admin nem mentions, brenna has mentioned previously that she doesn't need/want to be scolded for not using capitalization. What other reaction can one expect from brenna aside from extreme aggravation?
I imagine with enough self-justification we all could rely on "extreme aggravation" as a reason for ad hominem. But as with most things, there simply has to be some boundaries. And after two previous warnings were issued, followed by, "grow up you fucking cripple," pretty much will guarantee some kind of negative reaction.
Could she have expressed her anger better? Sure. Does her post demand a 12 hour suspension? No.
A 12 hour suspension is considered very lenient. People have been suspended for much longer, and for less of an offense. I imagine for my first time ever issuing a suspension that I could have been a lot more stringent.
If anything, also suspend mark for goading. Seeing as how he's responsible for unleashing the ad hominem.
Mark was issued a suspension that mirrored Brenna's.
i think the biggest complaint is that no one did anything about his off-topic and useless remark that has been repeatedly warned against for the last two fucking years.
Fair enough, which is why I spoke out in your defense. I simply didn't think that it was a suspendable offense. If he had retaliated, then he would have been promptly suspended, and for a much longer period of time for directly circumventing the moderator request.
crimmeny give it break. We are talking about a few hour suspension. It is childish to expect a facility like this, policed with volunteer monitors that try their best, built and maintained for free, that there will be some sort of fairness and uniform application of the rules in all cases.
Brenna has made it clear that she is not disagreeing with the decision. She is not even asking for special treatment. She is simply questioning the equity of suspending her and not the other member. She is free to do that and is encouraged to express her distaste respectfully, as that is the reason for this thread.
Re: To AdminPD regarding the "ramifications of omnipotence for God" thread
Here's a thought: Keep out of it. You had nothing to contribute and your comment was vague at best.
AdminPD doesn't have to keep out of anything, ever, here at EvC. Not only is she is a moderator, but this is a public forum. Her function is to moderate, and in my estimation, she is one of the best.
Your sardonic tone is what tends to inflame most of the controversies that surrounds you. The overarching point is that you seem to be the common denominator here. So rather than tacitly asserting that everyone else is either crazy or unduly persecuting you, perhaps it would be more prudent to recognize your own shortcomings as opposed to asking for some kind of special dispensation.
Please find a more constructive way to voice your concerns.
i'm really suggesting that people stop giving me shit for my stylistic decisions. i don't bother anyone else for theirs. and i rarely even bother to correct peoples' poor grammar. my typeface has been approved by the board administrator and that should be that.
This whole thing was brought about when we began to discuss the behaviour of NJ in Thread Divinity of Jesus in Forum Bible Study. It seemed that NJ swaying off-topic was against forum guidelines, and his misrepresentation of his opponents position was immoral, in my opinion. I asked Phat why he had not done anything about it, though it had been pointed out to him earlier that day, and he replied
quote:Nem, while not entireley honest, did make some good posts that challenged Jars whole modus operendi
Thank you for voicing your concerns. I will attempt to address your grievances as far as they relate to myself.
As Phat has said, Jar has a very structured modus operendi. Jar first reels in the fish by heaping one invective upon another. This is otherwise known as, "goading," which, in his defense, he usually reserves for the chatroom. He claims that all creationists are "snake oil salesmen," and that most fundamentalist Christians are "evil," "Christian Bobbleheads," etc, etc. I'm sure you've seen any of those a number of times since you've been a member. What he is doing is otherwise known as "slander." I doubt very much that anyone other than Jar could get away with the things he says.
When somebody challenges him on his assertions, his claim, no matter what is actually said, is that the response is invariably "irrelevant," "bullshit," or a "strawman." I'm sure you've seen this too.
The secondary plan is just to not respond at all to a direct question.
This is a disengenuous way to debate, and no member should be burdened by it when the sole purpose of a forum is share ideas.
Now, my mentioning of it in that thread was not the appropriate place. I take full responsibility for that. I should, however, bring to your attention that you too decided to respond to me in the same fashion and even referred to me as a "fool." So not only are you hypocriticaly stating that I am off topic, but you also added ad hominem in to the mix. This is not your only instance of doing such things either.
This should not happen again because I have resolved to make a change. Since this has been brought to Jar's attention numerous times, and no change in attitude has resulted, I am opting to ignore Jar from here on out in a member role. I see no purpose in continuing this kind of a debate. I will only respond to Jar in an Admin status when intervention is necessary.
I hope that clears the air and answers your criticisms so that we can continue debating in the most productive way possible.