'Turn off avatars and usertitles' Poll

While this poll runs we are having a little proofing session to show what a unified moderation Avatar and similar Usertitles would accomplish... (Admittedly Pink Floyd's "hammers" from "The Wall" is the current 'Authotarian' avatar with a splashing of "Borg" for the Scifi/Startrek fans in regards to usertitle.)

The unimaginative, sterile depictions of Moderators, Super-moderators and Administrators would suggest a far more rigid, disciplined and unimaginative place to dwell when it comes to forums.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

not to mention make it bloody hard for you all to see who the hell is speaking

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I have bigger hammers.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

styder shouldnt you have the next size up?

(sorry plazma but when i read that i had an image of a 2 year old flash through my head

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

)

 

Unfortunately for some reason Supermods are still limited to 40x40

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Should be ok now.

 

tis Fixed

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

now you have the biggest one

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

you should get the middle size

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

or plazma will be jelous

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

It is middlesized. If plasma wanted to he could put an even larger one up.

Although I don't think that sizes matters, it's how you use it. ("Oh... the humility" )

 

Ham-mer!
Ham-mer!
Ham-mer!

 

Look, Bells, you keep twisting around everything I say, presenting me as some kind of prude.


The fact is that people got banned for spelling "Assguard".

The avatars you and Asguard (although he changed the avatar now), we're telling everyone to go fuc k themselves, or up yours. The two of you got away with all along.

Don't you see the double standard?

If Sciforums would be a forum where it is freely allowed to say "cun t", "fuc k", and so on, where it is okay to post soft porn and such - hardly anything could be insultive.

But, as Sciforums' policy is to be relatively polite and proper, where people get banned for spelling "Assguard" - it really is a double standard then to allow those moderators such avatars, or to let them stay moderators.

I do not feel comfortable coming to a forum where such double standards are maintained, nor can I respect the decisions of such moderators.

 

This isn't a wesmorris 1 of N thing again is it?

 

Things at this forum slowly stopped being humorous once one could not say fuck or cunt anymore without this provoking some moderator action.

I understand that there was once an "old Sciforums" where all sorts of stuff was okay.
Then the forum got sold, and a new forum policy was instated. One demanding relative politeness and propriety.

But apparently, some members -now moderators- wish to keep some of the freedoms they had in the olden times, while denying other members those freedoms.

If a moderator can start a post with basically telling me and everyone to fuck off, then why can't a member start a post with telling everyone to fuck off? It would only be fair that both be allowed such, or neither.

 

I think they're all lost in some sort of Machiavellian maze that had gleefully started out from a Pac-man maze.

 

And P.S.
This thread started by Plazma is worth mentioning again:

Time for mutual respect

 

I agree.

It's right time for that.

 

I thought the yoda avatar was bad assguard!

 

Time For Mutual Respect got locked. Lol.

 

Tear Down The Wall!

 

So ... what's with the prudishness, then?

We know you're not some kind of prude. That's why it seems so strange you're being so prudish on this issue.

That is so damn literalist I don't know what to say.

Your summary of the incident lacks certain perspective. Sandy had been warned about using names as a basis of ridicule. She should have known better. Hillyer demanded a ban, and his manner of addressing the issue was apparently enough to irk Plazma into granting his wish.

Perhaps that information slipped past you, but that is, to my understanding, what Plazma was referring to when he noted, "This wasn't a typo".

And I'll even breach one of my own standards in order to make the point a bit more clear. As I said elsewhere, I requested the ban. And since my colleagues have, in the past, posted information from the moderators' private discussions, I will go ahead and repost my justification for said action request:

That, Greenberg, is why the offense warranted a ban. I do not see what is so hard for people to understand. Furthermore, this habit among complaining members to isolate a given incident, to pretend it exists in a vacuum, is indeed puzzling. It is a difficult proposition that someone of your intelligence and sensitivity would overlook entirely the possibility that there is more to any given story than the simplistic summary you provided.

Of course, I also find it a strange assertion that someone of such allegedly esteemed "professional artistic and psychological credentials"° would demand such a limited and literalist interpretation of online avatars.

So what's the deal?

In the first place, profanity has always risked moderator action. Furthermore, I did address this issue responding to you a couple days ago. Perhaps you missed it?

It's up to you.

Again, it's up to you.

Frankly, it sounds like you're reaching for excuses. Given that this proposition, as well as your inability to respect the decisions of moderators, are based on inaccurate descriptions of circumstance, we come back to a certain question: What's the deal?

Seriously, what's up?
____________________

Notes:

° allegedly esteemed "professional artistic and psychological credentials" — Yes, it is acknowledged that someone else made that assertion on your behalf. If it is an erroneous assertion, please correct the mistake, as such correction would help alleviate that particular mystery.