Uh oh, you mentioned the unmentionable. You're going down, lady.
Backgrounds in moderation
- Thread starter GeoffP
- Start date
- Status
Uh oh, you mentioned the unmentionable. You're going down, lady.
Bells
Staff member
Yeah baby going down. Blame the roses.
Dawn sings in the garden
Phone sings in the hall
This boy's dead from two day's life
Resurrected by the call
Penny here we've got to come
So come on round to me
There's so much penny lying here
To touch, taste and tease
Ring a ding ding ding I'm going down
I'm coming round
Penny's place her crummy room
Her dansette crackles to Jimi's tune
I don't care I taste Ambre Solaire
Her neck her thighs her lips her hair
Ring a ding ding ding I'm going down
I'm coming around
All thoughts of sleep desert me
There is no time
Thirty minutes brings me round to her number nine
Passion looks like a painting
Jackson Pollock's Number Five
Come into the forest and taste the trees
The sun starts shining and I'm hard to please
Ring a ding ding ding I'm going down
I'm coming around
All thoughts of sleep desert me
There is no time
Thirty minutes brings me round to her number nine
To look down on the clouds
You don't need to fly
I've never flown in a plane
I'll live until I die
This is a surprisingly grand scheme I seem to have created with a fairly light OP, in which I thought reshuffling and new assignments might translate into more traffic. Moreover, I have also somehow involved quadra, without any kind of planning whatsoever. Perhaps we are the Scrooge and Marley of SF? I'll take Scrooge; more face time and I enjoy torturing the infirm. Which makes you Tiny Tim. I'm surprised you even get internet reception under there: you're not pirating signal, are you?
True.
I would argue some kind of line along reasonability. Would the average person, walking past in the street and stopped by a man with a clipboard, say "makes sense, guv'" or "crikey, 'e's gone bloody barmy!" when presented with a given argument or discussion? Are there irrational explosions and name-calling when presented with almost any topic? Is there some kind of effort to irrationally overpolice ideas or individuals, or perhaps shifting standards based on prejudice or pre-existing bias? Has the individual retreated into some kind of neurotic cocoon? I don't know about voting, but I know what art is. Then again, voting people off is an attempt at a democratic system. You mention popularity issues, but these already exist. To what extent are they divorced from ability or reasonability?
Weelllll...as a member who did and does associate with SM...I have to disagree. James knows all about my association with him, and doesn't have a problem with me so far as I can tell. The entire issue was regrettable, but you have to admit that a little fire was heaped on that by, er, certain individuals. In any even it seems to have been applied case-by-case. I miss SM also, and I wish there could be some kind of mending of the ways.
Apparently one can petition admins for return. I'll suggest that to him, and will report back on the kind of verbal slap-down he delivers to me.
Bells is right in her insinuation that personalities are omnipresent and do dictate things. Perhaps one should hire mods without the encumbrance of a personality?
Regrettably, Dr. Lou and Baron Max have already been banned, however.
I wouldn't mind betting your name is on a list....
All the same some who were not involved in the original issue but seem to find merit in the individuals have been tarred and feathered by association and made to feel very unwelcome.
Apparently one can petition admins for return. I'll suggest that to him, and will report back on the kind of verbal slap-down he delivers to me.
Well you, of course, are a well-respected scientist. Not everyone is. Some just have an interest in it. Are such types no longer welcome? If not then I will go once more into the fray.
I think you have enough personality to realise that some personalities do not make good mods.
Well, well....
Bikini waxing rhapsodical
I've no doubt. The assassins have been by twice this week already. Ninjas, I ask you.
Well, you're half right. Go not into that darker night; the dawn may yet come.
Your fine sentiments and impressive perspective are undeniable. But, seriously, so do you. It's a simple test: does this strike you as a little crazy? If so, rinse it out and apply something else.
It's true that some aren't cut out for it, getting too close to an issue; they approach the sun, and are scalded. Power should come with a certain reserve and dissemblance should not be a tool of management.
