Deleting threads, stupid or not

[TheTexan]

Army specifically said it was not Rogue. If I beleive Army (and obviously you don't) of course our opinions of the outcome are going to be different.



Read my posts on the the Thorums and see if I ever asked Army to have anything to do with this. However, seems how you don't seem to disagree with what Army said and make no point to argue it and accept "noone was banned for simply linking to PBL" what is the problem?

the reason I don't argue some things because I am not trying to just disagree with everything anyone ageist me says. I think some bans are needed and some people have over stepped the bounderys when arguing ageist the bans. I also have realized that as much as it is bad and unfair and beemer is a pain in the butt. This is a free place for us to come and get together. Free is the best part of that,we can also sell,buy,talk about tech stuff,talk to friends, and also talk about current events. So the bans are unfair but lets drop it to all because its free and beemer just relax and calm down lay off the ban stick and close threads.

[Lohman446]

The point is that the ban policy needs to be changed, and moderators need to follow it. Now back to our regularly scheduled programming.

The funny thing is I never really disagreed with this to some degree. The need for change maybe, I kinda think things are going fine. I don't disagree that sometimes people get away with things and sometimes they don't. I don't disagree that there is a lot of discretion in moderating the forum. I don't disagree that the rules could be better written and the ban list more complete.

However, I don't have a problem with that discretion. I skate close enough to the edge often enough that when I am banned for it, even if that particular time wasn't that bad I am going to have to just shrug and accept it. I don't think anyone banned has not pushed the envelope often and, more often than not, gotten away with it.

I kinda like the "looseness" of the moderation. For one there are not enough moderators with enough time to handle it to the letter. That's another issue but just naming moderators in this situation does not help. Any new moderators will be too mired in controversy from the beginning. Generally speaking, unless a topic (over a series of threads) or a thread gets out of hand its let be. Only when it becomes a disruptive issue is it really dealt with.

CPhilip (forgive me if I missed the SN by a few letters) was probably one of the best moderators I have seen on any forum. He gave out far more warnings than bans, but he did back his warnings. He made rules and consequences on the fly (remember the great reset post counts to zeros for post whoring thing) and enforced them, and then went back and handled the appeals on those privately if needed. He joked in the forums, and when not inappropriate could push the envelope as much as anyone. But he knew when to lay down the law and people respected the fact.

It would be possible I suppose to moderate with software and force everyone to obey the rules to the letter all the time. I don't really think thats what anyone wants. There was really no issue of "the content you bring is not appreciated, never come back". People made that an issue somehow. It was more of a don't do this which was ignored and became disruptive (or not, again I can accept there are two sides of this) that turned into a moderator having to force authority because people would not show the decency of following his request. That comes off as far more combative than it was meant to be, tone it to your view of the situation.

[Lohman446]

In regards to analogies

Since I have had history "experts" and debate "experts" try to school me on the use of analogies let me discuss them.

To be useful in debate an analogy must be reasonable in size and, to some degree,
context. The excample from the other side as to why.

The actions of those who would seek to disrupt the forum even if it costs them their own existance on it are like Islamaic fanatics who strap bombs to themselves.

It has all the hot words to get someone drawn in, and is just defendable enough that when someone calls you on it you can circle the wagons and defend it.

Said Islamic fanatics beleive they have been slighted, that the world is unjust. All they seek is justice. They are willing to show the world how wrong it is even if costs them, well at the same time causing as much disruptiveness as possible - most suicide bombers attack targets with minimal military value, instead aiming to disrupt society around them.

Then I would leave you to prove it wrong. As long as I narrowly define my analogy it would be hard to do. Some of you feel you were slighted, it was unfair and unjust. Your actions caused disruption to the forum, but you didn't care about being banned because it was for the greater good.

Obviously none of it has the finality of death. Then again, if the Berlin wall analogy was "good" this one is just as valid.

I find the Islamic extermist side idiotic. Sure its got the hot button words, it evokes feeling and instant pictures. Its not valid, its scale is blown too far out to be useful in debate or discussion. This is not using an analogy to teach (the earth is round like a ball) its using it to debate, and the considerations of using one must be stricter.

[txaggie08]

Since I have had history "experts"

You can roll eyes and insult me as far as you would like, I'm telling you that the manner in which these people have used these examples would not be condemned, even in the academic realm.


Your a very good at "bait and troll" methodology.

[kosmo]

Hitler


/There, someone said it
//Argument over

[bornl33t]

And that disruptive behavior was posting a link to PBL, which is not against the rules. As usual, you dont know what you are talking about Lohman...again.


