Deleting threads, stupid or not

[bofh]

Army's post

Ah the usefulness of subscribing to threads.

That wasn't a request that you NOT do it.

I've address this earlier, but if I ask a question, and the answer is no, I don't just do it anyway. You're insane if you think I'm going to ignore an answer to my direct question. Otherwise, why would I bother asking?

snip ...Trolling behavior is doing something for the sake of ruffling feathers without adding anything of pertinence to the conversation/topic at hand. Which is what you are doing.

I guess you missed the part where I've actually provided constructive advice, on how to actually DO something, which was even acted on.

Which compares to your contribution of... tantrum throwing and whining?

[Lohman446]

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.

Plan A) Ask for explanation
Result: Receive explanation

RogueFactor one week disruptive behavior

Rogue knows the rules, Rogue pushes them, and I think Rogue knows that. Oops, crossed them, its not like he was shot or something.

B) Make several threads to whine about it and further disrupt the forum. Wonder why anyone gets banned for this. Question if disrupting the forum is enough of an explanation, because apparently we don't understand that in our enlightenment.

C) In the thread that is allowed to stay up make major broad strokes comparing bannings to major soci-political events. When asked for specific examples dodge the question as best possible giving vague answers of perceived injustices.
Note: Make sure to take the time out of your incredibly busy life to do this from the middle of a body of water from youre jetski. And since you are enlightened you realize even if this is true that noone will beleive it for a second. But its ok, someday they'll grow up to be just like you and understand .

D) Allow a small handful of members to expose the circularness of your argument, but keep trying to convice them. Never stop to consider that continuing a circular argument just causes it to go into a death spiral and expose the flaws to everyone. Hint: Compare to specific major socio-political events at this point, it will help . Still make sure not to specify which message board event you are referring to that compares to that major socio-political event.

E) Remember, on a privately owned message board, you have rights. Ownership isn't important, not allowing you to post and share information is a great injustice, rising up to the levels that Joseph Stalin would pale at.

They don't allow me to use enough emoticons to express my opinion adequately.


It reminds me of something a few weeks ago. Three people come in to rent a vehicle that I do not have available. After explaining this to them for some time they just don't seem to get that I cannot manufacture a vehicle at the last minute to fill their needs. We discuss the competition and the possibility of the competition being able to fill their needs. Its early in the day, I'm the only one working, and one of them says something to the effect "its not safe to be working here alone". I take two steps back from the counter, put my hands behind my back, smile, and ask them to leave.

Say a friend or someone I trusted not to cause a problem made the same statement. Would I ask them to leave? Hint: the answer is no.

Somehow lets say there was an observer sitting there. Did I commit some great injustice in not dealing with the two the same? Does the fact I own the business change the level of injustice?

Yet somehow I'm supposed to buy that unpaid moderators on a message board are supposed to be held to some higher standards. Somehow I'm supposed to beleive it is their duty to answer to the public?

There are days I am thankful we live in a representative democracy and people are not allowed to directly vote on most issues. If for some reason we decide to ever change this arrangement I will be glad threads like this exist to indicate why we don't allow people direct votes on issues.

[Lohman446]

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.

We agree on these points:

The rules could be written better, it would not be too hard to do.

You didn't know.

We disagree on these:

Not know is grounds for immunity. A short ban is little more than a warning, no real harm, no foul, now we move on

That this is some great injustice. The moderators responded to a series of threads that in their very nature sought to be disruptive. Because of the nature of these threads the rules were applied strictly. Had the same things been done in a thread about, I don't know, the Roman failings against the Persian army, noone would have cared. Content is important, and moderators should consider content. If you are going to make a thread intending to be disruptive, that line you can skate close to is not as close to breaking the rules as it would be in another thread. Thats life, its not unreasonable, and its not unfair.

And your great manifesto "win". Noone has argued the points in it. Making a poll that had people vote on how ridiculous comparing this message board spat to major socio-political events would not lessen the points of it, but it would show the lack of support of the extreme of your position.

I agree with BOFH on this. A lot of members agree that changes could be made to better the forum. There was a very small minority that relly got their panties in a bunch over this.

[bofh]

Again, Lohman claims that demands are invalid while requests are valid, and you claim requests are invalid and demands (with ultimatums) are valid.

Don't "Make demands", but instead "Gather momentum to positively effect the community."



