Home | Community | Message Board
You are not signed in.
Sign In New Account
Forum Index Search Posts Trusted Vendors Highlights Galleries FAQ User List Chat Store Random Growery

MagicBag Grow Bags
This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.

Feedback and Administration > Website Announcements and Feature Feedback
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Unfolding Nature Shop: Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order

Jump to first unread post Pages: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 |  [ show all ]
Re: My Concentrated View On All Of This [Re: zorbman]
    #3497864 -

Zorb... this is simple. Mods aren't allowed to post PM's or discussion from PRIVATE forums.

It is no conspiracy, just against the rules. I can't post more than I did, without permission. I want to remain a Mod. I'm not getting de-modded over THIS.


--------------------
Fiddlesticks.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: My Concentrated View On All Of This [Re: GazzBut]
    #3497882 -

If you want us to admit our mistakes, you will be disapointed... Mods never fuck up.

But...

If you wish us to re-evaluate the situation :smirk: we're already doing that. In fact, we haven't stopped looking at this situation... since it first made a blip on our radar.

p.s. I agree with practically EVERYTHING you said, EXCEPT for the part about Mods not being perfect.  :wink:


--------------------
Fiddlesticks.


Edited by Rose (12/14/04 03:02 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: My Concentrated View On All Of This [Re: silversoul7]
    #3497896 -

Ah.... the old "well if that's the case what about ***" strategy.

Pretty childish.


--------------------
You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: My Concentrated View On All Of This [Re: Rose]
    #3497900 -

And you.... interesting that the "man" who said "Until then, I really was concerned with keeping his ban private, or between him and me" has now brought it up twice.

The first time with no prompting, the second with third party prompting.

Thanks for showing the accuracy of my original statement.


--------------------
You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: My Concentrated View On All Of This [Re: luvdemshrooms]
    #3497909 -

Quote:
luvdemshrooms said:
Ah.... the old "well if that's the case what about ***" strategy.

Pretty childish.



Do you have an opinion on this subject, or just an opinion about Silversoul's nature?

Warning luvdem, now's not the time (nor is this the thread) to start Swami-trolling... although, thanks for great great example.

Negitivity, off topic posts, thread derailment, provoking someone to argue... these are all examples of Swami-trolling...

And you did it ALL in two scentences. Kudos.

Keep it in pm luv.. or stay on topic. You are not the center of this conversation. Sorry.


--------------------
Fiddlesticks.


Edited by Rose (12/14/04 03:12 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: My Concentrated View On All Of This [Re: Rose]
    #3497929 -

"mod's never fuck up"





Hahahhahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahah!!!!!


what a fucked up point of view.
that's retarded.




I pray to god you're not that stupid to believe that
since you're a mod


oh and don't troll the mods???
I'm not sure he did
he just told them to fuck off, when he felt his rights were being violated


please go back and put a skirk by that statement "mod's never fuck up"
that sounds like a Senior doobie statement


--------------------
"A politician is like a baby's diaper, it should be changed often and for the same reason"-Coy Turner Sr.

"what is a weed, a plant whose virtues have not yet been discovered"--Ralph Waldo Emerson

"I'm sippin Hennessy, riding on my muthafucking enemies" -Meek Mill.


Edited by joe666 (12/14/04 03:15 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: My Concentrated View On All Of This [Re: Rose]
    #3497933 -

:rotfl:

So there was nothing there you could argue with?

That's what I thought.

  Until then, I really was concerned with keeping his ban private, or between him and me. 

And yes, I have an opinion. People need to get a life. And this place needs some new mods.


--------------------
You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: My Concentrated View On All Of This [Re: joe666]
    #3497936 -

Joe, sorry, that was sarcasm... pretty OBVIOUS sarcasm IMO. Next time, I'll use more emoticons. :tongue:


--------------------
Fiddlesticks.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: My Concentrated View On All Of This [Re: Rose]
    #3497941 -

thank you kind sir


--------------------
"A politician is like a baby's diaper, it should be changed often and for the same reason"-Coy Turner Sr.

"what is a weed, a plant whose virtues have not yet been discovered"--Ralph Waldo Emerson

"I'm sippin Hennessy, riding on my muthafucking enemies" -Meek Mill.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: My Concentrated View On All Of This [Re: joe666]
    #3497975 -

No problem.

Sorry about the confusion. See? I make mistakes.


--------------------
Fiddlesticks.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: My Concentrated View On All Of This [Re: Anno]
    #3498057 -

Well, let's look at the thread where the banning has been discussed:
http://www.shroomery.org/forums/showflat.php/Cat/0/Number/3489534

There were 43 posters in that thread, rougly 38 have expressed their dissapproval of the ban.

