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

PlanetSpores.ca
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: Can we have a scat-free discussion about S&P? [Re: Icelander]
    #4738453 -

Icelander said:
Icelander said:
Quote:
First a warning, then a temp ban. It's written, those are the rules.


If I remember right those flames were left undeleted at least for quite a long time. So no one could tell any action was taken. I never understood that and still haven't gotten an explanation. Why would anyone leave those posts undeleted for so long if not forever?


Mods? :confused:


Why is it, when mods delete threads, people say they did it to hide evidence and now, when the evidence was left, people want it quickly deleted.

What if vertigo decides to draw up a camp of his own and challenge his warning? The evidence will be gone and people will believe the mods are conspiring against vertigo.

Why are the mods damned and hiding stuff if they do delete and damned and hiding stuff if they don't delete?

Do guys want them to delete offensive stuff or not. If you vote yes,for them to delete it, then everyone needs to stop accusing them of hiding evidence in a conspiracy against members and take their word for it when they say warnings or bans were just.

If people are going to keep accusing them of that stuff, then, I think they are smart NOT to delete anything anymore. If I were them, I'd rather be accused of leaving flames up then of hiding evidence because I am secretly conspiring against members.

Who's got what to say about the deleting offensive material vs the hiding evidence dilemma?


--------------------
Ahuwale ka nane huna.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Can we have a scat-free discussion about S&P? [Re: gettinjiggywithit]
    #4738563 -

Quote:
then everyone needs to stop accusing them of hiding evidence in a conspiracy



You say the strangest things Jiggy. :crazy: Who is everyone? I never accused them of hiding evidence.


--------------------
"Don't believe everything you think". -Anom.

" All that lives was born to die"-Anom.

With much wisdom comes much sorrow,
The more knowledge, the more grief.
Ecclesiastes circa 350 BC

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Can we have a scat-free discussion about S&P? [Re: Icelander]
    #4738615 -

So are we gonna' argue about MJF's rightful ban, or are we gonna' talk S&P?

Not inteneded to reply to Ice's post... my bad!


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


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Can we have a scat-free discussion about S&P? [Re: Icelander]
    #4738654 -

You havn't.  Other people do.  Even in this thread it was said that because they didn't delete it they were hiding something. Someone said because swamis threads were deleted in the experiment post that the mods were hiding something.

I didn't mean or expect for you personally to reply. You just raised the question so I drew from that.

Mostly, I posted to give the people who damn the mods when the act and damn them when they don't act over the same stuff somthing to think about because maybe, they never realised it.

I also posted it so maybe some would understand, why a mod may make a choice to sometimes delete and some times not. Maybe they take it on a case by case basis and choose to error on one side versus the other depending how they are looking at it that day.

There were a handful of people who asked to see what swami wrote in the experiment thread to decide for themselves if the ban was just or not and felt like, they were not being given the chance and forced to take the mods and admins word for it. Some people don't like it when posts that had bans or warnings involved get deleted.

Some people don't like offensive material being left for others to become offended by.

What a world of duality we live in. :lol:

Two sides to consider and reconcile for yourselves.

I prefer to see offensive stuff deleted if it wasn't forum appropriate yet, after all I have seen come up against the mods in my time at the shroomery, I understand if they leave stuff up to cover their ass.

It's all food for thought and consideration my brotha! :heart:


--------------------
Ahuwale ka nane huna.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Can we have a scat-free discussion about S&P? [Re: geokills]
    #4738667 -

There is no real discussion going on here anyway ( I say this because I don't think anything will come of it and I don't think the people who do have power take these discussions seriously)...just people beating around the bush.

Geo....MAIA's posts after the closing of a thread to me is just rude....has nothing to do with the validity of my argument. To me it's just abusing power.

Edited by MJF (09/30/05 08:44 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Can we have a scat-free discussion about S&P? [Re: MJF]
    #4738697 -

Abusing power.. when he didn't even know the thread was locked upon the submission of his post?

Really though, Cerv is right, this thread was meant to discuss the S&P forum, where it has been, where it's at, and where it may be going; not your gripe with MAIA or any other staff members.


