Strip mod status/ban WellCookedFetus
- Thread starter Mr. Chips
- Start date
- Status
WFC for president of the united states of america.
Arditezza, guess you can always say "the majority is always wrong" to comfort you.
Arditezza, guess you can always say "the majority is always wrong" to comfort you.
For the benefit of the degenerate apes who don't seem to comprehend, here it is AGAIN.
Anyone who has a problem with moderation, admit that you're illiterate, please.
They don't need to give a justification for deleting posts or threads. Arditezza, it doesn't matter that the majority is wrong. The minority must comply with the wishes of the majority. If you've got a fucking problem with it, then join the majority or make yourself the majority. Or quit whining, that also works.
This is not a democracy. It is a dictatorship, and rightfully so, unless you own enough of Sciforums stock. Porfiry works his ass off to support this place, as many of us has pointed out to the hate-blinded, half-brained mentally challenged.
Accept it and move on. Or you can fuck off.
Sciforums Rules said:
Anyone who has a problem with moderation, admit that you're illiterate, please.
They don't need to give a justification for deleting posts or threads. Arditezza, it doesn't matter that the majority is wrong. The minority must comply with the wishes of the majority. If you've got a fucking problem with it, then join the majority or make yourself the majority. Or quit whining, that also works.
This is not a democracy. It is a dictatorship, and rightfully so, unless you own enough of Sciforums stock. Porfiry works his ass off to support this place, as many of us has pointed out to the hate-blinded, half-brained mentally challenged.
Accept it and move on. Or you can fuck off.
Does anyone have a problem with my moderating? please complain now about it as it might be the first legitimate reasons to impeach me brought up.
paulsamuel
Registered Senior Member
WellCookedFetus said:
yes!
haven't you been following the thread?
people are very upset that you had the gall and audacity to call me at work.
for that, many think you should be banned or suspended but at least stripped of your moderator position.
I think you should be ashamed of yourself, but you'll never care. You're always right.
paulsamuel
Registered Senior Member
WellCookedFetus said:
Christ! Now I wish I knew what Hannibal said to Miggs in that cell!
well, i thought fetus was okay... but he just called everyone who voted for bush STUPID in a forum in which he's supposed to be a moderator. IMO, that's just STUPID, and he obviously isn't capable of moderating shit. That opinion is fine outside of a forum in which he is supposed to be moderating, but as a mod that is ridiculous.
I vote to strip him of mod status.
I vote to strip him of mod status.
Bull. As a mod he can still have an opinion and still be able to voice it. As a moderator, one should be expected to enforce forum rules fairly and consistently through use of edits, deletes, public/private warnings, requests for temp/perm bans etc.
But a moderator of an internet discussion forum should also be expected to stimulate discussion. If this means having an opinion and voicing it, then so be it. A pretense of impartiality is just that in forums such as World Events and Politics. Moreover, there are two moderators in those forums so balance can be provided, even if they are politically aligned.
However, as I was typing the above rant, it occured to me that "everyone who voted for Bush" includes a subset of sciforums members, which means that he insulted one or more members (assuming that multiple members were stupid enough to vote for Bush
).
WCF, I've had your back up til now, but Wes has a point. Still, I don't think "strip/ban" is something that should be decided by members. That should be up to the administration/moderation team.
As far as paulsamuel's gripe, as far as I can see its a "he said/she said:" WCF's word against PS' word. From my standpoint, they cancel each other out and the issue should be discarded. It was possible for any member (or guest for that matter) on sciforums to have contacted him.
But a moderator of an internet discussion forum should also be expected to stimulate discussion. If this means having an opinion and voicing it, then so be it. A pretense of impartiality is just that in forums such as World Events and Politics. Moreover, there are two moderators in those forums so balance can be provided, even if they are politically aligned.
However, as I was typing the above rant, it occured to me that "everyone who voted for Bush" includes a subset of sciforums members, which means that he insulted one or more members (assuming that multiple members were stupid enough to vote for Bush
). WCF, I've had your back up til now, but Wes has a point. Still, I don't think "strip/ban" is something that should be decided by members. That should be up to the administration/moderation team.