I've no doubt. The assassins have been by twice this week already. Ninjas, I ask you.
Well, you're half right. Go not into that darker night; the dawn may yet come.
Your fine sentiments and impressive perspective are undeniable.
But, seriously, so do you. It's a simple test: does this strike you as a little crazy? If so, rinse it out and apply something else.It's true that some aren't cut out for it, getting too close to an issue; they approach the sun, and are scalded. Power should come with a certain reserve and dissemblance should not be a tool of management.
Bells
Staff member
I could rehash what happened the last time it was tried. But really, what's the point? It is not as if I am going to be believed. I'm one of 'them'.. The evil moderators. We are apparently not individuals with ideals and opinions of our own. This is a recurring theme and one I am seeing again. We are 'one of someone apparently'.
Suffice to say that I am a bit tired..
The previous system that was tested and a voting system put in place was intended to be democratic, but it was not. Far from it. But you aren't going to believe me. I am a mod. So therefore, I am apparently not democratic and am only intent to suppress the masses.. Which is fine. I don't post here to make friends, nor do I moderate to make friends. People will make assumptions and base their opinions on their personal beliefs, regardless. I'll put it this way, I have just entered a stoush with a member I rarely say boo to because I won't tell her who is biased or make assumptions about any bias against her. We are one entity apparently.. And even though I don't really know what happened with her and whoever moderated her, I am one so therefore, I must tell her.
So here we are, you are asking me a question that has been answered already.. Accusing, almost, of possibly stifling democracy.
So here is my answer to your questions.
'I don't know nothing. I just work here'. If you want to know, ask the administrators. Because I'm still waiting for answers to questions that I asked and yeah, I don't have an answer to give you.
So..
'I don't know nothing. I just work here'...
Not from here they haven't.
Last edited:
I tried that 7 years ago on a poll in sciforums.
It is an ongoing problem here, this forum is a shell of its former self, even long before gustav was banned.Brian Foley said:
Well, at least somebody is getting something out of it...
Although, at this point I'd say I'm down from "grand scheme" to "general suggestion," but whatever...
Neil Diamond would probably agree with you. Or possibly not. Actually I'm not sure this is the right esoteric reference. I'lll get back to you, unless I forget, which I probably will.
Sorry.
Good God: a little sensitive, are we?
Calm thyself. I am not calling for your beheading, or even for a haircut. I am merely - I reiterate, merely - mulling over some ideas. Thinking out loud. No need to be defensive. I do agree that you are individuals with ideals and ideas and opinions that have been programmed into you by your evil overlord. I'm only wondering what might be done to improve traffic and what kind of format SF intends to achieve. Some of that interest is naturally bottom-up, some is top-down. In fact, the OP was kind of an interrogation - not of the kind with der Rack und also truncheon beatings! - of the body known as the Moderacy as to what they think about the direction of SF, which I agree have ideals and ideas and opinions as described above, with evil overlords et al. In fact, I am "polling the elected"; or "elect", however you prefer to think of it. And, also in fact, I have got some useful and interesting answers. Und so! your blood sacrifice is not required, or at least not until the next gibbous moon. Be at ease.
I therefore proclaim this thread a success, and a national monument to East Korean ingenuity.
A shocking oversight.
In an unrelated question, when is the next gibbous moon, one wonders?
Eat shit and die, you petty fascist thug.
By rights, you are overdue for a good strong kick in the teeth according to your shithead bullying and abuses of power.
But not by advocating any illegal activities as such - nor riding roughshod over the presumption of innocense as you are.
You may have heard of "Miranda rights" in the USA? I.e., when arresting a suspect (a "criminal" is someone who has been found guilty, not merely accused), the arresting officers are legally required to inform them of their right to remain silent and access legal council, for the express reason that it may help them avoid prosecution. This is not only not illegal - but any statements made without such a warning are inadmissible in court, exactly for reasons of due process.
