Teenage Wildlife

IMPORTANT: Use your registry nickname as your username when logging in to Conversation Piece!

Free for All
   >> Site Douchebag
Thread views: 11983 Previous threadView all threadsNext thread*Threaded Mode

Pages in this thread: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | (show all)
10/21/04 09:16 PM
Tofu Battle new [re: 96dbFreak]  

In reply to:

Just goes to show how wrong you can be.

Quite true. We can't all be as perfect as you.

In reply to:

Are you suggesting that you believe that p2c was being 100% serious with the initial post in this thread?

I'm not sure what this has to do with what I said - merely a dumb American-style joke; I have no idea what your feud with Arlequino is about - but I took it about as seriously as I take most p2c posts, which is somewhere between tonyinsf and pianocraft.

Cotton cotton candy Cotton cotton candy-yah
Spun anyway you like

(stardust savant)
10/21/04 09:26 PM
EJ, please stand still for your mug shot new [re: EJSunday]  

In reply to:

the core motivation for my support of the ban was that dd74 destroyed nearly all interaction and exchange on this board.

Good. That is what I expected your answer to be because it is consistent with the post you made when it was announced by some other individual that dogz had been banned.

And my response, and I think this will be the last time I state it b/c I'm repeating here, is that it's not appropriate for you to make that judgement call. And it is a judgement call, not the least bit quantifiable, that dogz "destroyed interaction." I bozoed him and afterwards I hardly knew or cared whether he improved or declined in his inanity. That's why the bozo is there, as you well know.

Your decision went against the standing approach by Evan and Adam, who only banned posters when the poster's intent was malicious and their posts threatening or persistently vile. That was the TW way, and you changed it because you wanted to "save TW's soul."

Here are some observations which can be gleaned from the mods' posts on the banning:

1. Sysiyo publicly lobbied to have dogz banned;
2. Ohro appeared to tire of either dogz himself or the controversy he aroused;
3. By his comments EJ was not a fan of dogz but appeared to have a live-and-let-live attitude about him. As with ohro, it appears the controversy annoyed him more than the actual poster;
4. After being given a posting limit (which is an offensive action, imo), dogz was banned for breaking that limit by fewer than five posts on two or three days in close proximity. His daily posts on those days never exceeded one dozen, but the limit was eight. Therefore, he broke the letter of the law, but arguably not the spirit. Ohro announced the limit publicly; and
5. Many longtime, quality posters - whom must be considered part of the population EJ claims were inhibited from having quality interactions - never indicated the least interest in seeing dogz banned. Those posters include:


and many others.

When I think back over the posters who have caused an uproar since I joined TW on a nearly-daily basis in August of 2000, dogz was the least offensive. Yes he was annoying because his posts were oddly punctuated and showed a mediocre mind hard at work, but he was never malicious, the way TJ Newton was, for instance.

The difference between TJ and dogz is that we enjoyed hating TJ (not me, I bozoed him, too), but dogz never really got the blood boiling. He was was just numbingly stupid and terribly prolific about it.

In answer to your other questions:

Why do I think you, EJ, bowed to pressure as regards dogz?
Your stated reason for banning him indicates it was the controversy, not his actual posts. Bolstered by Observation #3 above. You should concede the point. If everyone ignored him, he would not have been banned.

Do I confuse listening to others with being wimpish? No, because banning isn't a group decision. At least, it never used to be when Evan made the decision. Again, posters were who were banned intentionally sought to anger either the TW population at large or Evan specifically. Dogz had no malice of intent, and his posts were not the least offensive in the classic sense of the word.

Did you go whinging to Evan for permission to ban Dogz? I believe Sysiyo's comments on this thread suggest that very approach. Have I misunderstood him?

Who was insulted by you? I stated it is wrong for you to indicate your distaste for posters, not that you have "insulted" them. There is a difference. A poster would naturally assume he was not welcome on a board where the moderator told him as much. But TW isn't here for your sole amusement. Pablo, for instance, appeared to take some value from dogz. Is his amusement less important than yours? No, but dogz will naturally feel inhibited because you do have authority here that Pablo does not. Your negative statements carry more weight than if you were just another poster.

