Vote for who you would most like to be a mod.

Ditto.

  • Total voters
    30
  • Poll closed .
As seen on the test, it is completely unfair and impractical to allow reputations and length of membership to affect objective judgement. It is the essence of corruption. It makes total and no sense logically. It is completely unsound and impractical. It has nothing to do with equal treatment of all.

Making reputation, popularity, length of membership etc relevant is completely illogical, unreasonable, unfair, impractical, idiotic, abusive, corrupt, unreasonable, asshole, bias behavior that only a total scumbag would do. You do not seem to have a clear and reasonable mind. ALL MEMBERS ARE EQUAL UNDER THE RULES NO MATTER WHAT.
 
lixluke said:
As seen on the test, it is completely unfair and impractical to allow reputations and length of membership to affect objective judgement. It is the essence of corruption. It makes total and no sense logically. It is completely unsound and impractical. It has nothing to do with equal treatment of all.

Making reputation, popularity, length of membership etc relevant is completely illogical, unreasonable, unfair, impractical, idiotic, abusive, corrupt, unreasonable, asshole, bias behavior that only a total scumbag would do. You do not seem to have a clear and reasonable mind. ALL MEMBERS ARE EQUAL UNDER THE RULES NO MATTER WHAT.
Click to expand...


Coolskill, do you want to be a mod?
 
Let's say two people make the exact same racist comment. Let's say they are D'ster and samcdkey.

If we banned samcdkey for 3 days, do you think she is more likely to have learned her lesson (that is, to not say things like that) than D'ster who has also been banned for 3 days?

Really, when is samdcdkey racist? If she said something just one time.. would you be up for a warning or a ban? How long?

Now D'ster.. he hasn't been around lately but he is the racist of SF. Does he just get a warning? A ban? How long?

Now, you could make the rule that the first racist comment is always gets a warning. However, there are so many ways racism can present itself that it's hard to have established rules that account for everything. Maybe new member A says "all blacks are lazy." Ok, that deserves a warning (in my opinion). New member B posts lynching pictures and makes a joke about it. That is a ban (in my opinion). Those are extreme cases.. but there is a middle ground somewhere where a set consequence (as established by the rules) means different things to different people. At this middle ground, some learn and some do not following the consquence.

I say, equal consequence for equal people. Not everyone is equal. That's life. It sucks, but it's true.

Those that want everyone to be equal are very likely to be those at the bottom of society.. those that do not want to be treated as equals are likely to be those at the top of society. Those in the middle are likely to be content with everything. And as long as this imbalance exists, there will never be equality. Plus, we all inequal just by virtue of intellect.

Maybe every mod should consult cool skill before making a decision...
 
Absane said:
Let's say two people make the exact same racist comment. Let's say they are D'ster and samcdkey.

If we banned samcdkey for 3 days, do you think she is more likely to have learned her lesson (that is, to not say things like that) than D'ster who has also been banned for 3 days?

Really, when is samdcdkey racist? If she said something just one time.. would you be up for a warning or a ban? How long?

Now D'ster.. he hasn't been around lately but he is the racist of SF. Does he just get a warning? A ban? How long?

Now, you could make the rule that the first racist comment is always gets a warning. However, there are so many ways racism can present itself that it's hard to have established rules that account for everything. Maybe new member A says "all blacks are lazy." Ok, that deserves a warning (in my opinion). New member B posts lynching pictures and makes a joke about it. That is a ban (in my opinion). Those are extreme cases.. but there is a middle ground somewhere where a set consequence (as established by the rules) means different things to different people. At this middle ground, some learn and some do not following the consquence.

I say, equal consequence for equal people. Not everyone is equal. That's life. It sucks, but it's true.

Those that want everyone to be equal are very likely to be those at the bottom of society.. those that do not want to be treated as equals are likely to be those at the top of society. Those in the middle are likely to be content with everything. And as long as this imbalance exists, there will never be equality. Plus, we all inequal just by virtue of intellect.

Maybe every mod should consult cool skill before making a decision...
Click to expand...
Everybody is equal you idiot nazi. Nobody has more rights than anybody. Nobody deserves more rights than anybody.
For total stupidity, Absane gets:
F
 
Destroy envy and selfishness and everyone will be equal. Seeing as how you cannot, just do the best you can and then some. For example, it's a fact that women like power and confidence, not men that get handouts just to be equal

Everyone has the same rights, but not everyone can take as much advantage of them as some other people.

