Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
0 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Did Mod cause the collapse of evcforum?
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2295 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 2 of 424 (566805)
06-27-2010 6:29 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Modulous
06-27-2010 4:44 PM


My thoughts
If anyone cares, here are my thoughts after reading your post.
1) Who had the bright idea to let normal members discuss moderator actions? That can never lead to a good thing. People will get pissy over the slightest things.
2) It seems that Rrhain was wrong saying you banned all those people, but since I haven't read his side of the story, I'll reserve judgement for now. Not that my judgement will make the slightest amount of diference anyway.
3) Since the forum is still here, I'd say it hasn't collapsed.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Modulous, posted 06-27-2010 4:44 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by crashfrog, posted 06-27-2010 6:49 PM Huntard has replied
 Message 9 by Modulous, posted 06-28-2010 4:07 AM Huntard has not replied

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2295 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 7 of 424 (566825)
06-28-2010 2:42 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by crashfrog
06-27-2010 6:49 PM


Re: My thoughts
crashfrog writes:
Head over and read that huge thread. The problem wasn't people getting pissy, it was moderators getting pissy at people objecting to their unfair, ignorant, and capricious actions.
I've read up until message 28 now. So far, all seems fine. I would have to read the thread Berberry is referring to to see if he is justified in his anger towards Nemesis Juggernaut. I can see how calling gays animals and rapists can be highly insulting to them. But since being "insulted" is a subjective thing, I'd have to see the way he worded it to judge that. For the record, no I don't think gays are like animals and rapists, and anyone who does think that is a bigoted fuck we can easily do without as a species.
Rrhain didn't say that he banned all those people. But Mod's centrality in the crisis that led to the Great Purge can't be denied; it's a matter of record in the General Discussion of Moderators thread.
I'll keep reading the thread and see if I run into anything later on.
You'd have to know what it was like before to say, I think. Trust me when I say, it's collapsed.
Fair enough.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by crashfrog, posted 06-27-2010 6:49 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2295 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 28 of 424 (566935)
06-28-2010 5:45 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by Larni
06-28-2010 5:19 PM


Re: My thoughts
Larni writes:
And the the 'hack message' from our fearless leader is real: Dr A (I think) got totally hacked!
'twas Drjones*. And Adminnemooseus.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Larni, posted 06-28-2010 5:19 PM Larni has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by Larni, posted 06-28-2010 5:59 PM Huntard has not replied

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2295 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 56 of 424 (567046)
06-29-2010 12:30 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by Taz
06-29-2010 1:01 AM


Taz writes:
Without looking up the threads themselves, I even remember the first time berberry lost patience. NJ made the usual "if we allow homosexuals to get married, then what's to prevent people from marrying kids and dogs?" argument. Berberry replied with "we're not kids or dogs, you twit" or some other name calling.
What puzzles me is how he misinterpreted that to mean that NJ thought homosexuals are kids and dogs. Is this what got all that started, cause it seems like an overreaction to me.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by Taz, posted 06-29-2010 1:01 AM Taz has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-29-2010 12:44 PM Huntard has replied
 Message 63 by Hyroglyphx, posted 06-29-2010 1:00 PM Huntard has replied

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2295 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 64 of 424 (567060)
06-29-2010 1:14 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by New Cat's Eye
06-29-2010 12:44 PM


He's not the only one. Berberry, Taz, Crash, Rrhain, Dan, Schraf, etc. all though that making that comparison is saying that you think that homos are kids/dogs.
Weird. Could one of you (Taz? Frog?) explain to me how saying that is comparing gays to dogs/kids?
Edited by Huntard, : did quote wrong

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-29-2010 12:44 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2295 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 65 of 424 (567061)
06-29-2010 1:17 PM
Reply to: Message 63 by Hyroglyphx
06-29-2010 1:00 PM


Hyroglyphx writes:
It's amazing how extreme the two differences of opinion are. One side is convinced that he was definately gay-baiting. The other side is saying it is an overreaction and misconstrual.
There doesn't seem to be any middle ground.
Indeed. I still can't quite wrap my head around it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by Hyroglyphx, posted 06-29-2010 1:00 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2295 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 107 of 424 (567124)
06-29-2010 5:44 PM
Reply to: Message 103 by crashfrog
06-29-2010 5:26 PM


