What IS good, and how do we determine it?

[Joods]

And dammit.. I had a good comment in this thread. Too bad it got buried in all the nonsense. Maybe he read it, but clearly, he's incapable of responding.

[KevinM1]

Moreover, if you want to give some digs back to him, just ask him if he's had any luck summoning UFOs, or quote mine some choice things he wrote in that train wreck of a thread several months ago.

Wait... there's a trainwreck thread? I MUST see this! Link please

This is weird.  I can't find the thread.  It was about unexplained things, I think started by Huggy.  In one of the posts, he presented a local news story of a homeless guy who could 'summon UFOs through prayer'.  It went about as well as you'd think.  I'll keep looking.

[Huggy Bear]

The first time I quoted someone in my sig, I was told to remove it despite NOT naming anyone, I hadn't visited the forum for a few days and came back to find the sig removed... how does that break the rules?

Oh, so what you're saying is that you remember that we consider that exact form of quote mining to be against the rules, and just decided to do it again. So you intentionally decided to break the rules, fully knowing what you were doing at the time. Great! Glad you admitted that.

Furthermore, I have access to that report, Huggy. It never goes away: you did identify the other party in your quote mine via his initials, and you were online at the time it was deleted. In fact, the reason it was deleted is that you had been given a length of time to alter it yourself, you were available to do that, and yet you hadn't done it.

You act like I don't have the pm I received, quote mining had nothing to do with it and since you insist on continuing to misrepresent the situation I'll quote the pm here... if that constitutes an ban, so be it.

I'll leave the sender anonymous.

It is come to our attention that after you were asked to quit your tiff
with Bad Wolf that you added the signature currently cited at time of
this message. I don't care why you put it there.

Change it to something else.

I certainly hope that your entire tenure here will not be just about bothering bad Wolf. That said, even if the preceding was true, we don't want to see it.

As you can see, It had NOTHING to do with quote mining, now who's lying?
I was asked to change my sig because it was reported that I made it AFTER a mod asked Bad Wolf and I to "quit our pissing contest"...

This is false because you can clearly see that I made that sig before the mod got involved as evidenced here
http://atheistforums.org/thread-24301-po...#pid614936

(In David Attenborough's voice):
'And here we have an example of a defeated theist. He flees from the forum with his tail between his legs, his head up his arse, and his fingers in his ears. Maybe he well think twice before testing the biblical knowledge of an atheist again.'

You know, yesterday was Sunday. I tend to spend that day in something called a church. But since your talking nonsense, I think i'm going to debut my new sig just for you.

Huggy74: "But as an hired servant, and as a sojourner, he shall be with thee"

Bad Wolf: "Don't play semantics with me. They were slaves."

Huggy74 "except that the KJV doesn't use the word "slave""

Bad Wolf:"Is that all you are reduced to? Pathetic word games?"

Huggy74"they were paid a pittance."

Bad Wolf:"Its irrelevant how much they were paid. They were servants, not slaves."

LOL man, pure comedy.

Note that post in on page 10
the mod didn't intervene until page 12 as evidenced here (Or look at the time stamps)
http://atheistforums.org/thread-24301-po...#pid615141

Mod hat on.

Nobody is going to get banned for misquoting someone.  Please adjust your expectations.

If the quote is not an accurate representation of what was said and the flow of the conversation, then the staff would insist that a correction be made.

In any case, this pissing contest between the two of you needs to stop.

Note how the mod makes it clear he posting as staff?
Also, since when do Initials = naming? B.W. .....yeah, I see how that's clear

Esquilax repeatedly requested that I remove that sig, even though Rhythm clearly indicated that he didn't care if I put it in my signature.... How is that against the rules?
So you're saying that even though the sig broke no rules, Esquilax simply asking for it to be removed (though not officially), should always be regarded as an Official mod request?

You know, you posted the thread in which we were talking about your latest signature rule break... did you read it before you posted? Or was it just the part that you thought proved your infantile point that you were interested in? Because, see, if one were to actually read the thread, including my comments therein, it would be pretty clear to them what actually happened: You were asked to remove a quote from FaF, not Rhythm, so what you're saying here is completely irrelevant.

