Home | Community | Message Board

Mycohaus
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: North Spore Bulk Substrate   PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   Left Coast Kratom Buy Kratom Extract   Original Sensible Seeds Bulk Cannabis Seeds   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order

Jump to first unread post Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5  [ show all ]
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
Bias bans
    #4989782 - 11/28/05 02:07 PM (18 years, 2 months ago)

Just one question for the Admins.

If you are going to occasionally ban people with Bias, why don't you PERMABAN them?

If you are going to ban people who break NO rules, why not PERMABAN them? Bias bans should be ALL or NOTHING.

In the past, banning with BIAS, then allowing the person back, to post again, has caused a LOT of drama. Although, it is popular to blame the person who breaks no rules... for the drama.

There's another option, of course; you could stop the BIAS bans all together. This too, would curb AVOIDABLE drama.;)


Thanks


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



Edited by Rose (12/01/05 01:43 PM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleHeavyToilet
The Heaviest OfThem All
Male

Registered: 08/06/03
Posts: 9,458
Loc: British Columbia
Re: Bias bans [Re: Rose]
    #4989792 - 11/28/05 02:10 PM (18 years, 2 months ago)

Well what about Hanky?


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: HeavyToilet]
    #4989807 - 11/28/05 02:13 PM (18 years, 2 months ago)

Hanky's permaban is not something I am proud of, but at least we don't have Hanky posting about it... 'cause he is permabanned. Hanky has a VISIBLE track record of breaking rules. His case is different.

I'm talking about the people The Staff bans, for breaking NO rules.

Other people have been banned for shorter terms, for NO reason. Once their UNJUST ban is lifted, they, predictably, come back and START TO COMPLAIN. Then The Staff punnishes them for COMPLAINING.

I'm suggesting the Staff either STOPS banning people who break NO RULES, or at least, that The Staff permabans ALL those they treat with bias.

Either option is better than MISTREATING rule following Shroomerites... then watching them complain, once they return.


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



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleOneMoreRobot3021
Male

Registered: 06/06/03
Posts: 61,024
Loc: the sky
Re: Bias bans [Re: Rose]
    #4989816 - 11/28/05 02:15 PM (18 years, 2 months ago)

Well who in the what now then?


--------------------
Acid doesn't give you truths; it builds machines that push the envelope of perception. Whatever revelations came to me then have dissolved like skywriting. All I really know is that those few years saddled me with a faith in the redemptive potential of the imagination which, however flat, stale and unprofitable the world seems to me now, I cannot for the life of me shake.

-Erik Davis


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: OneMoreRobot3021]
    #4989820 - 11/28/05 02:18 PM (18 years, 2 months ago)

Nothing new Robot. Same old complaint.

I'm just following Admin advice, and waited several weeks, before continuing a previous discussion. So things could cool down a bit, first.

That is also, why I am not naming any names. I'd like to look at this issue w/o a specific name involved.

Just some Shroomerite, who keeps getting banned for BREAKING NO RULES.

Imagine such a Shroomerite...

If you WERE going to ban him/her wouldn't it be best to PERMABAN him/her?

I mean, if you are gonna' ban someone who BROKE NO RULE, shouldn't you keep them from EVER complaining AGAIN? Wouldn't allowing them back, just cause MORE drama?

I suspect, if The Staff handled ALL BIAS BANS, with a permaban, there would be FEWER TOTAL BIAS BANS. And people, who DIDN'T deserve to be banned unjustly, would be MORE SAFE than they currently are. Because the Staff is LESS WILLING to PERMABAN SOMEONE who BREAKS NO RULES, than to simply ban them for 24 hours or a week. Although, apparently The Administration HAS NO PROBLEM supporting EVERY SINGLE Mod, who ban people who break NO RULES.


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



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleOneMoreRobot3021
Male

Registered: 06/06/03
Posts: 61,024
Loc: the sky
Re: Bias bans [Re: Rose]
    #4989823 - 11/28/05 02:19 PM (18 years, 2 months ago)

Okay, I was just unsure whether something quite recent had spurned this post or if it was just an old issue being reraised.


--------------------
Acid doesn't give you truths; it builds machines that push the envelope of perception. Whatever revelations came to me then have dissolved like skywriting. All I really know is that those few years saddled me with a faith in the redemptive potential of the imagination which, however flat, stale and unprofitable the world seems to me now, I cannot for the life of me shake.

-Erik Davis


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: OneMoreRobot3021]
    #4989850 - 11/28/05 02:26 PM (18 years, 2 months ago)

I figured.

Nothing new.

Just better timing. :wink:

And, a new angle.


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



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleHeavyToilet
The Heaviest OfThem All
Male

Registered: 08/06/03
Posts: 9,458
Loc: British Columbia
Re: Bias bans [Re: Rose]
    #4989933 - 11/28/05 02:43 PM (18 years, 2 months ago)

Oh, you're talking someone being banned even though they didn't break any rules?

Well maybe it happens like this:

Someone does something a mod or admin doesn't like, so the mod or admin bans them. Then the admin council discusses it and realizes it was wrong. The person is unbanned and starts making tons of threads about how the admins were wrong, blah blah blah. The admins get tired of it being rubbed in their faces so they ban the person again.

Or I could be wrong.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinewrestler_az
PsiLLy BiLLy
Male User Gallery

Registered: 08/11/02
Posts: 13,676
Loc: day dreams of a mad man
Last seen: 2 hours, 46 minutes
Re: Bias bans [Re: Rose]
    #4990020 - 11/28/05 02:59 PM (18 years, 2 months ago)

when do you think they will ban you?


--------------------
how's your WOW?





  Edited by yageman (04/20/06 4:20 PM) 


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleBurke Dennings
baby merchant

Registered: 11/29/04
Posts: 81,641
Re: Bias bans [Re: wrestler_az]
    #4990140 - 11/28/05 03:23 PM (18 years, 2 months ago)

Cervantes is now an enemy of the State, and must be neutralized.

:borg:


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleStonerguy
I smoke penis
Male

Registered: 05/29/04
Posts: 5,538
Loc: Lost
Re: Bias bans [Re: Burke Dennings]
    #4991293 - 11/28/05 06:57 PM (18 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

e-chode said:
Cervantes is now an enemy of the State, and must be neutralized.

:borg:




:rofl:


--------------------
yawn...
SG


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: HeavyToilet]
    #4991899 - 11/28/05 08:50 PM (18 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

HeavyToilet said:
Oh, you're talking someone being banned even though they didn't break any rules?

Well maybe it happens like this:

Someone does something a mod or admin doesn't like, so the mod or admin bans them. Then the admin council discusses it and realizes it was wrong. The person is unbanned and starts making tons of threads about how the admins were wrong, blah blah blah. The admins get tired of it being rubbed in their faces so they ban the person again.

Or I could be wrong.




That is very close to what keeps happening.

I'm asking the Admins to come up with a better policy.

If someone gets banned unjustly, it is EXPECTED of them to make a fuss, once they are allowed to post. However, people have been BANNED for doing just that.

Seems the current policy might provoke a negative pattern... and therefore, provoke further unjust bans.

It doesn't happen often, but it happens often enough to be worth discussing... ESPECIALLY while there IS NOT A CURRENT CRISIS.


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



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinewrestler_az
PsiLLy BiLLy
Male User Gallery

Registered: 08/11/02
Posts: 13,676
Loc: day dreams of a mad man
Last seen: 2 hours, 46 minutes
Re: Bias bans [Re: Rose]
    #4992287 - 11/28/05 10:22 PM (18 years, 2 months ago)

so the moral of the story?


....to suck it up and take the ban like a man.


--------------------
how's your WOW?