In the last 14 days there were 142 distinct posters in S&P.
In the last 30 days there were 198 distinct posters in S&P.
In the last 60 days there were 262 distinct posters in S&P.

The point is, the majority is NOT (at least not actively) against the banning.

C'mon Anno, give me a break:

In statistical analysis, it is usually not possible to sample an entire population, so a subset of the population is sampled instead. In this case, the people who expressed their views in the thread are the *perfect* subsample from which to draw a statistical conclusion because they're clearly the only ones with sufficient interest to post in the first place.

So, despite what you're trying to imply, the 38 out of 43 distinct posters to the thread is more than enough statistical evidence to extrapolate the will of the community.

You're a smart guy, so I know you know this. It makes me wonder why you're defending the mods when they've clearly made a mistake. Saving face is not a good reason to continue compounding mistakes.

When I fuck up, I own up to it. It's time the mods did the same.


--------------------
Republican Values:

1) You can't get married to your spouse who is the same sex as you.
2) You can't have an abortion no matter how much you don't want a child.
3) You can't have a certain plant in your possession or you'll get locked up with a rapist and a murderer.

4) We need a smaller, less-intrusive government.

Edited by Diploid (12/14/04 05:14 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: My Concentrated View On All Of This [Re: Diploid]
    #3498093 -

Swami broke the rules. SEVERAL times.

Anno's math does seem fuzzy... but give him a break... the Administration is SUPPOSED to publicly support all STAFF decisions (or say nothing). Asking us to admit our mistakes is hard. We almost have to break our own rules to do it.

Fucked up huh?

This will work itself out. Be patient. Be positive.


--------------------
Fiddlesticks.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: My Concentrated View On All Of This [Re: Diploid]
    #3498171 -

Quote:
Diploid said:
despite what you're trying to imply, the 38 out of 43 distinct posters to the thread is more than enough statistical evidence to extrapolate the will of the community

While the trend definitely seems to be well defined from those who have expressed their opinions, it is often those that are unhappy who are quickest to voice their dissatisfaction on a matter.


Diploid said:
It makes me wonder why you're defending the mods when they've clearly made a mistake.

I really don't think any dire mistakes have been made. This situation is currently under review and being actively analyzed by both myself and the entire staff in the mod forum. Perhaps the ban duration was a bit lengthy for the message we are trying to get across, perhaps it will be shortened, but I can tell you this for certain; It will not be lifted entirely. Swami has been brought to the administration's consideration many times over the past many years. Eventually, there is a breaking point where we must make a move to encourage the desired response when all alternate efforts at compromise have been exhausted. In this case, the desired response is for Swami to heed the countless requests/warnings that he has been sent by various Staff members over the years and begin to post with some more tact and respect for another person's beliefs. He needn't restrain himself from defending his own beliefs, but to post simply to pick apart and bash someone else's beliefs is not conducive to well-rounded and inviting discussion.

In short, this was in large part a subjective decision based upon circumstantial evidence from a very long time span, coupled with a very clear final warning PM from one of our moderators, which was ultimately ignored. The ban is an effort to lend credibility to the warning PM and hopefully encourage more thoughtful and tolerant discussion in the future by this particular user. Keep up the discussion.. we are listening.


--------------------

--------------------
┼ ··∙   long live the shroomery  ∙·· ┼
...╬π╥ ╥π╬...

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: My Concentrated View On All Of This [Re: eric_the_red]
    #3498235 -

but when i do, i notice swami is still there belittling people.

Then it should be a simple matter for you to find *ONE* such post.

i did have one in mind, because it was a thread i posted in. i can't find it now.

Very convenient. How about all the others that must exist given your statement above:

Quote:
notice swami is still there belittling people



Eh?

i've been here longer than swami.

I don't know you, so I don't know if you've been here a long time under another name, but your current name Regged in February '03, Swami regged in January '00. That's ~3 years longer than you.

And most of what time you have spent here you spent in OTD, not S&P.

this is just an observation. i don't have anything against

Ditto.


--------------------
Republican Values:

1) You can't get married to your spouse who is the same sex as you.
2) You can't have an abortion no matter how much you don't want a child.
3) You can't have a certain plant in your possession or you'll get locked up with a rapist and a murderer.

4) We need a smaller, less-intrusive government.

Edited by Diploid (12/14/04 09:46 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: My Concentrated View On All Of This [Re: geokills]
    #3498245 -

it is often those that are unhappy who are quickest to voice their dissatisfaction on a matter.

