Weekly QotM moderation

[John Galt]

Originally posted by couriers
How is offering evidence to what I believe was something that was done despite my wishes an act of trolling?

maybe you are right - but he is saying I'm a liar and shouldn't be moderating and told me to "fuck off." It is hard to let that go, especially when he is not alone in believing I'm not an "objective" moderator.

"You can decide to keep the quotes in the QoTM for all I care any longer."

"Do as you wish because this has become something that has wasted more of my time than it is worth."

"and the destination has become pointless."

3 Times

[VPI97]

couriers, for your own benefit, just shut the fuck up.

Based on your history of posting, I like you....but in this thread you're just making yourself look like a dick.

[John Galt]

Originally posted by couriers
"You can decide to keep the quotes in the QoTM for all I care any longer."

"Do as you wish because this has become something that has wasted more of my time than it is worth."

"and the destination has become pointless."

3 Times

3 times you expressed frustration that I wouldn't remove - not 3 times did you ask that I don't remove.

[Franklinnoble]

Couriers... just let it go, man.

Apparently I am a Dick. And an Asshole. And a Liar. And so on and so on. What ever. John can continue to be the high and might person that he is and despite me showing evidence otherwise people just seem to want to listen to everything he says as if he is the only one that could be right. Just wait, it will happen to someone else just as it has to me.

Originally posted by John Galt
3 times you expressed frustration that I wouldn't remove - not 3 times did you ask that I don't remove.

The final paragraph of that PM was meant to tell you that I was no longer interested in pursueing the issue any longer. I had no idea that you would then jump to removing the quotes and making the information public. As soon as I learned of that fact I PMed you asking specifically that you please do not do so. Instead of deleting the post and puting the quotes back in you allowed it to continue on for others to flame me and then joined in on the act. I hope you are satisfied with yourself. Job well done.

[VPI97]

Originally posted by couriers
John can continue to be the high and might person that he is and despite me showing evidence otherwise people just seem to want to listen to everything he says as if he is the only one that could be right. Just wait, it will happen to someone else just as it has to me.

Dude, people already know he's a pompous asshole....that doesn't mean you have to be a dick.*



* I submit this for a QotM

Why do people thing that I should just shut up and allow others to attack me, including John, without speaking up about it? It took someone mere minutes to flame me after he posted the info and it hasn't stoped yet I'm the bad guy here. That makes a lot of sense.

[Maple Leafs]

I think this thread is an excellent example of why an open, transparent QOTM moderation process is a reall, really bad idea.

Give somebody the job of moderating, ask them to use a little common sense, and be done with it. If you don't like every single quote you see, tough luck. You won't like every thread, either. You're a big boy, suck it up.

And for the love of god, can we stop pretending that there's some steady stream of curious, invisible observers out there that we have to avoid offending? It's just us folks, there's no visiting royalty.

[John Galt]

Originally posted by VPI97
Dude, people already know he's a pompous asshole....that doesn't mean you have to be a dick.*



* I submit this for a QotM

I would ask that you not call me an "asshole." I may be pompous, but I've tried to treat people with respect on this board and haven't resorted to calling them names.

[John Galt]

Originally posted by couriers
Why do people thing that I should just shut up and allow others to attack me, including John, without speaking up about it? It took someone mere minutes to flame me after he posted the info and it hasn't stoped yet I'm the bad guy here. That makes a lot of sense.

I doubt anyone here would consider what I wrote "flaming."

[VPI97]

Suck it up, buttercup

[Qwikshot]

Originally posted by Maple Leafs
I think this thread is an excellent example of why an open, transparent QOTM moderation process is a reall, really bad idea.

Give somebody the job of moderating, ask them to use a little common sense, and be done with it. If you don't like every single quote you see, tough luck. You won't like every thread, either. You're a big boy, suck it up.

And for the love of god, can we stop pretending that there's some steady stream of curious, invisible observers out there that we have to avoid offending? It's just us folks, there's no visiting royalty.

