The Inevitable Thread...

[Fidatelo]

Can boxed people still read threads (just not post)? Cuz if so HA has likely killed more kittens while reading this thread than a chinese chef at the Taipei Food Festival.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by Schmidty

If what sov was doing was trolling, then why hasn't BW been boxed? He's even admitted that he's trying to stir things up:

http://www.operationsports.com/fofc/...5&postcount=32

Well, if he were a capitalist Christian conservative Republican he would've been boxed or banned in a damned New York minute. Trust me on that one. Trust me, especially if he was wealthy too.

[rkmsuf]

Originally Posted by WSUCougar

Quite correct. Keep it civil and we won't have an issue.

Can I call you mean, awful names just for fun? How about a stupid and futile gesture be done on your behalf.

[Desnudo]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

Well, JimGa is NOT one of them. I know a lot of people don't like him, but I find him charming and kinda lovable. But otherwise it shouldn't be too tough to figure out.

st. cronin and Pumpy?

[wade moore]

Originally Posted by Fidatelo

Can boxed people still read threads (just not post)? Cuz if so HA has likely killed more kittens while reading this thread than a chinese chef at the Taipei Food Festival.

Yes, boxed individuals can read threads, and I know for a fact that HA has read this thread.

[WSUCougar]

Originally Posted by rkmsuf

Can I call you mean, awful names just for fun? How about a stupid and futile gesture be done on your behalf.

Only if you spank me first.

[vtbub]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

yes yes yes

There's about 4-5 individuals whose bannings are loooooooooooong overdue. At least two of them have posted in this thread.

I'm sorry, I'll stop causing problems.

[Desnudo]

Originally Posted by rkmsuf

Thank you. I like the way you think.

FOFC is much more simple when we stick to disney rides and driving werewolves.

I am an island of serenity in a sea of chaos.

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

Well, JimGa is NOT one of them. I know a lot of people don't like him, but I find him charming and kinda lovable. But otherwise it shouldn't be too tough to figure out.

Is this one of those, "If you can't spot the sucker in the first half hour at the table, then you ARE the sucker," sort of things?

[WSUCougar]

Islands in the stream. That is what we are.

[rkmsuf]

Originally Posted by WSUCougar

Only if you spank me first.

My first reaction was "that won't be a problem" but then I had to rethink my position on that. Might cause some boxable name calling.

[WSUCougar]

Originally Posted by rkmsuf

My first reaction was "that won't be a problem" but then I had to rethink my position on that. Might cause some boxable name calling.

Reach around?

[rkmsuf]

Originally Posted by WSUCougar

Reach around?

Only if I can use Desnudo's hand.

[TroyF]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Troy,

I appreciate your defense but here's the difference -- I don't believe for one single solitary second if the group HA chose to exercise his hyperbole on had been any of the ones I mentioned that there would even have been a discussion about whether to lock the thread/box anybody/etc.

In other words, I don't believe you would have had the opportunity to discuss it/take a position because it wouldn't have come up in the first place. That's a different matter than what position you would have taken if it had come up.

Now, if you're telling me (and I'm misreading it) that you would have personally taken the issue before the Mod Squad for action, then I'll accept your word on it and believe you. But in that case, I'd also challenge you to become more vigilant and active in your pursuit of those situations because there's certainly no shortage of them.

Worth noting here too, I suppose, is that I'm pretty consistent in support of strong moderation as a working model ... but it should also either be consistent in its application or at the very least transparent about what the inconsistencies are going to be.

Right now, this looks like an ugly combination of moderator overreaction, bias against HA, and somebody's idea of a sacred cow, applied in varying degrees. by various mods. And that just sucks AFAIC. I've seen a helluva lot more offensive stuff than his choice of hyperbole, so this just makes no sense to me at all.

I think your belief is wrong. I think it would have been spotted instantly by other mods and acted upon.

The people criticizing the mod team don't seem to understand how diverse we really are. There are people on this forum I despise. Hate with a passion. And some of the other mods love those guys. It goes the other way as well.