  Edited by yageman (04/20/06 4:20 PM) 


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineAnnoA
Experimenter
 User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 06/17/99
Posts: 24,166
Loc: my room
Last seen: 19 days, 23 hours
Re: Bias bans [Re: Rose]
    #4992612 - 11/29/05 12:26 AM (18 years, 2 months ago)

>if someone gets banned unjustly, it is EXPECTED of them to make a fuss, once they
> are allowed to post.

No, you are wrong about that.
It is expected of them to address the ban IMMEDIATELY after the ban, using the www.shroomery.org/support , if they feel the ban is unjust.

As this forum's description says:
"This is not a forum to contest disciplinary action. Please use our Support Ticket System for such matters"

If the ban was unjust, then the ban is lifted.
If it wasn't unjust, then it stays, and they have nothing to complain about, and particularly NOT in this forum.


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: Anno]
    #4993072 - 11/29/05 03:23 AM (18 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:


If the ban was unjust, then the ban is lifted.





A couple months ago, that is how I thought The Shroomery worked TOO, Anno.

:frown:

But, aparently, it does not.

With THAT in mind, I have made a couple suggestions:

1. Always PERMABAN when INTENTIONALLY banning with BIAS.

or

2. Follow Ythan's words, and END SHROOMERY BIAS.

Of course, it would be best, if this place still worked like you just said... but Anno, I have been told time, and time again, that it NOW doesn't. And, it seems, I'm a bad guy for wishing for this website to work like it did in the past. LOGICALLY and BY THE BOOK. Aparently, I've betrayed The Staff's trust by saying so.

Heh, I'd still be on The Staff... instead of Staff enemy #1... if things just worked the way they used to. :frown:


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



Edited by Rose (11/29/05 03:56 AM)


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]
    #4993351 - 11/29/05 08:54 AM (18 years, 2 months ago)

I don't know of anyone personally who broke no rules. I don't think that person exists.

The problem is that rules are unfairly applied. Period.

The person you are referring to (I think) broke the rules lots of times IMO. He was rarely called on it and received bans instead on threads where he did nothing wrong.

I think the Mods in the forums I frequent for the most part are not competent to do their jobs and that includes the administration who backs them and most likely encourages their foolishness.

I usually would not be so direct about this but I have rarely had an honest encounter with the mods and so I feel that they do not have the intent to be honest. So if they don't like it they can lump it. :mushroom2:


--------------------
"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
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]
    #4994441 - 11/29/05 02:16 PM (18 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

Icelander said:
I don't know of anyone personally who broke no rules. I don't think that person exists.

The problem is that rules are unfairly applied. Period.

The person you are referring to (I think) broke the rules lots of times IMO. He was rarely called on it and received bans instead on threads where he did nothing wrong.

I think the Mods in the forums I frequent for the most part are not competent to do their jobs and that includes the administration who backs them and most likely encourages their foolishness.

I usually would not be so direct about this but I have rarely had an honest encounter with the mods and so I feel that they do not have the intent to be honest. So if they don't like it they can lump it. :mushroom2:




Yeah, if it had only been ONE person who was treated with bias, I would agree with you COMPLETELY. But SEVERAL, including yourself, were involved, and treated unfairly... over the course of this debacle. Treated unfairly, for sharing your opinion.

But yes, it all started with one person who (arguably) broke ONE rule, and served his time, before being banned FOUR MORE TIMES, for breaking NO MORE RULES. ALTHOUGH, the alleged rule-breaking was DELETED by the mod who banned him. So there is NO EVIDENCE of the crime (an odd choice). Also, the guy in question WAS NOT WARNED, which is what he truly deserved (according to one admin, and Shroomery ban protocol).

Instead, they jumped right to an EXTENDED BAN. Even if he DID break the rule he was accused of breaking, he was punished unfairly... AND he was punished MULTIPLE TIMES after his bogus ban.

Despite multiple attempts to explain this situation, I have been lumped among the, "Bad" guys. Simply because I have attempted to explain it. The Mods in the forum in question, have not replied to my questions... not even in THE THREAD THEY STARTED, AND STICKIED! No reply for WEEKS.

Since there's been a lull in the drama, I'd love to discuss the issues NOW, while emotions aren't flaring. I'd LOVE the Administration to FINALLY smooth things over for me, and my friends.... who have been treated in a very Un-Shroomery-like manor.

I owe geo another PM... but I wanted to have this discussion first. To see if tempers have calmed yet, on BOTH sides.


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



Edited by Rose (11/29/05 02:49 PM)


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]
    #4994801 - 11/29/05 03:56 PM (18 years, 2 months ago)

I appreciate your continued attempts to find common ground and work out a solution. Having dealt with this kind of situation a few times in my life I believe I know the final outcome, and so am disinclined to soften my statements. That way I get to tell my truth and not have it lost in fruitless negotiations. It takes a willingness to fair play on both sides for benefit in these sorts of things.

I look at it this way. As above so below. What we see in management from the top of the govt all the way down to the family structure is unhealthy. To expect your efforts to effect a change in such a pervasive structure doesn't seem likely, although small temporary benefit can happen from time to time. The best place to effect change is in oneself and leave others to their Karma. But if you enjoy the fray, well that's different. :grin: :heart:


--------------------
"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
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]
    #4996769 - 11/29/05 10:50 PM (18 years, 2 months ago)

I do enjoy the fray, that is why it says Devil's Advocate under my username. However, I am partial to POSITIVE RESULTS. :smirk:

I only jump in, if I feel something GOOD will come out of it.

BTW, overall I think the split has been a positive experience. From my conversations with you, I believe you feel the same way, Ice.

So, we aren't saying this stuff to destroy a new forum. Rather to address an issue which has simply effected us in a negative way. An issue which is easy to solve... if The Administration would admit their mistakes, and retract the punishment of the innocent.

I hope the Staff does not misinterpret our words. It is very hard to be careful of other people's feelings, while you have VALID criticism. Criticism, by definition can be hurtful. However, this IS the feedback forum.


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



Edited by Rose (11/29/05 10:59 PM)


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]
    #4997690 - 11/30/05 08:38 AM (18 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

The Administration would admit their mistakes, and retract the punishment of the innocent.




Notice the lack of mod and admins posting on your thread my friend. :wink: :grin:
This seems easy to fix because of the kind of person you are. You need to step into their shoes to see how unlikely that would be.


--------------------
"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


Edited by Icelander (11/30/05 08:40 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: Icelander]
    #5001157 - 12/01/05 12:53 AM (18 years, 2 months ago)

When I was in said shoes, it didn't feel so unlikely.


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



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]
    #5001785 - 12/01/05 09:46 AM (18 years, 2 months ago)

Again I believe that's because of who you are. You did step down remember. And now you are blacklisted and ignored it seems. Can you ignore these signs? Then good for you. :wink:


--------------------
"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
Offlinetheuser
DON'T LOOK
Male User Gallery
Registered: 08/04/05
Posts: 5,859
Last seen: 3 years, 11 months
Re: Bias bans [Re: Icelander]
    #5001983 - 12/01/05 10:55 AM (18 years, 2 months ago)

:goose:

Goose Love for Cervantes.


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


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: theuser]
    #5002502 - 12/01/05 01:31 PM (18 years, 1 month ago)

:smile:

Thanks for the goose!

Ice, if I am blacklisted from being talked to by the Staff, at a counter-culture website, I'll live. As long as I remain free to speek MY mind.

The Shroomery has ALWAYS fixed such issues in the past, and I have VERY little doubt this TOO will be fixed, once given enough time.

I'd just rather see it fixed BETWEEN dramatic outbursts, instead of DURING the NEXT one.

I have to wonder, if ANYONE BUT ME, started this thread, would it have recieved a Staff reply by now? Nobody knows for sure.