Yes, and according to Anno's stats, that's 5 unhappy posters out of all S&P.


--------------------
Republican Values:

1) You can't get married to your spouse who is the same sex as you.
2) You can't have an abortion no matter how much you don't want a child.
3) You can't have a certain plant in your possession or you'll get locked up with a rapist and a murderer.

4) We need a smaller, less-intrusive government.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: My Concentrated View On All Of This [Re: Rose]
    #3498257 -

Swami broke the rules. SEVERAL times.

Examples, please?

They should be easy to find, no?


--------------------
Republican Values:

1) You can't get married to your spouse who is the same sex as you.
2) You can't have an abortion no matter how much you don't want a child.
3) You can't have a certain plant in your possession or you'll get locked up with a rapist and a murderer.

4) We need a smaller, less-intrusive government.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: My Concentrated View On All Of This [Re: Rose]
    #3498280 -

Quote:
Cervantes said:
Please trust us. I'm sure nobody on the Staff wants to piss you guys off by censoring details. This is a complicated matter, with a long history. Much of the HARD evidence exists only in PRIVATE.

We'd love to give you more detail, and if you are patient, we may just do that...

Let's face it, Swami doesn't troll, he Swami-trolls... 

Swami-trolling is a very subtle, hard to detect, and hard to punish form of trolling.

Swami-Troll: verb: 2004
Definition: To troll subtly over a long period of time until people FUCKIN' SNAP!
"Dude, watch out, you're being Swami-trolled."
"Kevin, let's Swami-troll grandma until she has a stroke."
Swami-trolled, Swami-trolling, Swami-trollery.

Everybody Swami-trolls once in a while... Swami does it all the time.

Most of the time, mods overlook Swami-trolling... but over the course of SEVERAL YEARS, Swami finally made a big enough blip on the radar to be banned... we understand, from your perspective, he has acted this way since he became a Shroomerite. Why on Earth should he be banned now... he's been posting the same way for YEARS? Well, the fact is, we've been asking him to slightly adjust his behavior for YEARS... and he never has. Only NOW, did he get a ban.

Unlike MOST bans, there is no culminating event that constituted Swami's ban. Rather, he was banned so he could discover exactly what we were asking of him.

Swami, also, thumbed his nose at the last STAFF warning he received.

In effect, he Swami-trolled the very mods who were trying to help him avoid banishment. The mods took the bait, because they'd been Swami-trolled ONCE too often... and they banned the hell out of Swami.

You may not like this reasoning, but THAT is your reason.

I'm sorry, details are hard to find... because Swami-trolling is not as SELF CONTAINED as regular trolling... also, some of his actions took place in private.

I hope this helps you all understand the situation better.

I stand behind Swami's ban, but most of you have made VALID points, and there is nothing wrong with asking for clarification from the Staff. You are probably all afraid the SAME thing could happen to you. You shouldn't worry. Swami is the master of Swami-trolling, the rest of us have some work to do to catch up with him... :smirk: Besides, it took YEARS for Swami to be banned for his Swami-trolling.

Please, keep this discussion positive, we are listening... and we have been working on this, behind the scenes, for quite some time. I know, publicly, our actions may seem odd, and detail is scarce, but there is a logic behind our actions, and we do never intend to be SOOOO skimpy on the details.

Thanks,
Cervantes



Can I call this "cervantes-bullshitting"?  It'd be kind of like regular bullshitting but ever so much more subtle-like. It might be hard for some of you detect cervantes-bullshitting, the wind direction can be a factor, but trust me, the signs are there.  I figure if I keep repeating "cervantes-bullshitting" about another 12 or 13 times in this one post you might all forget that I'm not really saying anything substantial and just remember the phrase "cervantes-bullshitting".  Feel free to drop it into your everyday forum lexicon.

I have to agree with most of the others supporting swami, I've seen nothing but vague ethereal hints at some larger dark menace that only people 'in the know' can really see.  Although we can't actually be shown this elusive swami-trolling, it has slowly tainted these public forums for years like dark-matter.  I can totally see how people should just accept this on trust, National Security and all that.

Maybe the mods should post some more user-name cliches ("holy shit you totally edamed my car!") so we can all note each others' habits and behaviours and decide what we like and what we don't. Why stop the personality modification at just one person?  Maybe you could implement a user time-limit that gives you 3 years to become a universally loved non-asshole or you're out?  At the end of the 3 years the users with the red flashing hand-crystals can be judged in a 'am-i-banned-or-not' personality contest.