I been careful to call them Voices, and Opinions. Calling them "Demands" and "Ultimatums", just highlights a conflict. You probably don't to lead off with hard conflict, so use the soft words until you have overwhelming momentum.

Conflict, Demands, Ultimatums, Rights, it's hard language, disruptive language. It polarizes people, makes them choose sides. It taints emotions, and makes people behave irrationally.

Voices, Opinions, Withholding, they're softer, lighter words, no, "Voices" don't polarize people, no one can argue with a "Voice" or an "Opinion" "And "Withholding," well, that's how they acquire your taxes from your paycheck.

[maxama10]

srsly guys, i missed it, who got banned for posting pblegion?

[warpig13]

Im back from my 3 day vacation, so who's been banned now?

[txaggie08]

Some of you seem to be under the delusion that using a historical reference to elaborate a point requires the point to be as bad as the example.


I'm sure we are all very well aware that noone is being shot here, that staff is not breaking into our members homes and killing them in the night. However, there is no taboo against historical references being used as a point of emphasis. Some of you need to stop being the bloody PC police(and like it or not that's what your doing).


This comes from a senior history major. If you get bent out of shape about this, stay out of a history classroom.

[warpig13]

Some of you seem to be under the delusion that using a historical reference to elaborate a point requires the point to be as bad as the example.


I'm sure we are all very well aware that noone is being shot here, that staff is not breaking into our members homes and killing them in the night. However, there is no taboo against historical references being used as a point of emphasis. Some of you need to stop being the bloody PC police(and like it or not that's what your doing).


This comes from a senior history major. If you get bent out of shape about this, stay out of a history classroom.

Yeah

But your an aggie, so it doesnt count

[kosmo]

I'm sure we are all very well aware that noone is being shot here, that staff is not breaking into our members homes and killing them in the night.

You obviously dont remember the time we had some Islamic terrorist spammer. Im pretty sure Army killed that guy.

[Lohman446]

Some of you seem to be under the delusion that using a historical reference to elaborate a point requires the point to be as bad as the example.


I'm sure we are all very well aware that noone is being shot here, that staff is not breaking into our members homes and killing them in the night. However, there is no taboo against historical references being used as a point of emphasis. Some of you need to stop being the bloody PC police(and like it or not that's what your doing).


This comes from a senior history major. If you get bent out of shape about this, stay out of a history classroom.

No, I'm calling people on trying to come up with a historical reference for a justified banning of someone on a message board for creating a distubrance. I'm calling them on the fact they compare it to some of the worst acts in human history.

[ThePixelGuru]

Lohman, I'm going to say all this one last time and then I'm not bothering with you until you learn how to debate the actual issues instead of the pretend ones. Please realize that I don't think I, or anyone else, should be immune to rules that they don't know about, but I do think that a reasonable attempt should be made by the moderators to let users know about these rules. This isn't about any one ban, not mine, not anyone else's. This is about the ban policy. Also, please learn what an analogy is, and how the two events it can compare can differ in scale and still be alike in kind. And finally, please recognize that it is not the bans specifically that upset people (or "get their panties in a bunch," as you're so fond of saying when you think you're being clever), but rather the lack of an informative policy about them and the moderator's disregard of requests to change that policy that upsets people. Until you make a post that actually addresses the issues at hand and don't just nitpick at tangents and assure us of your level of amusement, I'll be ignoring you.

bofh, your exact statement was "How far should I poke DevilMan and ThePixelGuru to do something bannable?" That's not a "should I do this," it's "to what extent should I do this." The difference is that the former requests a positive or negative, while the latter assumes a positive and requests a degree of positivity. That's why I assumed your intent to troll - and the good trolls are the subtle ones, by the way, not the blatant flaming ones. That being said, I'll admit you make far more sense than Lohman, as you actually appear to grasp the concepts at hand, and have actually made points that have caused me to rethink or create a course of action. I have to confess, however, that I don't really have any idea where to go from here. It seems that many people (a majority, even), including yourself and Lohman, agree that the rules need updating, and only slightly fewer agree that the moderators should make at least a token effort to abide by them. Threatening to withhold content is not likely to happen - at that point, most people either have already left or don't care enough, and the moderators are so dug in that they won't budge regardless. Requesting these changes is not enough - moderators can already see that people want this to happen, but they don't do it and delete or lock pretty much all threads about it. So if we can't force the issue and the moderators won't heed requests, what can we do?