Some folks HAVE been blacklisted over this, those folks were BANNED. I'm not blacklisted. I simply feel like I'm being ignored. Problbly because the Staff is SICK of discussing this, and does not wish to risk starting more drama of their own.

Ignored does not = Blacklisted


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



Edited by Rose (12/01/05 01:42 PM)


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]
    #5002851 - 12/01/05 02:58 PM (18 years, 1 month ago)

The new banning system implemented by Ythan, which we call the banning tracker was created with the whole idea of it stopping or minnimizing improper bans.

The system works in such a way that a user is given a points system based on the severity of infractions, the mods have to choose the infraction, and depending on points accumulated the severity of the mod action is determined.

So if say user Joebloe has 0 points, has an infraction, the mod can then only give a PM (automated) warning, after then earning 3 points Joebloe on 2nd infraction is given 24hr ban.

The nice thing is all warnings/bans are tracked, in fact if I click on a user I can see the threads in question, the notes, the reasons, etc..

This whole concept is there for one reason, to remove as much 'personal, biased, unreasonable' bans.. Now of course we still have issues of long time members who have 'reputations' who might not get the benefit of the doubt, but the system is such that a mod can't just outright ban someone cause of the past, the must follow the steps built into the system.

I understand your thinking Cerv here, that if its not about a specific person the heated debate won't happen and you'll get somewhere.

But how can I for example do anything about an unfair situation IF I don't know what user(s) are being treated unfairly.

In fact thats why we ask that users not use this forum to bring up bans, contesting them, etc.. Since they will only turn ugly 99% of the time, and thats what our support ticket system is for, allows us to get notified of potential problems and we can examine a situation without the needless drama and 5 page threads.


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: Thor]
    #5003185 - 12/01/05 04:34 PM (18 years, 1 month ago)

Good to hear from you Thor. I hope this system works out. :thumbup:


--------------------
"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
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]
    #5003229 - 12/01/05 04:47 PM (18 years, 1 month ago)

Thank you Thor.

I wanted to keep the details thin until I heard a response, and your tone.

A good overview of my personal situation is this thread here:
http://www.shroomery.org/forums/showflat.php?Cat=0&Board=Forum7&Number=4864857&page=1&fpart=all

Still a few specifics missing, but I was being pushed around at the time, and if I named names, I feared banishment. You may still need a few details after reading the thread, but I believe you'll get the idea, as well as the people who have been negatively effected.

With the new ban profile (thanks Ythan) all that is needed are a few apologies, to a few people who were brushed aside (or punnished) for telling the truth. And assurance the problem won't happen the same way, to the same people, in the same forum, by the same Mods.

If you have any further questions I will answer them here, or if you prefer, via PM.

Thanks again Thor.

:smile:


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



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]
    #5004161 - 12/01/05 08:22 PM (18 years, 1 month ago)

Well the admins point of view was that there were an increasing number of bans done that weren't exactly by the book and that we needed to be able to police the mods bans better.

Step 1 was the great new system Ythan put in, and step 2 is narrowing down issues and or mods that are maybe overzealous.

The problem is we can't have mods in forums using their power to push around people they don't like/agree with, the job as a mod should know by now is to abide by the site rules and apply them as fairly/evenly to ALL users.

If you take things too personally it skews your judgement, and its a big reason why admins aren't exactly jumping into discussions as we are trying to keep our distance to see the whole situation as it really is before we get emotionally invested and therefore lose some of our perspective as mediators and enforcers of the sites best interest.

Now that we have this system in place we can truly follow up on particular user issues, and then we can clearly see if certain mod(s) have been over zealous or making bad decisions in regards to warnings/bans.

It will never be perfect but at least this is a great starting point, I doubt any other website has implemented such a system and we will I'm sure stand heads above any message board in regards to being as fair and just as possible.


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]
    #5005383 - 12/02/05 01:36 AM (18 years, 1 month ago)

WOW!

:smile:

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you,

Thank you. Thank you.

Please don't ban me for saying this but:

Thank you.

Don't take it the wrong way when I say thank you.

I promise, I am only saying so, for the best of reasons... despite what you may read into my words.

:tongue:

Now, on a more serious note... I DO hope Swami's permaban from MR&tP will be lifted. As he never broke a rule, in the HISTORY of that forum. Although, if he abuses THIS forum, WA&F, in the future... I believe he has been warned WELL ENOUGH as to this forum's purpose... and should know better to contest a ban, however UNJUST, in here.

Also, on my wish list, would be a PUBLIC apology to Swami, and Paridigm who BOTH were banned w/o ever breaking a rule in the history of MR&tP... and I suspect NEITHER of them intentionally will do so in the future, either.

Finally, the MR&tP forum Mods would be WISE to say something SIMILAR to what you said in your post, Thor... as NONE of them have EVER stepped away from their stance that what they did was JUST, PROPER, and BY THE BOOK. After all this, I'll have trouble believing it, until I hear it from Maia, Shroomism, and Wiccan THEMSELVES. Besides, if they go on public record in support of your words, the particular wall of silence I felt compelled to break, as a mod, would FINALLY be lifted. :smirk:

Members of this community such as Paradigm, Swami, Icelander, Ravus (who LEFT because of this bullshit), share at least four things in common:

1. We can be a PAIN IN THE ASS when we feel mistreated.

2. We were all mistreated, unjustly, during this fiasco.

3. We love this community.

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

When a group like us form together to voice a common complaint, we aren't OTD complaining about Hanky's millionth rightful permaban. We are people who UNDERSTAND the rules of this website.

That doesn't mean we are ALWAYS RIGHT. It simply means we shouldn't be brushed aside and mistreated for MONTHS on end... while an intelligent community WATCHES as we are mistreated, and REMEMBERS.

Anyway, you know me Thor. I like my loose ends tied. There's my list of loose ends.

But, THANK YOU from the bottom of my heart.

I can honestly say, for the first time since I have stepped down, I feel like I can support this community PASSIONATELY, once again.

You just moved a mountain, Thor... however, I stand behind my list of concerns and wishes. :wink:


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



Edited by Rose (12/02/05 01:52 AM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleMOTH
Wild Woman
 User Gallery

Registered: 06/06/03
Posts: 23,431
Loc: In the jungle
Re: Bias bans [Re: Rose]
    #5005431 - 12/02/05 01:56 AM (18 years, 1 month ago)

If Swami could adhere to the RULES of MR&p...then I would be really interested in hearing from him.

Otherwise...really I don't give a shit.


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: MOTH]
    #5005528 - 12/02/05 02:44 AM (18 years, 1 month ago)

That's how I feel too.

If he ever actually BREAKS a rule (which he might do, anything's possible... I don't think he ever will... but...), treat him like ANY OTHER SHROOMERITE, instead of treating him like he's the wicked witch of the West, which I assure you, he is not.

Swami > Hanky

Why did Hanky get every chance, BY THE BOOK, and several second chances... while Swami was put on the fast track to permaban? Bias.

He wasn't treated fairly, and judging from how I responded when I was treated unfairly, I RESPECT Swami's cool head through all his mistreatment. I NEVER could've stayed as calm. I would've suicide bombed someone by now.

I've learned a LOT from all this.


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



Edited by Rose (12/02/05 03:00 AM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineAnnoA
Experimenter
 User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 06/17/99
Posts: 24,166
Loc: my room
Last seen: 19 days, 23 hours
Re: Bias bans [Re: Rose]
    #5005579 - 12/02/05 03:13 AM (18 years, 1 month ago)

>Why did Hanky get every chance, BY THE BOOK, and several second chances... while
>Swami was put on the fast track to permaban? Bias.

While exaggeration is a viable argumentation tool, you are exaggerating a bit too much.
Swami has been warned(be it biased or not, I can't judge) a zillion times and you know yourself that he rates highest in the number of threads about a single user in the moderator forum.

