posted
I would credit you with the capacity to do so, as well as the good will not to be a schmuck about it.
-------
BlackBlade,
Yes, well so far I've seen nothing to indicate he would actually be inclined to do so with respect to this issue. He's still being deceptive about what actually went on in the threads in question, he hasn't actually apologized (apologies aren't 'it's too bad this happened, but here's why I was right to do so'), and he still hasn't made up his mind as to what the real intent was.
If he wants to drop it, he has to actually drop it, not continually justify it while taking swipes.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: As for taking some time to cool down, perhaps taking time to decide which self-serving version of motive was the real motive. So far it's been flipping the board in frustration, unconsidered reaction, a form of forum vigilantism to teach trolls a lesson, or a pointed commentary on the evils of frank discussion about public decency laws.
It can't be all of these things at the same time.
Why can't it?
And again, for the fourteenth million time, I had no problem with the "frank discussion about public decency laws". I had problems with the comments on child molestation, the direct statement that my daughter would be sexually abused because I opened doors for her (due to unrealistic expectations about sex relations), and the link to topless women. Do I need to be more explicit? I've been self-censoring up until now for decency. How indecent do we need to get? As indecent as the last thread?
I want to call you an idiot right now. But I'm not going to. I wish I could tell you to meet me, after school, at the monkey bars. But that wouldn't solve anything either.
Of course I took it personal.
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: I would credit you with the capacity to do so, as well as the good will not to be a schmuck about it.
-------
BlackBlade,
He's still being deceptive about what actually went on in the threads in question, he hasn't actually apologized (apologies aren't 'it's too bad this happened, but here's why I was right to do so'), and he still hasn't made up his mind as to what the real intent was.
I haven't been deceptive. I've given many descriptions of contributing factors to why I deleted the thread. No, I haven't been graphic before. But I guess you'll be the monkey on my back.
And if you'll actually read this thread (as I'm pretty sure you hadn't read all of the deleted thread), and maybe the OTHER thread on this topic, you'll see that I actually used the words "I apologize" several times. I thought I was being sincere. And I tried to communicate some of the reasons I was frustrated.
quote:And again, for the fourteenth million time, I had no problem with the "frank discussion about public decency laws". I had problems with the comments on child molestation, the direct statement that my daughter would be sexually abused because I opened doors for her (due to unrealistic expectations about sex relations), and the link to topless women. Do I need to be more explicit? I've been self-censoring up until now for decency. How indecent do we need to get? As indecent as the last thread?
Yeah, the link wasn't to topless women, but even if it was the appropriate non-tantrum thing to do would've been to slap a NSFW label on it or report it to moderation. Certainly not delete it and then go on to delete others. As for child molestation, no one can even decide if you're accurate or not. And as for your daughter being sexually abused, that part of the discussion where your daughter was even *mentioned* was early in the thread, and it didn't happen as you describe it anyway.
As for why it can't be all of those things at once, it's because several of them are exclusive motivations. You cannot have both put no thought into it and have been intended a broader, meta rejection of trolls.
And as for apologies, well I didn't know all that was necessary for them to be sincere and honest was the words 'i apologize'. Now that I do know, though-I apologize for offending your sensibilities, though I was well within my rights to do so and you shouldn't have had such sensibilities anyway.
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: I'd probably never do it, but I'm not concerned with others who do.
Out of curiosity: How would you feel about a mod deleting someone else's post without warning?
Aros: Just for the record, I don't have any particular ill will towards you and will happily argue with you again in the future. I think it was a stupid thing to do, and I hope next time you handle it differently, but... Oh well. Everyone makes mistakes. What matters is whether or not you learn from them. Try to do so, yeah?
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: I'd probably never do it, but I'm not concerned with others who do.
Out of curiosity: How would you feel about a mod deleting someone else's post without warning?
Depends on the reason for the deletion. If it's because the post violated the TOS, I've got no problem.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: I'd probably never do it, but I'm not concerned with others who do.
