Home | Community | Message Board

MushroomMan Mycology
This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.


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!

Shop: PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder, Maeng Da Thai Kratom Leaf Powder   North Spore Bulk Substrate   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order

Jump to first unread post Pages: < Back | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | Next >  [ show all ]
InvisibletrendalM
J♠
Male User Gallery

Registered: 04/17/01
Posts: 20,815
Loc: Ontario, Canada Flag
Re: Bias bans [Re: Hippie3]
    #5005999 - 12/02/05 09:08 AM (18 years, 1 month ago)

Quote:

Hippie3 said:
Quote:


4. We are among the smartest members of this community.




not to forget being the most
modest and humble as well.
:cool:




--------------------
Once, men turned their thinking over to machines in the hope that this would set them free.
But that only permitted other men with machines to enslave them.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleIcelander
The Minstrel in the Gallery
Male

Registered: 03/15/05
Posts: 95,368
Loc: underbelly
Re: Bias bans [Re: Rose]
    #5006331 - 12/02/05 11:25 AM (18 years, 1 month ago)

.
Quote:

We are among the smartest members of this community.



:jawdrop: :inlove: :rofl2:

Anyway I would love to put an end to my bellyaching about the mods. I think that this new policy could be great for the shroomery. I do love the Shroomery and spend a ton of time here instead of being a productive member of society. Let's tie up any loose ends and move on.

Thank you Thor for the positive news." God bless us every one." (Tiny Tim)


--------------------
"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
InvisibleThorA
Anti-Theist OVERLORD
Male User Gallery

Registered: 08/12/98
Posts: 10,017
Loc: Iceland Flag
Re: Bias bans [Re: Rose]
    #5006507 - 12/02/05 12:41 PM (18 years, 1 month ago)

All this is being discussed by admins, and I do understand your points of view, I also do see the mods point of view that stated Swami was 'messing around' with us during the transition phase to make a point.

Swami is smart enough to word things a certain way to argue that he never broke a rule, while his intent might be blatently obvious to all, even the uninvolved observer.

I'm more for forgiveness and fresh starts..


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineRoseM
Devil's Advocate
Female User Gallery

Registered: 09/24/03
Posts: 22,518
Loc: Mod not God Flag
Last seen: 1 year, 6 months
Re: Bias bans [Re: trendal]
    #5006808 - 12/02/05 02:10 PM (18 years, 1 month ago)

Quote:

trendal said:
I'd really rather not get into this discussion, but as you seem to like speaking my mind for me, Cervantes, I'll have to :thumbdown:

Although trendal had NO PROBLEM with Swami's posts

I certainly did have a problem with his posts. If you read my posts in the thread in question, I think it's rather blatantly obvious. However I wasn't a moderator of the forum, so I couldn't do anything. I had to wait for a S&P mod to come along and handle it.




What you said in Public was, you took Swami's actions to be a joke.

http://www.shroomery.org/forums/showflat...rue#Post4694085
Quote:


Trendal said:

For the record, I don't think Swami came into my thread with any "malicious intent" on his mind. I'm 99.999% sure that his first post containing a book title was just an attempt at a joke. He was just trying to be funny...

...I wasn't the one who banned him, nor did I request a ban, but I fully support the 12hr ban he received.




That is what I meant by you had, "No problem".


I should've said, "You didn't take it serious."

Sorry for the confusion. Even a LONG post needs to skim over a FEW details. :wink:


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



Edited by Rose (12/04/05 12:46 AM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineRoseM
Devil's Advocate
Female User Gallery

Registered: 09/24/03
Posts: 22,518
Loc: Mod not God Flag
Last seen: 1 year, 6 months
Re: Bias bans [Re: Thor]
    #5007338 - 12/02/05 04:16 PM (18 years, 1 month ago)

Quote:

Thor said:
Swami is smart enough to word things a certain way to argue that he never broke a rule, while his intent might be blatantly obvious to all, even the uninvolved observer.





Right. Swami is smart enough to stay within the rules.

Moderation based on intent is a slippery slope.

We may suspect we know what someone intends, but ALL WE HAVE are the WORDS THEY TYPE.

You're a veteran Shroomerite, Thor. Shroomerites with MALICIOUS INTENT... eventually DO something MALICIOUS, no?

THAT, is when you should ban them.