And, I don't see swami banned from the boards but only one single forum.
Hanky is banned from ALL of the boards!


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

Registered: 06/17/04
Posts: 43,754
Loc: Charisma
Re: Bias bans [Re: Anno]
    #5005601 - 12/02/05 03:29 AM (18 years, 1 month ago)

Quote:

Anno said:
Hanky is banned from ALL of the boards!




And, against said state of affairs, I must cry out, "FOR SHAAAAAAME!"

Hanky is a quality contributor.  Swami sounds more like a broken record bitch that targets a specific forum to push an ideology. 

Hanky had no ideology, other than free speech. 

It's really great that the admins have permabanned a knowledgeable, helpful member for shit that is now openly accepted in OTD.  I can go make three posts, right now, in OTD, and that would constitute the same rationale for hanky's banning. 

I'm sorry, folks.  This reeks more of vendetta than adhering to immutable "standards." 

Bad call, folks.  Bad call, indeed.  I can't say I like.  Don't like it at all. 

I can only dream the admins here might see the nonsense here.

It's rather like putting a japanese family in the internment camps in America during WWII.  And then saying, "HEY!  You're Japanese!  You can hook me up with some hot electronics, let's sign a trade agreement!"

Shifting standards, like the dunes over the mouth of the Sarlacc: All's fair game, it just depends when the pit opens up and swallows users. 

BAD CALL, folks.  BAD CALL. :sad:


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


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineAnnoA
Experimenter
 User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 06/17/99
Posts: 24,166
Loc: my room
Last seen: 19 days, 23 hours
Re: Bias bans [Re: GnuBobo]
    #5005633 - 12/02/05 04:07 AM (18 years, 1 month ago)

Quote:

GnuBobo said:
It's rather like putting a japanese family in the internment camps in America during WWII





See post above.


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: Rose]
    #5005639 - 12/02/05 04:13 AM (18 years, 1 month ago)

Thank you for your post, Anno.

For it is the first in months to actually address the ROOT bans, which started this whole drama. And you used very few words. You are a posting ninja.

FINALLY, I get to make some points I've been saving for a LONG time.

As for Swami's (first and official) warning... it came LAST holiday season. When he was warned and banned for breaking NO RULES. The reason you can find no proof of him breaking any rules at that time, is because no rules were broken.

While I can no longer search the Mod Forum, a simple search of the PUBLIC forum shows THIS to be the GENESIS of Swami's seemingly eternal public drama.

Search, I dare you.

While you may not remember, your posts in the Mod Forum, at THAT time, were AGAINST any action UNTIL a VISIBLE rule was broken, and before that ever happened... Swami had been banned for 14 days. Remember, Anno, Trendal started the thread, asking if he could ban Swami for being annoying?

Upon return, Swami was banned again for 12 hours, because he contested his ban in WA&F by someone who DIDN'T MODERATE WA&F. During the ban, Swami made a puppet which was quickly discovered. His 2nd bogus ban was extended to 30 days, after his puppet was discovered.

Swami served his time, came back, and posted as usual.

A search will show NO PUBLIC SWAMA DURING THIS TIME.

Until Shroomism PUBLICLY called Swami an asshole. Then in private, asked to have Swami banned. Ironic.

Search for Shroomism saying, "Asshole".

In the Mod forum however, when Shroomism asked to have Swami banned... The Staff, still scarred from the previous holiday Swam... immediately supported Shroomism's suggestion to BAN Swami. Until Annom and I PRIVATELY, and in my case, PUBLICLY, reminded EVERYONE that Shroomism, a MOD, FLAMED SWAMI in PUBLIC... FIRST!

Drama averted.

A couple months later, Trendal makes a thread... asking for titles for a dream book or something. And Swami is an asshole (allegedly) in the thread... just like Shroomism suggested he was a few months earlier. Although trendal had NO PROBLEM with Swami's posts, Maia, a Mod of the Forum, banned Swami for TROLLING.

In the Mod forum, EVERYBODY REJOICED. Swami was banned!

However...

Maia made a couple SMALL mistakes.

First, he deleted Swamis offending posts, leaving NO EVIDENCE (which caused quite a bit of drama) also, he failed to warn Swami... which, technically... if you've EVER been warned... it stands forever... but Swami's warning was treated as bogus in the public... so Swami had no reason to believe his warning a year ago was legit. Once his 45 day sentence was served... WAY TOO LONG, he assumed the warning would be lifted. He served WAY MORE TIME than the crime.

Also, keep in mind, Trendal, the guy Swami "Trolled" was the guy who had him banned for 45 days for breaking NO RULE, and eventually making a puppet... so from where I sit, I'd cut Swami a bit of slack. Trendal did begin the process to take The Shroomery away from Swami for 10% of this entire year.

But I digress...

Maia banned Swami.

Maia then made a thread asking to have Swami permabanned, or something. I privately objected. He should be treated fairly.

I believe Swami DID troll Trendal, although the posts were deleted. But he should not be banned longer than ANY other first time offender. And, he should've been warned. Even if he HAD been warned in the past, he should've been warned again, and you know it Anno.

However, once again, The Staff, still hurting from holiday Swama... which, Anno, please keep in mind, THE PUBLIC, INCLUDING SWAMI NEVER SAW.... started calling for a longer ban.

Like the day after Swami returned... he was banned again for something FRIGHTENING. Posting with the WRONG INTENTIONS. The Mods could now determine WHY people were making posts, and bann accordingly. THEY COULD NOW READ MINDS.

Paradigm was banned for posting with the wrong intentions.

I eventually, had a thread moved for posting with the wrong intentions.

Mind reading Mods.

Not being a MIND READING MOD, I posted my skepticism in public... and was given grief by my fellow Moderators. I had broken the code of silence.

After a couple of days of TRYING TO CONTINUE THE DISCUSSION, but instead being questioned ad nauseum about breaking the code, I stepped down so I COULD BE HONEST to the public. They deserved it.

As a Mod, it was made clear, I could not be HONEST TO THE PUBLIC, even though THE POPULAR STAFF MOVEMENT was to ban with Bias... something which is TOTALLY against the TOS, except for the "We can ban whoever we want to" clause.

This is when Swami's ban was extended, and I started speaking out in public.

Swami was banned a couple more times, for breaking NO rule... during this time... but for continuity, I'll skimp on details. I covered the disputable onnes... the ones I'm glossing over were "Mind readings" rather than bans.

The Mods who were biased against Swami (Anno, they've said so publicly, at least Shroomism, Wiccan, Maia, and geo have... again a simple search...) took my public statements to be attacks. They were NOT. I was simply continuing the discussion... but WITHOUT THE MODERATOR FORUM, I couldn't see what the Staff was DOING, and NOBODY on The Staff WAS TALKING about what was being done.

So, I yelled LOUDER than I would as a Mod.

I had NO OTHER WAY OF KNOWING I WOULD BE HEARD. I wasn't trolling, I was continuing a discussion, with people who wouldn't talk to me, after I stepped down.

The rest is listed in the link I provided in a previous post.

As for exaggerating, I admit I have used bombastic terms, but it is relative to the amount of feedback I have received.

Keep in mind, a few hours ago was the FIRST TIME I SAW AN ADMIN post some good news, rather than threats, in MONTHS!

So in summary, Swami has had MORE POSTS MADE ABOUT HIM IN THE MOD FORUM THAN ANYONE.

But the PUBLIC does not feel the SAME WAY about RULE ABIDING Swami, than The Staff.

It takes some time, but simple research will show that this mountain WAS once, less than a year ago, a molehill.

The Staff is annoyed with Swami SIMPLY because they have dealt with him SO MUCH this past year. That doesn't change the fact that he was labeled a WITCH from day one... and I was the only one that noticed. The evidence is still there, look and you shall see.