Who did you threaten with a ban because you did not like what he/she was posting? Dogz, obviously, but again, it is more precise to say that you gave in to the vocal group who became incensed with his presence here.

Why do I turn my doubts about the mods' decision into simple allegations formulated like facts? As you can see, I am with facts as a surgeon is with hir scapel.

*accepts roses and a kiss on the cheek from R/R as the audience cheers wildly, except for the dullard, schizophrenic, who is insanely jealous of my urbanity and charm*

"Once in Germany someone said 'nein'!" ~ Jeff Tweedy

10/21/04 10:08 PM
The sound of one bozo yapping new [re: power2charm]  

In reply to:

He was was just numbingly stupid and terribly prolific about it.

I think the quantity of dogz' posts was a larger faction in the ban than their quality. I mean, I am sure he carefully structured his flooding to make it mistakable for actual posting, but surely you can't deny that going from zero to acolyte in 6 months is indicative of a wicked case of logorrhea.

Whether or not dogz' posting habits constituted 'flooding' exactly is certainly debatable, but flooding itself is certainly a banning-worthy offense, and his pre-banned incarnation showed neither remorse for his clutter nor any sign that he was planning to heed the collective cry of TW to stem the flow of his mis-punctuated nonsense.

At any rate, the whole affair is in the past, so your diatribe seems a little untimely. Furthermore, I'm not sure how you can chastize EJ for acting based on his own opitions *and* berate him for listening to the council of his fellow posters.

Finally, because I really ought to get back to cleaning my sections, I will submit for your consideration that it is precisely because you had dogz bozoed that you may not have a full appreciation for his (alleged) transgressions. Even I stopped caring one way or another once I put him on the list. However, if the inhabitants of my bozo filter were to start flooding Coffee Shop with dead baby photos, would their behavior be any less ban-able because I, personally, was able to ignore it?

Cotton cotton candy Cotton cotton candy-yah
Spun anyway you like

10/21/04 10:24 PM
Iron Chef new [re: Marquis]  

In reply to:

I'm not sure what this has to do with what I said

Well, if you go back to the beginning of this thread you'll see that the first post, and the primary subject of the thread, was p2c's assertion that the Euro mods were crap and should be replaced. Myself and others didn't take it too seriously and so we come to Arlequino's post where he says "I really haven't seen any moderator do a bad job, and I don't really see where this complaint came from.". I pointed out that his oft-demonstrated lack of a sense of humour is possibly the reason for his lack of comprehension. Then you piped up that my obviously hilarious retort wasn't funny, at which point I queried whether you were actually of the opinion that p2c was being deadly serious. And so here we are.

In reply to:

- merely a dumb American-style joke;

What was?

In reply to:

I have no idea what your feud with Arlequino is about

He keeps finger wagging. Telling me what I should think. Telling me what I should and shouldn't post. That really gets on my tits. It's the main problem that I've had with many a twat at this place. Most of you are just about smart enough to remember to keep breathing in an out and how to walk in a straight line, and you're giving me directions? Do me a fucking favour!

Maybe Starlite and her pals should invite him into the Quality Control collective?

Get Bowie Back Downunder
The GBBD 2005 campaign starts here!

(crash course raver)
10/22/04 06:42 AM
Re: Long live Big Brother new [re: 96dbFreak]  

Hey, Stu, humour is absolutely fine. I welcome it. It makes the place a little more interesting.

Just two minor points, though:

Firstly, while humour is fine, you seem to have an unhealthy obsession with directing your...erm...humourous remarks at ddz74. And, in the first place, on another thread your comments were not jokes, but serious remarks regarding your dislike for ddz. Why don't you just let that one lie now? It was funny when he was a true issue, and when he really was as irritating as you make him out to be. He isn't anymore, though, so why continue to make an issue of it?

Secondly, why not reply to me about this through pm? That's why I sent you one, and that's what they're there for.

In reply to:

Believe me, the PM sucked the big one as well.

It did, I agree. I'd only just woken up, and I wasn't functioning particularly well at the time...