Likewise, your nutcase authoritarian legal standards would criminalize legal defense council, as Gustav has already noted in this very thread. You are openly advocating against due process, presumption of innosence, the right to council, etc. - the very foundations of modern jurisprudence - and not simply covering this site's ass from legal trouble. You are a thug and a brute, and the last person to lecture anyone on "due process."
So how about you start taking it into account?
The fuck there wasn't.
Unless, y'know, the context changed. Which it did.
You're the very last person here who has standing to complain about personal sniping. Who do you think you're fooling? You can barely go two posts without taking a cheap shot at somebody. You couldn't even resist calling Gustav "stupid" in your "mod-hat" post up-thread.
You're a troll, not a "moderator" worthy of any sort of respect or deference. You've long-since pissed away all of your credibility on ugly displays of shitheaded bullying, and by now your exercises of power serve only to further inflame problems and degrade the forum as a whole. It's time for you to man up, resign, and go back under whatever bridge it is you reside beneath.
I'd kinda like to "re-examine the material," i.e., the deleted pamphlet, myself, but I'm wonderin' as to how I ought to go about that.
I mean, if I post the material, I--apparently--am thereby implicitly endorsing it, right? How exactly does that work?
And suppose I am responding to someone with whom I disagree. I quote the material they posted, and then I post my response below--but wait: in quoting the material they posted, am I not thereby agreeing with them and endorsing what they say?
Fuck. What to do...
I mean, if I post the material, I--apparently--am thereby implicitly endorsing it, right? How exactly does that work?
And suppose I am responding to someone with whom I disagree. I quote the material they posted, and then I post my response below--but wait: in quoting the material they posted, am I not thereby agreeing with them and endorsing what they say?
Fuck. What to do...
Seriously though, "advis(ing) criminals how to avoid prosecution." Yeah. Setting aside the preposterously presumptive element there, what of it?
I've got a bookshelf full of texts which "advise 'criminals' how to avoid prosecution," and many megabytes of text on my PC and Kindle. Where'd I get all this shit? Well, (partly) through freakin' legal channels--you know, you can buy such texts on Amazon, you can download (legally or otherwise) such texts from a gazillion websites, etc.
So what is sciforums's (or a certain moderator's) beef with posting--while not tacitly endorsing--such material?
I've got a bookshelf full of texts which "advise 'criminals' how to avoid prosecution," and many megabytes of text on my PC and Kindle. Where'd I get all this shit? Well, (partly) through freakin' legal channels--you know, you can buy such texts on Amazon, you can download (legally or otherwise) such texts from a gazillion websites, etc.
So what is sciforums's (or a certain moderator's) beef with posting--while not tacitly endorsing--such material?
September 10, or September 11 (UTC).
Why not, surely making GeoffP moderator of all forums is just what is needed? :m:
The internet itself was a completely different beast.
Every generation has its golden days, and wants to return to it.
I would love to have seen sf before any order took place.
Fond memories
The Poetry War of 2003 is a pretty impressive display of indignant indignity. You can see a few familiar faces in that one, including myself, starting around page four. And, yes, gets really ugly.
This is the sort of thing that absolutely does not fly here today. But it was also a day when many who dished could also take it. These days, it seems there are more who think that dishing and taking is a two-way street: They dish, everyone else takes, and that means we all have our part.
Ah, fond memories.
Varda said:
The Poetry War of 2003 is a pretty impressive display of indignant indignity. You can see a few familiar faces in that one, including myself, starting around page four. And, yes, gets really ugly.
This is the sort of thing that absolutely does not fly here today. But it was also a day when many who dished could also take it. These days, it seems there are more who think that dishing and taking is a two-way street: They dish, everyone else takes, and that means we all have our part.
Ah, fond memories.
Apparently Colonel JamesR is extremely worried about being sued by the CCP for failing to conform to something like their draconian, authoritarian conceptions of criminal "justice."
Meanwhile, here's a helpful list of 10 things you can do to get away with crimes:
http://listverse.com/2007/08/16/top-10-tips-to-commit-the-perfect-crime/
- Status