Ballkicks: (+0 / -0)
Posts: 0 (0)
Reg. Date: Dec 1969
Location:
Gender: Unspecified |
(Originally posted on: 01-03-07 01:00:13 PM)
Edit Post
| Edit History
| Send PM
| Change Title
| Reply w/Quote
| Report Post
| Ignore
| Show All Posts
Quote:
Doesn't know when to shut up, being a fag, breaking the sassing and "hardcore rebel badass motherfucker" rules, and trying to get attention with a thread instead of just PM'ing the responsible party. Is there an attention-whore rule you want to argue about too?
Again none of these reasons for which I am banned are concrete or measurable. Isn’t this what I was disagreeing with in regards to vissario? Banning him solely out of dislike? Making rules targeting him? I was banned because I offered an opinion you disagreed with. You locked the thread where we were having a serious conversation and told me to suck a cock. I had more input to give on the subject so I created a new thread addressing you within the moderator forum. I was hoping you would address my points and we could solve the problem in a constructive manner. Instead I am banned for a week for being “a badass motherfucker fag”. All of my “attention whoring” is the result of being silenced for giving feedback, so when you stop censoring opinions you don’t like people won’t need to whore their opinions out. Ideally they’d just post them normally.
I didn’t do anything in any public setting. How is that attention whoring? I gave opinions it the area designed for moderators to offer feedback and discuss things. As for my ban, you were again unable to give any decent justification, except that I asked Mr. Excitable to defend me. Given this happened after I was banned unjustly, using it as a reason to keep my ban in place is a moot point. You made a ‘joke’ about Kayte banning Snowy simply because she does not like her, and I hate to risk further punishment by pointing out the irony of the current situation, IFO.
You are probably going to lock and delete this thread. I still don’t understand why you resorted to silencing me as a result of my opinions. You resorted to silencing me AFTER your co-owner agrees I had valid points in the same locked thread. You are a coward in this situation Richard, and I hope you man up, admit it, and save your hate for me for the frequent times where I deserve it. I was trying to help you and the website and I will continue to do so. You may continue to attack me and remain biased towards me but I would like to ask politely that it stops.
Yes, I could resort to being childish and attacking you back but I don’t want to. I want to keep positively contributing to this message board, and I will only do so if I can give my opinions without being silenced and insulted. I do not feel that this is too much to ask, even if it is your messageboard. Respect for others is still important and I fail to see anywhere during this argument where I have disrespected you.
Sandamnit never liked me, but what made him a great owner was that he managed to look at situations involving me and other posters he disliked even through his biases. You do not have that ability. He removed one of his good friends as an administrator for banning me for no reason. I was terrible back then and that was probably a hard decision….but he did it because it was fair.
Sure I made a 2nd thread in the moderator forum after you locked the first one. I was giving feedback as implied by the forum’s presence and had more to give. Is that a crime? No. There is no rule saying that you have to PM administrators instead of making a thread in the mod forum. I got banned because I annoy you, as you stated in the thread and as I documented with proof in the excerpts below.
Thanks again for the excellent example you are setting with your consistent moderation. I obviously do need to learn how to become a mod worthy of being a mod. I assume this means acquiring my position of power through buying a used up message board off the real owner. I’ll have to try that approach since giving feedback in the forum designed for feedback apparently is the way to get banned. Oops, I slipped and insulted you. You finally got to me after insulting, silencing and banning me. Now you’ll finally have justification!!!!1111
For those who want or care about the truth, here is what got me banned:
My initial post:
Quote:
As for the Devil's advocate rule, I have a concern here.
There is no legitimate way to determine if an opinion shown is an individual's true viewpoint or if they are choosing it to cause a problem. There are many people out there with radical views on many subjects and censoring these individuals is facism at it's finest.
Constructing a rule that not only singles someone out for being different and having different views, but that is also vague, impossible to enforce and biased (I've never heard him say pedophiles are ok), reminds me of the PR banning me in RS incident back in the day.
I don't like vissario. He's annoying and a tool. But there are many annoying tools on INTL, myself included, and just because you don't like what he says doesn't mean he doesn't have the right to say it.
Just my 2 cents.
IFO said:
Quote:
Considering he's practically admitted to me that he doesn't really have the opinions he has, I'm pretty sure he doesn't believe in most of them. And he's argued related things to the pedophiles, but that was an example, Adam. And I don't care what his opinions are. The way he argues them is what gets me. He does it in a very trolling-related manner, which is why it says "as an addendum to trolling."
