Deleting threads, stupid or not

[ThePixelGuru]

No, the minority here whining about "rights and justice" are wrong. I'd actually agree the rules could be written better. I disagree with the concept that members should be immune to them because they are not.

There is a big difference between "Oops, I did not know that was the rule, perhaps for future members it should be clarified better in the rule sections" and "you have no right to enforce it because I'm important to you and I didn't know, this is an injustice.... blah blah... Berlin wall... blah blah.... Nazis.....". Not you, but DM compared this to worldwide socio-political injustices.

We might not hold as different opinions as you seem to think. I don't believe any member should be immune, and I've said that before. I've also said before that any one member and any one ban is not the point here. Furthermore, I do argue that I didn't know the rule but that it does now occur to me that it should be a ban-able offense, and I do want it clarified for future/new members. I see a lot of people breaking rules who would have been less likely to break them had they been clearly stated. It'd be less work for the mods so they could spend less time catching users who are doing something wrong by accident and more time catching those who aren't in line with the ideals of this forum, ie spammers, trolls, intentional troublemakers and willful rulebreakers.

[bofh]

Fair enough. I don't think we're a minority, and if we are I doubt it's by much. Point taken, though, I don't have concrete numbers to back me here.

Well, if you are in the majority, then it should be rather easy to withhold content and have your changes implemented.

Of course, if you're a tiny minority, then no one will notice or care that you've gone elsewhere.

[Hexis]

1 person can be treated unfairly, and it's UNFAIR no matter how you cut it.

Life is unfair. Get a helmet.

[Lohman446]

Unjust behavior, policies and treatment are UNJUST no matter how large or small the affected group is.

1 person can be treated unfairly, and it's UNFAIR no matter how you cut it.

You seem to be the only one here Loh that thinks that what you have to say AGAINST us matters to us, when you can't sit there and tell us valid reasons as to why it's RIGHT.

Instead of trying to PROVE us wrong, why don't you try and PROVE your point RIGHT????

We already know that you can't prove us wrong. Being treated unfairly, is in fact UNFAIR.

Care to argue that point?

DM

How do you prove a negative? My point is that noone has been banned unfairly or unjustly. I have yet to see an example fo who actually has been. Might they have been banned for a misunderstanding of the rules? Sure. Could the rules be written better? Sure. Was the ban unjust or unfair? No, nor have you given me a single concrete example of one that was. You are comparing some message board spat to major socio-political events, its ridiculous.

[maxama10]

cry babies...

[ThePixelGuru]

Well, if you are in the majority, then it should be rather easy to withhold content and have your changes implemented.

Of course, if you're a tiny minority, then no one will notice or care that you've gone elsewhere.

Hmm. You claim we should make demands and that requests are worthless; Lohman claims we should make requests and that demands will be ignored. The vote's already 9-1-6-0-2 in the other thread... perhaps I'll just let the numbers speak for themselves. So much for it just being five of us.

How do you prove a negative? My point is that noone has been banned unfairly or unjustly. I have yet to see an example fo who actually has been. Might they have been banned for a misunderstanding of the rules? Sure. Could the rules be written better? Sure. Was the ban unjust or unfair? No, nor have you given me a single concrete example of one that was. You are comparing some message board spat to major socio-political events, its ridiculous.

Apparently linking to pblegion.com is a ban-able offense - you call that just? Sort of reminds me of the Berlin Wall. You know, keeping people in because you think they'll run at the first chance. Yes, it's a huge difference in scale and degree, but I don't believe it's a difference in kind or type. Like most of your responses, though, I suspect this one willfully misinterprets the argument because you have a stronger case against the argument if you take it farther than he intended.

As for those of you telling us to "get a helmet" or calling us "cry babies," I hope you understand that would likely not fly in the other threads. If I came in here to insult people without contributing anything to the conversation, you can bet they'd ban me, but that's because I'm not telling it like the moderators want to hear. Hell, bofh admits over on some other forums that he's trolling me and DevilMan, trying to get us to say something ban-worthy. Army knows, he's there too, responding in the same thread. Trolling is certainly a ban-worthy offense, but I'm not expecting bofh to get banned any time soon because he's telling it like the moderators want to hear it. Funny how that works.

