Actual Complaints

[Reply #480 on:]

Complaint: Fuck off, bear.

[Reply #481 on:]

Banning people for playing a little devil's advocate would be plain retarded. Banning someone like Spiff for doing so would be doubly so.

The ability to conceptualize and inhabit a persona possessing a differing point of view to your own is a sign of a healthy intellect. It shows intellectual curiosity and an ability to reason and rationalize.

On the other hand, the desire to silence everyone who thinks differently to you, even if you find their ideas abhorrent, proves nothing except that you don't have a lot of faith in the ability of your own convictions and prejudices to hold up in the face of reason and debate.

[Reply #482 on:]

I think they did. But I'm also vindictive.

[Reply #483 on:]

Ben that was wonderfully put and I wholeheartedly agree

Which is why I never get mad at coldangel (I love him like a brother )

[Reply #484 on:]

Fuck off, bear.

[Reply #485 on:]

Ben that was wonderfully put and I wholeheartedly agree

Which is why I never get mad at coldangel (I love him like a brother )

And he loves you like an annoying sister.

[Reply #486 on:]

No, I think coldy hates Bear.

[Reply #487 on:]

So I guess Freddy was banned seeing as he hasn't posted in a while, is Spiff banned too? I also agree with Ben, banning Freddy of Spiff was a lame thing to do, from what I saw of him he didn't even get personal with anyone, all he did was say that he thought homosexuality was immoral, he didn't even call them 'fags', he was very respectful in just calling them gays or gayers so what was the big deal? Cum to think of it he was a saint, no exaggeration, shame on you whoever banned him.

[Reply #488 on:]

Lack of posting notwithstanding, it looks like Freddy Phelps has beeen banned while SpacemanSpiff has not. Banned accounts tend to disappear from the master list of all accounts and SpacemanSpiff is still there on page 206 of the View all members list but on page 81 a listing for Freddy Phelps is absent.

If you have any poo, fling it now.

[Reply #489 on:]

Well that answers that. I never expected Spiff to be able to keep Freddy active once he revealed his shameful little secret.

[Reply #490 on:]

Was it really Spiff though? He could have just been saying it to get Freddy banned and Freddy could have said it in retaliation to get Spiff banned.

[Reply #491 on:]

Banning people for playing a little devil's advocate would be plain retarded. Banning someone like Spiff for doing so would be doubly so.

The ability to conceptualize and inhabit a persona possessing a differing point of view to your own is a sign of a healthy intellect. It shows intellectual curiosity and an ability to reason and rationalize.

On the other hand, the desire to silence everyone who thinks differently to you, even if you find their ideas abhorrent, proves nothing except that you don't have a lot of faith in the ability of your own convictions and prejudices to hold up in the face of reason and debate.

Ben, can you come move to my house and live with me?

[Reply #492 on:]

I'm glad to see that the Ihatewillsterdude3000 account was deleted (by the way, who was that?). I think however in a case like this, there should be some restriction to new members just so they can establish themselves in the forum without pissing everyone off. Is there any way that the admins could moderate the limit the amounts of post a PEELer has per day from Poppler to Bending Unit? Because in regards to this Willsterdude3000, more than one peeler has explained to him the rules to which he still isn't quite getting. I don't know, I guess my complaint is that PEEL needs to be a little stricter with new members.

[Reply #493 on:]

Why is Vanguard20 tolerated? Sure, certain posters pouring fuel on the fire doesn't really help matters, but the guy is rountinly and overtly abusive with little provocation. Attempts to reason with him are met with, well, further abuse. I guess this place has always had a fairly laissez faire approach to poster disicpline, but I can't help but feel  that other posters have been banned for less in the past.

[Reply #494 on:]

They have.
If we all report violations simultaneously....?

[Reply #495 on:]

This place is kind of like the Wild Wild West.  I don't remember the registration process, but there's got to be a way to utilize it to lessen problems.  What if, when someone registers, they are required to input their e-mail address (I wasn't) and are shot an automatic e-mail, detailing how to post, what is OK to post & what is not.  If the e-mail bounces back, their registration is cancelled.  If they heinously break the rules, then they can get banned/86'd and no one can say "I didn't know".  Might be too hard to impliment (I don't even know if it's practical), but it's an idea.

When I registered, it was the first discussion board I'd posted on & I made mistakes 'cause I didn't know; no instructions or guidelines were given to me.  A lot of the new registrants are a lot younger than most of us, so they don't know & no one's telling them; they have to find out for themselves. 

Regarding Vanguard20 or an abusive poster, the Mods have to be on top of that.  The only way for them to really know is by complaints.  Looks like you've got the best idea there, Coldy.   

[Reply #496 on:]

I always do.

[Reply #497 on:]

Don't Faze and Gophster have powers now?

I hardly find Vanguard's partiuclar type of abuse anything more than comical, but I suppose if he is truly rubbing people the wrong way, he's done more than enough to earn his bantime.

[Reply #498 on:]

Yes, they do. Sexy powers.

If you have any poo, fling it now.

[Reply #499 on:]

Ooh.... Sexy powers.

[Reply #500 on:]

We have locking and deletion powers only. No ban powers. And frankly, deleting the entire politics thread seems to defeat the point of the politics thread. The people who're annoyed either ignore him completely, or respond to him at great length while complaining about him. The whole thing's rather silly, really.

[Reply #501 on:]

Then who has banning power?  It's getting annoying seeing Vanguard verbally abusing anyone who disagrees with him/her/it, and nothing is done about it.  It sets a bad example.  The political thread should be about civil discourse about politics, not about telling someone who disagrees with you to fuck off...

[Reply #502 on:]

The ubermods have ban powers. I recommended a ban a long time ago, and then stopped deleting his posts. If the ubermods want him around, they presumably have their reasons and I'm not going to waste my time deleting posts from an uber-approved account.

[Reply #503 on:]

...when someone registers, they are required to input their e-mail address (I wasn't)...

Wait, what?

[Reply #504 on:]

The ubermods have ban powers. I recommended a ban a long time ago, and then stopped deleting his posts. If the ubermods want him around, they presumably have their reasons and I'm not going to waste my time deleting posts from an uber-approved account.

So you're saying Vanguard is Nix's sock puppet?

[Reply #505 on:]

Of course not, tnuk, don't be ridiculous. If vanguard were nix's sockpuppet, there's no way he would confirm it to me of all people. He knows I'd blab it immediately to everyone. I'm a killjoy like that.

[Reply #506 on:]

So, whose sockpuppet is he, then?
 

If you have any poo, fling it now.

[Reply #507 on:]

I think that's a "no but yes" style confirmation.

[Reply #508 on:]

frankly, deleting the entire politics thread seems to defeat the point of the politics thread.

Au contraire, it would be a pointed demonstration of media-control as seen in totalitarian states such as the People's Republic of China, et al. Therefor, on the subject of politics it would make a highly relevant point. I say go for it, and then we'll all discuss the implications in the... politics thread...

[Reply #509 on:]

uhm, ok guys, enough chit-chat; break it up and move along.

[Reply #510 on:]

Since we're in the Complaints section, why was my semi-serious (with a Monty Python quote attached, no less) complaint in this very section deleted yesterday?  No profanity, no abuse, no threats, no multi-state killing spree.  What gives?

[Reply #511 on:]

I was offline at the time, and wasn't the one who deleted yours or tnuk's posts. Having just gone to the dumpster to read it, I fully support whoever it was, though. It was chit-chat. This post, however, is a legitimate complaint, so you'll notice I'm not deleting it.