Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
(January 23, 2016 at 10:33 am)Excited Penguin Wrote: That I might be wrong or not about this doesn't concern whether I can criticise them or not. Naturally, they can disallow me from criticising them, but as long as they won't, I will. While they are under no pressure to accept my criticism and change I will nevertheless criticise when I see fit that I do so. A flawed website that isn't willing to change its problematic policies is likely to lose at least part of its membership due to those flaws. I am determined to point out said flaws wherever I perceive them in the hope that my criticism might either be addressed accordingly or taken to heart.
I find it absolutely hilarious that the above was posted in this of all threads.
(January 23, 2016 at 10:38 am)Excited Penguin Wrote:
(January 23, 2016 at 10:34 am)Brian37 Wrote: The irony is strong in this post. I haven't felt this much irony since............
Let us not devolve into tangents here, specifically not into ad-hominems unrelated to the matter at hand.
Lets not pay attention to the fact you complain and nobody has booted you. More irony that you complain about my criticism of your criticism.
You don't like the rule, so? I am telling you that rule isn't the Gestopo tactic you want to think it is. There is no such thing as a utopia. Now the great thing about western common law, is that if you don't like a page, you can start one yourself on other social media and set the rules up the way you like.
Now again, if I thought for one second the staff here were power hungry "agree with me or else" or "never offend or disagree", I would not stay on this website. Secondly there would be no reason to ask for member's input at all about the new rule if they simply wanted to do whatever they wanted.
January 23, 2016 at 10:55 am (This post was last modified: January 23, 2016 at 10:57 am by Excited Penguin.)
(January 23, 2016 at 10:51 am)Brian37 Wrote:
(January 23, 2016 at 10:38 am)Excited Penguin Wrote: Let us not devolve into tangents here, specifically not into ad-hominems unrelated to the matter at hand.
Lets not pay attention to the fact you complain and nobody has booted you. More irony that you complain about my criticism of your criticism.
You don't like the rule, so? I am telling you that rule isn't the Gestopo tactic you want to think it is. There is no such thing as a utopia. Now the great thing about western common law, is that if you don't like a page, you can start one yourself on other social media and set the rules up the way you like.
Now again, if I thought for one second the staff here were power hungry "agree with me or else" or "never offend or disagree", I would not stay on this website. Secondly there would be no reason to ask for member's input at all about the new rule if they simply wanted to do whatever they wanted.
So you seem to think that anyone who "complains" should be booted?
We do not live in a vacuum. If the staff truly acted like some of you pretend that it does act to a certain extent not one soul would populate these forums. Let me repeat this. We do not live in a social vacuum. To a certain degree not only is it expected of people to voice their concerns and opinions in whichever context, it is actually encouraged and ultimately beneficial to do so. To say otherwise is simply delusional and derivative of far too simplistic a worldview to further address and one which actually feeds into my original point about authoritarianism. Now you seem to want to go around that by splitting hairs and pointing out the obvious fact that we're not talking about a government here. That is intellectually dishonest on your part and I will not engage you if you continue to act in that manner.
And once again it's been pointed out that nobody is preventing you from voicing your concerns. There is no censorship, there is no authoritarianism except inasmuch as a few of us are given a certain degree of authority, manifesting as slightly deeper access to the forum software. We don't have privileges denied to other members, nobody is getting anything out of the job. The system is set up to eliminate personal bias as far as possible; no mod has the authority to go rogue and act unilaterally on high power sanctions, but even if they were to do so the action would be reversed and that mod punished - resigned or maybe even banned, depending on the severity.
If the only objection is that Staff deliberations are held in camera, how would making them public be a fairer system?
At the age of five, Skagra decided emphatically that God did not exist. This revelation tends to make most people in the universe who have it react in one of two ways - with relief or with despair. Only Skagra responded to it by thinking, 'Wait a second. That means there's a situation vacant.'
Yes the staff has become the Gestapo and so much so you don't have a line through your name. So much so that the rule states no one can act by themselves and one dissenting vote negates the action of ban. You got em, it's now summary public execution..........