As far as paulsamuel's gripe, as far as I can see its a "he said/she said:" WCF's word against PS' word. From my standpoint, they cancel each other out and the issue should be discarded. It was possible for any member (or guest for that matter) on sciforums to have contacted him.
an>roid.v2
Registered Senior Member
SkinWalker said:
JUST the entry point I've been waiting for. Thanks SkinWalker. Curious: is our scientist Armstrong—in your good book—a scientist or a pseudoscientist? I mean, a scientist writing on Sciforums? Isn't that, like, fringe? A bit reckless? GOOD GRIEF —>> Imagine Hawking posting here!!! ... Mmmm ... Imagine. Hawking. Bitching. With veX. Andwellcookedfetus!!! Sumptuous. Yeah, well — anyway. As I was saying...
Moderators should NOT be seen; JUST heard. And REGULAR posters should NOT be posing as moderators and most definitely NOT be seen or heard as such. THAT, my dear Watson, is where the root evil lies in this forum.
Moderators should be working anonymously as law enforcers and law legislators in the background only. Just as cops don't go around confabbing and lap dancing with the plebeians, moderators too should be dedicated to efficiency and procedure without the gimmickry of communal intercourse, of course.
There should be one signature alone for all moderators here: moderator.
And I guarantee you that if moderatorship here at Sciforums carried no special social stature or colour whatsoever, most moderators would not be so wholeheartedly devoted to their good calling. Because this is an example of pseudo-nobility in its upstart on the social ladder. Le nouveau riche disguising itself as eminence, privilege and power. But still stroking it in tauntingly for the rest of you; with a subtle hint of exasperation and slight. But overbearingly tedious for the rest of us... fringe.
Last edited:
paulsamuel
Registered Senior Member
Actually, Fetus confessed, if I may quote him;SkinWalker said:
WellCookedFetus said:
So, it's a case of us agreeing that he did it, now he's trying to weasel out of his admission.
And I've interacted enough with WCF to know that that was likely his wit not his confession. If WCF thought that your allegation was absurd, then he would have made some off-colour, jocular remark. It appears that he did. WCF even stated as much later.
It remains word vs. word and therefore disregarded.
It remains word vs. word and therefore disregarded.
I wouldn't have been surprised if WTC had called Paul's workplace.
What does this all mean?
That apparently WCF's behaviour can be interpreted in different manners..
Are you willing to wager your penis (or something else that is precious to you) that your interpretation of WCF's mind is more correct than mine?
I wouldn't myself.
oh yeah..and your 'therefore' means nothing could be the other conclusion.
What does this all mean?
That apparently WCF's behaviour can be interpreted in different manners..
Are you willing to wager your penis (or something else that is precious to you) that your interpretation of WCF's mind is more correct than mine?
I wouldn't myself.
oh yeah..and your 'therefore' means nothing could be the other conclusion.
I don't see how anything could be concluded. Is it likely that WCF called PS? I don't know. I just know there's not enough data to make that determination. I wouldn't be surprised either, but I simply don't have anyway to conclude that he did or did not. Why not therefore disregard the issue alltogether?
Last edited:
Because it seems to be the topic of the thread?
Would that be a good reason not to ignore it?
Would that be a good reason not to ignore it?
I did not know people could read my mind? Let me put it this way, I can deny it, I can admit to stupidly making fun of the claims, but no matter what I can’t make paulsamuel stop accusing me or slandering me. There is no actually proof anyone called anyone so there is no crime to speak of just accusations. From my perspective paulsamuel is attacking me on all fronts and I have to deal it as innocent victim.
WellCookedFetus said:
Yes you can actually.
You just ignore it. Everytime you reply, he replies. It is a very obvious pattern. Just send each other a PM that maybe it should stop here and then just stop it.
Its not that simple: He attacks me even when I'm not talk about or to him or on a thread about me. Sure I can ignore it but other don't they have to listen to him (Unless they put him on ignore to) and then I have to deal with their lack of respect and their intent to banish me.
- Status