I don't even know what the hell agenda you keep referring to either. I'm certainly not part of any dark conspiracy, nor do I believe any of my fellow mods are. We don't hop into a chat and figure out a way to slam the five posters we hate.

Hell, I still have people on ignore and I've DEFENDED some of the people I have on ignore from mod action. I take each case and do the best I can with it. I add my two cents in the forum when I feel I have something to add. I second others actions when I feel it is appropriate. But agenda?

Please. The thing I like least about being a mod is having my decisions dissected like this. I've rarely gotten involved in defending one I've made and I won't do that here. I feel it was the right call and it doesn't matter to me if you or everyone disagrees with that. Again, if there is a groundswell of support for me to lose the mod title, so be it. As long as I am a mod, I'm going to give my opinion, make decisions and will stand by the decisions of the mod team as a whole. In other words, I'm going to do the best I can in any situation, regardless of the parties in question.

[TroyF]

Originally Posted by vtbub

I'm sorry, I'll stop causing problems.

Yeah pal, you have an email to answer to as well.

You've caused a ton of trouble. I say off with your hand.

[Desnudo]

Originally Posted by rkmsuf

Only if I can use Desnudo's hand.

serenity now, serenity now

[cartman]

Here's a quote that I think is extremely applicable:

"When the seagulls follow the fishing boat, it is because they think bait fish will be thrown into the ocean."

I don't have a source to attribute this to, but it is not an original of mine.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by TroyF

I think your belief is wrong. I think it would have been spotted instantly by other mods and acted upon.

Then, obviously, we disagree. About as completely and utterly as possible on this point.

nor do I believe any of my fellow mods are.

We disagree twice in one thread.

I feel it was the right call and it doesn't matter to me if you or everyone disagrees with that.

That's yours to believe too.

Just as it's mine to have an opinion of the decision and to weight it in drawing conclusions about both committee and the wisdom of the entire notion of moderation by committee. (okay, admittedly, I had reached a conclusion on the latter long before this incident).

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by cartman

"When the seagulls follow the fishing boat, it is because they think bait fish will be thrown into the ocean."

The noted philosopher Eric Cantona.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

The noted philosopher Eric Cantona.

Isn't he a soccer player?

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Isn't he a soccer player?

Yep.

[GoldenEagle]

I think we should instaban flere. He got us all spoiled with some diagrams but has not been doing his job lately and explaining Flasch posts.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Yep.

I'm genuinely amazed that I dredged that up out of my subconscious.

I seriously had to Google the name afterwards to see who the guy was. When I posted that, I really figured I was mangling the reference in my memory somehow and that he was really an alt-rock singer or an art film guy or something.

[wade moore]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Then, obviously, we disagree. About as completely and utterly as possible on this point.



We disagree twice in one thread.



That's yours to believe too.

Just as it's mine to have an opinion of the decision and to weight it in drawing conclusions about both committee and the wisdom of the entire notion of moderation by committee. (okay, admittedly, I had reached a conclusion on the latter long before this incident).

I think it's funny that the actions of this committee are question when they are making actions that SkyDog would have done if working solo.

[Raiders Army]

Originally Posted by wade moore

I think it's funny that the actions of this committee are question when they are making actions that SkyDog would have done if working solo.

I'm not so sure about that. Maybe you're more "in the know" than I am, but from my perspective, I'm uncertain about a lot of things.

First, I would say that I agree with HA's boxing after viewing it. If past history is any indication combined with his actions the past week, then I would say that the boxing is legitimate; however, the conundrum is that his past actions have afforded him a little leniency from SkyDog; a lot of people including SkyDog recognize that that's just how he is. The problem with this logic is that that defense is what has enabled him to post in his own particular manner in the first place.

The common thread between HA's boxing and sov's boxing is that both are inconsistent with mod decisions in the past. SkyDog didn't box HA for posting a possibly inflammatory thread in the past (which I don't see as being inflammatory, FWIW) and SkyDog didn't box me when I described something as faggoty. I'm not saying that both actions were right and should be tolerated; I'm saying that it seems as if stuff that was tolerated in the past is no longer tolerated now, and this makes these boxings seem very arbitrary or possibly personality-related.