I must be reading things quite differently from you, because that is not what I take away from those quoted paragraphs.
For instance:
NJ writes:
The problem, as I see it, is that its all or none for people like Crash, Taz, Berberry, or Dan. For some reason, they are incapable of distinguishing that, while I believe that homosexuality is a sin, they assume that I must somehow hate them for it.
According to you this is where "NJ tells [you you're] gay".
But that's not how I read it at all. The final sentence, where he says "For some reason, they are incapable of distinguishing that, while I believe that homosexuality is a sin, they assume that I must somehow hate them for it.", the "them" there does not refer to anyone mentioned there, it refers to homosexuals in general. At least, that's how I read it.
Or a possible second meaning, that he doesn't hate you for thinking homosexuality isn't a sin (or for failing to distinguish that he does), again not calling you a homosexual.
I just cannot see it, I'm sorry.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by crashfrog, posted 06-29-2010 5:26 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 110 by crashfrog, posted 06-29-2010 5:56 PM Huntard has replied

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2295 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 111 of 424 (567129)
06-29-2010 6:07 PM
Reply to: Message 110 by crashfrog
06-29-2010 5:56 PM


crashfrog writes:
Right. Why else would he think he's supposed to hate me for the sin of homosexuality?
I don't think he said that at all. I think he meant that he doesn't hate homosexuals in general for being gay.
He asserts that while he opposes "the sin of homosexuality", he doesn't hate me for it. "It" being the sin of homosexuality. But why would he think he should hate me for it, unless he thinks I'm engaged in the sin of homosexuality?
He never mentions you specifically, the "them" can refer to homosexuals in general.
If I told you "I believe that bank robbery is a crime, but I don't hate you for it, Huntard" don't you read that as implying that you're a bank robber? I mean, if you're not, why would it even be a possibility that I would hate you for the crime of bank robbery? What's the connection between you and bank robberies that should reasonably place you in that sentence? If I'm not calling you a bank robber who I nonetheless don't hate, the sentence is complete nonsense.
Quite.
But that's not the sentence NJ used was it? He used something more along the lines of:
"I believe that bank robbery is a crime, but I don't hate them for it, Huntard, Straggler and Bluejay".
That's how I read it anyway.
NJ was saying that he doesn't hate me just because I'm gay. Well, good for him, but I'm not gay. Never have been.
Again, I don't think that's what he meant. What does it matter anyway, so what if he thinks you're gay?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by crashfrog, posted 06-29-2010 5:56 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 116 by crashfrog, posted 06-29-2010 6:39 PM Huntard has not replied

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2295 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 147 of 424 (567199)
06-30-2010 1:59 AM
Reply to: Message 121 by crashfrog
06-29-2010 7:03 PM


Re: Grammatical Perspective
crashfrog writes:
Do you just not understand how trolling works, Straggler? Do you understand that if I were to say something like:
hypo writes:
I'm really proud of my work with the mentally disabled, and I feel that I've really been able to make a difference in the lives of people like Straggler and Huntard.
that what sounds like something innocuous is really a not-so-thinly-veiled attempt to call you and Huntard "retarded"?
I wouldn't read it like that.
Perhaps I happen to have friends or family that are "retarded", and your work has made life easier for them. Perhaps I simply like the way you work with "retarded" people, and you have inspired me to be a good person as best I can. All this would fit in with what you said. I'm not one to immediately assume the worst when a person writes something like that.
Secondly, I couldn't give a flying fuck if you did call me retarded.
My response to something like that? (If I thought you were insulting me)
"I find it admirable that you take your time and spend it changing peoples diapers, because they can't do it anymore themselves."
And that's a mild one.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by crashfrog, posted 06-29-2010 7:03 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 149 by crashfrog, posted 06-30-2010 2:14 AM Huntard has replied

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2295 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 150 of 424 (567207)
06-30-2010 2:48 AM
Reply to: Message 149 by crashfrog
06-30-2010 2:14 AM


Re: Grammatical Perspective
crashfrog writes:
Not bad, and I trust that means you take my point.
Thank you. Well, like I said, if I thought you were insulting me, I'd say that. But then again, I wouldn't immediately assume you were.
Yes, a charitable reading of NJ's post is possible (as long as you completely ignore grammar and logic.) But NJ didn't deserve the charity. He'd long exhausted the benefit of the doubt.
Well, I wasn't there, and haven't had the "pleasure" of conversing with NJ really. So I guess I'm not informed enough to accuraterly asses the situation.
I will bow out of this thread. Thank you for the conversation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 149 by crashfrog, posted 06-30-2010 2:14 AM crashfrog has not replied