Out of curiosity: How would you feel about a mod deleting someone else's post without warning?
Depends on the reason for the deletion. If it's because the post violated the TOS, I've got no problem.
What if it's just because they felt it was bad, but there were no complaints about it from other posters and it was not a violation of the TOS?
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
If the moderator feels it violates the TOS-- and I do not think the mods need to consult the community-- then he has the right to delete the post. He also has the obligation to explain why the post was removed.
It is possible that the mod may be wrong--even morally wrong-- depending on circumstances.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
I was thinking of a circumstance where the mod explicitly realizes that the post is not a violation of any rule and he has no basis in the rules of the community/TOS/etc. to delete the post.
But he doesn't like it anyway. So he deletes it.
Good? Bad? Doesn't matter?
I'm trying (and failing?) to draw a parallel. Because Aros didn't just delete his post, right? He deleted a few hundred other posts made by other people. But maybe the standard for him is different than it would be for a mod anyway.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
It is. A mod is trusted due to his judgement, and his/her job is to help regulate the traffic on the forum.
Aros isn't a mod, so he doesn't get the same leeway.
I don't like thread deletion, but it isn't the worst thing in the world. That being said, I've done it, although the rare occasion I did was much more clear cut, and I don't think anyone disagreed with the choice, at least not strongly. I also gave notice it was about to be deleted, IIRC> It was years ago....
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, the parallel fails. For one, a member of this community and the mod have different responsibilities and powers. Secondly, the mod has a job, not personal ownership, where Aros is arguing that it was HIS thread. C: one post being removed does not shut down ten pages of discussion by at least a dozen different people, about several different topics. 5, Aros deleted unrelated threads just to be a jerk.
The parallel that makes sense from my point of view would be the mod deleting every single thread because one of them was not to his liking, and he had the power to do it. And since he had the power, it must be his "right".
What Aros did is crap. But when we remove the ability of thread starters to delete whole threads out of irk then it will have all been worth it. Until then, it's just a big crap sandwich, come get your bite while it is still hot and fresh!
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I haven't been on the forum in a while, so when I checked in about an hour ago, I started reading throughout this entire thread.
I have to admit, it seems pretty uncharacteristic for you guys to become so heated towards another poster. At times the discourse resembled a pack of wolves circling their prey.
But I do see where you are coming from. Having read the Chivalry thread through numerous times, I understand that having the entire conversation deleted in an arbitrary motion, with somewhat questionable motives, is frustrating. But did you all not go too hard on Aros? No matter what you perceptions of Aros' thread were, his views, no matter how much you disagree, deserve respect too.
I still don't know where I stand on the issue. An my opinion doesn't really matter considering I never posted in the thread in question. I just thought it was interesting to see some of you, who normally remain somewhat reserved and civil, act so volatile in this thread.
Posts: 87 | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:No matter what you perceptions of Aros' thread were, his views, no matter how much you disagree, deserve respect too.
Which views? The opinions he voiced in the Chivalry thread, which he didn't respect enough to keep around? Or his belief that threads which violate his sense of propriety should be eradicated from existence?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I believe Aros made the point numerous times that he believed the thread had evolved to the point that the original goal was achieved. And at that point the thread had become inappropriate in nature.
Whether or not you agree with him is irrelevant. He made his decision, which was his to make, and the issue is over. If anyone feels so strongly about the issue of chivalry, then they are free to make their own thread on the topic, which they in turn will be able to keep or delete at their discretion.
Posts: 87 | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:I have to admit, it seems pretty uncharacteristic for you guys to become so heated towards another poster. At times the discourse resembled a pack of wolves circling their prey.