I agree.

[astralhaze]

Originally posted by John Galt
I doubt anyone here would consider what I wrote "flaming."

Unless you are very very sensitive.

[John Galt]

Originally posted by Maple Leafs
I think this thread is an excellent example of why an open, transparent QOTM moderation process is a reall, really bad idea.

Give somebody the job of moderating, ask them to use a little common sense, and be done with it. If you don't like every single quote you see, tough luck. You won't like every thread, either. You're a big boy, suck it up.

And for the love of god, can we stop pretending that there's some steady stream of curious, invisible observers out there that we have to avoid offending? It's just us folks, there's no visiting royalty.

I agree that moderation doesn't have to be transparent, but it was strangely enough couriers idea and cam and jon seemed very skeptical of me. Maybe I'm a poor moderator for that reason, because I think several people here don't trust me to do things behind the scenes. And I don't think any of this would have happened if couriers hadn't grandstanded first.

As for "curious, invisible visitors" - I agree they aren't the issue and probably don't exist. We do know however that at least some quotes did offend people here (Bomb Mecca causing someone to change their signature in protest and anti-French quotes received quite an ugly response). The truth is we don't know who "we" really are. I only hope to remove the most blatantly deeply offensive things like those.

Originally posted by John Galt
I doubt anyone here would consider what I wrote "flaming."

Never said you did. I said you attacked me on a personal level and that someone else flamed me.

Originally posted by John Galt
I don't think any of this would have happened if couriers hadn't grandstanded first.

All my fault again ah John? You can be such a prick that it isn't even funny.

On 04-24-2003 at 02:25 AM I sent this to John

I have no intentions of ever going public again in regards to this issue. The backlash that I received was not necessary. We should not have to be afraid to discuss anything that concerns the board on the board itself. After all, it is a discussion board. Unfortunately, despite several others doing the same before me and despite several members who had actually taken the thread seriously the realization is that the members of this board are cruel people who more than likely only care about making themselves look good or others look bad. If you were serious about your claims of personal attacks against you yesterday then you should understand where I am coming from on this.

Thank you.




Someone Please tell me how I didn't make it clear to him that I didn't want this issue to go public?

[dawgfan]

Couriers, if you didn't want this all to go public you shouldn't have questioned John's character and decision-making by publicly referencing private PM's you'd sent him as proof that he was a liar or was ignoring your requests. You called John's character into question and the only way for him to defend himself was to provide his evidence.

As for your "proof":

"You can decide to keep the quotes in the QoTM for all I care any longer."

(italics mine)

I would interpret this as saying "I don't care what you do with those quotes", not "please keep the quotes after all".

"Do as you wish because this has become something that has wasted more of my time than it is worth."

(italics mine)

Again, you place the decision in John's hands; this is something very different from specifically withdrawing your request for the removal of the quotes.

"and the destination has become pointless."

This statement might imply in your mind that you wanted those quotes kept in but it's certainly far from a definitive statement of that position.

I'm genuinely sorry you feel like you've been attacked and I can sympathize that you feel you've been wronged by JG, but from what you've presented here you've failed to make your case.

I cannot believe that a feature which was meant as an amusement like QotM has generated so much ill will in the last few days here.

dawgfan,

This debate has gone on too long but I just wanted to make a final statement since I don’t agree that I took the issue public by referencing PMs. First of all, the PMs that I quoted were what I wrote and did not include anything that he wrote. Secondly, he took the issue public despite my desires and the PM references were used to show that I in fact did not want that to happen.

I had made it clear to John earlier in the day that I didn't want to take this issue public (see 2 post above). I then tried to get the point across that removing the quotes was no longer an interest of mine. I obviously failed at making that point and I'll take the blame for not having used more specific wording. However, I did make it really clear that I didn't want the issue to go public. He sent me a PM saying that he was going to take it public and I asked him not to. He then says that my last request was too late even though it was only minutes after receiving word from him that he was taking it public. It comes across to me from this that his motives are questionable. His logic in this thread only goes to further enforce that belief. He even goes as far as claiming that I made the policy of taking the issue public, which is not even close to being truthful. Yet I am the liar.

