Objections to the April Fools Day prank.

[Tiberius]

Tib, not everyone is net savy such as some of us on the webs.

Not being net savy is no reason to make the massive leap from "maybe it's a problem with my browser" to "the staff are deleting my posts". It's also no reason to ignore our attempts at showing him he was wrong (Shell linked him directly to his posts, which were...low and behold, still there), and instead turn your entire profile into some rage-fest.

Once again rev, you prove that you would be an utterly terrible moderator of any forum. You respect rule-breakers, and whilst you may be in your rights to do that, as the upholders of the rules, we do not have any respect for people who come here and shit all over the community.

[Nine]

If you can read a conspiracy into anything I posted in that last post then clearly you will see conspiracies in anything.

Please look back and read it again. I merely stated and opinion and asked a question. I personally feel that some on the top are using a sledge hammer to push a tack in the wall. Or using a sword to butter their biscuits.

Even so. If I was having difficulty's and my posts were not showing up even if I had suspicions I would message them.

Plus he had derailed earlier discussions that were calm.

I liked the guy but his actions were poor.

[reverendjeremiah]

Not being net savy is no reason to make the massive leap from "maybe it's a problem with my browser" to "the staff are deleting my posts".

I must respectfully disagree. From his point of view in light of common events he equated it with a personal attack. I have spoken with him of forum and he still holds to the attacks, but I must admit I have not spoken to him of possible browser issues on his end, or somewhere in between the signal.

It's also no reason to ignore our attempts at showing him he was wrong (Shell linked him directly to his posts, which were...low and behold, still there), and instead turn your entire profile into some rage-fest.

You have a pit dont you? Please remember that from his point of view he saw it as a personal attack from someone capable of erasing his postings. I of course would not have gone on a rage such as that, but I would claim my bias of actually knowing how the webs work because of that. Whateverest has a bit of age upon him, and many in that bracket are just not that savy to the net. Being men of coding we should stretch out a hand of understanding to such people. Put him in the pit, give him some explanation of why he was there while the staff looked into fixing the problem both in code and communication. I see it from my opinion as the staff using a sledge hammer when a tack hammer would have had a much better effect.

Once again rev, you prove that you would be an utterly terrible moderator of any forum. You respect rule-breakers, and whilst you may be in your rights to do that, as the upholders of the rules, we do not have any respect for people who come here and shit all over the community.

So even though I have been VERY respectful about this, you insist on insulting my inteligence and experience? I AM a moderator for my union and have saved many peoples jobs from miscommunications such as this. I have even saved the employers and foreman from charges by keeping them up to date on current laws and contractual agreements. I was also a moderator of the biggest Virginia atheists yahoo group a decade ago. I never used the ban button for anyone other than spammers. For members you use the "moderate" button. You put ALL involved parties into moderation and you stand between them as an unbiased mediator. Hopefully people shake hands and go back to being productive members of the community after the moderation.

[Mister Agenda]

Whateverist was banned for trolling / inciting disruption, by repeatedly trying to make out like we'd deleted his posts (we hadn't). I can understand if he'd had just asked us about it, but he didn't even care about our response, and proceeded to cover his entire profile with the allegations (seriously, he even updated his away status). That kind of behaviour isn't the kind that we want around here.

Too bad. Until the recent unpleasantness he had always struck me as one of our most thoughtful contributors.

[Tiberius]

I must respectfully disagree. From his point of view in light of common events he equated it with a personal attack. I have spoken with him of forum and he still holds to the attacks, but I must admit I have not spoken to him of possible browser issues on his end, or somewhere in between the signal.

If he still holds to the "personal attacks" then he is as deluded as he is vicious. The staff pointed out to him multiple times that his posts were still there; he ignored us and instead decided to spread lies about the staff being "corrupt".

You have a pit dont you? Please remember that from his point of view he saw it as a personal attack from someone capable of erasing his postings. I of course would not have gone on a rage such as that, but I would claim my bias of actually knowing how the webs work because of that. Whateverest has a bit of age upon him, and many in that bracket are just not that savy to the net. Being men of coding we should stretch out a hand of understanding to such people. Put him in the pit, give him some explanation of why he was there while the staff looked into fixing the problem both in code and communication. I see it from my opinion as the staff using a sledge hammer when a tack hammer would have had a much better effect.

Don't they say wisdom comes with age? A pity that seems to be the exception rather than the rule. Most older people seem to cling onto their presuppositions, despite the mounting evidence against them. In the pit, he can still do damage. I am trying to minimize damage here; there has been too much misinformation plastered about over the last few days, without people like whateverist adding to it.

So even though I have been VERY respectful about this, you insist on insulting my inteligence and experience? I AM a moderator for my union and have saved many peoples jobs from miscommunications such as this. I have even saved the employers and foreman from charges by keeping them up to date on current laws and contractual agreements. I was also a moderator of the biggest Virginia atheists yahoo group a decade ago. I never used the ban button for anyone other than spammers. For members you use the "moderate" button. You put ALL involved parties into moderation and you stand between them as an unbiased mediator. Hopefully people shake hands and go back to being productive members of the community after the moderation.

FYI, adding the word "respectfully" in front of every disagreement you make does not make you respectful, especially when it was only yesterday that you made this post where you stated you had "ZERO" respect for me now. So yes, I will insult your intelligence and experience over this; I think that after all the times you've literally picked at straws trying to defend some of the scum who come here, I have that right.

