Teenage Wildlife

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

Free for All
   >> Site Douchebag
Thread views: 42402 *Threaded Mode

Pages in this thread: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | (show all)
ani the gun
08/29/06 02:34 PM
Who you callin' a wanker? new [re: K]  

At least some people around here have sense enough to keep their ejaculating nobs to themselves!

I wanna be your only possession

Auntie Prism
(cracked actor)
08/29/06 03:47 PM
Beating on my drum new [re: K]  

In reply to:

K: Yes, there was a mods forum thread about the account hackings. However, it was created three days after Ohro banned the first offender and consisted of only Ohro saying "oh, by the way I banned this IP for trying to heist a password" and me later replying that I had banned another IP for the same reason..

Thank you for clarifying this point. Your previous post gave the impression that the thread dated from before b_mardle's banning.

In reply to:

K: Incidentally, how am I defending her if I'm in fact accusing her of working against the guidelines?

Well, you would have been if there had been a thread opposite to the effect described in the first quotation. But since there wasn't, you weren't.

Now, the only further point I wish to pursue on the original topic is whether there is some sort of 'refresher course' or 'mod mentoring scheme' to train Ohro to follow official procedures; or perhaps she could wear an 'L Plate' as her avatar, to show that she's still in the process of learning the job? I have the deepest respect of Ohro as a poster and I want her to become an excellent moderator.

I'll leave that to discuss amongst yourselves.

And now on to your fascinating most recent post:

In reply to:

K: I'm strongly starting to consider banning everyone who purposefully flings shit at Dogz in an attempt to anger him and make him go over the daily limit.

I honestly can't say I've seen any such behaviour on the boards and certainly hope that you don't consider myself to be in that number. Lest you think I am, I shall re-bozo Dogz presently so that I shall be unable to read his responses, making his replying to any of my posts futile.

But since you do consider such activity to be going on, what exactly counts as shit-slinging? Starting threads about him (which I have never done)? Or replying to his posts where one disagrees with his statements (since we know this is almost certain to generate a reply)? Or reply, even, in normal pleasant conversation to his posts (since this, too, is almost certain to generate a reply)? I imagine the nature of TW as a relatively small forum will make it almost impossible for me not to mention him occasionally, but, since you seem fairly adamant in this new rule, I also want to make it perfectly clear that I do not want Dogz to reply to my posts as I will be unable to read them.

In reply to:

K: You're contributing even less than Dogz who at least thinks he's saying something important when he's starting a new thread of making a post in a thread not about himself, whereas you know you're not posting anything useful when you make a post about Dogz.

1) 'Ignorance of the law is no excuse'.
2) How do you know what Dogz is thinking?

In reply to:

K: Personally I'm not banning Dogz even if he exceeds the stupid daily restriction. There are reasons why people need to be banned and someone pissing you off is not one of them.

This is obfuscation. All posters who were ever banned were banned because they pissed somebody off. B_Mardel (however you spell his surname) was banned because he, annoyingly, reset people's passwords. Aleczandah was banned because he, annoyingly, 'mushed up the boards with nonsense', according to Emil. Altoid was banned because he, annoyingly, only had one message to post variations of; and I imagine the same went for tumble_n_ twirl and all the other 'I know of only one sentence' alter egos. Dogz was banned originally for 'excessive irritation of the hoi polloi', or some such. Posters are banned *precisely* because they piss people off.

The issue with Dogz is his repeated flooding of threads. Now you said earlier in this thread that you don't believe that Dogz is flooding at the moment. This I believe owes a good deal to his daily limitation, and I think many posters agree. Perhaps you personally disagree. Anyhow, you'd better believe I'm more than willing to argue this out through PMs if you don't want it clogging up the boards no more.

This was the Gospel According to Auntie Prism.
TW: Amen

Sweetness, sweetness I was only joking when I said I'd like to smash every tooth in your head . . .

(thunder ocean)
08/29/06 05:18 PM
I should be in bed, you know. new [re: Auntie Prism]  

In reply to:

Thank you for clarifying this point. Your previous post gave the impression that the thread dated from before b_mardle's banning.

My mistake, then.

Regarding Ohro, I'm not the person qualified to make any decisions on her regard. Of course I can talk about this with her but since we're if equal status I can't force her to do or not do something.

Regarding my rather heated post about Dogz... first of all, I wasn't being serious about banning people. I realise people might take it literally but that was not my intention, and I believe the points I made later against banning Dogz also gave a hint to that direction.

I feel that Dogz is being made into scapegoat here. TW isn't as active as it has been, we've lost some good posters and there aren't many new ones coming in, and people need to blame this on someone... so they pick the most obvious target, the mass-posting guy who seemingly isn't as intelligent as the majority of posters*. So people start bullying the weak, doing their best to have him ejected because they think this will solve all the problems. And of course it won't.