Why should the mods have all the fun?  Where's the community spirit?!
:nut:

No offence intended Cervantes, but I thought that was a feeble explanation.


--------------------
The above is an extract from my fictional novel, "The random postings of Edame".
:tongue:

In the beginning was the word. And man could not handle the word, and the hearing of the word, and he asked God to take away his ears so that he might live in peace without having to hear words which might upset his equinamity or corrupt the unblemished purity of his conscience.

And God, hearing this desperate plea from His creation, wrinkled His mighty brow for a moment and then leaned down toward man, beckoning that he should come close so as to hear all that was about to be revealed to him.

"Fuck you," He whispered, and frowned upon the pathetic supplicant before retreating to His heavens.

Edited by Edame (12/14/04 04:22 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: My Concentrated View On All Of This [Re: Rose]
    #3498300 -

First of all, since we are not being let in on the actual reason for the ban, all I can do is draw conclusions based upon what I perceive. If I am wrong, I am no more guilty than those who supported a ban based upon their own perceptions of Swami's words. I want to be clear that I am not coming from an angry place here- I just don't like injustice and I think Swami is being railroaded based upon what I have seen so far. If my questions are answered satisfactorily I expect my opinion may change.

This is a complicated matter, with a long history. Much of the HARD evidence exists only in PRIVATE.

Translation: It doesn't exist.

We'd love to give you more detail, and if you are patient we may do just that...

Delaying tactics while someone tries to dredge something up? If it had been discussed in detail, the facts would already have been put together.

Most of the time, mods overlook Swami-trolling...but over the course of SEVERAL YEARS,

Translation: No rule was broken.

Swami finally made a big enough blip on the radar to be banned...

STILL no specific "blip" defined. Because there is none?

Well, the fact is, we've been asking him to slightly adjust his behavior for YEARS...and he never has.

Since you failed to answer my question about how many times/what form/when these warnings supposedly occured we are left to speculate. And the one who can answer the question about these "warnings" has been bound, gagged and locked up for 15 days.

Unlike MOST bans, there is no culminating event that constituted Swami's ban.

PRECISELY. The truth comes out.

Rather he was banned so he could discover exactly what we were asking of him.

Which was what exactly?


--------------------
“The crisis takes a much longer time coming than you think, and then it happens much faster than you would have thought.”  -- Rudiger Dornbusch

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: My Concentrated View On All Of This [Re: Rose]
    #3498306 -

Much of the HARD evidence exists only in PRIVATE.

Wait a minute.

What are you talking about?

I thought this was about Swami's *** PUBLIC *** postings where he 'repeatedly' broke the rules.

How can the evidence be private?

Is this about Swami's PMs? Are there S&P rules governing private PMs?

I'm confused. How can relevant evidence be private?


--------------------
Republican Values:

1) You can't get married to your spouse who is the same sex as you.
2) You can't have an abortion no matter how much you don't want a child.
3) You can't have a certain plant in your possession or you'll get locked up with a rapist and a murderer.

4) We need a smaller, less-intrusive government.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: My Concentrated View On All Of This [Re: Rose]
    #3498318 -

Cervantes said:
Swami broke the rules. SEVERAL times.


Could you please cite which rules he broke and some specific instances of him breaking them? Thanks.


--------------------


"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."--Voltaire

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 |  [ show all ]

Unfolding Nature Shop: Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order

Feedback and Administration > Website Announcements and Feature Feedback
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Spirituality, Science, Psychology, and Philosophy World Spirit 1,626 4 10/14/02 03:10 PM
by Anonymous
* the topics contained in the philosophy forum nonick 901 9 10/13/05 02:25 PM
by TastyWaves
* Moving Spirituality and Philosophy Anonymous 1,273 13 05/08/04 01:19 AM
by Jellric
* Give Shroomism Banning Privelages
( 1 2 all )		 spud 6,385 31 11/07/03 04:29 PM
by Ripple
* having a seperate political and philosophical forum makes no sense Smallworlds 673 5 04/24/05 03:03 PM
by Smallworlds
* Spirituality and Philosophy is down.. fireworks_godS 1,501 14 10/20/03 09:18 AM
by fireworks_god
* Post deleted by Moe Howard bigidiot 1,534 8 01/31/02 04:23 PM
by Thor
* view all new Krishna 514 3 06/15/05 07:54 AM
by Krishna

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Ythan, Thor, Seuss, geokills
16,332 topic views. 0 members, 50 guests and 5 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2026 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.046 seconds spending 0.011 seconds on 18 queries.