New Rule: Posting Private Correspondence

[Jackalope]

Sure, probably not. I was just explaining how Huggy's signature wasn't randomly taken away as a staff conspiracy as he'd love to think.

That is absolutely correct.

[Cyberman]

The basic forum conspiracy dance steps go like this:

Staff: [Arrive at a decision]
Member: This is a conspiracy against me!
Staff: Please support that accusation
Member: How can I? It's all done in secret!
Staff: Then you have no basis for saying it's a conspiracy, if you don't know what was discussed

Huggy just has it on a loop, that's all.

[brewer]

Has Huggy "officially" asked for the sig thing back (not exactly what went away)? Through channels, the administration? Filed an appeal? Ya know, kind of the way the rest of the world works?

[robvalue]

Fucking conspiracy.

Any of us staff members could literally ban him permanently in about 5 seconds if we so wished. Yet amazingly, here he still is, to tell us how persecuted he is. We don't do it because we believe in proper procedure, and not canning people just because they annoy us.

[Jackalope]

Fucking conspiracy.

Any of us staff members could literally ban him permanently in about 5 seconds if we so wished. Yet amazingly, here he still is, to tell us how persecuted he is. We don't do it because we believe in proper procedure, and not canning people just because they annoy us.

Well yeah, any of us have the power - but not the authority. If any of us acts unilaterally when we're not empowered to do so, the action will be reversed. It's happened before (not with the current staff).

[Huggy Bear]

Sure, probably not. I was just explaining how Huggy's signature wasn't randomly taken away as a staff conspiracy as he'd love to think.

Except your explanation is simply not true. I've provided the evidence that FaF was not misrepresented or taken out of context, I asked him a question and he answered the question, that IS the full context. Backtracking after the fact does not change the original context.

How is this not clear?

Posting the answer alone would take the answer out of context, But including the question with the answer puts the answer in proper context, got it?

[vorlon13]

Limits on powers in Valhalla ?!?!?!?

Interesting, very interesting.

[scribbles furiously in log book]

[robvalue]

Fucking conspiracy.

Any of us staff members could literally ban him permanently in about 5 seconds if we so wished. Yet amazingly, here he still is, to tell us how persecuted he is. We don't do it because we believe in proper procedure, and not canning people just because they annoy us.

Well yeah, any of us have the power - but not the authority.  If any of us acts unilaterally when we're not empowered to do so, the action will be reversed.  It's happened before (not with the current staff).

Oh, of course. But if there was a "fucking conspiracy" and the staff wanted him gone, he'd be gone. We'd just have an evil meeting and ban him because we're evil. The fact that he isn't shows that there is a fair and decent moderation system in place. No one has even tried to off him on the quiet.

It is a great system, that even if a staff member went on a vendetta, it would be reversed like you say. But that relies on a proper system in the first place, not a bunch of corrupt power mongers looking to single out and silence particular people.

We wouldn't even crucify Jesus, which is more than you can say for God.

[Jackalope]

Sure, probably not. I was just explaining how Huggy's signature wasn't randomly taken away as a staff conspiracy as he'd love to think.

Except your explanation is simply not true. I've provided the evidence that FaF was not misrepresented or taken out of context, I asked him a question and he answered the question, that IS the full context. Backtracking after the fact does not change the original context.

How is this not clear?

Posting the answer alone would take the answer out of context, But including the question with the answer puts the answer in proper context, got it?

The staff disagrees with your assessment - as I recall, the consensus was that the manner you chose to quote him implied something other than what he meant.

However, I'm not going to waste time digging up the details amongst all the reports on file to refresh my memory.

If you had a problem with the decision, you should have brought it up when it happened. If you did, and we declined to overturn it, well, that's just too fucking bad.

We consider it a closed issue. Time to move on.

[Cyberman]

Hear, hear.