|
trendal
J♠


Registered: 04/17/01
Posts: 20,815
Loc: Ontario, Canada
|
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.
--------------------
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.
|
Icelander
The Minstrel in the Gallery


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.

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
|
Thor
Anti-Theist OVERLORD


Registered: 08/12/98
Posts: 10,017
Loc: Iceland
|
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..
|
Rose
Devil's Advocate


Registered: 09/24/03
Posts: 22,518
Loc: Mod not God
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 
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.
-------------------- Fiddlesticks.
Edited by Rose (12/04/05 12:46 AM)
|
Rose
Devil's Advocate


Registered: 09/24/03
Posts: 22,518
Loc: Mod not God
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)
|
Hippie3
mycotopiate


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)
|
LiquidSmoke
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
|
Redstorm
Prince of Bugs



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.
|
Icelander
The Minstrel in the Gallery


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
|
Burke 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...
|
Rose
Devil's Advocate


Registered: 09/24/03
Posts: 22,518
Loc: Mod not God
Last seen: 1 year, 6 months
|
|
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.
|
felix


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
|
Hippie3
mycotopiate


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)
|
shirley knott
not my real name

Registered: 11/11/02
Posts: 9,105
Loc: London
Last seen: 7 years, 27 days
|
Re: Bias bans [Re: Rose]
#5009645 - 12/03/05 08:24 AM (18 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
-------------------- buh
|
Icelander
The Minstrel in the Gallery


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
|
Redstorm
Prince of Bugs



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.
|
Rose
Devil's Advocate


Registered: 09/24/03
Posts: 22,518
Loc: Mod not God
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.
-------------------- Fiddlesticks.
|
GnuBobo
Frilly Cuffs Extraordinaire


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!!!!
|
theuser
DON'T LOOK

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) |
|
|

 HONK HONK
This thread needed more goose love.
--------------------
|
MAIA
World-BridgerKartikeya (DftS)


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
|
|