[WSUCougar]

Originally Posted by Raiders Army

and SkyDog didn't box me when I described something as faggoty

Sovereignstar didn't "describe something as faggoty."

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by wade moore

I think it's funny that the actions of this committee are question when they are making actions that SkyDog would have done if working solo.

see the first & last sentences of RaidersArmy's post -- he already said what I was going to say.

[Desnudo]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

I'm genuinely amazed that I dredged that up out of my subconscious.

I seriously had to Google the name afterwards to see who the guy was. When I posted that, I really figured I was mangling the reference in my memory somehow and that he was really an alt-rock singer or an art film guy or something.

He was all over the place in Nike commercials leading up to the world cup.

[Raiders Army]

Originally Posted by WSUCougar

Sovereignstar didn't "describe something as faggoty."

Gotcha. Subtle difference in words and upon reflection I see why he was boxed as opposed to reacting to his usage of faggot.

I really don't think he was trolling though. As was said earlier in the thread, I perceived it to be posted in a comedic way as opposed to an inflammatory way.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Desnudo

He was all over the place in Nike commercials leading up to the world cup.

Which might have helped ... except that I didn't know him from Adam's housecat otherwise, meaning I'm sure I saw them but didn't connect him to them specifically. (I know about the commericials 'cause they're mentioned in his Wiki entry & they sounded vaguely familiar when I read the description)

I even recalled the dropkick of the fan after seeing the picture of it, but if you had shown me the picture, I wouldn't have been able to come up with his name in connection with it if you gave me 100 tries.

[miked]

OMG people can't post on a message board for 2 weeks!!!!111!1!

I'll pre-post what he'll miss in 2 weeks or whatever. Somebody will have a problem, to this Anthony says, "grow a pair and stop posting on a messageboard."

There will be several hot or not polls, to this, the venerable Anthony says, hot, hot, not, not with xxxx's penis, hot, I'd hit that slowly with my baby arm soaked in mustard.

He will get drunk and nearly get fired again, to the haters he will say, "but I didn't get fired, had the time of my life, went home and made the sweet thing to my lady while thinking about pouring hot sauce on Stacy Dash's erect nipples.

Did I miss anything?

[wade moore]

Originally Posted by Raiders Army

I'm not so sure about that. Maybe you're more "in the know" than I am, but from my perspective, I'm uncertain about a lot of things.

First, I would say that I agree with HA's boxing after viewing it. If past history is any indication combined with his actions the past week, then I would say that the boxing is legitimate; however, the conundrum is that his past actions have afforded him a little leniency from SkyDog; a lot of people including SkyDog recognize that that's just how he is. The problem with this logic is that that defense is what has enabled him to post in his own particular manner in the first place.

The common thread between HA's boxing and sov's boxing is that both are inconsistent with mod decisions in the past. SkyDog didn't box HA for posting a possibly inflammatory thread in the past (which I don't see as being inflammatory, FWIW) and SkyDog didn't box me when I described something as faggoty. I'm not saying that both actions were right and should be tolerated; I'm saying that it seems as if stuff that was tolerated in the past is no longer tolerated now, and this makes these boxings seem very arbitrary or possibly personality-related.

I've probably spoken too much for SkyDog already, but he has yet to show any problems with the boxings and has been one of the first two to jump out in front of at least one boxing that has been lamented as proof of the new overwhelming mod team.

[Franklinnoble]

The whole notion of permanent banning is a bunch of self-important crap. Boxing is fine, if the transgression is truly that harsh, but honestly, there are better ways to deal with this rather than running around with a "daddy" complex.

If the mods had any balls, they'd un-ban everyone. Use the penalty box if you have to, or create a sub-forum for the trolls if it becomes necessary. But the current policy is failing because people will always get bent when you ban someone completely. Especially if it's just for having a strong (and unpopular) opinion. It's absurd. My wife was a long time lurker here, and got shut out because she decided to take the left-wing liberal crowd on. So what if she didn't want to talk FOF? Maybe she should have spent some time in a werewolf thread first, but the bottom line is that there are plenty of others who spew almost nothing else but their own political and moral views on here.