And Cool Skill.. for someone that preaches about "irrelevance" and "ad hominem" attacks, you sure do like to throw them around.

B for effort, D for content.
 
Envy and selfishness has nothing to do with equality under rules. Rules apply to all people equally. Making reputation, popularity, length of membership etc relevant is completely illogical, unreasonable, unfair, impractical, idiotic, abusive, corrupt, unreasonable, asshole, bias behavior that only a total scumbag would do.
 
Why not dispute my logic and premises instead of making a counter-claim and then claiming I am illogical? Sheesh.. this reminds me of a presidential compaign.

The only job of a moderator is to help run the forums in accordance with the administration's wishes. But treating everyone the exact same is to give just as much attention to those who contribute nothing as we should give attention to those that actually mean something to us.
 
redarmy11 said:
If you don't take into account members' reputations, eg the popularity of a particular member, as well as length of membership, how on earth can you make a judgement on which members you can get away with banning and which you can't? What you propose might be fair, lixluke. But it just isn't practical.
Click to expand...
Roman said:
you are totally stupid enough to imply that
Click to expand...
lixluke said:
As seen on the test, it is completely unfair and impractical to allow reputations and length of membership to affect objective judgement. It is the essence of corruption. It makes total and no sense logically. It is completely unsound and impractical. It has nothing to do with equal treatment of all.

Making reputation, popularity, length of membership etc relevant is completely illogical, unreasonable, unfair, impractical, idiotic, abusive, corrupt, unreasonable, asshole, bias behavior that only a total scumbag would do. You do not seem to have a clear and reasonable mind. ALL MEMBERS ARE EQUAL UNDER THE RULES NO MATTER WHAT.
Click to expand...
I got the reaction I wanted though didn't I. And hey? Don't be a hater, dude. :p

No, not you, lixluke. You just shut up.
 
Absane said:
Why not dispute my logic and premises instead of making a counter-claim and then claiming I am illogical? Sheesh.. this reminds me of a presidential compaign.

The only job of a moderator is to help run the forums in accordance with the administration's wishes. But treating everyone the exact same is to give just as much attention to those who contribute nothing as we should give attention to those that actually mean something to us.
Click to expand...
Because you are illogical, and there is no counter.

The moderator's job is not to help run the forums in any other way than according to the rules without bias. Also to assist people that need assistance. All of that crap you are talking about is beyond a moderator's duties and proper use of power.

Only a bias moron with no logic or objectivity considers those that mean something and those that contribute nothing.
THERE ARE ONLY MEMBERS AND ALL ARE EQUAL. NOBODY HAS THE RIGHT TO JUDGE WHO MEANS SOMETHING AND WHO CONTRIBUTES NOTHING. THE ONLY QUESTION IS WHETER A RULE WAS VIOLATED OR NOT. EVERYTHING ELSE ABOUT THE VIOLATOR IS IRRELEVANT.
 
Ah, you're just pissed because you'd be out on your ear if Absane was a mod. Why else would you keep on about there being no difference between 'those who mean something and those who contribute something'? ;)
 
If the current mods adhered to the rules 100% lix you would be(like most of us) perpetually banned or atleast highly censored. You seem to have a fixation with ridged rules, yet hypocritically break them at every opportunity.
 
lixluke said:
Because you are illogical, and there is no counter.

The moderator's job is not to help run the forums in any other way than according to the rules without bias. Also to assist people that need assistance. All of that crap you are talking about is beyond a moderator's duties and proper use of power.

Only a bias moron with no logic or objectivity considers those that mean something and those that contribute nothing.
THERE ARE ONLY MEMBERS AND ALL ARE EQUAL. NOBODY HAS THE RIGHT TO JUDGE WHO MEANS SOMETHING AND WHO CONTRIBUTES NOTHING. THE ONLY QUESTION IS WHETER A RULE WAS VIOLATED OR NOT. EVERYTHING ELSE ABOUT THE VIOLATOR IS IRRELEVANT.
Click to expand...

You can never be a mod, mod's cannot ban themselves:cool:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top