In reply to:

Chris (scary name coincidence, BTW, with your pal Twisty)

Just because you don't like either of us, doesn't mean we're in cohorts! Or is there a deep-lying anti-Chris agenda rooted in your personality? Perhaps you'd like to see a therapist about that one?

In reply to:

Then I checked your profile and discovered that you were a southerner.

Southern dandy, and proud of it! At least we don't hang monkeys...!


I seem that which I am;
And therefore do I ask of thee, if thou
Wouldst be immortal?

(cracked actor)
10/22/04 09:21 AM
Europe? new [re: power2charm]  

And I thought the days of battle between the Mods and the Rockers were over?

Think of it this way... the landlord at a pub near me has openly confessed he doesn't really like me, but he's still prepared to serve me. Of course I have to watch out for spit in my pint but I still drink there.

"There is lambs wool under my naked feet."

(thunder ocean)
10/22/04 11:12 AM
Ah, I see. new [re: power2charm]  

In reply to:

Did you go whinging to Evan for permission to ban Dogz? I believe Sysiyo's comments on this thread suggest that very approach. Have I misunderstood him?

Yes, you have misunderstood me. We never communicated with Evan about the subject of Diamondogz. As I attempted to make clear in the original post, it's a rule for all bannings that the first time a user is banned, he or she is banned only temporarily. If s/he continues the same behaviour that got him/her originally banned upon being allowed to return to the boards, then the ban is made permanent.

Hence, DDZ was banned for two months. If he had upon his return continued the same style of posting, he would have been re-banned, permanently. The same would apply to any 'normal' user who behaved in a similar manner.

The exception to the above are trolls who contibute nothing to the boards. In a clear troll case (such as TumbleTwirl, who made a couple of dozen posts all containing the phase 'that's fantastic' and nothing else), the user in banned permanently right away.

Was that clear enough for you?

KArt | Project Michelangelo | LiveJournal

10/22/04 12:11 PM
No Problem, Here I Am new [re: power2charm]  

In reply to:

If everyone ignored him, he would not have been banned.

That point (like bozoing) was dicussed then and some were of the same opinion as you. Others, myself included, were not and explained why. And there we are at the very point to which it all boils down: Two major groups with two vastly differing opinions about what to do (respectively not to do). And both groups held "quality" posters, though I don't think that is a major point, because when I meant that the good posters were kept away by dd74 I meant basically everyone here contributing more or less regularly.

Anyway, as I have said before in this thread and in the previous discussions what we tried to reach was a compromise - and I think we did manage that, but with a few hardliners on both sides still unwilling to accept that. My way or non, as I said before. And that's what I find as wrong as having banned dd74 for good. And the present proves us right if I believe what I read in the thread about dd74's return.

In reply to:

banning isn't a group decision.

It was in this case and I supported the decision, at least when you see the mods as a group. From your first post on I found it quite weird that you ascribed the banning to me personally.

As in most of your other wild guesses turned into attacks you are wrong there.

And I want to believe
In the madness that calls 'now'

(stardust savant)
10/22/04 01:06 PM
I love you, Euro Mods new [re: EJSunday]  

This morning, Sysiyo and EJ came to me in a dream as I was sleeping at my desk.

They *explained* some things to me that I had *misunderstood*.

Now I understand.

I appreciate and value the wisdom and generosity of our Euro Mods.

It is ohramona who must be deleted.









"Once in Germany someone said 'nein'!" ~ Jeff Tweedy

(thunder ocean)
10/22/04 01:56 PM
Re: I love you, Euro Mods new [re: power2charm]  

EJ, it seems our mental conditioning plan was a success. Let's hope p2c won't start suspecting any of his false memories.

KArt | Project Michelangelo | LiveJournal

Pages in this thread: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | (show all)
Previous threadView all threadsNext thread*Threaded Mode
Jump to

Teenage Wildlife Davie Bowie | Email Us! Forums powered by WWWThreads v5.1.5perl

Teenage Wildlife Home Page Bowie's music Info on Bowie Other Media Have your say! Search the Site Help me!

Toolbar (Interact)

Etete Systems