Fraggle And Hercules

feel free to weigh in, y'all
frag?
Judge Trippy?
enmos? apt or not?
anyone?


:bugeye:

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

....Fraggle ....................... Gustav ............................... James R

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

how many?
give me some numbers

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Hehe. +1

It's this comment that makes me pause: what is itself? Is James R SciForums? How about Dwy? Or am I? Gustav? It's well enough to laugh at SF itself, as you're colouring this: but that isn't actually the same as laughing at or mocking a mod specifically. If you lumped several mods into it, possibly. But the characterization of James as SF itself is a little specious - Tiassa picks up wrongly on this comment later also.

Er...if you say so?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Anyway, in a funny way you reared the issue yourself: is mockery fair dissent? I don't think you adhere to this view uniformly; I suppose I would raise the word "turnabout", possibly.

Gus: since you're desperate for weighing in - comedy is comedy. But you take a chance with it. People are given reasonable leeway on here, and sometimes too much. You're griping that you don't think it's applied uniformly? Welcome to SF.

That might seem a trite dismissal, but let's stop here: unregenerate, unapologetic bias is the new 'in thing' on here. If you're being prevented from going after a mod or admin by a ban, this is kind of a pursued grievance against a person rather than arbitrary punishment for an ethical or logical stance, and attracts less of my sympathy as a poster. Where would such a series of events even fall WRT fairness, given that the functional thresholds for ethics, logic and personal affront aren't even understood by some of the moderators? (And by that I mean those ones, not you guys, obviously. No, really. Much love.)

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Gustav,
Please could you give it a rest. Notice I'm asking "please", not threatening some ban or other, or hounding you into submission. The way I see it there are a couple of members on this forum that are like a broken record, playing the same sad songs again and again. Nobody likes a Moaning Minnie (i.e. a Habitual Grumbler)

While I know you can be charismatic, intelligent and even witty, this is only true when it's based around something that is positive in essence, all this negativity is "killing the scene".

 

for you?
done

i initiate nothing
that is a false ascription

whatever
just keep an eye on me
i'm out

 

Please go on Gussie its highly entertaining.

 

OOOooo . . . BEHOLD THE MASTER ! !

/ your turn.

 

All true.

?? Last I checked, Gustav relies mostly on insight and humor. Did you miss all the political cartoons, hilarious sarcasm, etc. that are both the subject and content of this thread?

 

A few suggestions:

1) Democracy. Term limits and constant injections of fresh blood would resist said fatigue, and also undo the current ossified, disfunctional oligarchy in favor of a vital, legitimate leadership. Be hard to figure out voting and stuff, though.

2) Stick to moderating purely technical issues (spam, sock-puppets, etc.) and take a hands-off approach to managing the discourse as such. This would be a lot easier, and anyway there is no apparent consensus on what y'all even want the discourse to look like in the first place (much less, a coherent, workable system for enforcing/building such).

 

Gustav is easily the best, worthiest poster SciForums has, and long has been. That he rubs your nose in the shitstains you keep leaving on the carpet is no criticism of him - rather the opposite. He seems to genuinely care about this place more than you do, these days.

Shooting the messenger isn't going to get any of the shitstains out of the carpet. It isn't even going to free you of criticism of such, for very long. I guess you're hoping you'd luck out and end up with a less self-assured, capable critic, that you could more easily browbeat into silence?

How about you live up to the responsibilities of your title and actually deal with the serious issues that Gustav expends so much wit and thought shedding light on? Instead of, you know, living down to his charges that you're a petty authoritarian who'd rather persecute his critics than deal with the problems he creates.

I mean, really: you think the reason y'all expend so much time and effort getting nowhere is that Gustav points out your problems? And not, y'know, the existence of the problems themselves, to begin with?

Do you actually want this place to operate well, or do you just want people to shut up and stop bothering you?

Banning Gustav is hardly the way to resist the label of "dumbfucksci."

 

And that in response to persistent problems on this forum that never get addressed. If you don't like hearing the same complaints over and over again, maybe consider actually addressing the persistent problems, and not just working to silence the complainers.

Very true, but Gustav is not the source of the negativity. Indeed, he seems to go out of his way to put as happy a face on this as possible - cartoons, ferchrissakes!

 

The way I see it, if the whole forum can be insulted by Gustav's cartoons, the whole forum can certainly laugh at itself.

+1

 

+1 for Gussie.

 

Well, I don't think the whole forum is insulted by Gustav's cartoons. He's picked some specific targets, as should be evident.

 

people in positions of authority must ALWAYS be challenged lest they get the impression they are bullet proof.

besides, the cartoons aren't danish.

 

I didn't get the allusion to Kevorkian but yeah I can see the analogy between physician assisted suicide and suicide by moderator [aka ban on demand] Funnee.

 

All this and you miss the fact that I just asked him to stop, politely of course. No warnings, no threats, just an appeal to his good nature.

This itself is just one of the simplest method that would actually deal with so many problems here, just asking people to behave nicely rather than threatening with bans and generating a pot to stir.

Most unmentioned Grumblers (and I'm not referring to Gustav, as I'm pretty sure he knows that he isn't one of them.) have a predisposition that can not be undone by kind words alone.

 

Saquist asked for a ban. He was given one. There may be any number of issues around his request: is it the responsibility (beyond reasonable ethical human interest) of the forum or the mods to address them? I would certainly think not.

 

Hehe.