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2295 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 155 of 424 (567216)
06-30-2010 5:21 AM
Reply to: Message 154 by Bolder-dash
06-30-2010 5:13 AM


Re: Moderation
Bolder-dash writes:
Perhaps I am wrong about this, but I believe Percy is actually running a business here, and as such I think he would do best to not take your advice to adopt the "its my way or the highway" approach to always running things if he expects to ever make money off this site (perhaps he doesn't expect that, but I am speculating).
He expects to make money out of the software of this site, which he wrote himself completely.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 154 by Bolder-dash, posted 06-30-2010 5:13 AM Bolder-dash has not replied

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2295 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 171 of 424 (567243)
06-30-2010 9:07 AM
Reply to: Message 162 by Hyroglyphx
06-30-2010 8:26 AM


Re: The Bombshell of Revelation
So, I did have the pleasure to converse with you.
Well, in all this time you haven't struck me as someone who would do the things you are accused of here.
So, either you've changed, or they're wrong.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 162 by Hyroglyphx, posted 06-30-2010 8:26 AM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 177 by Hyroglyphx, posted 06-30-2010 9:22 AM Huntard has replied

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2295 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 179 of 424 (567251)
06-30-2010 9:36 AM
Reply to: Message 177 by Hyroglyphx
06-30-2010 9:22 AM


Re: The Bombshell of Revelation
Hyroglyphx writes:
But I meant then, as much as I do now, that I never hated them. That is the honest truth. And back then it was very much about my fascination for absolutes vs relativism. You, Straggler, CS, Modulous, Cavediver, etc, having accurately understood what I said back then.
Well, how about that! So, the "them" you used was indeed referring to homosexuals in general and not Taz, Dan, Crash and Berb. I rock!
I mean, didn't anyone wonder why someone who was allegedly not here for the old days had such a vested interest in defending someone he never met?!?!?!
Hey, I was defending, you, and I "never met" you.
It's not that I defend my former self or my former beliefs. I am defending the sincerity of my former self. What you saw as NJ was the truth, not some clever Jedi mind trick. Crash inadvertantly gave me wayyyy more credit than I was worth.
Apparently.
I'm glad my interpretation was the right one. Welcome back, I guess!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 177 by Hyroglyphx, posted 06-30-2010 9:22 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2295 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 225 of 424 (567447)
07-01-2010 9:35 AM
Reply to: Message 224 by dronestar
07-01-2010 9:14 AM


Re: What is the conclusion (Part B)?
dronester writes:
The next time a member relentlessly pursues (in different threads?) a point on a controversial topic in language that a member finds deeply offensive, what action do YOU think the moderator(s) SHOULD take, if any?
Nothing. There's no obligation on the part of the offended one to read any of it.
If he pursues the offended one, and comments on all his posts with the material found offensive, then I think he should be asked to cease that behaviour, and perhaps open up a thread to discuss his views. A thread the offended ne has no obligation whatsoever to read. Of course if he persists, then I think a suspension should be in order, ever longer, until there is no way back and we'll have to say goodbye to that member. In this case he was being a bit of an asshole.
Being offended does not make you special, however, there's some limit to civil discourse that should be taken into account.
Note that I only think action should be taken when a member actively pursues the offended member. Not if he posts to a thread the offended one also posts to.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 224 by dronestar, posted 07-01-2010 9:14 AM dronestar has not replied

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2295 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 228 of 424 (567453)
07-01-2010 9:43 AM
Reply to: Message 226 by Hyroglyphx
07-01-2010 9:36 AM


Re: What is the conclusion (Part B)?
Hyroglyphx writes:
Invariably, you could talk about eating meat and offend a vegan. You shouldn't be suspended for discussing eating meat and you shouldn't be suspended for disliking people that eat meat, but you could be suspended for needlessly saying that the vegan (the specific vegan you are addressing) is a pussy because he doesn't eat meat.
I agree. However, if you were to go around, pursuing said vegan, and replying to all of the vegan's post with something like "Heh, you should eat some meat", or other things in that category, I think being asked to cease such behaviour would be the right thing to do. Don't you think?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 226 by Hyroglyphx, posted 07-01-2010 9:36 AM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 231 by Hyroglyphx, posted 07-01-2010 10:08 AM Huntard has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024