[maxama10]

Hehe, I feel like I'm finally part of this thread.


Edit: Tell me, who got banned for posting a link to Pblegion?

name someone.






Although, didn't quite understand what the deal with closing that thread was. (?)



/meh.

[Lohman446]

Apparently linking to pblegion.com is a ban-able offense - you call that just? Sort of reminds me of the Berlin Wall. You know, keeping people in because you think they'll run at the first chance. Yes, it's a huge difference in scale and degree, but I don't believe it's a difference in kind or type. Like most of your responses, though, I suspect this one willfully misinterprets the argument because you have a stronger case against the argument if you take it farther than he intended..

I don't think I can take it farther. You just compared a message board spat to the Berlin wall and... well I hope the "father than intended" portion doesn't apply to not keeping a situation to scale in ones mind. I had said I thought it was only DM who was pulling out these wild examples and analogies (while not posting a single concrete example significant to the conversation at hand), apparently I was mistaken.

[bofh]

Hmm. You claim we should make demands and that requests are worthless; Lohman claims we should make requests and that demands will be ignored. The vote's already 9-1-6-0-2 in the other thread... perhaps I'll just let the numbers speak for themselves. So much for it just being five of us.

I'm surprised you *only* got that many.
But, of those who agree, how many of those will withhold content to actually make it happen? It's one thing to say you agree, and it's another to back it up with actions. I'd still say less than five.

Army knows, he's there too, responding in the same thread.

Oddly enough, requesting that I don't... Funny you left that out.

So how much of the rest of your plight have you edited out inconvenient facts?

[DevilMan]

Okay, you've been wanting it, now you will have your week long ban.

Posting with full intent to be disruptive, is a ban worthy offense...and THAT'S in the rules.

Keep it up when/if you come back, and we can make it permanent. Army

[Army]

Apparently linking to pblegion.com is a ban-able offense...

Since you still have no idea about the reality of the whole affair, your rantings are null and void.

The Mods will ponder and usually discuss any complaint or suggestion from any member. If we deem it necessary to make a change for the better because of their opinion or idea, we do. Otherwise, we take the ignorant whining of a vocal minority with a grain of salt.

[ThePixelGuru]

I don't think I can take it farther. You just compared a message board spat to the Berlin wall and... well I hope the "father than intended" portion doesn't apply to not keeping a situation to scale in ones mind. I had said I thought it was only DM who was pulling out these wild examples and analogies (while not posting a single concrete example significant to the conversation at hand), apparently I was mistaken.

Once again, you willfully misinterpret a post to better support your argument. I'm saying there is a difference in scale, but not in kind. It's an analogy, and as my dictionary defines it that's "a comparison between two things, typically on the basis of their structure and for the purpose of explanation or clarification." Scale is the mutable factor here, and until you can prove a difference in kind the point stands. Proving a difference in scale is in line with what I'm saying, and as much as you'd like to pretend it refutes my point it doesn't.

I'm surprised you *only* got that many.
But, of those who agree, how many of those will withhold content to actually make it happen? It's one thing to say you agree, and it's another to back it up with actions. I'd still say less than five.


Oddly enough, requesting that I don't... Funny you left that out.

So how much of the rest of your plight have you edited out inconvenient facts?

Again, Lohman claims that demands are invalid while requests are valid, and you claim requests are invalid and demands (with ultimatums) are valid. And, again, I'll let the numbers speak for themselves. The moderators would be not only foolish but just plain disrespectful and rude to ignore the wishes of so many. It doesn't matter that we're not threatening to withhold content - if the moderators wish to ignore so many users, you can be sure a drop in content will follow. People contribute to what they're passionate about, and this sort of disrespect will certainly lead to a drop in passion (and, by extension, content).