[bofh]

bofh, your exact statement was "How far should I poke DevilMan and ThePixelGuru to do something bannable?" That's not a "should I do this," it's "to what extent should I do this." The difference is that the former requests a positive or negative, while the latter assumes a positive and requests a degree of positivity. -snip-

Army answered my question with a negative. I did word my question to exclude a negative, but that's what I got.

Threatening to withhold content is not likely to happen...

Overtly? No, you shouldn't even use the word threat. Too much of loaded word. Withholding content is something that's implied and alluded too. It's action thru inaction. Never, never use a conflict word like threat.

So if we can't force the issue and the moderators won't heed requests, what can we do?

The manifesto thread is a good start, encourage people to post in it, in addition to voting. Spread the idea that behind those poll numbers there are names, and people, and experience that are disenfranchised. Make the thread into a rally. But soft words, not conflict, get it simmering about ideas on positive change.

Then... "Quis custodiat ipsos custodes?" It's a slightly different from the normal phrase, but it translates to "Who *can* watch the watchers?"

And there's your answer, TK and Zupe. The people that grant the power to the Moderators.

[maxama10]

Lohman, I'm going to say all this one last time and then I'm not bothering with you until you learn how to debate the actual issues instead of the pretend ones.

Ever seen Thank You for Smoking?

Enough said...






and errr...seriously, tell me who got banned for posting a link to pblegion?


for real.



edit:

i lol'd

[Army]

and errr...seriously, tell me who got banned for posting a link to pblegion?

OK, last time...

Nobody was banned for simply linking to PBL. The member in question was banned for his actions against the wishes of the moderators and the owner of this website, concerning the reason for the link.

[Lohman446]

Lohman, I'm going to say all this one last time and then I'm not bothering with you until you learn how to debate the actual issues instead of the pretend ones. Please realize that I don't think I, or anyone else, should be immune to rules that they don't know about, but I do think that a reasonable attempt should be made by the moderators to let users know about these rules. This isn't about any one ban, not mine, not anyone else's. This is about the ban policy. Also, please learn what an analogy is, and how the two events it can compare can differ in scale and still be alike in kind. And finally, please recognize that it is not the bans specifically that upset people (or "get their panties in a bunch," as you're so fond of saying when you think you're being clever), but rather the lack of an informative policy about them and the moderator's disregard of requests to change that policy that upsets people. Until you make a post that actually addresses the issues at hand and don't just nitpick at tangents and assure us of your level of amusement, I'll be ignoring you.

I understand the concept of an analogy. I also undertsand the concept of picking one so far out of proportion to make it ridiculous. I also understand the concept of trying to use "hot-words" in those analogies that couse that problem in scale.

I have tried to debate the issue. However I hear "people are banned unfairly" and then I ask who and I get responded to "people".

When pressed its not against any actual ban its against a general policy. However, unless you provide an actual example of where this policy resulted in some form of unjustice I'm going to question how its a problem.

So... its down to policy alone. Which I have stated I'm not against evolving he rules. Apparently the common sense and decency people had in being able to keep AO in line with what the owners and administrators desire is gone and we need to spell out the rules so even enlightened people can understand them.

So all this disruptivenss, all this whining, is about policy solely. Not policy that has actually been enforced against anyone, because there are apparently no unjust bans so far (after all, this isn't against any particular ban).

Basically it comes down to. A group of members made a disruption on AO because they did not like exactly how things were spelled out. There wasn't any actual moderator action they had a problem with (when pressed for an example they point vaguely to policy and fail, time and time again to come up with a specific example ofd moderator action). But thats ok, cause they have analogies.

I'm the one who can't debate? I have, more than once, stated that I agree that the rules could be evolved to help out the people who obviously can't understand them. I agree more moderator presence would help. What I see a problem with is the group that became unglued over policy alone. What I see a problem with is a group that made thread upon thread to be solely disruptive and then wonders why they got results. This is about the great injustice of unfair bannings - and yet I have not been given a single example of one.

There are many old laws in various states that are not enforced and would likely put a good portion of the population in jail if they were. Maybe you should crusade against those. It would be the same thing. Make sure you call it an injustice, rally people to your cause, compare it to Tienemin Square, the great civil rights movement, and make a mountain out of it. When asked who has been injustly harmed by the law make certain not to give concrete examples, just complain about the policy in general. When you protest and some of your members interfere with traffic and go to jail for one night, make sure you consider them martyrs against some great injustice and just whine louder. You like analogies, there's one for you.