Right or wrong it is all pointless. I am ashamed of having allowed myself to post in a flame war while being so enraged at the time. I much prefer to debate issues rather than to argue with others. As far as I am concerned John will no longer be an issue. Others may have problems with him down the road but that will be for them to deal with. This fight is over for me.

My apologies to the members that feel that I have lowered the standards of the board. That was never my intention.

[John Galt]

Originally posted by couriers
dawgfan,

This debate has gone on too long but I just wanted to make a final statement since I don’t agree that I took the issue public by referencing PMs. First of all, the PMs that I quoted were what I wrote and did not include anything that he wrote. Secondly, he took the issue public despite my desires and the PM references were used to show that I in fact did not want that to happen.

I had made it clear to John earlier in the day that I didn't want to take this issue public (see 2 post above). I then tried to get the point across that removing the quotes was no longer an interest of mine. I obviously failed at making that point and I'll take the blame for not having used more specific wording. However, I did make it really clear that I didn't want the issue to go public. He sent me a PM saying that he was going to take it public and I asked him not to. He then says that my last request was too late even though it was only minutes after receiving word from him that he was taking it public. It comes across to me from this that his motives are questionable. His logic in this thread only goes to further enforce that belief. He even goes as far as claiming that I made the policy of taking the issue public, which is not even close to being truthful. Yet I am the liar.

couriers, you are just lying about me violating your desire to go public. I won't post all the PMs out of respect for your privacy, but this selective, misleading quoting (even though it doesn't prove your point) is just wrong. For example the quote you use about not going public is your reply to me saying that you shouldn't have gone public in the first place and me asking you not to do so in the future. Not the key word, "again" in your first sentence. NOWHERE did you say you didn't want me to post the public disclosure (the disclosure you had requested in the original thread about QotM moderation). Your other quotes are similarly out of context as they are part of a two-linked-PM series of arguments for removal.

[Fritz]

Originally posted by couriers
dawgfan,

My apologies to the members that feel that I have lowered the standards of the board. That was never my intention.

welcome to my gutter. any lower and you would be swimming in the sewage with..... some others.

Here is the first set of PMs that I sent to John in their entirety. If John could please explain to me how any of the quotes that I have submitted were taken out of context as he claims. This is important to me because he claims that I am lying and grandstanding when I believe that it is he that is lying and grandstanding.


PM #1 (04-23-2003 10:22 PM)

"Confucius say Crowded elevator smell different to midget."

"Dude, if you're happy now just think how much happier you'd be during hour 35 of your meth binge! Ya, there is a chance you might kill your children and throw their heads out the window of your moving car because your sleep deprived brain thinks they are the spawn of satan, but nothing in life comes without risks!"

"I embezzle money from my "employer" for a living. That and sell smack to kids on street corners."

"Don't let Subby fool you. He's really just a 13-year old junkie who dropped out of junior high school to pursue a life of crime, drugs, and dwarf porn. Oh, he's a client of mine, too."


John,

Yesterday I submitted the above quotes for possible removal from the QoTM. I made the mistake of starting a thread around the idea of getting others to contribute to a possible list of offensive quotes to submit to you all at once in an effort to reduce the amount of PMs that you might have to deal with. My feelings about these quotes are well documented in that thread and it is safe to say that I would like to see them removed from the QoTM. I am sorry to have caused such a problem on a large scale but my position on this particular quotes are honest and I feel that the QoTM feature would be better served to not include them. Any questions please feel free to ask.