She's been a model citizen on every other board, and in all the Civ games we have going on here, but she can't participate in any discussion here, because people got their panties in a bunch because she's not afraid to step on a few toes with her moral and political views. But we can tolerate the liberals bashing Bush, Iraq, and anybody in the religious right on a daily basis.

It's inconsistent, and ultimately unfair. The policy needs to change. Just freaking change it already. Admit you can do things better, and change it. Nobody would be upset at you for trying.

[Cringer]

Ok, so after getting to read the original HA thread hat got him boxed (thank you for making it available to read) I still say the boxing is wrong.

I think he came off as overly harsh, but he starts to explain his statements further down. I don't think it was meant to be racist(but can clearly come off that way at a quick glance of the title and first post), and I think people thinking it was racism was why he got banned. I don't see him trolling really either, he read something, got pissed off, and then did a poor job in showing his anger at the subject.

Also, those calling for a full banning based on this are just wrong IMO.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by Cringer

Also, those calling for a full banning based on this are just wrong IMO.

I don't think anyone is calling for a full banning of HA based on that thread alone. I think those who want him fully banned (I'm not one of them, by the way) is more of a lifetime achievement banning. They would view that thread as just a drop in the bucket.

I think. . .

[Cringer]

Originally Posted by WSUCougar in it's own thread that was locked

...was for trolling.

Now that we've covered that ground, please carry on with your day.

Not covered, it's BS. Stuff like that is done all the time. Now I shall carry on with my day.

[Cringer]

Originally Posted by Honolulu_Blue

I don't think anyone is calling for a full banning of HA based on that thread alone. I think those who want him fully banned (I'm not one of them, by the way) is more of a lifetime achievement banning. They would view that thread as just a drop in the bucket.

I think. . .

I would hope, but notwanting to go back through a bunch of stuff I know I have seen a call for banning several times in this thread and I think it's way over the top.

[wade moore]

Originally Posted by Franklinnoble

The whole notion of permanent banning is a bunch of self-important crap. Boxing is fine, if the transgression is truly that harsh, but honestly, there are better ways to deal with this rather than running around with a "daddy" complex.

If the mods had any balls, they'd un-ban everyone. Use the penalty box if you have to, or create a sub-forum for the trolls if it becomes necessary. But the current policy is failing because people will always get bent when you ban someone completely. Especially if it's just for having a strong (and unpopular) opinion. It's absurd. My wife was a long time lurker here, and got shut out because she decided to take the left-wing liberal crowd on. So what if she didn't want to talk FOF? Maybe she should have spent some time in a werewolf thread first, but the bottom line is that there are plenty of others who spew almost nothing else but their own political and moral views on here.

She's been a model citizen on every other board, and in all the Civ games we have going on here, but she can't participate in any discussion here, because people got their panties in a bunch because she's not afraid to step on a few toes with her moral and political views. But we can tolerate the liberals bashing Bush, Iraq, and anybody in the religious right on a daily basis.

It's inconsistent, and ultimately unfair. The policy needs to change. Just freaking change it already. Admit you can do things better, and change it. Nobody would be upset at you for trying.

This is a bit out of left field. None of the recent actions involved perm-bans.

[sabotai]

Originally Posted by Cringer

Not covered, it's BS. Stuff like that is done all the time. Now I shall carry on with my day.

Yeah, apparently quoting a line from a movie in an attempt at humor is considered trolling now.

Whatever.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by Franklinnoble

Especially if it's just for having a strong (and unpopular) opinion. It's absurd. My wife was a long time lurker here, and got shut out because she decided to take the left-wing liberal crowd on. So what if she didn't want to talk FOF? Maybe she should have spent some time in a werewolf thread first, but the bottom line is that there are plenty of others who spew almost nothing else but their own political and moral views on here.