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

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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Can we have a scat-free discussion about S&P? [Re: geokills]
    #4738734 -

The first part of his question was "what is wrong with he s&p"? And I think it may have something to do with the MODs....in particular MAIA because he is the only one I've had bad experiences with. How does this not relate to the topic? I'm sharing my subjective experiences. Also....I don't know for sure that MAIA didn't know the thread was locked...and even if he didn't.....the post should be deleted afterwords...or the ability for a mod to make a post after a locked thread should be removed. One problem I have with the s&p...is locking threads without adequate explanation.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Can we have a scat-free discussion about S&P? [Re: MJF]
    #4738740 -

Am I on topic?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Can we have a scat-free discussion about S&P? [Re: MJF]
    #4738834 -

From today, directed to you in one of your threads and PM:
Quote:
Should there be specific actions taken against you that you
believe were inappropriate, please PM/email an admin, or fill
out a support-ticket detailing the situation and why you feel it
to be unfair.


We do not hold these discussions in public because they more-often-than-not become convoluted with emotionally charged responses from people who may or may not understand the situation at hand. Requiring the administrators to wade through the mess in an attempt to discern which posts are objective and which ones are just people jumping on a bandwagon makes the entire task incredibly inefficient (and prone to greater error), hence why all conflicts between a specific user and a specific staff member are handled directly with the administration, and not in public.


> Am I on topic?

In a sense, yes - but for the reasons outlined above, the
continued pressing of this matter will only serve to have this
thread locked. Do as you will..


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

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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Can we have a scat-free discussion about S&P? [Re: geokills]
    #4738860 -

Whether actions against me were inappropriate or not really isn't the issue.

The issue is that the mods haven't been doing what their job description calls for...they aren't even regular posters and I think that should be a must. Instead of ackowlding this complaint and investigating it all that seems to be happening is complaining that this complaint should not be made in this manner. I think the public should know the complaints so that they can investigate for themselves.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Can we have a scat-free discussion about S&P? [Re: MJF]
    #4738947 -

Concern over moderator activity within their given forum(s) is indeed a valid concern, one that we are already looking into, however your above post specifically targeted one single moderator: "in particular MAIA because he is the only one [you've] had bad experiences with." It would seem to me that until now, you have been far more focused on your problems with MAIA, and not with the overall activity of moderators in S&P. It is not questioning the involvement of the forum moderators that I'm trying to tell you is a problem, it is the fact that you are bringing up a personal conflict between yourself and another staff member, which is something that is to be handled in private (either between the involved parties or brought directly to the administration).


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

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

Edited by geokills (10/01/05 01:12 AM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Can we have a scat-free discussion about S&P? [Re: MJF]
    #4739449 -

MJF said:
ackowlding




I'm gonna have to pull an Anno on you for that!~

the word is acknowledging

:grin:


--------------------
Laterz, Road

Who the hell you callin crazy?
You wouldn't know what crazy was if Charles Manson was eating froot loops on your front porch!

Brainiac said:
PM the names with on there names, that means they have mushrooms for sale.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Can we have a scat-free discussion about S&P? [Re: Silversoul]
    #4739656 -

Paradigm said:
The problem I have with the progressive ban rule(each ban longer than the last) is that sometimes you get banned for different things, some of which are more obvious than others. Sometimes the first banning may be fair, but the second one is bullshit, yet they pay a higher price for the second one than the first(in Swami's case, it was only his 2nd ban which was even remotely justified).


I have this same problem, and wonder as to your suggestions.

This isn't just an opportunity to point out problems, you should also, attempt to fix them.

I have suggested MAKING the Mods follow the banning Protocol TO THE LETTER, but that has hit resistance from The Staff... who, understandably, like their subjective bans.

The Pub is the only Forum where I feel a Mod should be able to ban to protect the subjective "Vibe" of the forum... well, the Pub and the future, debate-free, S&P.


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


Edited by Rose (10/01/05 01:08 AM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Can we have a scat-free discussion about S&P? [Re: Rose]
    #4739701 -

I have suggesting MAKING the Mods follow the banning Protocol TO THE LETTER

I love my recent thread deletion in WAF.

"Reason for deletion: Stop it!"

And then folks wonder why I seem to be unable to comply with the clear instructions that I have been given.

The real reason was just another in a series of attempts to squash my spirit. Nothing more; nothing less. That one HAD to be deleted and not merely locked. Not because there was a single offensive line, but because the ridiculousness of removing a valid and harmless issue would once again - be readily apparent to ANY impartial observer.


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



The proof is in the pudding.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Can we have a scat-free discussion about S&P? [Re: Swami]
    #4739731 -

Alas, not all observers are impartial.

And this is where we come back to the beginning of the discussion.

/me sighs


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


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Can we have a scat-free discussion about S&P? [Re: geokills]
    #4739777 -

Pretending the 'problems' with S&P are not intermingled with Moderation is just plain ludicrous.