Considering what happened to Paradigm and I by the same Mods who banned (or supported the ban of) Swami... I believe the Mods judgment had been (understandably) clouded. They were taking action based on INTENT, rather than REAL WORDS. They were, also, creating new rules on the fly, in doing so... and apparently reading our minds. Since the Mods were WRONG about Paradigm, and my intent... I HIGHLY suspect they were wrong about Swami... as well.

Their batting average has been frighteningly low... at least in the mind reading cattegory.

No hard feelings, I know how a pain in your ass can cloud your judgment... ask Luvdemshrooms (who I banned unjustly a year and a half ago). Still, that doesn't make it right.

Thanks again for your input Thor.


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



Edited by Rose (12/02/05 04:32 PM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleHippie3
mycotopiate
 User Gallery

Registered: 11/06/99
Posts: 3,090
Loc: mycotopia.net
Re: Bias bans [Re: Rose]
    #5008002 - 12/02/05 07:20 PM (18 years, 1 month ago)

not that it's any of my business-
cervantes would make a great attorney
but shroomery is not a court of law,
with precedent and legislative intent,
rules of evidence and chains of custody-
it relies upon the insight and discernment
of its' moderators.

prudence further dictates the necessity
of backing up the mods' decisions
even when they might have erred-
as loyalty should be repayed.

while the mods might have let
their emotions cloud
their strict objection interpretation of the 'rules'-
their primary intent was protective,
to uphold and enhance the principles
upon which shroomery has been built.

to second guess the mods' decisions,
without an overwhelming preponderance of objective evidence
of malicious bias,
would serve in the long run to
undermine the entire community.

one must return loyalty to those who volunteer their service.

it may not be 'fair'
but it is entirely practical and beneficial to
staff morale.

frankly i'd say, as an admin myself of a rather large site,
that this fellow cervantes will never be satisfied
and is content to beat a dead horse into stains.


--------------------
Admin @ mycotopia.net
Mycotopia


Edited by Hippie3 (12/02/05 07:29 PM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineLiquidSmoke
My title's cooler than yours DBK

Registered: 09/04/01
Posts: 25,335
Loc: S.A.G.G.Y.B.A.L.L.S.
Last seen: 6 months, 26 days
Re: Bias bans [Re: Rose]
    #5008404 - 12/02/05 09:12 PM (18 years, 1 month ago)

you were a crappy mod btw


--------------------
"Shmokin' weed, Shmokin' wizz, doin' coke, drinkin' beers.  Drinkin' beers beers beers, rollin' fatties, smokin' blunts.  Who smokes tha blunts?  We smoke the blunts" - Jay and Silent Bob strike Back


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineRedstorm
Prince of Bugs
Male

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 10/08/02
Posts: 44,175
Last seen: 3 months, 10 days
Re: Bias bans [Re: Hippie3]
    #5008429 - 12/02/05 09:22 PM (18 years, 1 month ago)

That is pure and utter nonsense. If a mod makes an obviously bad decision, he or she should still be backed up? I beg to differ.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleIcelander
The Minstrel in the Gallery
Male

Registered: 03/15/05
Posts: 95,368
Loc: underbelly
Re: Bias bans [Re: Rose]
    #5008589 - 12/02/05 10:31 PM (18 years, 1 month ago)

IMO Swami deserved to be banned many times over. I caught him trolling much more than once and called him on it several times.

This is about fairness. If we started being fair today,Swami would have to change his ways real fast.

I got into this backing the mods because I knew he deserved to go. But they couldn't wait for another legit reason. The problem was IMO that they weren't reading the posts and had to wait for notification to catch him, and I don't think that was happening. So they fabricated reasons and thats when I switched sides.


--------------------
"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
InvisibleBurke Dennings
baby merchant

Registered: 11/29/04
Posts: 81,641
Re: Bias bans [Re: Hippie3]
    #5008777 - 12/02/05 11:45 PM (18 years, 1 month ago)

Quote:

Hippie3 said:
not that it's any of my business-
cervantes would make a great attorney
but shroomery is not a court of law,
with precedent and legislative intent,
rules of evidence and chains of custody-
it relies upon the insight and discernment
of its' moderators.

prudence further dictates the necessity
of backing up the mods' decisions
even when they might have erred-
as loyalty should be repayed.

while the mods might have let
their emotions cloud
their strict objection interpretation of the 'rules'-
their primary intent was protective,
to uphold and enhance the principles
upon which shroomery has been built.

to second guess the mods' decisions,
without an overwhelming preponderance of objective evidence
of malicious bias,
would serve in the long run to
undermine the entire community.

one must return loyalty to those who volunteer their service.

it may not be 'fair'
but it is entirely practical and beneficial to
staff morale.





