Posts: 5399
Threads: 256
Joined: December 1, 2013
Reputation:
60
RE: Peanut Gallery Commentary on the Staff Log of Bannings and such like.
April 3, 2015 at 5:32 pm
(April 3, 2015 at 5:25 pm)rexbeccarox Wrote: (April 3, 2015 at 5:22 pm)Cthulhu Dreaming Wrote: Absolutely. Creating a thread for the purpose of ridiculing member(s) is a no-go.
As far as the other thread goes, I personally hadn't seen it. It hadn't been reported.
To add to this: the reason the no-calling-out-rule exists is to prevent flaming, which is what you were doing by starting a thread to ridicule other members. Summer wasn't flaming; she was posing a question to our known local history genius. MAJOR difference. http://atheistforums.org/thread-29233.html
My thread including bennyboy in the title was no different.
" Calling out will be allowed only for the purpose of announcing special or important things about another member (such as to announce someone's birthday, for example, or something that you think others might be concerned about). It will not be allowed for supporting anything negative or offensive about any member of this forum. If you feel that it is something that we, the staff, should know about regarding another member, then it is best to discuss the issue with us via the PM system."
Benny posts a lot in the philosophy section. I knew he would appreciate the post. There is no difference between between her seeking out information about a specific topic and asking another member directly in the title and me making a thread about a specific topic with a member's name included because I know they'll respond with something I'll benefit from. Anyway, I'm not trying to be a pain in the ass but if you're going to make rules, be consistent in following them.
He who loves God cannot endeavour that God should love him in return - Baruch Spinoza
Posts: 6851
Threads: 76
Joined: October 17, 2012
Reputation:
31
RE: Peanut Gallery Commentary on the Staff Log of Bannings and such like.
April 3, 2015 at 5:39 pm
(April 3, 2015 at 5:17 pm)Nestor Wrote: And the fact that I didn't name names means any one of those statements could have been taken generically, because believe me, I'm sure you'll hear those stupid replies again in the future. True. So, all you had to do was say something like "I hear things like this from atheists lately and think they should be called out on it," then paraphrased those arguments in your own words. I think that would have been allowed.
Posts: 5399
Threads: 256
Joined: December 1, 2013
Reputation:
60
RE: Peanut Gallery Commentary on the Staff Log of Bannings and such like.
April 3, 2015 at 5:40 pm
(April 3, 2015 at 5:39 pm)alpha male Wrote: (April 3, 2015 at 5:17 pm)Nestor Wrote: And the fact that I didn't name names means any one of those statements could have been taken generically, because believe me, I'm sure you'll hear those stupid replies again in the future. True. So, all you had to do was say something like "I hear things like this from atheists lately and think they should be called out on it," then paraphrased those arguments in your own words. I think that would have been allowed.
Duly noted.
He who loves God cannot endeavour that God should love him in return - Baruch Spinoza
Posts: 25314
Threads: 239
Joined: August 26, 2010
Reputation:
156
RE: Peanut Gallery Commentary on the Staff Log of Bannings and such like.
April 3, 2015 at 5:41 pm
(This post was last modified: April 3, 2015 at 5:42 pm by Cyberman.)
Nestor
Maybe you can clarify a context in which the quotes I included would not be utterly moronic. Good luck with that. If I had made a thread called "Stupid things Christians say" or had singled out the comments of Christians or Muslims that are on here for saying some dumb shit, would it have caused any concern? Sounds to me like a double standard, and that certain members would rather avoid confronting their own bullshit while feeling free to disparage every other remark they disagree with it. And the fact that I didn't name names means any one of those statements could have been taken generically, because believe me, I'm sure you'll hear those stupid replies again in the future.
While we're on the subject of rules, how does the staff ignore the title of this thread? http://atheistforums.org/thread-32518.html
I'm pretty sure there's a rule against doing that. It took staff 5 minutes to ask me to change my title when I made a thread directed at bennyboy a few months back. Anyone want to state a reason for the lack of mod action in this case?