There cant be intent to be dispruptive if the action committed isnt against the rules. Your logic...is flawed.


Let me clue you in to reality. This is but one of many examples where you have bad info. Zupe pays for the upkeep of this forum, not Tom. This has been known for years. Except by a few who have no clue whats going on around here.

Common sence will tell you that advertising a paintball forum on a paintball forum will get you in trouble. IF for no other reason, you should be banned for the lack of this. I REALLY REALLY REALLY REALLY wish someone would moderate this and the 5-6 other topics on the matter because to "me" this topic has become disruptive in that it's pitted AO against each other.

I'm right, period. Don't try to argue with me, I will not reply.

[Lohman446]

You can roll eyes and insult me as far as you would like, I'm telling you that the manner in which these people have used these examples would not be condemned, even in the academic realm.

You say that like academia is a center of common sense and decency.

Hey, if their Berlin wall analogy is valid, so is my Islamic extremists.

[RogueFactor]

Common sence will tell you that advertising a paintball forum on a paintball forum will get you in trouble. IF for no other reason, you should be banned for the lack of this. I REALLY REALLY REALLY REALLY wish someone would moderate this and the 5-6 other topics on the matter because to "me" this topic has become disruptive in that it's pitted AO against each other.

I'm right, period. Don't try to argue with me, I will not reply.

High horse, come on down. Linking to another site that allows me to host pics isnt advertising.

Common sense? LOL...that implies its commonly understood. If that were true:
1) The other 50+ threads that have links to PBN, MCB, SpecOps, SCP wouldnt have been created, or would have been removed too. They arent.
2) RobAGD, AO admin, wouldnt have said "AO has never had an issue with linking to other forums".
3) manike, a long-standing member of the paintball community, involved with AGD, and site admin for PBN, wouldnt have said "I thought AO has never censored links".
4) It would be in the rules, with everything else thats common sense(no cussing, no flaming, etc)

Is this where I put in "I'm right, period. Don't try to argue with me."

'Nuff said.

[Lohman446]

I noticed you edited out all the posts where people said my child whines less you guys do.

[ThePixelGuru]

The funny thing is I never really disagreed with this to some degree. The need for change maybe, I kinda think things are going fine. I don't disagree that sometimes people get away with things and sometimes they don't. I don't disagree that there is a lot of discretion in moderating the forum. I don't disagree that the rules could be better written and the ban list more complete.

[snip]

It would be possible I suppose to moderate with software and force everyone to obey the rules to the letter all the time. I don't really think thats what anyone wants. There was really no issue of "the content you bring is not appreciated, never come back". People made that an issue somehow. It was more of a don't do this which was ignored and became disruptive (or not, again I can accept there are two sides of this) that turned into a moderator having to force authority because people would not show the decency of following his request. That comes off as far more combative than it was meant to be, tone it to your view of the situation.

There we go, much more on topic than the last few, though somewhat repetitive. All we're arguing for is those changes you mentioned in your first paragraph, which even you agree should be made. I don't think that the mods are trying to chase us off, and I'd be surprised if anyone else does. What I'm saying is that their refusal to make (or even discuss) these simple, logical changes shows a degree of disrespect for the members, and that disrespected members don't provide as high quality/quantity content. I'm not threatening this, I'm trying to avert this. It's the moderators' refusal to discuss or implement these changes and their decision to delete and lock all threads about it that created this situation, not some desire to create conflict.

As far as your suicide bomber analogy, that's off base because it assumes a different intent and method than we exercise. We're not trying to get banned to prove our point, we just don't care if we get banned trying to prove our point (though we try not to get banned). That's more like a soldier willing to die for a cause than a suicide bomber who intends to die for his. What you're trying to do is draw an analogy between the situation and something with a negative connotation, because it creates the kind of kneejerk reactions people like you rely on to win opinions. The analogy thing has been beaten to death, though, and the Berlin Wall thing was never important to my argument. Let's just drop it and discuss the real issues, because clearly the analogy is more distracting than helpful.

[Lohman446]

There we go, much more on topic than the last few, though somewhat repetitive. All we're arguing for is those changes you mentioned in your first paragraph, which even you agree should be made. I don't think that the mods are trying to chase us off, and I'd be surprised if anyone else does. What I'm saying is that their refusal to make (or even discuss) these simple, logical changes shows a degree of disrespect for the members, and that disrespected members don't provide as high quality/quantity content. I'm not threatening this, I'm trying to avert this. It's the moderators' refusal to discuss or implement these changes and their decision to delete and lock all threads about it that created this situation, not some desire to create conflict.

