[split] Warm Greetings - The Not Welcome-y Stuff

[Mister Agenda]

Fair enough, Dr. Fuzzy. Count me among those who hope we haven't lost Rocket for good. Frankly, he strikes me as brilliant, and puts a lot of thought and work into his posts. I don't like losing him.

[brewer]

When or if he comes back I'll reconsider my position. The way he left is not sitting well with me at all. At this time I'm OK with bye.

[LastPoet]

And by the way, LP, a word of advice: make sure you only ever use the phrase "passive aggressive" in the safety of a computer keyboard, or you might meet someone who's willing to get actually aggressive with you... you know, like someone who did a fucking decade in the joint.

Right.
PRIMO: I didn't use the passive aggressive phrase dude.
SEGUNDO: You are a real badass and you made me tremble in my knees. Ahah.
TERTIO: Chill down dude. So much time locked up and you learned nothing?

[LastPoet]

He is going on a tailspin for no reason.

[SteelCurtain]

Moderator Notice
This is the thread that was split off from the intro forum.

[Jackalope]

The staff here have hinted or outright stated, on numerous occasions that I've seen, that disagreeing with staff decisions will have repercussions...

I have no idea what specifically is referred to here. It's certainly been made clear that abusing the reporting system is actionable, that we'd greatly prefer that appeals to disciplinary measures not be tried in the court of public opinion, and that complaints about rule-breaking belong in a post or profile report, not out in open forum. There's reasons we want such things handled in PM and not out on open forum, and none of them have anything to do with suppressing disagreement regarding staff decisions.

If anyone on staff has hinted, suggested, or outright stated that disagreeing with staff decisions will have repercussions then that's something that needs to be looked into because it certainly is not a matter of policy to do so. I'm not saying it didn't happen - but if it did, it shouldn't have, and it needs to be rectified.

[SteelCurtain]

Also there's a difference between disagreeing with staff and disobeying staff interpretation of the rules.

[robvalue]

I don't even know what to say.

What a fucking day.

I don't know what he's talking about either, I'd like to see some examples. Why was this not brought to our attention either?

I've had about enough random accusations for one day.

[account_inactive]

I would be interested in seeing some examples as well. I disagreed with the moderation team on something (forgot what it was now) and I didn't get any repercussions from it.

Haven't seen any staff bias either.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Kind of harsh for the introduction page.

Not really considering her stance on "retarded" people.

Well, dragging animosity from thread to thread may not contravene the rules, but it is squishy, to my mind.

Wow, popped back in because I was told I needed to see the direction this conversation was taking. So I do have something important to say, to clarify a few things:

FUCK YOU LAST POET. FUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUCK YOUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU.

It was not a "momentaneous fit", nor was it a sudden or rash decision. It was certainly not just about a little speed bump.

I can't, and won't, impute motives, but seriously, TRS, take a deep breath. Ain't nothing here worth yelling (virtually) about. It's a tempest in a teapot.

I take issue with the philosophy of this board on the restraint of its own membership in the name of some imaginary philosophy of equanimity, and I have been chafing for quite some time at almost every instance of staff intervention that was about keeping our own members censored and "in line", by whatever means, while allowing the ignorant fucks to get away with just about anything.

I don't think the philosophy is imaginary at all. Having helped moderate a freethought forum that was visited by the likes of even assholes like David Mabus, we took pains at the beginning to treat him equitably, not because of concerns over image, but because our mission as moderators was not to tamp down conversation, but to keep it reasonable. In the end, in the case of Mabus, we decided to allow profligate trolling of any thread he started for entertainment value -- but only after we ascertained that he really was a cuntmuffin.

The staff here, I think, operate under similar parameters: give 'em enough rope to hang themselves.

I stood, and stand, against censorship of any position, because if the position is well-thought, it deserves consideration, and if it isn't, silencing it doesn't make it go away. Sunlight is the best disinfectant. I also stand against "safe-zones" and PC speech requirements, too.

The staff here have hinted or outright stated, on numerous occasions that I've seen, that disagreeing with staff decisions will have repercussions... and now you're trying to hide behind the "well if only you had told us!" excuse? GTFOH with that shit.

So you can strawman my position all you fucking need, in order to make yourselves feel better, I suppose... but this was neither a quick nor a passive aggressive (or whateverthefuck y'all want to try to label it in psychological self-defense) decision on my part. It's something I've been considering doing for quite some time, and this was finally the "straw that broke the camel's back".

But did you actually say something to them? If not, who is doing the Strawman?

And by the way, LP, a word of advice: make sure you only ever use the phrase "passive aggressive" in the safety of a computer keyboard, or you might meet someone who's willing to get actually aggressive with you... you know, like someone who did a fucking decade in the joint.

I'm not sure what's going on with you that you'd type this, but this is not the reasonable guy I've come to respect and admire. C'mon, Rob -- ain't nobody perfect, neither you nor the Staff.

Me, when I have a complaint about a site's moderation, I PM a staff member for clarification and expressing my views, and give them a chance behind-the-scenes before I go full-tilt. I know we must be built differently, and hope you don't take this post the wrong way, because I make it in the spirit of friends talking, and not out of chastisement or defensiveness.

The only dogs in this fight for me are that I'd like you to reconsider your decision, and that I hope you don't hold this post against me personally.

I'll see you at TTA, bud, and no matter your feelings about this, I'll always hold you in esteem.

If this:

And by the way, LP, a word of advice: make sure you only ever use the phrase "passive aggressive" in the safety of a computer keyboard, or you might meet someone who's willing to get actually aggressive with you... you know, like someone who did a fucking decade in the joint.

isn't passive-aggressive or jailhouse bravado, then I think the only alternative is that it's overtly aggressive and an attempt at jailhouse intimidation. A line has been crossed here. And maybe I missed it, but I don't even see LP using the phrase 'passive-aggressive' anyway. Was it edited out or in a private message?

"Jailhouse intimidation".  Well yes.  He served time.  Words were threats.  It's a conditioned response that anyone who had been in his situation might fall into.  But we know how this guy usually is.  I think this is what I mean by "cut him some slack".  The angry post is not his norm, and we all know it.

I think this is a good way to look at this. Not every day I have is ace-number-one, and I think forgiveness is a good thing to practice, both giving and receiving.

Well, it would seem like Janice is now in lurking mode. She was just here no more than 2 hours ago yet her last post was yesterday. Not that I care, but one can only hope that she's read her heated thread and got the message.

No -- she's enjoying the show.

He is going on a tailspin for no reason.

Yet you don't know that, do you? Reasons occur that lie outside the Internet too, you know. I know that my moods flow online from IRL sometimes.