Anyonewithtwobraincellsgate

[Primo]

That the staff believes that ferrets is a malefic force out to make babies cry? Yes I do. It was literally the only reason they gave ferrets an infraction and not Garb.They judged that it was ferrets' intention to insult with that comment and they based that judgment on the idea that insulting people is just what ferrets' does because he gets off on it.

I'm sorry, I said "evidence". You posted an opinion - an opinion that lacks evidence supporting it.

I have seen the real reason:

Setting parameters for when someone should leave a debate with their non-compliance indicating a lack of intelligence is considered insulting, especially when taken with the subsequent qualifiers that were posted.

Appeal DENIED

And yes, saying that anyone who isn't stupid wouldn't argue against you - in the middle of an argument - is, whether or whether not Ferrets posted it, insulting. It seems to me that simply because it was Ferrets who posted said insult it is okay in your books, and any infraction given for it is a result of this "conspiracy". Maybe - and just maybe - you are a bit too biased yourself?

[Aikanár]

Also, it's about context, not intent. It is the context, the parameters and the qualifiers that made Ferrets' post insulting. Since the context cannot be argued against, the focus in this "discussion" is moved by some on intent. Strange, eh?

[xcorps]

As I proved in this thread, Garb has a history of making a mockery the ToS to make his points.

Just how exactly does 0.011765% constitute a history of anything? You didn't prove anything, you just pointed out a post or two from years ago and started screaming UNFAIR.

Fail.

[Gigantus]

I really don't think sending one more pre-made PM is that much of a hassle.

It's already enough of a pain having to create a manual entry\record for PM responses to official queries (and keeping track of it), adding one more set just adds to the clutter and time spend. Automating this procedure will need a custom hack - something the techs are not keen about, given the number that are already in place.

[Caduet]

I'm sorry, I said "evidence". You posted an opinion - an opinion that lacks evidence supporting it.

I have seen the real reason:

Setting parameters for when someone should leave a debate with their non-compliance indicating a lack of intelligence is considered insulting, especially when taken with the subsequent qualifiers that were posted.

Appeal DENIED

And yes, saying that anyone who isn't stupid wouldn't argue against you - in the middle of an argument - is, whether or whether not Ferrets posted it, insulting. It seems to me that simply because it was Ferrets who posted said insult it is okay in your books, and any infraction given for it is a result of this "conspiracy". Maybe - and just maybe - you are a bit too biased yourself?

Of course I'm biased. The problem is that the staff, being human, is biased too, and this leads to unfair application of their own rules. I'm trying to convince them, in vain, to lessen the impact of their bias.

Regarding the "real reason" ferrets' was infracted, by that metric Garb should have been immediately infracted too. Setting parameters for when someone should end an appeal with their non-compliance indicating a lack of intelligence ought to be considered insulting too. Sure, it was an ironic example, but even examples can insult people.

So why only punish ferrets and go to some length to defend Garb? Because the staff is arrogant enough to think its knows both of their intentions. According to their narrative, Garb was trying to defend the site's honor with ironic wit, and ferrets was trying to make babies cry, cos that what he gets off on.

Also, it's about context, not intent. It is the context, the parameters and the qualifiers that made Ferrets' post insulting. Since the context cannot be argued against, the focus in this "discussion" is moved by some on intent. Strange, eh?

Like the pedophile thing that started this thread, Garb likes to make examples that break the ToS no matter the context.

Also, imo intention is an important part of the context. Not enough to make a judgment on, but enough to help understand an overall point.

Just how exactly does 0.011765% constitute a history of anything? You didn't prove anything, you just pointed out a post or two from years ago and started screaming UNFAIR.

Fail.

No, I started screaming unfair because of a post Garb made a week or so ago. Which was, word for word, the same post that ferrets was infracted for. GED said Garb isn't punished cos he is a perfect little angel, while ferrets is basically TWC's bin-Laden. I pointed out Garb is, in his own way, just as bad as ferrets. Garb denied that claim, saying he had never called anyone a pedo. Whether he was lying or just forgot, I proved my claim.

It only takes one incident to have a history, anyway. Garb broke the ToS years ago to make a point. He did it a week or so ago to make a point. He's probably done it several times in between. I'm not autistic enough to sift through years worth of posting to find out. Since he is a a staff buddy and thus effectively immune to the ToS, he will probably do it again. This is what I call unfair.

It's already enough of a pain having to create a manual entry\record for PM responses to official queries (and keeping track of it), adding one more set just adds to the clutter and time spend. Automating this procedure will need a custom hack - something the techs are not keen about, given the number that are already in place.

I think a little extra book keeping would be worth the exchange of of a lightened Tribunal load and making a huge step in curbing these kinds of controversies.

[GrnEyedDvl]

Its time to go beat another horse. This one is dead.

[Squid]

So lets talk about this bad idea being proposed. It is bad for a number of reasons:

1. No hack will be implemented to support this
2. It makes way too much extra work for moderators given 1
3. It assumes the following:
   
   1. That the person being insulted has seen it, if they haven't you've now just shown them they've been insulted
   2. That the only person(s) affected is the person(s) the insult is directed at
   
   

The first assumption is bad because not everyone will go back to threads they've previously posted in and even if they do aren't likely to see any previous insults directed at them, this is especially true of fast moving threads in the D&D.

The second assumption is just plain ludicrous. Firstly all posts that aren't deleted stick around indefinitely, unlike a real life conversation which is gone as soon as its finished. Second by not acting on said post it tells the poster and every other person who reads the post/thread that kind of post is tolerated when that isn't the case.

There is no good reason for your proposal to be implemented and plenty of good reasons for it not to be implemented.

Also if a member is insulted by another member, why should they have to deal with them, even as much as having to delete a PM

[Caduet]

Its time to go beat another horse. This one is dead.

Why? This dead horse is going to start running around again when you or one of your cronies inevitably s up again trying to force civility down our throats when you can't even manage to be civil yourself. Might as well keep it up.

So lets talk about this bad idea being proposed. It is bad for a number of reasons:

At least you're making an effort to talk.

1. No hack will be implemented to support this
2. It makes way too much extra work for moderators given 1
3. It assumes the following:
   
   1. That the person being insulted has seen it, if they haven't you've now just shown them they've been insulted
   2. That the only person(s) affected is the person(s) the insult is directed at
   
   

The first assumption is bad because not everyone will go back to threads they've previously posted in and even if they do aren't likely to see any previous insults directed at them, this is especially true of fast moving threads in the D&D.

The second assumption is just plain ludicrous. Firstly all posts that aren't deleted stick around indefinitely, unlike a real life conversation which is gone as soon as its finished. Second by not acting on said post it tells the poster and every other person who reads the post/thread that kind of post is tolerated when that isn't the case.

There is no good reason for your proposal to be implemented and plenty of good reasons for it not to be implemented.

Also if a member is insulted by another member, why should they have to deal with them, even as much as having to delete a PM

1. Then don't make it an automated thing. Just slightly edit the PM you send to infracted people and send it to the victim. Surely that cannot take too much time.

2. Like I said above. Change the text to the the PM you already send to infracted people a little. Hell, with a template you'd just have to insert their name. I obviously have a low opinion of the competency of the moderation, but even I think they could handle that without hurting themselves too badly. Well, most of them anyway.

3a. I fail to see how showing them they've been insulted is a bad thing. If anything, its good PR for you guys as it shows you are doing your job to the victims.

3b. I already talked about this. I did not say leave the insults up. I said delete them and go about business as normal. However, also send the victim a PM asking if they'd want a chance to reconcile with the person insulting them. I'm frankly surprised you even bring this up. We regular posters can see when your pals go about exercising their oh so ironic wit get away things posters like ferrets and I get banned for. You already tolerate it for your buddies. This is like the bedrock of my entire argument. We have two overall choices: clamp down on EVERYTHING and at least be consistent. Consistently lame and boring, but at least consistent. Or we can all chill out a little, and accept that this is the internet where debate about controversial things are allowed and encouraged, and to not get our panties in a knot if someone wants to make an ass out of themselves. We can follow the example set by Garb and all be a little more mature about these internet insults.

I think any proposal encouraging maturity and reconciliation between feuding posters is a good idea. Its certainly better than the absolute all the staff seems to have come up with. Oh wait, there's always the good ol' "ban everyone who steps out of line" strategy. Well, I think my idea is a little bit more suited to a site as special as TWC than that. I really don't see how giving people a chance to solve there differences is a bad idea. Unworkable, maybe. Especially with a staff as intransigently stubborn as this. But I really do not know why you think giving users a chance to be mature is a bad thing. Other than having to force moderators to make the herculean effort of sending one extra PM than normal.

[xcorps]

This is what I call unfair.

I think it's unfair that folks have to endure your insipid tripe every time you decide your ickle feewings have been stepped on by the innerwebz.

[Bolkonsky]

Its time to go beat another horse. This one is dead.

We need Ishan's dead horse smiley.

[Gen. Chris]

Jesus...is this still going on?

Way too much time and effort is going into this.

[PikeStance]

This is one tenderized horse!

....

[Caduet]

I think it's unfair that folks have to endure your insipid tripe every time you decide your ickle feewings have been stepped on by the innerwebz.

Yea its so unfair that I'm forcing people to choose to come to this relatively slow part of the forum and choose to read the thread and then choose to reply. I'm totally holding the forum hostage here.

Although if that incredibly retarded response outlines your definition of fairness, it explains why you think the moderation is doing such a bang-up job.

We need Ishan's dead horse smiley.

This is one tenderized horse!
....

Poor GED. And to think he called seth a sycophant.

Jesus...is this still going on?

Way too much time and effort is going into this.

Am I like the only person who thinks typing stuff does not require much effort?

[GrnEyedDvl]

Oh wait, there's always the good ol' "ban everyone who steps out of line" strategy.

If that was the case, there would be many people banned. Such as yourself. There would be many more infractions issued. As was already pointed out, the top 5 moderators issued 35 infractions out of 2200 or so moderator actions. That extremely low ratio of infractions:actions flies in the face of your "ban everyone" conspiracy theory.

Since you didnt take my politically correct offer to save face and move on after stating your issues, I am now taking your soap box away. Thread closed.