Teenage Wildlife

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


Free for All
   >> Site Douchebag
Thread views: 28222 *Threaded Mode

Pages in this thread: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | (show all)
th0mas
(acolyte)
08/30/06 12:02 PM
Re: Joe Average new [re: PHOENIX]  

Perhaps we can agree on this:

A decision has been made by the moderating crew but people are still discussing the situation as if that did not happen and as if Dogz was still posting in the style he had before his first ban. K agreed to the rule, so there is no need in discussing any further why a forum full of Dogz' posts are annoying. The anti-dogz fraction on the other hand should now be quiet and wait what happens. The 5 posts-rule has not failed yet.
The movie poster thread for example is nothing which couldn't happen to anyone posting a lot of pics of himself (though of course it could have been interesting to see some more different members appearing in it). So I can't see a double-standard there. Even the more nasty attempts are still to a certain degree entertaining.
R/R's answer on Dogz' thread would be somewhat harsh but understandable if it was for the Dogz three years ago. But meanwhile there is a different situation, so this attack on Dogz person (unlike the attack on that lame topic) was a bit over the top. It was made for insulting someone in a way completly out of the threads context. And the double standard lies exactly in justifying that attack, which when done to any other user would have had other consequences.

Perhaps the mods should somehow communicate and make clear whether they attempt to keep the rule or give in to the mob interested in banning dogz. In case they stick to the rule any discussion about what Dogz was before and the correct punishment gets completly invalid and Dogz has to be seen like any other poster one likes or dislikes and treated with the same respect as anybody else. Which is not much but at least a level on which the board still works as a community.

Then we all can wait some weeks and in the best case there is no need for further discussion. In the worst case someone is proven right.


Liest das denn keiner außer mir?

EJSundayModerator
(heroic dolphin)
08/30/06 12:17 PM
Re: Joe Average new [re: th0mas]  

I don't see any current reason to ban dogz as he recently has posted nothing that would justify such a move - not in terms of content, not in terms of numbers.

And as I said before: If there should be a need for a fresh dogz ban I'd go for a temporary one.

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


schizophrenic
(acolyte)
08/30/06 06:17 PM
Re: I'm a no limits kinda gal new [re: schizophrenic]  

I just wish he'd stop posting pics of that fucking mop-creature of his. Really, I'd promise to never hurl an insult in his direction again, as long as I never had to lay eyes on that wretched beast ever again.

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


PHOENIX
(funny little bunny)
08/31/06 01:39 AM
Re: Joe Average new [re: th0mas]  

Of course I agree th0mas. I just didn't want everybody forming the opinion that the initial reason for compaining was because we felt we were more intelligent and therefore superior and therefore a lot of us wanted him banned. This opinion seemed to be taking a hold in some people's minds.

My beef has always been his sheer volume of posts - the majority of them not adding anything to the thread topics he was posting in. I think most people were tired of this and in some the hatred caused by it has lingered even though the situation has improved to the point where I feel more comfortable here.

I know the 5 post rule has been implemented by the mods, and by the sounds of it they're sticking to it. I'm just not sure if every time Dogz posts 7 or 8 times in a particular forum it's not going to cause another outburst - so therefore I'm not 100% behind this rule. Let the rule go and just raise the matter (in a calm and straightforward manner) when it feels like he's getting carried away. I'm sure Dogz would then take care, but if not then appropriate action could be taken.

Am I suspended in gaffa?

KModerator
(thunder ocean)
08/31/06 04:18 PM
Re: Joe Average new [re: PHOENIX]  

In reply to:

I just didn't want everybody forming the opinion that the initial reason for compaining was because we felt we were more intelligent and therefore superior and therefore a lot of us wanted him banned.


That wasn't what I said nor was it what I meant.

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


PHOENIX
(funny little bunny)
08/31/06 11:14 PM
Re: Joe Average new [re: K]  

In reply to:

That wasn't what I said nor was it what I meant.


Yeah, but I just wanted to make it clear. If we start arguing over the ban/stupid keep/intelligent theory and leave the mass-posting behind anyone wading into the debate would get a very different impression of what's happening.

A bunch of people are attacking Dogz, and it's not because he's an easy target, it's because they still have a grudge over his many actions in the past. There are many many TWers that would leave if you attacked them 1/10th as much as Dogz has been attacked. I think they are easy targets. Dogz is like fucking Superman, indestructable.

(I mean like goddamn Superman. Not having sex with Superman)

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