Mushroom hunters and cultivators shouldn't HAVE TO DEAL WITH SWAMI. The Mods of the Spiritual Forum SHOULD.


Yet ALL year, NOBODY HAS BANNED Swami WITHOUT STARTING THE DRAMA IN THE MOD FORUM... FIRST!

Again, search is your friend.

Really, Swami has not EVER been banned (at least until I stepped down) WITHOUT a Mod making a thread about it in The Mod Forum.

NEVER has Swami been banned for a CLEAR CUT RULE... OR MODS WOULDN'T NEED TO MAKE THREADS IN THE MOD FORUM ABOUT WHY THEY BANNED HIM.

However, this simply BOTHERS the Mods of the Cultivation and Hunting Forums. They don't CARE. They are SICK of Swami.

But it is NOT Swami's fault. It is The Staff's fault... for mistreating this long term member, than BLAMING HIM for RIGHTFULLY complaining.

THERE IS NOT A PERSON AMONG THE STAFF WHO CAN SAY WHAT I JUST DID.

Why?

Because The Staff has YET TO ADMIT they shouldn't have banned Swami AND Paradigm for breaking NO RULES.

If they said what I just did, they'd break the SAME code of silence I broke as a Mod.

However a simple search will show you that perhaps I'm NOT exaggerating as much about Swami, and his bans, as THE REST OF THE STAFF has... this last year.

:wink:

Long post, I hope you feel I addressed your points, even though I didn't exactly agree.

Yeah, it is just one forum... but that's the problem. Read that forum's rules. Then read the victim's collective posts in said forum. Do your own math. It won't take long.


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



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleOneMoreRobot3021
Male

Registered: 06/06/03
Posts: 61,024
Loc: the sky
Re: Bias bans [Re: Rose]
    #5005691 - 12/02/05 05:49 AM (18 years, 1 month ago)

Holy crap that's a long'un. :popcorn:


--------------------
Acid doesn't give you truths; it builds machines that push the envelope of perception. Whatever revelations came to me then have dissolved like skywriting. All I really know is that those few years saddled me with a faith in the redemptive potential of the imagination which, however flat, stale and unprofitable the world seems to me now, I cannot for the life of me shake.

-Erik Davis


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleHippie3
mycotopiate
 User Gallery

Registered: 11/06/99
Posts: 3,090
Loc: mycotopia.net
Re: Bias bans [Re: Rose]
    #5005747 - 12/02/05 06:45 AM (18 years, 1 month ago)

Quote:


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




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


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


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineAnnoA
Experimenter
 User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 06/17/99
Posts: 24,166
Loc: my room
Last seen: 19 days, 23 hours
Re: Bias bans [Re: Hippie3]
    #5005855 - 12/02/05 07:49 AM (18 years, 1 month ago)

Hahaha!  :thumbup:


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleYoung_but_cool
Stranger
Male

Registered: 08/16/02
Posts: 1,726
Loc: Old Europe
Re: Bias bans [Re: Hippie3]
    #5005878 - 12/02/05 07:59 AM (18 years, 1 month ago)

Good call.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibletrendalM
J♠
Male User Gallery

Registered: 04/17/01
Posts: 20,815
Loc: Ontario, Canada Flag
Re: Bias bans [Re: Rose]
    #5005997 - 12/02/05 09:07 AM (18 years, 1 month ago)

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.


--------------------
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
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
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: MAIA]
    #5018020 - 12/05/05 01:52 PM (18 years, 1 month ago)

This is not about the rules Swami broke. If he broke ANY, he wasn't punished PROPERLY for breaking them. He instead, was punished arbitrarily... FROM DAY ONE... by Mods and an Admin, unwilling to follow THEIR OWN rules.

This is about the rules The Staff either broke, or invented on the fly.

What about EVERYBODY BUT SWAMI'S TREATMENT, Maia?

How 'bout Paradigm's warnings and ban?

Should PARADIGM be banned because Swami (allegedly) is a troll?

What about my MOVED THREADS, that WEREN'T ABOUT SWAMI?

Should they have been moved because, I publicly stated Swami was mistreated?

If this WERE ONLY ABOUT SWAMI... then you would be correct, I would be a broken record. It is NOT.

It is about how you, Shroomism, Wiccan, Trendal and geo have ALL banned Swami unjustly (multiple times). Y'all created a MONSTER... AND THEN, unjustly punished, and pushed around, those who RIGHTFULLY called your actions, "Bullshit".

I hope you'll wrap your head around THAT, Maia... for THAT is bias.

I stand behind my previous comments.


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



Edited by Rose (12/05/05 02:01 PM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibletrendalM
J♠
Male User Gallery

Registered: 04/17/01
Posts: 20,815
Loc: Ontario, Canada Flag
Re: Bias bans [Re: Rose]
    #5018040 - 12/05/05 01:59 PM (18 years, 1 month ago)

I think at some point, in any argument, you just have to realize that the other side has made up their mind and nothing you are going to say will change that. Especially not when you continue to say the same things, over and over and over again.

Different people can be given ALL the same data and yet still come to entirely different conclusions.

What does that mean, cervantes? It means nothing you have said to date changes the fact that I think swami is a troll. I can't speak for maia, shroomism, wiccan, or geo....but I suspect they all feel the same.


--------------------
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
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]
    #5018066 - 12/05/05 02:06 PM (18 years, 1 month ago)

Quote:

trendal said:

What does that mean, cervantes? It means nothing you have said to date changes the fact that I think swami is a troll. I can't speak for maia, shroomism, wiccan, or geo....but I suspect they all feel the same.




I'm SURE you all do feel that way Tren.

I've dealt with Trolls before. :wink:

Trendal:

IF Swami IS a troll. BAN HIM WHEN HE BREAKS A RULE... not when he is ABIDING BY THE RULES, or contesting an UNJUST BAN.

AND...

If you ban someone UNJUSTLY, DON'T PUNISH THE SHROOMERITES WHO NOTICE, AND CALL, "BULLSHIT".

Finally:

FOLLOW YOUR OWN RULES.

Also, Tren, this is CURRENTLY being discussed by the Admins. If something HAS been decided, I have yet to hear it.

However you and Maia, sound QUITE different, in tone, to Thor, who posted before you, in this thread.

Perhaps you should review his thoughts... trust me, you don't want to cross any invisible lines...


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



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibletrendalM
J♠
Male User Gallery

Registered: 04/17/01
Posts: 20,815
Loc: Ontario, Canada Flag
Re: Bias bans [Re: Rose]
    #5018097 - 12/05/05 02:15 PM (18 years, 1 month ago)

Actually I have nothing to do with this anymore. I washed my hands of all this drama when I quit being a moderator in S&P. :smirk:

The only reason I'm posting here is because I continue to find my name popping up in this thread :wink:

IF Swami IS a troll. BAN HIM WHEN HE BREAKS A RULE... not when he is ABIDING THE RULES, or contesting an UNJUST BAN.

Being a troll is against the rules. The one time that I had Swami banned was because I thought (and still think) he was being a troll - hence breaking the rules. He then proved his malicious attitude by creating a puppet - not to contest his ban...but to stir up shit without his name being attached. That's against site rules, not just forum rules, and he got himself banned for even longer because of it.

If you ban someone UNJUSTLY, DON'T PUNISH THE SHROOMERITES WHO NOTICE, AND CALL, "BULLSHIT".

I haven't banned anyone unjustly. See above.

I haven't banned anyone for calling "bullshit", either. If you think I have, then please give me the names of those I banned for calling BS.

FOLLOW YOUR OWN RULES.

What rules did I break, again?

However you and Maia, sound QUITE different, in tone, to Thor, who posted before you, in this thread.