She's been a model citizen on every other board, and in all the Civ games we have going on here, but she can't participate in any discussion here, because people got their panties in a bunch because she's not afraid to step on a few toes with her moral and political views. But we can tolerate the liberals bashing Bush, Iraq, and anybody in the religious right on a daily basis.

It's inconsistent, and ultimately unfair. The policy needs to change. Just freaking change it already. Admit you can do things better, and change it. Nobody would be upset at you for trying.

Stop. Please.

If folks around here were banned for just for having a strong (and unpopular) opinion this place would be a ghost town. You wife wasn't banned because of her "her moral and political views." There are a number of people who post here all the time that share many (if not all) of her moral and political views (e.g., you, JiMGA, Bubbawheels, WVUFAN, etc., etc., etc.).

Her entire (yet short) existence on this board was the very epitome of trolling. It was trolling of the highest order. Unfortunately, she offered nothing of value or substance to this community and seemed incapable of doing so. Not sure why that was, but it was clearly the case. She just couldn't seem to help herself.

Originally Posted by Franklinnoble

But we can tolerate the liberals bashing Bush, Iraq, and anybody in the religious right on a daily basis.

We can? Why don't you ask Jesse Ewiak about that. Oh, that's right, you can't because he was banned for allegedly being a troll because he allegedly only posted in political threads "bashing Bush, Iraq, and anybody in the religious right."

This whole liberals get away with everything on this baord, but us poor moral, Christian conservatives are persecuted is one of the silliest lines of argument that I have run across here. Like most places, there are people on the left, people on the right, people in the middle, people all over the place. 99% of these people are free to speak their mind and do so on a regular basis. Sometimes folks push too far and get boxed/banned. It happens. Life goes on. So be it.

[Franklinnoble]

Originally Posted by wade moore

This is a bit out of left field. None of the recent actions involved perm-bans.

No, but people are squawking about it here anyway, and, frankly, I'm still pissed off about the whole notion.

Seriously... what would be wrong with setting up a flamewar sub-forum for the threads that get out of control, and just move them there? Even the users that have been perma-banned could come back, and the policy would be clear - post something inflammatory, and your thread gets thrown out of the general forum. It's pretty simple. You could have tossed HA's thread there, and been done with it. Honestly, I think in that case, he was just ranting anyway... I don't get the impression that he was truly being a racist.

[Franklinnoble]

Originally Posted by Honolulu_Blue

Her entire (yet short) existence on this board was the very epitome of trolling. It was trolling of the highest order. Unfortunately, she offered nothing of value or substance to this community and seemed incapable of doing so. Not sure why that was, but it was clearly the case. She just couldn't seem to help herself.

She didn't troll anymore than you, Mr. Bigglesworth, flere-imsaho, or any number of other posters. They get away with it because they'd been around longer. The message was clear - if you're a noob, keep your opinion to yourself until you have a thousand posts or so, or you get slapped. It's bullshit, and you know it. But you and your ilk are too busy acting like crybabies to ignore what you don't like to read.

[MIJB#19]

Originally Posted by MattJones4Heisman

Which race do his polls claim is superior or inferior to others? I'm completely missing that.

How is seperating people based on race, not racism?
How is calling someone else a racist and following it up by doing the exact same thing you accuse the other person of not racist?

I realize these particular polls are fairly innocent, but bottom line I think any form of racism is racism, even if it's ment to promote minorities.

[ice4277]

Originally Posted by Franklinnoble

No, but people are squawking about it here anyway, and, frankly, I'm still pissed off about the whole notion.

Seriously... what would be wrong with setting up a flamewar sub-forum for the threads that get out of control, and just move them there? Even the users that have been perma-banned could come back, and the policy would be clear - post something inflammatory, and your thread gets thrown out of the general forum. It's pretty simple. You could have tossed HA's thread there, and been done with it. Honestly, I think in that case, he was just ranting anyway... I don't get the impression that he was truly being a racist.

Why don't you just start it on your board and post-whore here about it every 15 minutes.

