'Turn off avatars and usertitles' Poll

Not quite. It's more along the lines of proving that without the allowance of individuality, the place would be quite dull with "corporate drones". Since everyone would wear the same uniform, walk the same walk, sing the same song and probably die from the shear monotony.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I don't complain lightly. This last incident with the banning of Sandy and Lord Hillyer was a provocation though, the drop over the brim.


I didn't know about Sandy's repeated offenses. However, as you note:

This only serves my point.

So the moderatorship had enough of Sandy's misdemeanors, and some members had enough of some moderators' misdemeanors.

This makes us even.

This is just your idea of what I want.
It's not what I want.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

That's partly true.
People writing a complaint are often upset, and this leads them to fail to present their complaint in full. This is exacerbated by their knowledge that the authority they are complaining to will likely dismiss the complaint because they have done so many times before.

It is basically down to the respect members have for moderators, and the respect moderators have for members.

If moderators act like fascist dictators, members will not respect them, and the complaints of the members (even when in their core perfectly justified) will be dominated by reciprocating the negative emotions. Which makes for a vicious circle of disrespect and inefficiency.

On the one hand, I was upset, and it affected the way I presented my complaint.
On the other hand, the moderators were taking my complaint out of context as well.
It's the vicious circle of disrespect and inefficiency.

Like I said above to Bells, this last incident with the banning of Sandy and Lord Hillyer was a provocation though, the drop over the brim.

There are dozens of small grievances that one sees, and passes them by, ignores them. But over time, when these small grievances collect, at some point, one just has enough and speaks up.

 

I've accomplished my goal with my complaint: I spoke out, you've made your replies, and this is all there is to it.

In your eyes, perhaps, and in some other people's. But not in everyone's.

This has nothing to do with me.

If you will police avatars like that, this will be your choice,
an expression of the policy of this forum that you choose to enforce.

Just because someone complains does not mean anything. A complaint means something only if the complaint is warranted in relation to the forum policy.

As a member, I have nothing to do with this policy. I didn't set it, I cannot officially enforce it. I am only held responsible to it, but this is all.

So do not blame me that you might have to enforce something that is the forum policy.

 

Why not just bloody ask me, Tiassa? After all, you had to copy/paste that long descriptive from my post, or did you memorize it from my post to you? But, to lessen your mortified curiosity, I simply added two and two together when I read this:

 

Since I think I was one of the first to point out Sandy's puzzling banning over what was, incidentally, Gustav's original wit, I feel I should respond to your very own skewed-up summary of events that is lacking in perspective.

Why assume that every single member here knows every single titbit of forum gossip and goings-on? I don't follow Sandy's postings nor her interactions with other members unless I run into them unwittingly. And I suspect it's the same for Greenberg. So how could I, or we, have possibly suspected Sandy as being a famous delinquent on the boards, guilty of repeated misdemeanors??

But from the Assguard thread you vaguely referred to "repeatedly warning someone" in general, so when I asked you for a decided clarification, you gave none. At that point, I still couldn't see Sandy constantly calling Asguard an ass, and you constantly pleading for restraint:

 

And. This:

Just dug this up. You were moderator then too. Fancy that. A bit long—and it's only one page of several—so, to whet your palettes, ladies and gentlemen, I'll include a few tidbits here and now of the famous "decent" Sciforums of yore.

 

Lucysnow:

Tessie grew into such a bore,
We all pitched in to buy him a whore.
For he's too good to pay for sex,
The Tess prefers long words instead.​

 

Tiassa:

Lucy snow like hate
Freeze fire and open your hole
You know you liked it.​

 

Lucysnow:

Ghandi your loin cloth is slipping.​

 

Tiassa:

You want to be worth something more than someone's mattress? Try showing that worth. As long as you wish to be a self-loathing whore, that's all you'll be.​

 

Lucysnow:

"We see"? What, are your other personalities in agreement? Really I love it when you break down like this because its apparent that you have no sense of your own principles. Think of it this way Tess, why would someone of your high-mindedness, and high ideals spend his time responding to a...what did you say? Oh yea, WHORE! Idiots and sluts (which is what you called Gendanken)? How is it that an exemplary respected man of compassion blah blah blah and the rest of the it, working towards world peace can descend into the dirt to sling mud? Why are you down here with the rest of us Tessie? You say I'm a hater, empty-headed and depraved, what's your excuse? Take the beam out from your own eye motherfucker!​

 

Xev:

Since a woman is good for little but sex, it follows that the only insults we can aim at her are sexual, doesn't it Tiassa?
You disgusting little Christbitch, you're likely not even good for that.​

 

Yeah, like, uh, assguard is so very hot man.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Tiassa, I would not venture into such criticism -as suggested by the above study- at this forum for this thread's purpose. In my estimation, this would lead to an endless debate over justifications.

In actual conflict situations between people, it is much more feasible to simply keep to the rules and guidelines that both parties have agreed to in the beginning, and to some generally accepted standards of logical discussion.

In actual conflict situations between people, to argue along the lines of "Science says that ... and therefore such and such should be done" tends to be a poor solution - because it neglects the specifics of the situation and it neglects what the people involved actually want out of the situation.
Even if this situation is taking place in a scientific circle.

 

This and that

Ab-so-lute-ly awesome. Thank you for that trip through the cul-de-sacs of Nostalgia Acres.

(Oh! by Jingo! You helped me find a lost treasure. Goddess grant, I got so caught up wandering through the halls of nostalgia ... and there it was. Seriously, if only you'd looked a little farther forward, you would have found me at my most extraneous. I mean, rarely to I truly define anything, but the phrase "over the top" was made for tantrums like this one. And it leads back to one of the great riots in the site's history. A Golden freakin' Age, indeed!)

• • •​

Thank you for clearing that up.

To the other, is there, in your opinion, a range of dynamic considerations in which avatars and mottos can exist that falls somewhere in between the considerations of that paper and the basic communicative literalism you've assigned Bells' bare ass and Asguard's Yoda?