Thank You




PM #1 Response from John (04-23-2003 10:37 PM)

All that I ask is that you tell me that you are the one actually hurt and offended by the quotes (as opposed to a friend or hypothetical person). If that is the case, then I will remove them. It would also probably help if you could tell me why the 3rd one offends you because it isn't very obvious what is offensive (I could also use an explanation on the 2nd one).

I would also ask that you don't go "public" because it risks either grandstanding or embarrasment - neither of which is desirable.




PM #1 Response back to John (04-24-2003 02:22 AM)

John,

The quotes do offend me personally in light of what the QoTM is supposed to be all about. We have been told that the QoTM represents us as a community and that they are the best of what we have said over time. I do like to promote this forum board to both my father and my friend and would not want them seeing those quotes and getting the wrong impression about the type of place that I choose to visit as if they represent me as a person. Besides that, the quotes shouldn’t have to offend me personally if in fact they offend the person looking over my shoulder then that should be good enough reason for me to request that they be removed. Neither my father nor my friend should have to register in order to have what they find offensive removed from a board that they read just the same. As well, the first quote, despite not actually saying so, suggests that midgets have a disadvantage in regards to smell and that is simply not acceptable to me.

The second quote in particular suggests that we condone the act of selling smack to kids on street corners. I am a recovering drug addict, 10 years this past November, and do not appreciate that quote being a representation of my life style, which is very much determined by the places I frequent and the people I converse with.

The third quote in particular falls along the same lines. It suggests that we promote 13-year olds becoming junkies and that dropping out of school to pursue a life of crime, drugs and dwarf porn are ok by us. Furthermore, it suggests that we support individuals who might actually be drug dealers or pimps with the term, “he’s a client of mine” as if the person making the quote is in fact a drug dealer and/ or a pimp. Besides that, the QoTM should not allow people to directly insult or attack another member and this quote fails to do otherwise.

I will gladly continue with more insight into my feelings on these quotes if at all necessary.
Lastly, I have no intentions of ever going public again in regards to this issue. The backlash that I received was not necessary. We should not have to be afraid to discuss anything that concerns the board on the board itself. After all, it is a discussion board. Unfortunately, despite several others doing the same before me and despite several members who had actually taken the thread seriously the realization is that the members of this board are cruel people who more than likely only care about making themselves look good or others look bad. If you were serious about your claims of personal attacks against you yesterday then you should understand where I am coming from on this.

Thank you

[astralhaze]

Okay, um, pardon me for interrupting here, but WHY IS THIS SUCH A BIG FUCKING DEAL.

Originally posted by John Galt
the quote you use about not going public is your reply to me saying that you shouldn't have gone public in the first place and me asking you not to do so in the future. Not the key word, "again" in your first sentence.

This is an outright lie. You never said anything about me not going public in the future and the "key word" again was never used.

[Fritz]

SkyDog has asked me to mediate this argument. (well he would have if his parole officer did not have him taking yet another piss test)

Fact: John thinks couriers is a liar
Fact: couriers thinks John is a liar.
Fact: Liars pants are combustible.

Gentlemen, please show us your pants so we can settle this.

Originally posted by astralhaze
Okay, um, pardon me for interrupting here, but WHY IS THIS SUCH A BIG FUCKING DEAL.

To me it is important because I feel that John has dragged my honesty trought the mud by claiming that I am a grandstanding liar. His only evidence are words and phrases that he twists into what ever he wants them to say. This has pissed me off so badly that I feel that I need to prove him wrong for the sake of my own well being.

[John Galt]

couriers, you have defamed me, attacked me, and tried to destroy the moderation of the QotM for reasons only you can understand. This will be my last post on the matter as I think I've said all I can say on the matter.

Originally posted by couriers
This is an outright lie. You never said anything about me not going public in the future and the "key word" again was never used.

This is from my PM to you:

"I would also ask that you don't go "public" because it risks either grandstanding or embarrasment - neither of which is desirable."