Alas, you seem to be succumbing to a touch of the Lohman disease. You're claiming that I said Army encouraged you - I didn't. I merely said he was aware of your intent to troll, which he certainly is (and hasn't yet banned you for, surprise surprise), and that he's waiting for an excuse to ban us (which he implied he is). If you're going to complain about the editing out of inconvenient facts, you may want to have a talk with Lohman. He still seems to prefer to answer what he wishes I said rather than what I actually said.

Since you still have no idea about the reality of the whole affair, your rantings are null and void.

The Mods will ponder and usually discuss any complaint or suggestion from any member. If we deem it necessary to make a change for the better because of their opinion or idea, we do. Otherwise, we take the ignorant whining of a vocal minority with a grain of salt.

Glad you decided to rejoin the discussion. Like I've said to you before, perhaps you'd be so kind as to enlighten us regarding the "reality of the whole affair." Rogue and Big Evil seem to have no problem discussing it, so I can't imagine they'd object to you discussing it. And before you bring up the argument about not wanting to air AO's dirty laundry, consider that if you didn't you wouldn't be involved (on this or any other forum). Now that you're here, though, please tell me why having the rules reflect the policies that you'll enforce and actually sticking to those policies isn't worthy of implementation.

[bornl33t]

AO gains from ignoring what has changed from a request to a demand from a vocal minority. AO gains by not allowing a vocal minority to somehow gain status by being more vocal and more disruptive to get their way. AO gains by banning those who would seek to be disruptive across multiple threads because the moderators did something they did not agree with. AO gains by not allowing a vocal minority to beleive that their opinions are worth far more than they are. Once you give some vocal minority something, because they have been vocal and not doing so may be disruptive, you have opened the door and others will learn from it.

I'm not against an update to the rules and clarification for people who can't seem to understand what is disruptive posting, or baiting moderators. At one point we did not need them, but apparently the time when people were respectful to the forum, the rights of its ownership and administration, has passed.

This is golden. I wish I had the time, patience, cunning and speech to debate like this man.

[bofh]

You're claiming that I said Army encouraged you - I didn't.

I've claimed, or implied no such thing. But I see the disconnect here. When Army said "Nah" I didn't ignore him. When I ask somebody, and they say No, then that's my answer, I don't go ahead and do it anyway.

I merely said he was aware of your intent to troll, which he certainly is (and hasn't yet banned you for, surprise surprise),

You seem to be a little worked up about this "intent to troll." and my so called "trolling" in this thread.
I have not incited you with name calling, or bringing up subjects outside this thread, or turning this into a threadwreck.

I've seen how these movements go down on AO, I've been around for a couple. If you want be successful at this, you have to do it different/better than the last few times. I actually have given constructive advice, which have taken me up on.... Is that what you consider trolling?

and that he's waiting for an excuse to ban us (which he implied he is).

If you want to get all worked up about what you read into a mods post on another forum, well, I can't stop you. But don't let it cloud what you see on *this* forum.

If you're going to complain about the editing out of inconvenient facts, you may want to have a talk with Lohman. He still seems to prefer to answer what he wishes I said rather than what I actually said.

As the differences between Lohman's and mine posts subject matter, that's explained by us having differeneces of opinion, since we're different people. And I don't read his replies.



And to bring this back on thread

Make a list,
Make a manifesto.
Organise.
Rally.
Until you do that, you just a minor voice crying about injustice.

I can add one that you might want to look at.

Stay on message - Don't get caught up in a thread moving the subject around, or into metaphors. All this dilutes your message. The more your message get diluted the more it gets trivialized.

[Lohman446]

Once again, you willfully misinterpret a post to better support your argument. I'm saying there is a difference in scale, but not in kind. It's an analogy, and as my dictionary defines it that's "a comparison between two things, typically on the basis of their structure and for the purpose of explanation or clarification." Scale is the mutable factor here, and until you can prove a difference in kind the point stands. Proving a difference in scale is in line with what I'm saying, and as much as you'd like to pretend it refutes my point it doesn't.

You do realize they shot people on the Berlin wall right? They didn't ban them from posting on a message board for a few days.