I realise that the best counter-argument to this is saying that Dogz has caused a lot of posters to leave. But I ask you, in the name of all honesty, is he really that annoying that all by himself he has caused a mass exodus from TW? Or is his presece just a contributing factor (and in some cases the straw that breaks the camel's back)?

For the record, I'm not saying that you shouldn't dislike Dogz, and that even if you do you should behave nice to him. But you should stop talking about him all the time, because that accomplishes absolutely nothing except hasten the decay of these boards.

* = Before I get another angry PM: I'm not saying Dogz is stupid, just that he does sometimes comes across as such. And that he perhaps is percieved to be stupid by a number of posters. Hence making him an easy target.

In reply to:

All posters who were ever banned were banned because they pissed somebody off.

If we get into this conversation, I'll lose. I know it. Never the less I'll adress your points and then watch you shoot them down.

b_mardle: He was annoying people, yes, but by trying to steal their passwords he also could have locked out people from TW, if a poster had an e-mail adress that is no longer active listed on the fan registry (as was my case for a while). In this case they would have never recieved the new password and hence could no longer access their account.

Altoid, Tumble 'n' Twirl and all the other one-liners: The difference between these and Dogz is that Dogz sometimes actually contributes something to the site. Unlike a poster whose all posts just say "That's Fantastic!".

Dogz: As has been stated several times on this thread, before his first ban he was hostile towards other users and really flooding the whole forum. Although he still posts more than an average (active) poster, he's nowhere near the numbers he was in before his ban. Personally I don't think he posted too much even before his recent restriction. That said I don't read everything that goes on Coffee Shop so a lot of his posts might pass me by and hence I admit I'm not the person to judge his conduct in that forum.

With Alex I could not say because what took place with him happened before my time (or when I was absent otherwise).

The final point stands however: Dogz contributes something to the site, at least the Bowie Talk section. To the best of my knowledge the other posters who have been banned either did not or (in the case of Billy Mardle) were actually trying to harm other posters in some way.

This post is far too long. But to wrap things up: people are not being fair on Dogz. He certainly isn't the best poster on these boards, but for all his flaws he certainly does not deserve to be banned, for the reasons outlined above.

"Are we making any progress?"
"None whatever," said Hercule Poirot. "That is interesting."

(crash course raver)
08/29/06 07:51 PM
Re: I should be in bed, you know. new [re: K]  

Well said, K. One's opinion of a poster should not be a reason to ban him. I think when the 5 post rule was established, it was a compromise on the spot. I think the people making the 'past the mark' posts just want him out of here, and to me that is a form of extermination as opposed to enforcing a limit on frivolous posts.

I see no problem with the current posting situations at hand and I agree with K that the 'He's exceeding the limit' post is just as a waste of space as what some say dogz posts are, but I wouldn't want to impose a banning just because of that.

Also, in conversation piece, I see that forum more as a 'chat' kind of MB and so frivolous comments can be made in abundance by anyone since it is like a flow of dialogue as opposed to information and questions.

Plus, people who ride the wave of their own sense of intellectual superiority are a nuisance in my book. People come from different worlds and to my experience Dogz has some insight on things and maybe some of the information he can bestow has not seen the light of day given other peoples' ruminations in their own paradigms.


08/29/06 09:54 PM
Re: I'm a no limits kinda gal new [re: th0mas]  

In reply to:

It is funny that you think it is a reason for banning if someone posts ten times a day, while it is perfectly okay for you that someone posts the most tasteless insults.

well...this is TW, after all.

But seriously, I'm sorry about the hostility of my post. I was in a bad mood.

I'm a kid
And I love CANDY!!!

(funny little bunny)
08/30/06 02:19 AM
The Real Issue new [re: K]  

In reply to:

I feel that Dogz is being made into scapegoat here.

I think you're getting way way off track here along with a lot of other people. A lot of Anti-Banning-Dogz people are trying to say that those of us who feel arrogant or more intelligent want him banned because he's percieved as stupid.

I've wiped the slate clean, as I said before, and while there's no brilliance in his posts I don't feel the need to bash him for any lack of intellect. I'm sure a lot of other angry anti-Dogz posters are still sore over outrageous things he said in the past.

My beef was, and is if it happens again, that he tends to post many many times in every single thread. Conversations and topics are derailed, people get annoyed, and he starts posting more and more and more. This ridiculous state of affairs would not be tolerated anywhere else.

So my "campaign" was :

1 - A dumb poster? Who cares.
2 - Had a fight with a poster in the past? If it's a long time ago it's time to get over it - unless they're still attacking you because they're not over it.
3 - Posts like Claude? - Fine by me. Claude stays mostly in his own threads and we have a choice if we want to join in on his strange three word picture threads.