This was the part of your PM that replied to this request:

"Lastly, I have no intentions of ever going public again in regards to this issue. The backlash that I received was not necessary. We should not have to be afraid to discuss anything that concerns the board on the board itself. After all, it is a discussion board. Unfortunately, despite several others doing the same before me and despite several members who had actually taken the thread seriously the realization is that the members of this board are cruel people who more than likely only care about making themselves look good or others look bad. If you were serious about your claims of personal attacks against you yesterday then you should understand where I am coming from on this."

Note that I did ask you not to go public again and you said you had no intentions of doing it "again." I've been nothing but truthful in this matter and on this board - please do not slur my name by saying otherwise.

Originally posted by John Galt
Note that I did ask you not to go public again and you said you had no intentions of doing it "again." I've been nothing but truthful in this matter and on this board - please do not slur my name by saying otherwise.

Am I missing something here? Where do you ask me not to go public "again"? You asked that I don't go public and I responded in kind telling you that I had no intention of going public "again" because of the backlash that I received from doing so. You can keep twisting the words John but you are still full of shit.

What it comes down to John is that you asked me not to go public and I agreed yet you went public.

[Daimyo]

Wow this sucks... let see me if I can recap...

***
John is put in a position to moderate QotM. He specifically requests that anyone PM him to remove a quote.

Couriers, Cam, and JonInMiddleGA question this move. Couriers in particular requests the process be transparent and all removed quotes be made public when they are removed.

Couriers starts a thread about how certain quotes offend him and requests them to be removed. After pretty strong backlash about doing so publically, couriers PMs the request to John.

John removes the quotes as requested by couriers. The removed quotes are posted in order to make the process transparent as requested earlier by couriers.

Couriers complains that John posted the removed quotes in public.
***

So basically, couriers... you want a transparent system EXCEPT when the request is made by you? I feel sorry for John. He was put in a real lose-lose situation... All you've shown here is that no matter what John did you were going to complain. Seems like he's bent over backwards to meet your requests and all you do is turn it against him. The worst part is I get the feeling you really, honestly believe that you are the victim in all of this...

[Draft Dodger]

I feel that I am the victim in this....

because I felt some need to read some of this sucky thread.

[Fritz]

PANTS, Gentlemen, Pants.

Daimyo,

The problem with that logic is that I was never informed that the quotes were going to be made public simply because that is what I had suggested as a possibility in another thread. To further that misunderstanding John asked that the situation not go public so I was still left with the impression that it would be a private matter. Once he informed me that he was going to go public with the information I then asked him specifically not to. Although this request was made a few minutes too late I had already clearly told him that I didn’t want the matter to go public earlier in the day and I was l left with the impression that the matter was going to be handled privately. If he had warned me in the first response then I would have stopped the request right there and then. Unfortunately I was not made aware of this but instead was given a different impression that he himself had planted into my head. He said that he wanted to keep it private and I believed him. Shame on me.

Just because I suggested an idea does not make it policy. John as argued differently and claims that I have had some sort of hand in creating the rules by which this whole system runs by. This is not the case. There has never been a moderator that has told anyone that my suggestions were in fact policies and if John has created a new one based off of my suggestions then that would have been a first in regards to him listening to anyone.

People can continue to think what ever they want to about me in light of this or any other situation that I might have been involved in. They may also continue to post their ideas of how things transpired or look in their eyes. I have stated my case and posted evidence that I believe shows without a doubt exactly how things went down. Read what John has said in the PMs and compare them to his words in this thread and see what becomes of it. If anyone can say that he has not twisted the truth to make himself look better while making me look like the bad guy then there would be no way for me to convince them otherwise. On that note I am off to bed and will not come back to this once morning comes around. Good night.

You could not pay me to take John Galt's job.

Also, have either of you checked with your health insurance company yet?

HornsManiac

[astralhaze]

Originally posted by HornsManiac
You could not pay me to take John Galt's job.