Counting myself, there are really only about...3-5 people I would imagine could fit this characterization. The rest have plainly and politely stated their objections and their reasons, and left the discussion naturally as will happen. Considering the number of participants whose discussions were deleted by Aros in a fit of temper (or vigilance against trolls, or protecting the children, he still hasn't picked a motive), the wolf pack is pretty small indeed.
quote:But I do see where you are coming from. Having read the Chivalry thread through numerous times, I understand that having the entire conversation deleted in an arbitrary motion, with somewhat questionable motives, is frustrating. But did you all not go too hard on Aros? No matter what you perceptions of Aros' thread were, his views, no matter how much you disagree, deserve respect too.
First of all, I don't grant that everyone's views deserve respect simply by virtue of being believed by someone. It should be said that Aros believes in that notion even *less* than I and others do, by the way. Second, the motives weren't 'questionable', they're thoroughly contradictory and in several places openly dishonest. Plainly put, Aros is not telling the truth about what that thread had become. If you've read it, you'll know what I mean. Perhaps he believes it was.
quote:Whether or not you agree with him is irrelevant. He made his decision, which was his to make, and the issue is over. If anyone feels so strongly about the issue of chivalry, then they are free to make their own thread on the topic, which they in turn will be able to keep or delete at their discretion.
Why is it irrelevant? And yes, the decision was his to make, but it impacted others. It's as was mentioned earlier, in response to a comparison he made himself: if someone flips the board over when they're upset, that isn't a decision that ought to be accorded respect. And as for wolves circling, no one can know what might have happened with certainty, but I suspect that had the Aros's response not been what it was-contradictory explanations, dishonest defenses, and plays at apathy-this particular discussion wouldn't have gone the way it did either.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:I have to admit, it seems pretty uncharacteristic for you guys to become so heated towards another poster. At times the discourse resembled a pack of wolves circling their prey.
Counting myself, there are really only about...3-5 people I would imagine could fit this characterization. The rest have plainly and politely stated their objections and their reasons, and left the discussion naturally as will happen. Considering the number of participants whose discussions were deleted by Aros in a fit of temper (or vigilance against trolls, or protecting the children, he still hasn't picked a motive), the wolf pack is pretty small indeed.
quote:But I do see where you are coming from. Having read the Chivalry thread through numerous times, I understand that having the entire conversation deleted in an arbitrary motion, with somewhat questionable motives, is frustrating. But did you all not go too hard on Aros? No matter what you perceptions of Aros' thread were, his views, no matter how much you disagree, deserve respect too.
First of all, I don't grant that everyone's views deserve respect simply by virtue of being believed by someone. It should be said that Aros believes in that notion even *less* than I and others do, by the way. Second, the motives weren't 'questionable', they're thoroughly contradictory and in several places openly dishonest. Plainly put, Aros is not telling the truth about what that thread had become. If you've read it, you'll know what I mean. Perhaps he believes it was.
quote:Whether or not you agree with him is irrelevant. He made his decision, which was his to make, and the issue is over. If anyone feels so strongly about the issue of chivalry, then they are free to make their own thread on the topic, which they in turn will be able to keep or delete at their discretion.
Why is it irrelevant? And yes, the decision was his to make, but it impacted others. It's as was mentioned earlier, in response to a comparison he made himself: if someone flips the board over when they're upset, that isn't a decision that ought to be accorded respect. And as for wolves circling, no one can know what might have happened with certainty, but I suspect that had the Aros's response not been what it was-contradictory explanations, dishonest defenses, and plays at apathy-this particular discussion wouldn't have gone the way it did either.
All of these are valid points. Again, I never posted in the thread and only today started to follow this particular discussion. I only wished to play devil's advocate in this situation because to me, no one else seemed to be trying to empathize with Aros at all.
Posts: 87 | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by ZachC: Whether or not you agree with him is irrelevant. He made his decision, which was his to make, and the issue is over.
The issue isn't over as long as people are talking about it. Only the act that generated the discussion is finalized.
(the issue was extra super doubleplusnotover while aros was lecturing and patronizing and arguing his decision)
Posts: 805 | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ferrets aren't very nutty...They're crunchy, yes, but that's because of the bones...unless you're eating the parts I'm not.
Posts: 3003 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