Perhaps you should review his thoughts...


Where did I mention Thor?

Also, I am not an Admin. I am not privy to what they discuss amongst themselves. I said my mind is made up, at this point. I also said I couldn't speak for anyone else :wink:


--------------------
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
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]
    #5018150 - 12/05/05 02:29 PM (18 years, 1 month ago)

Quote:

trendal said:
Actually I have nothing to do with this anymore. I washed my hands of all this drama when I quit being a moderator in S&P. :smirk:

The only reason I'm posting here is because I continue to find my name popping up in this thread :wink:




That is because you were the first Mod to ban Swami. And because you started a thread in the Mod forum asking if you could ban ANNOYING people, despite the rules. Finally, it is because, Swami (allegedly) trolled YOU, to get banned by Maia... even though you were "99.999% sure" Swami meant it as a joke.

If I didn't use your name... I wouldn't be telling the WHOLE story.

You are a FACT in this issue.

Nothing BEYOND THAT is personal, from where I sit.

In fact, I'm sorry your name keeps coming up. I wish someone else, was the FIRST to ban Swami unjustly.

Quote:

trendal said:
Being a troll is against the rules.




Actually, "Trolling" is against the rules. Being a troll, while fantastical, is permitted. :wink:

By your logic, if someone flames once... they should be labled a, "Flamer" and banned on site, from that point on... !?

That does not compute.

While I appreciate your input Trendal, I suspect this issue will be resolved SOONER, and in a MORE POSITIVE MANOR, if you and your fellow Mods discuss this, with the Admins, in Private, rather than out here... UNLESS, of course, you feel like you have been misrepresented.

In case you haven't noticed. My entire LIST OF EVIDENCE is based on things YOU and YOUR FELLOW MODS and ADMINS HAVE SAID, in PUBLIC. The more you say, the more evidence I am able to compile. Keep it private, and I have a less secure footing.

You're welcome. :wink:


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



Edited by Rose (12/05/05 02:39 PM)


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]
    #5018187 - 12/05/05 02:37 PM (18 years, 1 month ago)

:beatadeadhorse: :beatadeadhorse: :beatadeadhorse: :beatadeadhorse:

this is really getting pathetic. you've made no friends with this thread, cervantes, but lost plenty. nobody is gonna come up with a solution you like, ever. EVER. that's life. THAT'S LIFE. this thread is like a scab that you won't allow to heal. from here on in, all your posts are just so negative, i wonder what you can possibly hope to achieve from them - you remind me of a suicide bomber, just spreading more trouble in the name of something you believe is worthwhile. please think about about either moving on, or moving on. nothing more from me.


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


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibletrendalM
J♠
Male User Gallery

Registered: 04/17/01
Posts: 20,815
Loc: Ontario, Canada Flag
Re: Bias bans [Re: Rose]
    #5018190 - 12/05/05 02:38 PM (18 years, 1 month ago)

And because you started a thread in the Mod forum asking if you could ban ANNOYING people, despite the rules.

I don't think I ever made such a thread, and I'm rather put-off by the fact that you would suggest I did.

While I appreciate your input Trendal, I suspect this issue will be resolved SOONER, if you and your fellow Mods discuss this in Private, rather than out here, UNLESS you feel you have been misrepresented.

That is precisely why I am posting in here :wink:

I have not discussed the swami issue in private with any other mod or admin since you left your modship, cervantes. I hate to say it (as I already have) but I really couldn't give a shit about swami now. In fact I didn't even notice he was banned until I read a thread of yours in this forum a few weeks back :smirk:

I don't care about any supposed transgressions against you or paradigm, either. They didn't happen in a forum I moderate, nor did I see them as they happened. I have the option of not giving a shit, when I don't moderate those forums.

However I don't particularly like my name being dragged through the mud like this, as if I banned people due to personal bias. That's just not true.


--------------------
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
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: Rose]
    #5018200 - 12/05/05 02:40 PM (18 years, 1 month ago)

Quote:

Cervantes said:

While I appreciate your input Trendal, I suspect this issue will be resolved SOONER, and in a MORE POSITIVE MANOR, if you and your fellow Mods discuss this, with the Admins, in Private, rather than out here... UNLESS, of course, you feel like you have been misrepresented.

In case you haven't noticed. My entire LIST OF EVIDENCE is based on things YOU and YOUR FELLOW MODS and ADMINS HAVE SAID, in PUBLIC. The more you say, the more evidence I am able to compile. Keep it private, and I have a less secure footing.

You're welcome. :wink:




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



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibletrendalM
J♠
Male User Gallery

Registered: 04/17/01
Posts: 20,815
Loc: Ontario, Canada Flag
Re: Bias bans [Re: Rose]
    #5018205 - 12/05/05 02:41 PM (18 years, 1 month ago)

Care to show me this "list" of evidence?

I'm sure you have it in a txt file somewhere, right?


--------------------
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
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]
    #5018235 - 12/05/05 02:47 PM (18 years, 1 month ago)

Trendal, I am giving my info to the Admins... as they ask for it.

Blowing my wad in public, would only stir the hornet's nest... which I do not intend to do... despite what many Staffers (and friends like Shirl) have publicly suggested.


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



Edited by Rose (12/05/05 02:51 PM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibletrendalM
J♠
Male User Gallery

Registered: 04/17/01
Posts: 20,815
Loc: Ontario, Canada Flag
Re: Bias bans [Re: Rose]
    #5018280 - 12/05/05 02:57 PM (18 years, 1 month ago)

Blowing my wad in public, would only stir the hornet's nest... which I do not intend to do... despite what many Staffers (and friends like Shirl) have publicly suggested.

And yet you left your mod position specifically because you were asked (it's in the rules) not to "blow your wad" in public...but chose to do so anyway?

What has changes since then, cervantes? You left on the note that things HAD to be discussed in public, that the members had a right to know what was going on. Now this?

If you don't want this "evidence" made public, then by all means send me a PM with it. If you are going to drag my name through the mud here, I'd like to know why.


--------------------
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
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]
    #5018301 - 12/05/05 03:03 PM (18 years, 1 month ago)

Trendal, I will gladly discuss this with you via PM, as it treads into personal territory... and while I respect your need to discuss it, it is rather off topic.


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



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]
    #5018313 - 12/05/05 03:05 PM (18 years, 1 month ago)

Quote:

trendal said:
If you don't want this "evidence" made public, then by all means send me a PM with it. If you are going to drag my name through the mud here, I'd like to know why.




I already told you:

Quote:

Cervantes said:
That is because you were the first Mod to ban Swami. And because you started a thread in the Mod forum asking if you could ban ANNOYING people, despite the rules. Finally, it is because, Swami (allegedly) trolled YOU, to get banned by Maia... even though you were "99.999% sure" Swami meant it as a joke.

If I didn't use your name... I wouldn't be telling the WHOLE story.

You are a FACT in this issue.

Nothing BEYOND THAT is personal, from where I sit.

In fact, I'm sorry your name keeps coming up. I wish someone else, was the FIRST to ban Swami unjustly.




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



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibletrendalM
J♠
Male User Gallery

Registered: 04/17/01
Posts: 20,815
Loc: Ontario, Canada Flag
Re: Bias bans [Re: Rose]
    #5018314 - 12/05/05 03:05 PM (18 years, 1 month ago)

even though you were "99.999% sure" Swami meant it as a joke.

Also, since you keep bringing this point up I need to make a clarification. Here is what I actually said, in the thread in question:

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.

All he had to do, after I pointed out his error to him, was edit out the book title he posted. Instead he posted a second book title. I then outright asked (yes ASKED, not told) him to edit-out the TWO titles he had now posted. Instead of just plain editing them out...he edited out half the title only and tried to brush it off by saying he was only narrowing the playing field by taking some book titles out of the experiment. I told him that I had set up the experiment the way I wanted it, and that I had a reason for setting it up that way.