As if I needed more reasons to not post at Mycotopia...


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineRoseM
Devil's Advocate
Female User Gallery

Registered: 09/24/03
Posts: 22,518
Loc: Mod not God Flag
Last seen: 1 year, 6 months
Re: Bias bans [Re: Icelander]
    #5008912 - 12/03/05 12:32 AM (18 years, 1 month ago)

Like I said, malicious people eventually tend to break rules. Once they DO, by all means, ban away.

On that note, welcome back Hippie3.


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



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinefelix
 User Gallery

Registered: 01/20/00
Posts: 10,503
Last seen: 26 days, 2 hours
Re: Bias bans [Re: Rose]
    #5009381 - 12/03/05 04:58 AM (18 years, 1 month ago)

Quote:

Cervantes said:
Same old complaint.



exactly.

everytime i come in here, i can probably count on cervantes COMPLAINING again like people care about what he has to say or some shit.


--------------------
Real botanists laugh at HPS systems, we do however use high pressure sodium in the parking lot. - artthug


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleHippie3
mycotopiate
 User Gallery

Registered: 11/06/99
Posts: 3,090
Loc: mycotopia.net
Re: Bias bans [Re: Redstorm]
    #5009489 - 12/03/05 06:08 AM (18 years, 1 month ago)

i'm sure most who have never run a large website would disagree,
the members take a different view of things than does staff,
members always think their own concerns are paramount
and rarely think of the impact on the site itself.

but my experience has taught me that if i undercut my mods
then i end up with no mods.
frankly i'd rather lose a few unhappy loud members
and keep a good mod.
that way the mods learn on the job,
gaining experience and competence over time,
knowing that i'm behind them 100%.
keeps them happy.


--------------------
Admin @ mycotopia.net
Mycotopia


Edited by Hippie3 (12/03/05 06:14 AM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineshirley knott
not my real name
 User Gallery
Registered: 11/11/02
Posts: 9,105
Loc: London Flag
Last seen: 7 years, 27 days
Re: Bias bans [Re: Rose]
    #5009645 - 12/03/05 08:24 AM (18 years, 1 month ago)

:penguindog:


--------------------
buh


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleIcelander
The Minstrel in the Gallery
Male

Registered: 03/15/05
Posts: 95,368
Loc: underbelly
Re: Bias bans [Re: Hippie3]
    #5009703 - 12/03/05 09:10 AM (18 years, 1 month ago)

Quote:

Hippie3 said:
not that it's any of my business-
cervantes would make a great attorney
but shroomery is not a court of law,
with precedent and legislative intent,
rules of evidence and chains of custody-
it relies upon the insight and discernment
of its' moderators.

prudence further dictates the necessity
of backing up the mods' decisions
even when they might have erred-
as loyalty should be repayed.

while the mods might have let
their emotions cloud
their strict objection interpretation of the 'rules'-
their primary intent was protective,
to uphold and enhance the principles
upon which shroomery has been built.

to second guess the mods' decisions,
without an overwhelming preponderance of objective evidence
of malicious bias,
would serve in the long run to
undermine the entire community.

one must return loyalty to those who volunteer their service.

it may not be 'fair'
but it is entirely practical and beneficial to
staff morale.

frankly i'd say, as an admin myself of a rather large site,
that this fellow cervantes will never be satisfied
and is content to beat a dead horse into stains.




Wow, Now that I read this over I am amazed at how negative and ignorant it is to the values of the shroomery and freedom in general. If you're a hippy then I'm a republican.


--------------------
"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
OfflineRedstorm
Prince of Bugs
Male

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 10/08/02
Posts: 44,175
Last seen: 3 months, 10 days
Re: Bias bans [Re: Hippie3]
    #5010210 - 12/03/05 12:13 PM (18 years, 1 month ago)

Quote:

Hippie3 said:
i'm sure most who have never run a large website would disagree,
the members take a different view of things than does staff,
members always think their own concerns are paramount
and rarely think of the impact on the site itself.

but my experience has taught me that if i undercut my mods
then i end up with no mods.
frankly i'd rather lose a few unhappy loud members
and keep a good mod.
that way the mods learn on the job,
gaining experience and competence over time,
knowing that i'm behind them 100%.
keeps them happy.





You seem to forget that the members of this site make it what it is. Aleinate the members and you now have a worthless website.