As far as your suicide bomber analogy, that's off base because it assumes a different intent and method than we exercise. We're not trying to get banned to prove our point, we just don't care if we get banned trying to prove our point (though we try not to get banned). That's more like a soldier willing to die for a cause than a suicide bomber who intends to die for his. What you're trying to do is draw an analogy between the situation and something with a negative connotation, because it creates the kind of kneejerk reactions people like you rely on to win opinions. The analogy thing has been beaten to death, though, and the Berlin Wall thing was never important to my argument. Let's just drop it and discuss the real issues, because clearly the analogy is more distracting than helpful.

Did you just accuse me of using an analogy just to get a knee-jerk reaction? Isn't that interesting.

Your the ones who used the BERLIN WALL to try to get that same kneejerk reaction and now your telling me its used by "people like me"

Mutliple threads that were aggressive in nature were disruptive. I would guess your "terroristic" (I think I'm going to continue using that analogy, its fun even though I know its as invalid as yours) approach did not gain you any favor and was not helpful in bringing the administration to the discussion table.

[behemoth]

I'm not gonna lie Loh, berlin wall made me chuckle.

[ThePixelGuru]

Open Letter to the AO Moderators

Dear AO Moderation Team,
Why won't you implement or discuss any of these aforementioned changes? We've suggested updates to the rules, and even those who defend you agree that those updates should be made. We've asked for some sort of consistency in enforcing these rules, and received no assurance of intent to be equal and fair; in fact, all current indications point to a continued unequal application of the rules. We feel we are being disrespected. You refuse to discuss any of the issues at hand, except to say that we are uninformed. When we ask for information, you are silent. When we ask pointed questions to moderators who have posted in our threads, you are silent. When we don't understand policies and express concern and alarm, you delete and lock our threads. When we don't stop asking, you ban us.

We realize we are not the law here. We realize you have no obligation whatsoever to indulge us. We also realize that your actions in this matter are harming AO. We make no threats, but we wish for you to understand several things. Without us, you have no content. Without content, there is no AO. Yes, you can wait us out and we will go away, but when we go away so do our contributions. We don't want this to happen; we want AO to survive and flourish. Do not make the mistake of interpreting our desire to support AO as our satisfaction with your methods and intent. If you do not respect us, you will lose us.

Why can't these reasonable changes be made? Why can't you discuss any of these changes? Why do you ignore us? Why do you disrespect us by calling us ignorant and refusing to respond to our questions and concerns? We have nothing but the best intentions for AO. What do you have to lose by helping us achieve these goals, or by setting the record straight about which goals we should be trying to achieve? We are willing and eager to work with you, but we cannot work with you if you won't work with us. We don't want AO to suffer, and we don't want to leave, but we feel that, given your lack of response, we have no reasonable option but to take our opinions and contributions where they will be listened to. Please, help us continue to make AO great. We all have the same goal in mind, let's be open about our methods for accomplishing it and continue to foster the kind of cooperation and communication that made AO great in the first place.

[ThePixelGuru]

Did you just accuse me of using an analogy just to get a knee-jerk reaction? Isn't that interesting.

Your the ones who used the BERLIN WALL to try to get that same kneejerk reaction and now your telling me its used by "people like me"

Mutliple threads that were aggressive in nature were disruptive. I would guess your "terroristic" (I think I'm going to continue using that analogy, its fun even though I know its as invalid as yours) approach did not gain you any favor and was not helpful in bringing the administration to the discussion table.

Whoops, you took a step back, buddy. First, I didn't bring up the Berlin Wall analogy, I just said it was an analogy and that your attempts to discredit it on basis of scale were ridiculous and illogical. Second, although the Berlin Wall analogy also attempts to draw a correlation to a negative event, it's valid while your analogies lack similarities in kind, making them invalid. The intent of the Berlin Wall analogy was to provide a greater understanding of the problems with the situation, whereas your analogy attempts to compare us to unethical enemies of the state bent on pointless destruction. Finally, none of this is the point, so, like I said before, let's drop the analogies and get on with the discussion of the actual issues. Maybe you'll have a better chance of understanding them, though I do find it funny that you continue to use an analogy that you acknowledge is invalid.

Concerning the multiple threads, all I can say is that the more you try to stamp out an idea the more people get interested in it. The mods tried to stamp out the fire and only succeeded in spreading it around. Hopefully next time they'll address the issue instead of trying to sweep it under the carpet.

[Lohman446]

You do know they shot people on the Berlin wall right? If the Berlin wall is valid so is the Islamic terrorist analogy.

That said, neither analogy really helps the issue at hand.