Oh and also? You say you were never told in any official capacity to remove your sig, but that's a lie too, because I told you directly, when you asked me if I was telling you as a mod to remove your sig, that if you didn't on your own I would report it and we would be addressing that as moderators; see, I was following the rules myself and going through the normal staff process, rather than throwing my weight around and acting as a single mod, which we generally don't do: Here's the post where I explicitly told you I would report... which is where the moderators go to do things officially. You did know this would become an official action. Oh, and fun fact? Right fucking below that post, and I mean directly below it, Becca explicitly indicated that it had been reported, meaning that you did know this had escalated to an official issue for the staff.

Everything you do, top to bottom, is either misinformed garbage made to assuage your ego, or out and out lies for the same purpose. It's not even like you weren't told why your sig broke the rules; there are posts and posts by multiple mods detailing exactly why it was, so this faux-innocent "how was I breaking the rules?" bit is not only idiotic, it's another outright lie, because when I find lengthy explanations both from myself and Pandaemonium on exactly that point, I have a hard time believing that you still don't get it. So you're either lying by feigning ignorance, or you're genuinely so ignorant that a clear explanation from multiple sources doesn't get through to you.

Liar, or moron? Which suits you best, Huggy?

Yeah, you did report me which would suggest anything before that wasn't official, would it? Also you were supposed to recuse yourself, but guess who handed out the warning... YOU did, must not know what RECUSE means.

When I say I was never told in an official capacity, I mean as staff, you know, green and red text... as Pandaemonium himself put it.

When the staff post in their relevant colours, we're posting as staff.

When we post any other time, we post as members. If this is difficult to understand, Randy, I'm not sure what else can be done. But to clarify, here I am posting as a normal member.

There is no added value whatsoever in us having two accounts, or remaining 'anonymous' (why would we want to do that?).

Post your suggestion, by all means, however.

Now, show me where I was warned officially. I'll wait...

[Esquilax]

You act like I don't have the pm I received, quote mining had nothing to do with it and since you insist on continuing to misrepresent the situation I'll quote the pm here... if that constitutes an ban, so be it.

I'll leave the sender anonymous.

I have the report, moron; I can read the entirety of the discussion surrounding that issue from beginning to end, and yes, quote mining is in there. That there were multiple reasons you were breaking the rules doesn't make things any better.

As you can see, It had NOTHING to do with quote mining, now who's lying?

Hey, I'm the one with full access to the behind the scenes stuff, I know what's there. If you want to know why that's not present in the PM you got about it then that's something you'll need to take up with the person who sent it, not the five other people who voted for it to happen. I'm not actually responsible for the wording choices of my other mods, nor am I capable of reading PMs that come to you; I simply had no way of knowing how it was phrased within private correspondences with you. I can certainly tell you how it went in the discussions that I was privy to, which is what I'm doing here. Don't get petulant that I didn't know things I couldn't possibly know.

I was asked to change my sig because it was reported that I made it AFTER a mod asked Bad Wolf and I to "quit our pissing contest"...

This is false because you can clearly see that I made that sig before the mod got involved as evidenced here

Good thing that wasn't the only factor that contributed to our action, isn't it?

Yeah, you did report me which would suggest anything before that wasn't official, would it?

Are you serious? You're telling me that "I'm going to report this if you don't knock it off" doesn't give you a reasonable expectation that it's going to become official if you persist? Or that "it's been reported" doesn't give you an explicit, black and white indication of precisely the moment it became official?

What the fuck is wrong with you?

Also you were supposed to recuse yourself, but guess who handed out the warning... YOU did, must not know what RECUSE means.

If I had been personally involved with the action, I would have recused myself. But I wasn't; I perceived that a rule had been broken, warned you to knock it off, and reported it when you didn't. That's.... sort of literally the entire purpose of moderators, to point out where rules have been broken and to adjudicate on those. Are you seriously asking that we recuse ourselves every time we bring an issue to the staff's attention?

Now, I know it rustles your little jimmies that I was the one who handed down the warning, but that's not my problem. We aren't here to cater to your pride, we're here to enforce the rules. There's no reason I should have recused myself there, though it's nice to see you're still salty about it months later.