I don't care if you "moderate" your union; this is the Internet, it's an entirely different playing field. Same with a decade old Yahoo group; again, today's web is a free-for-all, not the limited pleasant place it once was. These days, we have more than spammers, we have active trolls, we have people who disrupt activity by repeatedly posting pornography, and we have people who try desperately try to evade their bans. You are incredibly naive when it comes to their motives behind this; people who evade bans are not doing it because "they must really love the forums". They are doing it to be assholes and piss people off. If they really did love the forums, they would accept that they behaved like a git, sit out the length of their ban, and return with apologetic posts.

If we ran things your way, it would be like pardoning escaped prisoners because "they obviously love being in society". You are naive; you think your friendship with these people gives them a carte blanche to do anything they like. Well, it doesn't. I stand by my assertion; you would make a terrible moderator; your forums would be overrun by trolls and vandals.

[Autumnlicious]

Not being net savy is no reason to make the massive leap from "maybe it's a problem with my browser" to "the staff are deleting my posts".

I must respectfully disagree. From his point of view in light of common events he equated it with a personal attack. I have spoken with him of forum and he still holds to the attacks, but I must admit I have not spoken to him of possible browser issues on his end, or somewhere in between the signal.

Still not an excuse to fly off the rails.

And still not an excuse to turn your own profile into a "you're all corrupt"-style billboard.

It's one thing to be simply upset and get a gauntlet-for-a-day to calm down.

It's another to sloganeer and flame.

---

They are doing it to be assholes and piss people off. If they really did love the forums, they would accept that they behaved like a git, sit out the length of their ban, and return with apologetic posts.

Yeah. Quoted for motherfucking truth.

If half the ban evaders that we've been hunting simply said "You know what, I was an asshole. And I'm sorry and want to make it up", they'd probably be here (unless they broke the rules egregiously again).

We understand passion. But passion is no excuse for long term assholish behavior.

It's hardly an acceptable excuse even in the heat of the moment.

---

Too bad. Until the recent unpleasantness he had always struck me as one of our most thoughtful contributors.

Bothered me too that he went off the deep end.

[AthiestAtheist]

Why is it that the mods get to use every excuse in the book, but when someone just gets angry, it's Ban City? Once again I must point out the hypocrisy here.

[Tiberius]

Why is it that the mods get to use every excuse in the book, but when someone just gets angry, it's Ban City? Once again I must point out the hypocrisy here.

I fail to see how our excuses aren't valid. We were doing a prank for April Fools Day; it was a one off thing, and we came right out and revealed ourselves at the end. Our actions held no malice.

This cannot be said for anyone else involved in this dispute.

[Autumnlicious]

Why is it that the mods get to use every excuse in the book, but when someone just gets angry, it's Ban City? Once again I must point out the hypocrisy here.

Once again, misrepresenting the facts to meet your rhetoric.

Let's consider a certain recent poster whom was banned and claimed to be "angry"...

Being angry is simply posting again and again in one thread. Being angry is sending PM's to the staff and attempting to communicate first before jumping to conclusions publicly, swearing in said PM's if need be.

Posting all over your profile "They deleted my posts" when it can be verified in the public's eye that said posts are there? Publicly claiming the same thing across multiple threads? Using said profile as a billboard for posting accusations about the character of this place?

That's not "angry."

That's flat out lying and malicious.

[AthiestAtheist]

Why is it that the mods get to use every excuse in the book, but when someone just gets angry, it's Ban City? Once again I must point out the hypocrisy here.

I fail to see how our excuses aren't valid. We were doing a prank for April Fools Day; it was a one off thing, and we came right out and revealed ourselves at the end. Our actions held no malice.

This cannot be said for anyone else involved in this dispute.

I was actually speaking generally, but here are the type of excuses I'm talking about:

1. It's my site
2. It was a joke
3. He/she was being disruptive (while simultaneously being disruptive).

These are rather poor reasons to ban someone while at the same time instigating by breaking the same rules.

---

Why is it that the mods get to use every excuse in the book, but when someone just gets angry, it's Ban City? Once again I must point out the hypocrisy here.

Once again, misrepresenting the facts to meet your rhetoric.

Let's consider a certain recent poster whom was banned and claimed to be "angry"...

Being angry is simply posting again and again in one thread. Being angry is sending PM's to the staff and attempting to communicate first before jumping to conclusions publicly, swearing in said PM's if need be.

Posting all over your profile "They deleted my posts" when it can be verified in the public's eye that said posts are there? Publicly claiming the same thing across multiple threads? Using said profile as a billboard for posting accusations about the character of this place?

That's not "angry."

That's flat out lying and malicious.

Look, this is the type of thing I'm talking about:

Person: (something stupid)
Mod: *criticizes*
Person: *criticizes back*
Mod: *insults*
Person: *insults back*
Mod: *bans*

What gives the (same!) mod the right to ban someone for insulting someone (or being disruptive, etc.) after they themselves drove them to insulting them while breaking the rules at the same time? Usually it comes down to something like "they were being way more disruptive". So the mod is completely in the right because they were being "less" disruptive? That is very immature reasoning, and a poor example for others to follow. This isn't evidence, but it does describe the pattern I've noticed on this site.