First off this is a PRIVATELY owned website. When we talk about free speech, that is a government aspect, this is not government owned media. Now even given that, having been on this website for years now, they do a far better job allowing different viewpoints and blasphemy and strong language, than even TV and newspaper websites.
I have been on tons of social media, and have experienced both theist and atheist pages that boot people at the first peep they don't like. This website from what I see goes way out of it's way, being privately owned, to allow a variety of voices. If I thought for one second they were PC kneejerk reactionaries which boot at the firs peep, I would not be here at all. I have left plenty of atheist pages on social media that do that on par with some theist websites. TRUST ME, 15 years of being on tons of social media, this page can hardly be accused of having a staff full of power mongers.
Quote:That I might be wrong or not about this doesn't concern whether I can criticise them or not. Naturally, they can disallow me from criticising them, but as long as they won't, I will. While they are under no pressure to accept my criticism and change I will nevertheless criticise when I see fit that I do so. A flawed website that isn't willing to change its problematic policies is likely to lose at least part of its membership due to those flaws. I am determined to point out said flaws wherever I perceive them in the hope that my criticism might either be addressed accordingly or taken to heart.
Are you asking to be banned? This right here is why you have problems. Because you are such an idiot you can't even shut the fuck up long enough to hear what others are saying.
You want evidence of trolling. Here ya go.
Now, the other issue I take with you is your constant need to make every thread you post in, about you. You are not the be all and the end all. If you don't like it here, go somewhere else.
Stop being a boil on the ass of humanity, grow up and act your age.
Or just leave. Many of us would be fine with the last option.
Disclaimer: I am only responsible for what I say, not what you choose to understand.
(November 14, 2018 at 8:57 pm)The Valkyrie Wrote: Have a good day at work. If we ever meet in a professional setting, let me answer your question now. Yes, I DO want fries with that.
(January 23, 2016 at 11:17 am)Stimbo Wrote: And once again it's been pointed out that nobody is preventing you from voicing your concerns. There is no censorship, there is no authoritarianism except inasmuch as a few of us are given a certain degree of authority, manifesting as slightly deeper access to the forum software. We don't have privileges denied to other members, nobody is getting anything out of the job. The system is set up to eliminate personal bias as far as possible; no mod has the authority to go rogue and act unilaterally on high power sanctions, but even if they were to do so the action would be reversed and that mod punished - resigned or maybe even banned, depending on the severity.
If the only objection is that Staff deliberations are held in camera, how would making them public be a fairer system?
You've been questioned, OFF WITH THEIR HEADS! Don't blindfold them, don't give them a last meal, don't give em a last smoke, just knock down their door, haul em off and make em disappear. Spark up those ovens, cause that biblical flood, kill off the Egyptian first born!
Bu Brian, your just being silly. NO I AM NOT........ I know you sank the Titanic, you were the third man on the grassy knoll.
January 23, 2016 at 12:40 pm (This post was last modified: January 23, 2016 at 12:43 pm by Excited Penguin.)
(January 23, 2016 at 11:17 am)Stimbo Wrote: And once again it's been pointed out that nobody is preventing you from voicing your concerns. There is no censorship, there is no authoritarianism except inasmuch as a few of us are given a certain degree of authority, manifesting as slightly deeper access to the forum software. We don't have privileges denied to other members, nobody is getting anything out of the job. The system is set up to eliminate personal bias as far as possible; no mod has the authority to go rogue and act unilaterally on high power sanctions, but even if they were to do so the action would be reversed and that mod punished - resigned or maybe even banned, depending on the severity.
If the only objection is that Staff deliberations are held in camera, how would making them public be a fairer system?
Bold mine
Of course it would. Are you kidding me? Transparency is the hallmark of a fair system. What you might perceive as fair might not be. I'm not saying you should delegate actual powers to the membership at large, but I can't see how it could hurt for us to be able to see what's going on behind the curtain so that we might give feedback and point out what we perceive as errors in your thinking. It would still be your decisions as staff, but it would be informed by the membership.