That's the point where it goes from "no malicious intent" to "trolling"."




You keep bringing up the point that I said I was quite certain swami only meant his first post as a joke, but you leave out the rest where I say I thought he was trolling me with his continued derailing of my thread. Even after I asked him, politely, to stop.

So don't bring up that point as evidence that even I didn't think swami was trolling, because I quite clearly stated in that post that I did think he was trolling.


--------------------
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
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]
    #5018338 - 12/05/05 03:10 PM (18 years, 1 month ago)

Trendal,

I have said, more than once, in THIS VERY THREAD... I BELIEVE SWAMI TROLLED YOU... the evidence was just DELETED (by Maia) which caused future DRAMA. Also, Swami should've been warned instead of banned. AND if he was to be BANNED, he SHOULD'VE been banned for 24, RATHER THAN 12 hours.

If THAT is true, if I believe Swami DID troll you... then perhaps my EDIT had MORE TO DO WITH THE FLOW OF MY POST... explaining why I said you didn't take Swamis trolling personally... rather than to MALICIOUSLY HIDE ANOTHER PARAGRAPH THAT YOU WROTE... to cast Swami in a BETTER LIGHT. Notice I DID post the link... so you wouldn't need to search, to re-quote yourself.

You and I have ALWAYS seen eye to eye on THAT ban... except I said it should've been 12 hours LONGER, or a WARNING. Even Maia said, in hindsight, he would've banned Swami for 24 hours.

:wink:

Seems you've missed my ENTRE POINT, Tren.


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



Edited by Rose (12/05/05 03:17 PM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibletrendalM
J♠
Male User Gallery

Registered: 04/17/01
Posts: 20,815
Loc: Ontario, Canada Flag
Re: Bias bans [Re: Rose]
    #5018363 - 12/05/05 03:15 PM (18 years, 1 month ago)

Sorry, cervantes, if I have misinterpreted your words.

"Finally, it is because, Swami (allegedly) trolled YOU, to get banned by Maia... even though you were "99.999% sure" Swami meant it as a joke."

I read that as:

"it's because swami allegedly trolled you, to get banned by maia...despite the fact that you were 99.999% sure swami meant it as a joke"

indicating that you though maia banned swami despite me thinking it was all a joke. Otherwise, why include that last bit?


At any rate, as I said above: sometimes you just have to agree to disagree. I think it's clear that you and I are not going to change eachother's minds about this...so this will be my last post in this thread - I leave it up to the Admin to decide, now.


--------------------
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
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]
    #5018411 - 12/05/05 03:25 PM (18 years, 1 month ago)

I understand the, "Agree to disagree" philosophy Tren... and with you, I will GLADLY agree to disagree.

You are a great Mod. And a greater soul.

You aren't the only Mod to wish to get rid of the nuisance that is Swami. I don't agree... ESPECIALLY now that others have been mistreated as well, but I respect where you are coming from.

Why I can't agree to disagree on THIS POLICY, IN PUBLIC, is because Swami Paradigm and I have ALL been punished for our BELIEFS... rather than because we broke rules. AND we were punished for said beliefs, in the "SAFE" Spiritual forum.

Until MY BELIEFS are given the SAME FREEDOM as any other Shroomerite, I must continue this Public argument. Or people like me, will be pushed around for telling (our personal) truths. Truth is relative... when it comes to the intangible... like Spirituality. And in a Spiritual forum, room must be made for MULTIPLE TRUTHS to co-exist.

I can't help what I believe.

In fact, I wish I SHARED the popular belief: for then, I'd still be a Mod. I really miss Moderating, and regret that this debacle has alienated MANY of my best virtual friends. That was NOT my intent. :heart:

But I believe what I believe... based on what I SEE and HEAR.

And what I have seen and heard, rings of BIAS, to ME... and OTHERS.

Of course, there will be differences in opinion. THIS IS THE SHROOMERY. SOMEONE ALWAYS DISAGREES.


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



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: shirley knott]
    #5019404 - 12/05/05 07:03 PM (18 years, 1 month ago)

Quote:

shirley knott said:
:beatadeadhorse: :beatadeadhorse: :beatadeadhorse: :beatadeadhorse:

this is really getting pathetic. you've made no friends with this thread, cervantes, but lost plenty. nobody is gonna come up with a solution you like, ever. EVER. that's life. THAT'S LIFE. this thread is like a scab that you won't allow to heal. from here on in, all your posts are just so negative, i wonder what you can possibly hope to achieve from them - you remind me of a suicide bomber, just spreading more trouble in the name of something you believe is worthwhile. please think about about either moving on, or moving on. nothing more from me.




I like this tread. He has made me as a friend (sorry cerv :grin:) and any one who chooses to drop him as a friend because he wants to tell his version of the truth is no loss to him IMO.

I also don't see his posts as "so negative". I see him striving to put everyone at ease while not diluting the point he has to make.

I certainly don't agree with him 100% but I feel he does a very valuable service to the Shroomery by working for his version of justice.

Good for you for moving on. Now you don't have to be offended by this. :mushroom2:


--------------------
"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
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]
    #5020671 - 12/05/05 10:33 PM (18 years, 1 month ago)

Thank you, Ice.

I'd like to remind everybody that I initially wanted to have this conversation WITHOUT naming specific names, bans... etc...

The Administration, despite, but respectful of my concerns, asked for detail which I ONLY then, provided (after offering to send it via PM) in outline form.

It all happened in THIS thread!

Please, don't shoot the messenger.

I am attempting to be as vague/specific as possible concerning Swami's treatment. It isn't exactly easy.

Also, please don't compare the messenger to a "Suicide bomber". This particular messenger was LITERALLY almost suicide bombed on 9-11. I can joke about it. I'd prefer if The Staff didn't. Thanks.


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



Edited by Rose (12/05/05 11:20 PM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleSilversoul
Rhizome
Male User Gallery

Registered: 01/01/05
Posts: 23,576
Loc: The Barricades
Re: Bias bans [Re: Icelander]
    #5021054 - 12/05/05 11:27 PM (18 years, 1 month ago)

Quote:

Icelander said:
Quote:

shirley knott said:
:beatadeadhorse: :beatadeadhorse: :beatadeadhorse: :beatadeadhorse:

this is really getting pathetic. you've made no friends with this thread, cervantes, but lost plenty. nobody is gonna come up with a solution you like, ever. EVER. that's life. THAT'S LIFE. this thread is like a scab that you won't allow to heal. from here on in, all your posts are just so negative, i wonder what you can possibly hope to achieve from them - you remind me of a suicide bomber, just spreading more trouble in the name of something you believe is worthwhile. please think about about either moving on, or moving on. nothing more from me.




I like this tread. He has made me as a friend (sorry cerv :grin:) and any one who chooses to drop him as a friend because he wants to tell his version of the truth is no loss to him IMO.

I also don't see his posts as "so negative". I see him striving to put everyone at ease while not diluting the point he has to make.

I certainly don't agree with him 100% but I feel he does a very valuable service to the Shroomery by working for his version of justice.

Good for you for moving on. Now you don't have to be offended by this. :mushroom2:



Agreed.  While I have personally dropped this issue(partly because I've stopped going to MR&P as frequently and partly because I haven't heard of any new Swami bans) I applaud Cervantes' attempt to get to the bottom of things.  He's saying what needs to be said, and while it seems futile to try and get the powers that be to see the voice of reason here, I admire him for trying.