Also, why does the member banned have to be "loud" and the moderator "good". I've seen some very different scenarios in my time here than that.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineRoseM
Devil's Advocate
Female User Gallery

Registered: 09/24/03
Posts: 22,518
Loc: Mod not God Flag
Last seen: 1 year, 6 months
Re: Bias bans [Re: Redstorm]
    #5012568 - 12/04/05 12:24 AM (18 years, 1 month ago)

Me too.

That pic sums it (or me) up Shirl. :heart:


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



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleGnuBobo
Frilly Cuffs Extraordinaire
 User Gallery

Registered: 06/17/04
Posts: 43,754
Loc: Charisma
Re: Bias bans [Re: Rose]
    #5012779 - 12/04/05 01:52 AM (18 years, 1 month ago)

Dear Prudence.


Won't you come out to play?


--------------------
Jerry Garcia. JERRY GARCIA! JERRY GARCIA!!!!


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinetheuser
DON'T LOOK
Male User Gallery
Registered: 08/04/05
Posts: 5,859
Last seen: 3 years, 11 months
Re: Bias bans [Re: GnuBobo]
    #5012860 - 12/04/05 02:54 AM (18 years, 1 month ago)

:goose:
:heart:
HONK HONK










This thread needed more goose love.


--------------------
:heart:


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineMAIA
World-BridgerKartikeya (DftS)
Male User Gallery

Registered: 04/27/01
Posts: 7,396
Loc: Erra - 20 Tauri - M45 Sta...
Last seen: 18 days, 8 hours
Re: Bias bans [Re: Rose]
    #5017952 - 12/05/05 01:35 PM (18 years, 1 month ago)

Am i hearing a broken record or something !?!

I am tired of pointing out what rules Swami broke. Forum specific: 1) Disrespecting thread poster 2) Trolling, forum wide: 3) Going off topic 4) Becoming a drama queen .

Main reason, Swami IS a troll, more specifically a "contrarian troll", if you know what it means ? I doubt though .... When judging a troll i first consider the art not the artist. Trolling consists of a continued subtle but recognizable technique, because of it's nature, yes it hard to come up with something 100% objective, like pointing to post #100112, to support such accusation. That's why you need to read the member posts and judge for yourself if there's really "a continued subtle" technique. Now the rules can't decide alone for themselves can't they? They have to be interpreted, something you don't seem to like. I wonder why ...

I'm not going to go any deeper with this, because i'm tired of reading the same posts from the same members over and over, but let me tell you something, i speak here with the same freedom i speak at the mod forum, i don't like playing the devils advocate, too cynical for myself, i leave it to you ...

Regarding your argument and considering the fact that i really made a couple of procedural mistakes (which you like to bump them up to the level of breaking a rule), i wonder if you are accusing me based on those errors or because you think i'm biased towards swami. You seem to mix the reasons all together and i find it painfully difficult to justify your reasoning.

MAIA


--------------------
Spiritual being, living a human experience ... The Shroomery Mandala



Use, do not abuse; neither abstinence nor excess ever renders man happy.
Voltaire


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: < Back | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | Next >  [ show all ]

Shop: PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder, Maeng Da Thai Kratom Leaf Powder   North Spore Bulk Substrate   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order


Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Drama 102: Please, Stop Banning Me RoseM 1,658 13 12/22/05 04:57 AM
by Seuss
* reasons need to be given when a person gets banned
( 1 2 3 all )
Mystical_Craven 5,384 58 12/05/04 11:47 AM
by Anno
* Please ban me again... or answer my questions... RoseM 3,042 16 01/18/06 12:38 AM
by geokills
* Petition to have Hanky's ban reduced to suspension
( 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 all )
Irishdrunk 11,096 143 05/11/05 10:17 AM
by Thor
* Cyber Cop, plz ban.
( 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 all )
40oz 10,094 126 03/12/05 10:56 PM
by geokills
* Poll based ban system for OTD! EDITED
( 1 2 3 4 5 6 all )
Hanky 9,283 117 02/16/07 07:37 PM
by Lightningfractal
* The Usual M&P Moderator Bias OrgoneConclusion 753 5 01/03/08 12:21 AM
by Middleman
* Banned without warning
( 1 2 3 4 5 all )
Silversoul 5,185 87 10/13/05 01:32 PM
by geokills

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Ythan, Thor, Seuss, geokills
10,742 topic views. 0 members, 4 guests and 2 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2024 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.032 seconds spending 0.009 seconds on 15 queries.