What is truly telling is the number of times that the mods publicly stated "Of course there is NO BIAS against Swami! That is nonsense. He got exactly what he deserved."

So after I point out that Tren, shroomism and Maia (and now geokills and Thor) have ALL shown bias and the lie can no longer be properly covered up, then the story MAGICALLY changes like the tactic all good deceitful politicians follow: claim the exact opposite.

'Of course we apply special rules to Swami. Just look at his record!'

It is very difficult to trust anyone with such credibility.

Reason for last ban: We think you may have been satirizing our lop-sided heavy-handedness. Please refrain from doing ANYTHING that even possibly might vaguely piss us off. HAVE WE MADE OURSELVES ABUNDANTLY CLEAR ?

Umm, no. Not even close. You have made threats, but provided zero guidance, but thanks for trying.

Discussing the Tooth Fairy is no different than discussing Santa Claus, Big Foot, Nessie, mythological Greek Gods, Space Aliens and other make-believe creatures that brought no Moderator wrath.


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



The proof is in the pudding.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Can we have a scat-free discussion about S&P? [Re: Swami]
    #4739801 -

Swami said:
Pretending the 'problems' with S&P are not intermingled with Moderation is just plain ludicrous.



Assuming he thinks the problem in S&P, lies only with you, and the other sceptics... is pretty bad as well.


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


Edited by Rose (10/01/05 01:53 AM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Can we have a scat-free discussion about S&P? [Re: Swami]
    #4740333 -

And then folks wonder why I seem to be unable to comply with the clear instructions that I have been given.


What some folks (me) wonder is how you (Swami) seem unable to grasp the concept of Property Ownership.

From the correspondence that Geokills shared in public sent to you in private (at your request Swami) the only thing that really matters is the following (this is what I remember him getting at not his words):

The admins own The Shroomery (including S&P) and you (the general public including Swami) are guests. Guests who misbehave will be warned, then made to leave for a day or maybe longer the second/third/1000th time they misbehave.

While I can understand people wanting fairness and consistency and sure that's a nice goal, I am one of those ship owners who would fight a looting pirate with my last breath or kick out an unruly house guest with the same gusto. My house, my rules.


--------------------
Anxiety is what you make it.

Edited by LunarEclipse (10/01/05 08:14 AM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Can we have a scat-free discussion about S&P? [Re: LunarEclipse]
    #4740572 -

The whole "private website" shit is such a cop-out. Sure, it's privately owned, but if that excuses the admins of any responsibility, then why even have rules? Why not just say, "We'll ban you if we damn well please, because this is our website"?


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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Can we have a scat-free discussion about S&P? [Re: Swami]
    #4740679 -

Quote:
So after I point out that Tren, shroomism and Maia (and now geokills and Thor) have ALL shown bias and the lie can no longer be properly covered up, then the story MAGICALLY changes like the tactic all good deceitful politicians follow: claim the exact opposite.

'Of course we apply special rules to Swami. Just look at his record!'


Dear Mods, this has become obvious to just about everyone. The fact that you continue to B.S. us on this issue does you no credit whatsoever.


--------------------
"Don't believe everything you think". -Anom.

" All that lives was born to die"-Anom.

With much wisdom comes much sorrow,
The more knowledge, the more grief.
Ecclesiastes circa 350 BC

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
* YOu Mother F*#&$r's
( 1 2 3 4 5 6 all )		 KingOftheThing 17,222 115 11/19/03 04:04 AM
by PoetFirst
* &amp EffedS 1,133 3 09/08/03 07:26 AM
by Seuss
* Other Drugs Discussion: Temporarily Closed & Fully Moderated
( 1 2 all )		 geokillsA 5,312 27 03/17/03 06:36 PM
by geokills
* What discussion board software does The Shroomery run on? LucidDream 1,509 5 01/02/05 03:57 PM
by Jim
* FREE DOOBIE! Calbha 769 1 02/14/04 06:37 PM
by geokills
* This free IPODS spam shit.
( 1 2 all )		 Barbi 3,948 30 07/28/04 04:44 AM
by Shroomism
* Free stuff! Anonymous 547 2 09/05/02 02:59 PM
by Anonymous
* The Other Drugs Discussion problem resin 1,934 13 08/14/03 10:38 AM
by Thor

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Ythan, Thor, Seuss, geokills
13,686 topic views. 0 members, 23 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 0.035 seconds spending 0.008 seconds on 15 queries.