And in a very rare moment in FOFC history, HM makes a post that is impossible to argue with.

[WSUCougar]

Originally posted by couriers
On that note I am off to bed and will not come back to this once morning comes around. Good night.

I'M LAYIN' 2-1 ODDS THAT HE COMES BACK IN HERE, GENTLEMEN!!! 2-to-1!!!

Who's game?

Originally posted by WSUCougar
I'M LAYIN' 2-1 ODDS THAT HE COMES BACK IN HERE, GENTLEMEN!!! 2-to-1!!!

Who's game?

I will take those odds. What is the maximum bet you will accept? I am assuming you have a PayPal accout and I am assuming that 7 days of him not posting will be enough to consider him gone from this thread. If not 7 how many days do you think is fair?

Let me know and it is a bet.

HornsManiac

[Butter]

Each and every QotM offends me personally, deeply, and honestly, because they were not said by me. Can we remove them please?

[Anrhydeddu]

1. Have alternative skins with QotM and no-QotM
2. Remove Galt as Moderator
3. Then maybe everyone will shut the f*** up?

In the time wasted by Galt and couriers and others, skins could have been made, uploaded and made available. If anyone is so offended by what is posted in this forum, QotM or otherwise, then that person does not know what an internet forum is. Galt is just making the situation worse and couriers is just fanning the flames.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally posted by Anrhydeddu
1. Have alternative skins with QotM and no-QotM
2. Remove Galt as Moderator
3. Then maybe everyone will shut the f*** up?

In the time wasted by Galt and couriers and others, skins could have been made, uploaded and made available. If anyone is so offended by what is posted in this forum, QotM or otherwise, then that person does not know what an internet forum is. Galt is just making the situation worse and couriers is just fanning the flames.

1. I am waiting on those.
2. I stand behind my decision to make Galt the QOTM Moderator.
3. If anyone has a problem with #2, they should take it up with me, not Galt.

[Fritz]

Originally posted by Anrhydeddu
In the time wasted by Galt and couriers and others, skins could have been made, uploaded and made available.

Why didn't you?

[Anrhydeddu]

My internet skills only extend to posting in forums. Besides, I knew that SD was waiting on these from someone, it's just frustrating that the cart was put before the horse.

[Daimyo]

Maybe you could write an internet white paper describing your solution.

[Fritz]

Originally posted by Anrhydeddu
My internet skills only extend to posting in forums. Besides, I knew that SD was waiting on these from someone, it's just frustrating that the cart was put before the horse.

Neither John nor couriers were doing the templates. So they wasted as much time getting that job done as you have.

[Buzzbee]

Originally posted by couriers
To me it is important because I feel that John has dragged my honesty trought the mud by claiming that I am a grandstanding liar. His only evidence are words and phrases that he twists into what ever he wants them to say. This has pissed me off so badly that I feel that I need to prove him wrong for the sake of my own well being.

If your well being is being affected by the events of an internet forum, I think you seriously need to seek help.

And don't just point the finger at Galt. You can point one at me too, and several others. I originally questioned your motives when you started this thread, and still do. Oh, and don't forget to point one at yourself. If you had simply said something to the effect of "You know, after looking at it, I can see how it might have been interpreted that I was grandstanding and for that I apologize. However my intent wasn't to make light of the situation, but to have Galt seriously consider removing the offensive quote." But from what I can recall, there has been no such sentiment from you.

[Anrhydeddu]

You guys are right, much ado about nothing. I look forward to having the alternate skins.

[superbama]

Jim,
Is there any plans to make players have more character in the next FoF? I mean I would like to have to react to locker room brawls, drug scandals, hold outs ,etc......

[Craptacular]

Originally posted by superbama
Jim,
Is there any plans to make players have more character in the next FoF? I mean I would like to have to react to locker room brawls, drug scandals, hold outs ,etc......

Either he hit the wrong thread, or this is a joke I'm obviously missing.