When I say I was never told in an official capacity, I mean as staff, you know, green and red text... as Pandaemonium himself put it.

When the staff post in their relevant colours, we're posting as staff.

When we post any other time, we post as members. If this is difficult to understand, Randy, I'm not sure what else can be done. But to clarify, here I am posting as a normal member.

There is no added value whatsoever in us having two accounts, or remaining 'anonymous' (why would we want to do that?).

Post your suggestion, by all means, however.

Now, show me where I was warned officially. I'll wait...

You are not going to convince me that you are so much of an idiot that it's impossible for you to read context cues and see consequences. Stop with the ignorant act and grow the fuck up.

You were warned in thread by multiple mods, but more importantly, we're not required to warn you before we take action. It was determined that you'd had sufficient explanation in the threads, and what's particularly interesting is that this little mystified act you're putting on, as if you'd have no way to know you were being officially reprimanded without the benefit of green text, didn't show up at all at the time; when you started PMing me back following your warning you knew exactly what you'd been warned for: all I had to say was "trolling" and you immediately understood we were discussing the signature issue.

So don't give me this bullshit about not being adequately warned. You knew then, you know now, and if you didn't have this inbuilt need to cause trouble and this bruised pride from being warned by someone who has the power to do so without needing your imprimatur, then you wouldn't be scrabbling for reasons to bitch now.

[Jackalope]

Staff hat on:

For the record, staff are not required to post in red or green when posting in an official capacity. Doing so is simply an ad hoc practice that is not universally observed.

If the context of a post isn't sufficiently clear for one to know the post is being made in an official capacity or not, one need only ask. It's that simple.

[Huggy Bear]

Staff hat on:

For the record, staff are not required to post in red or green when posting in an official capacity.   Doing so is simply an ad hoc practice that is not universally observed.

If the context of a post isn't sufficiently clear for one to know the post is being made in an official capacity or not, one need only ask.  It's that simple.

Also for the record I DID ask and received no clear answer.

So are you saying as a mod that I must Change my signature, and that I am no longer allowed to quote someone in said signature?

I'm saying that if you don't, I'll report it and we'll go from there, in the normal way. There's also a rule against protecting rule breakers, and I'm hardly going to break a rule for you, regardless of the unfair way you're trying to characterize what's happening here.

You already know this, and you're being dishonest about it, but the issue isn't that you quoted someone, it's that the intention of the quotation is to shame and taunt another member, nothing else. That's why it's trolling, not that it's a quote.

[Jackalope]

The context of that quote is crystal clear. A moderator is telling you to change your signature, or we'll go through the process and change it for you. He was giving you an opportunity to be cooperative. I would suggest you take the opportunity next time.

To be perfectly clear: if a moderator tells you something is unequivocally a violation of the rules, he/she acting in official capacity. There is the possibility that they're wrong - if so, that's something for the staff to correct, not something that needs to be dragged out into open forum.

[Thumpalumpacus]

I would be shocked if you didn't gag. God made me in his image, more specifically like Ezekial 23:20...
...
whose genitals were like those of donkeys and whose emission was like that of horses.

Take a good long look at my avatar buddy.....

See? I have a sense of humor too.

True enough, for once ... looks like horsecock to me.

[Esquilax]

Yeah, I don't really know what's ambiguous about "if you don't change this, I'll report you for it." Doesn't the fact that I'd make a report indicate pretty strongly that I felt a rule had been broken? When you follow that up with "there's a rule against not reporting broken rules, and I'm hardly going to break that for you," I fail to see how anybody could take that any other way than "I feel you've broken the rules."

It's literally the content of that sentence.

[Thumpalumpacus]

The first time I quoted someone in my sig, I was told to remove it despite NOT naming anyone, I hadn't visited the forum for a few days and came back to find the sig removed... how does that break the rules?

It took all of four hours from when I changed my sig to getting my sig disabled, without any official warning from the mods. what else am I supposed to conclude?

Also, I just want to point out that this dipshit would not get nearly so fair a shake anywhere else online. Every forum I've visited, including the one I helped to moderate back in the day, would have given this slug the headshot already.

Kudos to the Staff for bending over backwards to demonstrate fairness.