Mods Gone Wild

Hasenpfeffer Incorporated

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

What is it with you and 'speshual', Bells? I guess I'm just slow, but I don't "get" it... :shrug:

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Got it - just seemed too obvious...

As to the remainder of your post, I agree, and am quite interested in how this all turns out...

 

Sorry, missed this in my earlier reply. However, if you check my previous post, you will find:

I'm not sure how this works, either...

 

I don't think that James is a bad moderator. I complained only that, in a specific case, in my opinion, he made a bad decision.

I don't see James intervening too much on here at all.
What problem do people have with him?

This forum demands that people treat each other with respect.
Without that, there would be anarchy.

 

This and that

That sort of self-victimization is one of the reasons it's hard to take you seriously at this point.

Self-victimization. I mean, all that whining about all the horrible things I said in December and January? And yet you still had to go make up exaggerations to pretend offense at. Then again, I would have thought it just the typical sort of argumentative posturing that goes on around here, except you went so far as to resign your commission over it.

At the moment? Not that I can see. But, then again, neither is this the moment when you're running around calling people you disagree with "twat".

In that subforum, yes. In a public presentation? I've already noted evidence of the bowdlerization standard. That you wish to overlook it in order to keep up this ludicrous charade is your own choice.

Win administrative approval to do so, and we can move to the next step.

Address the issue, and the evidence put in front of you. Don't just—

—run away and throw stones in your own private jihad.

Having just reviewed the thread in question, I'm hard presed to find S.A.M.'s "violence". Perhaps she can advise us of her memory, if she even remembers that one.

I'm not afraid of that part of the record, either. It was withheld to protect others, not me.

Then again, what do you think went too far? The part where I was disappointed in my colleague? Where I tagged him for his age? Maybe the part where I suggested he tickle his armpits and shout like an orangutan in order to make his point more clearly? Maybe the part where I called his ranting post ignorant and bigoted?

Your memory is so accurate, Bells. You tell me.

And as I said, take it up with James. Win administrative approval, and we'll move on to the next part.

My point exactly. Thank you for making it. As I said, I disagree with your assessment. You've misrepresented a recent thread about Baron Max in the back room. You've misrepresented S.A.M. in an older dispute about Baron Max. Now, maybe in your mind, that's really what you believe. Are you lying? At this point, it would be hard to establish that you are. After all, you could simply be mistaken. Or you could simply be crazy.

But, by the administrative standard—invented and enforced by James, and supported by Plazma Inferno—yes, I could undertake that route. Unsurprisingly, however, you've missed the point yet again.

I can't apologize to you for your thoughtless, emotionally-driven reactions.

You forget, dear: You turned in your "credentials and badge", to borrow a phrase. And James never served his thirty days for "lying about me". So I would think at some point you could start to see the problem with such a standard. Which brings us back to the fact that I objected to that standard. And you, it seems, have a problem with the fact that I did.

• • •​

I don't know. I was invited to join, so I did. (What? I'm also a member of the "SciForums Godless" group. Why? I don't know. I can't remember. I figure I was invited. I find this whole social group phenomenon strange. I also have an invitation for the "Get A Life" group; I'll probably join just to clear my notification count.) As far as I can tell, the point of the group is for some people to feel as if they are better than others. But, in regard to the question at hand, there isn't much suggesting the membership of that group had anything to do with the "official" statement. Or, to be more accurate, I don't see anything suggesting the membership of that group had anything to do with it.

So now we know what "High Society" is for, having seen it in action.

 

why thank you
i do have a question though

tolerance for what?
irrationality?

is the premise of the tt just that to you?
and as such should not be allowed to stand?
in sfog of all places?

what are these indulgences you so kindly bestow upon me?

 

i eyeballed mod jurisdiction. none appear to have privileges in sfog.

james?
some names please
i wish to thank for largesse

/eager

 

thats perfect, aint it tiassa?

/chortle

 

Rabbit ... forest ... halfway ....

Gustav

SFOG falls under administrative purview.

But there is at least some irrationality taking place here. As I pointed out to Mordea, and tried explaining to Bells, there is a standard and precedent in place that could see them sanctioned. But while the idea itself probably has merit, the sensitivity of its triggers is still a question to the point that I cannot say whether or not it is in effect right now.

Bells, for instance, is mistaken in her recollection of a thread that is well over a year old. Of course, she is also mistaken in her recollection of a thread that is only a couple months old. There are plenty of reasons why this might have happened that do not necessarily speak against her character, but in the end, even when there are legitimate considerations in these threads, they are often drowned out by the hyperactive, hypersensitive whining of any number of bruised egos looking to boost their morale.

In the end, if I or any of my colleagues were to ask that this thread be locked down, it most likely would be. At eleven pages, "It's gone on long enough," would probably suffice; especially insofar as we can expect another complaint thread before the month is out. Heaven knows one of us will manage to piss somebody off before then.

Not sayin' a word ....

 

"And if I told You know who about you know what........."

This thread is a complete pain in the arse.

Either say what you mean or don't say anything at all.
As for me, I'm going back to CommonsenseSeeker's thread about the dead starlings.

 

yes of course
just having fun with james and his appeal to whatnot
bear in mind thread had been in existence for 3 mths

low key humorous stuff imo till.......?

too late now
acknowledging the...the...prophesy tends to make it come to pass

 

no need cos we recognize by smell
toodle off then cap
how dare a thread you participated in be thrashed, ja?

 

We can but hope. Or maybe if they just repeat the same accusations fifteen hundred times without backing them up, we can be saved the incredulity of diiscovering the infantile baselessness of it all. After all, the last few occasions on which some statements of basis were given, I at least was left grappling with the illusion of literacy and comprehension they destroyed.