I said:
Quote:
He has practically admitted to you? Do you have any specific posts or private messages you could point out that demonstrates he is falsifying what he really feels? Again, from the term "pretty sure" it appears we are going based off the hunch of one or more individuals rather than anything we can measure in black and white. It could be said there is an inability to enforce this rule past the arbitrary and potentially biased viewpoint of specific moderators and admins. I'm not trying to be rude with this, but I just really don't see how this is demonstrating a consistent and fair moderation approach.
I don't care what his opinions are either. But I do feel that he should be able to express them, even the annoying ones. There is no surefire way of measuring what people truly think and how much of it is reflected in their internet persona. That's one of the things that makes the internetz fun and also makes this type of rule not enforceable. What appears as trolling to you might not be trolling to others. It is loosely defined. In a forum community there is a TOS for a reason. Editing in specific rules where you can pinpoint infractions is productive and fair. The fewer grey areas found within the TOS, the less complaints and confusion among posters. Additionally, people won't be taken by surprise with bans and forum staff will be more easily able to back up disciplinary moves with an explanation. If people are bad enough posters we should be able to eventually find something real to ding them for instead of making up rules designed specifically to flame them, single them out and punish them. Aren't rules like this just as mean as Snowy calling kayte ugly or other ban offences where someone is attacked? Also, just because you call something an addendum doesn't mean it's warranted or fair
IFO said:
Quote:
#1. Adam takes things too seriously and thinks he's actually a mod worthy of being a mod, and although some of the points he made were good, others were too dramatic, but I don't feel like responding to them anyways.
I said:
Quote:
I'm not taking anything seriously. I'm just offering random opinions in a thread. What happens on this website will not affect my day in any way. You're taking my opinions personally, and where you couldn't give decent counterpoints you resorted to insulting me.
I don't think I'm "a mod worthy of being a mod". For the time being, I'm a moderator, and even if it's temporary and for a useless forum, I've still made a slight attempt to modify my posting positively. And I've offered opinions on things in a method I've felt was constructive. I don't feel I was being dramatic. I was "typing paragraphs" yes, but that's the way people get points across on a messageboard.
So by offering opinions that you don't support, I'm now suddenly as bad as the pedophile supporter? I don't think insulting people for giving an opinion is a really good example to be setting when this whole argument revolves around too much flaming and personal attacks.
You said:
Quote:
Adam, suck a cock. Better?
And locked the thread.
Then the co-owner TRC agreed with me in the same thread that I had valid points.
I was obviously upset I was being silenced for having an opinion and wanted to further discuss the matter. I felt the mod forum was an appropriate place to talk about site related issues and concerns.
After TRC agreed with me you said:
Quote:
I already said he made good points, and maybe I'm just biased about him being
annoying because he already annoys the utter hell out of me.
EDIT: And he's gay enough to give me -k for this.
So you admit above that I have good points and that you’re biased against me and that I annoy you….
So I make a thread responding which what is got me banned… I claim self defense here and here is the famous thread that got me banned.
Quote:
I have you -k for censoring me in a forum supposedly designed to seek out opinions and explore different points of view on how this board should be run. I gave you negative karma for shutting me down based on who I am rather than what I was posting. And I also gave you negative karma for being hypocriticial as you're creating rules that you fail to follow yourself. You singled out vissario because you do not like him, although I will agree he is very annoying. You single me out (as in the mod thread) because you do not like me, and I'm sure some would agree I can be annoying. However, I felt I was giving honest feedback and I will continute to contribute honest feedback throughout my duration on INTL.
A moderation team is in place with the intent of having an eclectic viewpoint, and suggesting alternate perspectives should be applauded instead of met with criticism, censorship and personal attacks. If we all just sat around agreeing with each other positive change would never happen. I am not disagreeing to piss you off. I am disagreeing with you because I disagree with your opinion on this topic.
When the discussion did not go according to your plan, you insulted me. Then when I mentioned this calmly and politely you told me to suck a cock and locked the thread.
IFO, I'm just wondering what examples and standards I should follow to become this "worthy of being a mod" mod you have informed me I am not. I'm interested in contributing and helping with this board even if I am the only person on the website who takes me seriously ever.
Even your co-owner agreed with me so I can't be too off base. Even idiots are right sometimes too, IFO.
…
I’ll be back on INTL when contrasting opinions are welcomed instead of shut down and silenced. I would love a response but I know you will take the cowardly way out and lock this thread because people will actually agree with me. Be a man and defend your actions if you are so convinced you were justified. But you’ll censor. That’s fine. You can sleep well at night knowing that you have the power to silence people on a messageboard. That still doesn’t make your evident hypocrisy and biases in this situation any less noticeable to the masses.
Adam
|