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by Franklinnoble

She didn't troll anymore than you, Mr. Bigglesworth, flere-imsaho, or any number of other posters. They get away with it because they'd been around longer. The message was clear - if you're a noob, keep your opinion to yourself until you have a thousand posts or so, or you get slapped. It's bullshit, and you know it. But you and your ilk are too busy acting like crybabies to ignore what you don't like to read.

I have never noticed HB or flere trolling.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Franklinnoble

She's been a model citizen on every other board, and in all the Civ games we have going on here, but she can't participate in any discussion here, because people got their panties in a bunch because she's not afraid to step on a few toes with her moral and political views. But we can tolerate the liberals bashing Bush, Iraq, and anybody in the religious right on a daily basis.

This would be a more convincing argument if she hadn't deleted the most truly offensive threads she started.

[kcchief19]

Originally Posted by Schmidty

I really, really cannot believe that people are complaining about HA's boxing. He should have been banned, not boxed.

That thread gives me braggggadocious deja vu.

I'm baffled too. I think on one level this is a clear example of how a few thousand posts earns you certain protections. If someone with 50 posts had made HA's post, they would have been gone permanently.

Ironically, much of the criticism of the mods -- Wade in particularly in this case -- for having too "emotional" of a response comes from a number of individuals who are having the same "emotional" response. That is, from people who have made it clear they were never happy with the moderation by committtee, don't like the current level of moderation, and take any opportunity to criticize a mode they can.

Racial undertones aside -- and to pretend they are not is naive -- this was a clear a case of trolling as I have ever seen, both from a "Hey, look at me" perspective and a "let's see how much shit I can stir" perspective. It's a royal flush for trolling.

[WSUCougar]

Originally Posted by sabotai

Yeah, apparently quoting a line from a movie in an attempt at humor is considered trolling now.

Whatever.

Quoting from a movie? I didn't see any quote marks or references, unless you're referring to the obscure image (I honestly don't know).

Humor? I didn't see any indication whatsoever that humor was intended or perceived. All it would have taken is a "j/k." We all use the internet every freaking day and he doesn't know how to indicate he's kidding? So instead it's trolling with the intent of stirring up trouble in a thread with someone looking for assistance.

[NoMyths]

Originally Posted by Franklinnoble

No, but people are squawking about it here anyway, and, frankly, I'm still pissed off about the whole notion.

Seriously... what would be wrong with setting up a flamewar sub-forum for the threads that get out of control, and just move them there? Even the users that have been perma-banned could come back, and the policy would be clear - post something inflammatory, and your thread gets thrown out of the general forum. It's pretty simple. You could have tossed HA's thread there, and been done with it. Honestly, I think in that case, he was just ranting anyway... I don't get the impression that he was truly being a racist.

Because it creates more work for the board administrators, wastes more bandwith, and offers nothing of substance to the members of this community who care about it not being a douche-hole.

Seriously, the only people who seem to keep making this an issue are people who have continually caused problems for this community, and/or are married to those who have. There is a difference between political debate (even a heated one) and political trolling. There is a difference between justified anger and racist flame-baiting. Nobody who isn't too young or too dumb to understand the difference is flipping out about this, especially long-time members of this community who have miraculously managed, over the course of more than half a decade, not to disrupt things to the point where worthless threads like this have to be created about them.

So give it a rest, Franklin, and quit trying to remake this community into your version of an internet forum. You have a board of your own for that, as you ceaselessly remind us. If flere were to diagram the board members who oppose this boxing vs. the vast majority of us who quietly approved, you'd see a clear pattern emerge, and it wouldn't reflect well on the troublemakers.

You and others have made your points and the mods have been entirely too patient in responding politely too them. The end of the community is nowhere in sight. Give it -- and especially ancient, vastly justified, and better-left-forgotten history -- a rest, for all of our sakes.

[MJ4H]

Originally Posted by MIJB#19

How is seperating people based on race, not racism?

Because that is not what racism is. Racism is the belief that one race is superior or another race is inferior to others.