste of fucking time and a complete lack of common sense.
Just fucking permaban the cunt.

Fist yourself. Facepalm
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-08-2014, 04:45 PM
RE: Wicked Clown
(30-08-2014 04:04 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(30-08-2014 02:42 PM)Tartarus Sauce Wrote:  Yes and despite that Hughsie claims that no such capability exists for him. Is he just lying, or is there just a serious misunderstanding here?



They do NOT have the power to override admin decisions though.

They do NOT have the authority just because you think they should. As far as I know, only Deep even has the capacity to do it.


Excuse me? I don't recall stating a dislike for either, just that neither are the case.

Please read my posts more carefully.

The distinction is between can and may, between the ability and the authority to do something.

If the Admins are deadlocked, say on whether or not to ban, the SMs have the ability and the authority to ban that person. Or not ban.

I never claimed they had the authority to override an Admin decision.
However, what happens when an Admin breaks the rules? Let's say aurora bans Revenant, just because.
Is that an irrevocable action with no consequences for aurora?

The SMs have the ability to oust the Admins, they have not clearly been given that authority, though it was discussed when the structure was set up.

There are few (any?) rules of governance set down for the structure of management of this forum - there is no constitution. It is more like tradition and precedent.



It can be changed.

Seth chooses the admin of the site. It wouldn't make much sense for SM's to ban admins when Seth chooses who is in command anyways. What the admin says/does is forum policy.

Thus having the title admin...
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Ferdinand's post
30-08-2014, 04:53 PM
RE: Wicked Clown
(30-08-2014 04:45 PM)Ferdinand Wrote:  
(30-08-2014 04:04 PM)Chas Wrote:  Please read my posts more carefully.

The distinction is between can and may, between the ability and the authority to do something.

If the Admins are deadlocked, say on whether or not to ban, the SMs have the ability and the authority to ban that person. Or not ban.

I never claimed they had the authority to override an Admin decision.
However, what happens when an Admin breaks the rules? Let's say aurora bans Revenant, just because.
Is that an irrevocable action with no consequences for aurora?

The SMs have the ability to oust the Admins, they have not clearly been given that authority, though it was discussed when the structure was set up.

There are few (any?) rules of governance set down for the structure of management of this forum - there is no constitution. It is more like tradition and precedent.



It can be changed.

Seth chooses the admin of the site. It wouldn't make much sense for SM's to ban admins when Seth chooses who is in command anyways. What the admin says/does is forum policy.

Thus having the title admin...

Seth chose exactly one admin - Stark.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-08-2014, 04:59 PM
RE: Wicked Clown
(30-08-2014 04:53 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(30-08-2014 04:45 PM)Ferdinand Wrote:  Seth chooses the admin of the site. It wouldn't make much sense for SM's to ban admins when Seth chooses who is in command anyways. What the admin says/does is forum policy.

Thus having the title admin...

Seth chose exactly one admin - Stark.

Let me rephrase. Seth still approves of the admin(s), and by approving of the new admins (the decision of the admin before them, I'm guessing) he gives them the control and responsibilities if the admin before them. Thus he still somewhat plays a large part in determining who the admin is. Seth wouldn't leave the forum in hands of people he didn't trust as admins, because the forum itself reflects back onto his business and name.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-08-2014, 05:03 PM
RE: Wicked Clown
(30-08-2014 04:59 PM)Ferdinand Wrote:  
(30-08-2014 04:53 PM)Chas Wrote:  Seth chose exactly one admin - Stark.

Let me rephrase. Seth still approves of the admin(s), and by approving of the new admins (the decision of the admin before them, I'm guessing) he gives them the control and responsibilities if the admin before them. Thus he still somewhat plays a large part in determining who the admin is. Seth wouldn't leave the forum in hands of people he didn't trust as admins, because the forum itself reflects back onto his business and name.

I don't think that has been true. When Stark passed it on, I don't think he sought Seth's approval of his choice. Maybe Stark could confirm or deny this.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-08-2014, 05:08 PM
RE: Wicked Clown
(30-08-2014 05:03 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(30-08-2014 04:59 PM)Ferdinand Wrote:  Let me rephrase. Seth still approves of the admin(s), and by approving of the new admins (the decision of the admin before them, I'm guessing) he gives them the control and responsibilities if the admin before them. Thus he still somewhat plays a large part in determining who the admin is. Seth wouldn't leave the forum in hands of people he didn't trust as admins, because the forum itself reflects back onto his business and name.

I don't think that has been true. When Stark passed it on, I don't think he sought Seth's approval of his choice. Maybe Stark could confirm or deny this.

The admins themselves speak with Seth about forum policy. I don't know how often, but I know that they do. Several admins had mentioned this before. If Seth were speaking to a newly chosen admin and didn't trust that person with the job, he wouldn't allow the person to be admin anyways. That's just kind of common sense. Thus giving that person approval to be admin. Or at least that's what I would expect because this forum and what goes on here reflect back on his name and business.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Ferdinand's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: