quote: Actually, I stand corrected. There has been censure, but never once a warning before the censure. Unofficial warnings from members, yes, mods, no.
How about we impeach him but then acquit him in the senate? Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:I've seen exactly two posts by Ced in my entire Hatrack existence and they were this week. I know folks joke about him, but I have no idea why exactly. So I have inadequate information as to whether he deserved what John did, which I am equally ignorant about. I don't defend or support either one. By the way, do we know that Ced hasn't been banned?
Cedrios did some things that upset the whole forum a couple of years ago. They really don't bear rehashing at this point. Ced was never banned, to my recollection. He did stop posting under the name Cedrios and his other known "cedonyms" after that. That was probably because people pretty much didn't cut him any slack after the big upset, and his comfort level here was drastically reduced - they may be why some people think he was banned.
quote:Yes, I know John was cruising for a bruising with his posting style.
I'm pretty sure I've said that several times. What irritates me is that others have behaved in a similar fashion in the past, and have not been banned.
So, no, banning is not consistent. The moderators do not always enforce the rules the same way for everyone. I am, in fact, partial proof of this.
And before (again) it's pointed out that the moderators have that right, I know that, too. They are the only real force for authority here (aside from influence and charisma exercised by many members), and they pay for the upkeep of not just the forum but the entire website from their own time and money and aggravation.
But please, please stop trying to convince me that the rules are enforced in an even-handed, consistent fashion. We all know they are not, and personally I am OK with that for a variety of reasons I've already mentioned.
Yes, I agree with this, Jeff.
What upsets me, and a lot of other people here, I think, is that John was a valuable contributor to this forum. Yes, he has upset people with his posting style. I have gotten into it with him, too, at times, and gotten pretty annoyed. But he is basically a good guy, and I am just sorry to see him gone from Hatrack. Posts: 5771 | Registered: Nov 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: I'm just saying I don't think it's OMG SRUPRISE!!1
Ralphie, I hope I'm just getting a meaning out of this that you didn't intend at all, but it seems really condescending to me whenever you reply to someone by mocking their post in 1337 speak.
Posts: 1658 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ralphie doesn't need anyone to stick up for her, but that's never stopped me before! (For the record, 'oh my God, don't do that! usually don't work neither)
I doubt Ralphie means any real offense when using l337 speek. Besides, she was right.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
Far be it from me to second guess any decisions made by our moderators. I'm sorry to see John gone. But I'm sure that no one here has all the information on the situation that they do, and it's not our place to judge.
quote:I'm just saying I don't think it's OMG SRUPRISE!!1
Honey, I know you're just doing this because it's funny, and, surely, it is. But, take it from someone who knows, what starts out as a joke can eventually get under your skin to the point where you can't stop. I'd hate to have the beauty of your posts marred by a joke gone wrong.
quote:Honey, I know you're just doing this because it's funny, and, surely, it is. But, take it from someone who knows, what starts out as a joke can eventually get under your skin to the point where you can't stop. I'd hate to have the beauty of your posts marred by a joke gone wrong.
4 rills.
I'll probably get tired of the device at some point.
However, I like that Hatrack is nearly built on its avoidance of AIM speak (and those who speak it in sincerity) and I'm shamelessly flaunting status to get away with using it on a regular basis.
It'll get retired at some point. For now, though, a lot of times it's just as effective in helping me express my point as a smiley is for other people.
quote:I'll probably get tired of the device at some point.
However, I like that Hatrack is nearly built on its avoidance of AIM speak (and those who speak it in sincerity) and I'm shamelessly flaunting status to get away with using it on a regular basis.
It'll get retired at some point. For now, though, a lot of times it's just as effective in helping me express my point as a smiley is for other people.
Wait, so you know that what you do may be taken offensively by some people, especially those who don't know your reasoning behind it, but you're going to do it anyway? How is this any different from what at least three people have directly accused John of doing? Does this mean you are cruising for a banning? If offensive behaior quirks are all that is required to be eligible for arbitrary banning, shouldn't more people begin to fear for moderation?
Posts: 72 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I see. So, it's a matter of severity? Or a matter of humor? Is it okay as long as the person doing it can call it a joke? "I was only kidding?"
Posts: 72 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Which is strange, since John has actually said on numerous occassions, "Don't do that."
And this is an absurd argument. There was one (count one) person who asked the meaning behind Ralphie's statements, and Ralphie clarified. The statement was not directed at any single person or group or belief system, and it was not directly insulting.
It is, in fact, a joke by which no insult or condemnation is meant.
So don't act like the two are the same. It makes you look like a freaking moron, because the two are obviously different.
Get it, d00d?
(By which part of this post might a reasonable, average person be more offended, do you think?)
Edit: Oh, and by the way: I wasn't interested one way or another in who you are, but advertising martyred anonymity don't win any points.
posted
He just noticed that everyone else was getting all hot under the collar and figured he should jump on board as well. Now we can talk about how we hurt his feelings for another 3 pages before someone else gets righteously indignant over nothing and we can talk about *that* for another couple of pages. It's awesome.
If people put as much effort into making pies as they did into being offended and then they gave all those pies to me, well son, I’d be a happy man. Or something.
Posts: 3243 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't know about this time, but every time John's gone off in a huff on his own he deletes most of his recent posts.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't see any evidence that John's posts have been "swept" from the forum.
His last post was on April 28, right before he was banned.
All of the links that I checked on this list of John's recent posts worked fine (I admit I didn't check every last one).
And it would be impossible for John to delete his posts after he was banned, as his IP was banned and his password would no longer work.
Posts: 5771 | Registered: Nov 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, but according to Bernard, it could make Taco Bell very happy.
quote:A Rat Named Dog: I really think that a person's right to remain at Hatrack should depend, in large part, on their ability to pursue an argument...
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Evil Laugh]](graemlins/evillaugh.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Taunt]](graemlins/taunt.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Monkeys]](graemlins/monkeys.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Cry]](graemlins/cry.gif)
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
![[Evil]](graemlins/evil.gif)
![[Wall Bash]](graemlins/wallbash.gif)
![[Party]](graemlins/party.gif)