Maybe you could report it in the usual manner? Complaining about it in open public thread is not appropriate.
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.'
Posts: 5399
Threads: 256
Joined: December 1, 2013
Reputation:
60
RE: Peanut Gallery Commentary on the Staff Log of Bannings and such like.
April 3, 2015 at 5:42 pm
(This post was last modified: April 3, 2015 at 5:43 pm by Mudhammam.)
(April 3, 2015 at 5:41 pm)Stimbo Wrote: Maybe you could report it in the usual manner? Complaining about it in open public thread is not appropriate.
Does that only apply to me? Did you not see the people complaining about my thread?
He who loves God cannot endeavour that God should love him in return - Baruch Spinoza
Posts: 25314
Threads: 239
Joined: August 26, 2010
Reputation:
156
RE: Peanut Gallery Commentary on the Staff Log of Bannings and such like.
April 3, 2015 at 5:43 pm
It applies to everyone.
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.'
Posts: 30974
Threads: 204
Joined: July 19, 2011
Reputation:
141
RE: Peanut Gallery Commentary on the Staff Log of Bannings and such like.
April 3, 2015 at 5:58 pm
(April 3, 2015 at 5:32 pm)Nestor Wrote: (April 3, 2015 at 5:25 pm)rexbeccarox Wrote: To add to this: the reason the no-calling-out-rule exists is to prevent flaming, which is what you were doing by starting a thread to ridicule other members. Summer wasn't flaming; she was posing a question to our known local history genius. MAJOR difference. http://atheistforums.org/thread-29233.html
My thread including bennyboy in the title was no different.
"Calling out will be allowed only for the purpose of announcing special or important things about another member (such as to announce someone's birthday, for example, or something that you think others might be concerned about). It will not be allowed for supporting anything negative or offensive about any member of this forum. If you feel that it is something that we, the staff, should know about regarding another member, then it is best to discuss the issue with us via the PM system."
Benny posts a lot in the philosophy section. I knew he would appreciate the post. There is no difference between between her seeking out information about a specific topic and asking another member directly in the title and me making a thread about a specific topic with a member's name included because I know they'll respond with something I'll benefit from. Anyway, I'm not trying to be a pain in the ass but if you're going to make rules, be consistent in following them.
We try to be. In my opinion, it was probably a mistake to make an issue of your thread directed at bennyboy. It's important to realize that the staff who made that decision are not necessarily aware of the way similar situations were handled in the past.
When things like this happen, it's not a result of malice or favoritism, however. They're likely simple mistakes.
Posts: 7085
Threads: 69
Joined: September 11, 2012
Reputation:
84
RE: Peanut Gallery Commentary on the Staff Log of Bannings and such like.
April 3, 2015 at 6:02 pm
(This post was last modified: April 3, 2015 at 6:04 pm by rexbeccarox.)
Yeah... that thread is almost a year and a half old. I've only been on staff since August, so I wasn't involved in that decision.
Edit: looking at it, I wouldn't have voted to change the title.
Posts: 18503
Threads: 79
Joined: May 29, 2010
Reputation:
125
RE: Peanut Gallery Commentary on the Staff Log of Bannings and such like.
April 3, 2015 at 6:11 pm
Fuck this, I'm on strike.
Posts: 7085
Threads: 69
Joined: September 11, 2012
Reputation:
84
RE: Peanut Gallery Commentary on the Staff Log of Bannings and such like.
April 3, 2015 at 6:18 pm
(April 3, 2015 at 6:02 pm)rexbeccarox Wrote: Yeah... that thread is almost a year and a half old. I've only been on staff since August, so I wasn't involved in that decision.
Edit: looking at it, I wouldn't have voted to change the title. Actually, I read the date wrong; I was on staff. I can't find a report about your thread title, though.
|