4 - Posts in all the threads multiple times? - Moderators should simply tell him not to do this, and if he continues he should be banned. I don't like this whole "post limit" business. Moderators should judge for themselves what's excessive and for fucks sake take action when it's proper.

I've got no beef with Dogz at the moment. Sure, I poke a bit of fun but he seems to be fine with that.

But if he returns to what he was when I got back - I'll simply ask him, without resorting to insults or such - to please take it down a notch or two.

BUT - This whole "wanting Dogz banned because he's stupid" is a whole lot of paint to colour those of us who are sore over the whole affair in black. Just fling the daily limit out the window. I'll be just speaking my mind when things get bad again.

Has Dogz made TW a poor site to post messages on? He certainly was making the coffee shop his very own forum where everything had something to do with him. At the moment there's still a large amount of anger about.

Am I suspended in gaffa?

(funny little bunny)
08/30/06 02:24 AM
Re: I should be in bed, you know. new [re: ghostlove]  

In reply to:

Also, in conversation piece, I see that forum more as a 'chat' kind of MB and so frivolous comments can be made in abundance by anyone since it is like a flow of dialogue as opposed to information and questions.

Hey! Some of us live there you know! Non-coffee shop people don't know what it's like when a TWer commences saturation bombing. PMs are for chatting. That's the whole idea of PMs and of the rule (if it's still here) saying "no idle chit-chat" It's like those fuckers who loudly talk throughout an entire film at the cinema - "Why the fuck didn't you go to the park?? It would have cost you nothing!!"

Am I suspended in gaffa?

(crash course raver)
08/30/06 02:46 AM
Re: I should be in bed, you know. new [re: PHOENIX]  

Good point. I think on some threads in coffee shop it seems it would make more sense in a chat- like setting since it would eliminate trolling behavior or a ton of short-answer replies that would flood and destroy a mb. I'm not saying to have Dogz take over a chat room, but in his way of posting, it would better suit his style plus it is a lot quicker to have explanations and quicker replies and just have silliness on it. His 'dumb' posts would make more sense in a chat context I think, but I can't prove that yet IMO, when Dogz spends time for a response on a thread as he does on most Bowie related topics and even some coffeeshop threads, something of substance can be found


(thunder ocean)
08/30/06 09:25 AM
Joe Average new [re: PHOENIX]  

I wasn't saying you want Dogz banned because he is stupid. But his percieved lack of intelligense combined with his posting habits make him an easy target. As has been noted on this thread, Monkeyboy did pull off similar posting stints but no-one ever seriously asked him to be banned. I think (note, think, not know) that an important factor in this was that most of us know Monkeyboy is in fact frightfully intelligent. Try to argue with Monkeyboy and you'll lose no matter what. Try to argue with Dogz and you win every time.

As I said in my post, I'm not the person to judge Dogz' behaviour in Coffee Shop because I read only a fragment of the stuff that goes on in there. However I find his contributions to the News and Views forums to be valuable. And I don't think his being an arse in one forum of the six we have is really a proper reason to ban him. I also don't like the fact that we're developing double standards; one standard for Joe Average and a much higher standard that Dogz is supposed to abide.

"Are we making any progress?"
"None whatever," said Hercule Poirot. "That is interesting."

(funny little bunny)
08/30/06 10:17 AM
Re: Joe Average new [re: K]  

Dogz is one of the hardest nuts to crack in all my internet experience . I tell you, newbies are the real easy targets. Dogz just flings a bit of dung back and keeps on tickin' as always. Newbies slink off never to be heard of again. Dogz won't miss a beat. Dogz is not an easy target.

Plus, I've also (and you have too) had periods of saturating the boards with crap over a period. Of course, our instances of posting diarrhoea have not been sustained non-stop over a period of years. This counts for Monkeyboy as well. Surely you don't count Dogz as just an average poster being picked on. Dogz is far from the average poster, and I've never seen his like anywhere on message boards throughout the net. There's no double standards - If anyone did this over a long period - be it my bestest friend or whatever - I'd be first telling him "Hey man, why don't you slow down a bit" and then regrettably agreeing that if he can't control himself he should go.

If I decide to argue with Dogz, I know I won't win. He'll say something back and then not bother, only to continue as before. So I strongly disagree with you on that point.

But I will say that at the moment he's bearable. He is a little more like a 'Joe Average' and as such I don't have double standards. To say otherwise is blindly ignoring those frustrated by their threads being hijacked (whether by intent or not).

Am I suspended in gaffa?

Pages in this thread: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | (show all)
*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