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


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineOrganic
Lloyd

Registered: 04/14/02
Posts: 5,774
Loc: Overlook
Last seen: 14 years, 7 months
Re: Bias bans [Re: shirley knott]
    #5021896 - 12/06/05 04:13 AM (18 years, 1 month ago)

Quote:

this is really getting pathetic. you've made no friends with this thread, cervantes, but lost plenty. nobody is gonna come up with a solution you like, ever. EVER. that's life. THAT'S LIFE. this thread is like a scab that you won't allow to heal. from here on in, all your posts are just so negative, i wonder what you can possibly hope to achieve from them - you remind me of a suicide bomber, just spreading more trouble in the name of something you believe is worthwhile. please think about about either moving on, or moving on. nothing more from me.




Speak for yourself. I'm sure Cerv appreciates you wanting to be a father figure for him, telling him 'how it is' and comparing him to a murderer and all.


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


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleBurke Dennings
baby merchant

Registered: 11/29/04
Posts: 81,641
Re: Bias bans [Re: shirley knott]
    #5022321 - 12/06/05 08:09 AM (18 years, 1 month ago)

This thread has made Cervantes my best friend.  I personally like seeing the admins reminded that they shouldn't blindly support bad moderators.  I like seeing the mods reminded that bias bans, while they are a Shroomery way of life and institution, are not necessarily good things.  Your post has also made me think about what a tool Shirley Knott is.  That's how all of this has affected me.  :shrug:


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: Burke Dennings]
    #5025229 - 12/06/05 07:19 PM (18 years, 1 month ago)

Shirl gave me my first five shroom rating, and was the first to encourage me towards moderation.

I suspect Shirl intended to sound more maternal than he came across.

I further suspect my stepping down hurt Shirl's feelings, just as his last post hurt mine... as perhaps, he feels like he found me... and wanted me to leave my Moderator post, and Mods in general, cast in better light.

Well, I feel that way too.

Bygones...

:heart:


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



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: Burke Dennings]
    #5025538 - 12/06/05 08:20 PM (18 years, 1 month ago)

Quote:

e-chode said:
This thread has made Cervantes my best friend.  I personally like seeing the admins reminded that they shouldn't blindly support bad moderators.  I like seeing the mods reminded that bias bans, while they are a Shroomery way of life and institution, are not necessarily good things.  Your post has also made me think about what a tool Shirley Knott is.  That's how all of this has affected me.  :shrug:




Amen.

Cervantes is the only person who has ever banned me, yet I respect him more than probably 90% of the members on this site.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinegeokillsA
∙∙∙∙☼ º¿° ☼∙∙∙∙
Male User Gallery

Registered: 05/08/01
Posts: 23,417
Loc: city of angels Flag
Last seen: 50 minutes, 59 seconds
Re: Bias bans [Re: Redstorm]
    #5025626 - 12/06/05 08:32 PM (18 years, 1 month ago)

I have been deliberately avoiding making any posts in this thread since what I've had to say, has already been said. However I do want to applaud e-chode for his eloquently written post which conveys quite a positive message. Indeed, it is important that people in positions of power are aware of the criticisms and concerns of the people for whom they watch over, and particularly in the case of something as subjective as bias, I do like to see these people (myself included of course) reminded that bias is something that can creep up inadvertantly and that we should make every effort to recognize it before we take any action on its behalf.

With that said, I am confident that most staff members do take these considerations, but of course our own predispositions can get the best of us at any time. Hence why it is so important that communication flows freely, and especially direct from the source. That is to say, anytime that you feel you have been mistreated, it is in the best interests of yourself and the community at large that you contact an administrator directly (preferably through use of our Support Ticket System), outlining in detail what transpired and why you feel it to be wrong. Timliness will play a big part in an effective solution, as often when time passes the facts become less clear and memories hazy, therefore making any counteraction more difficult to undertake.


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

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


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: geokills]
    #5026554 - 12/06/05 11:24 PM (18 years, 1 month ago)

Thank you for jumping back into this discussion geo.

And thank you for taking some time away from this mess, while you watched things unfold. However, you suggest later in your last post that things, such as this, should be handled in a timely fashion... it is ironic, you (as well as I) needed time away from this issue.

Since this issue is currently being discussed in, at least, three forums (public AND private), geo... is a support ticket really needed?

And aren't YOU the Admin who handles MOST of the Support tickets, geo?

Do your opinions differ when you are contacted via support ticket?

If you REALLY need a support ticket, kindly write your own. You've read this thread. You understand the issue.

When I was a Mod, and I sent you a PM'd concern, you NEVER would tell me to write a support ticket. Has something changed, with THAT system, now that I am no longer Moderating?

Geo, if you don't have copies of our private correspondence, I certainly do. We've (you and I have) been discussing this in private since I was still a Mod.

This case WAS handled just as you suggested. Via PM, support tickets and in the FEEDBACK forum (as well as in threads started by Mods and victims of the Spiritual forums) from the moment I stepped down as a Mod. Since I was in PM correspondence with you, geo, I felt a support ticket would be redundant. However Paradigm says he sent one. I saw him TELL YOU. Further reason for me to feel another support ticket would be redundant.

I even offered to use private channels (once again) in this very thread. Yet, I was asked, despite my concerns, by Thor, for more info. Do you ever wonder WHY I didn't want to list details in Public, geo? Because I DON'T LIKE being PUSHED AROUND by my friends on The Staff. In light of this thread, and Shirl's words, can you BLAME ME?

The thing which makes this case unique, is it is about something apparently very hard for the Staff to spot... THEIR OWN BIAS.

And, without a PUBLIC forum to report my FEEDBACK (like here, in the FEEDBACK Forum) I fear, my points would've fallen on deaf ears. Seems that way to me, at least from my previous PRIVATE discussions about this matter with YOU and others.

A support ticket would only serve one purpose: It would keep the public from reading my thoughts on this issue... and having seen the Public's reaction to your (alleged) bias, I don't blame you for WANTING TO HIDE this issue and let it die a quiet death... if THAT really is your motivating force.

Also, this issue INVOLVES the Public, for it is the Public, not The Staff, who was mistreated. The Public's feedback, on this issue has been almost unanimous. I mean, Hippie3's the only regular Shroomerite in VISIBLE support of this BIAS policy cover-up, to post in this thread. Oh, and a couple Shroomerites, who I DON'T KNOW AT ALL, only popped in to say how they never liked me. :smirk:

If memory serves me, this is the ONLY thread I've made on this topic, THIS MONTH... and before that, I had only made ONE OTHER. I'm NOT flooding the place.

More than one person has been effected. We need a place, where more than one person can discuss this issue. So, I created THIS thread, in the proper forum.

To hide this discussion, geo (like you've hidden or locked so many other threads, which attempt to talk about this very issue), would be a shame. A personal, PUBLIC, apology would better suit the mood.

No offense geo, but since you are one of the Staff Members who I am accusing of banning Swami with bias, as well as PUBLICLY supporting your Mods' acts of bias. I am holding out for a more neutral perspective after ALL the Admins come to a consensus... as Thor mentioned earlier in this thread.

Besides geo, you ARE The Admin who has handled most ALL of the Administrative duties surrounding this issue... I've certainly done everything you WOULD ALLOW, to communicate my grievances and YOU, of ALL Admins, KNOW IT.

That I didn't send a BUNCH of whiny PM's to the other Admins, was an act of respect. I trusted you to use my public and private correspondence WISELY.

Didn't YOU pass the MONTHS of conversations (concerning LEGITIMATE Staff bias AND written in a TIMELY fashion) along to your Administrative partners, geo?

Thanks again for your post.


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



Edited by Rose (12/07/05 01:06 AM)


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]
    #5027362 - 12/07/05 05:47 AM (18 years, 1 month ago)

Quote:

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.




I wonder why you and all Swami supporters seem to avoid this facts ... Anyway, you stated he is a TROLL, so why don't you accept proper action was needed ? If trolling is a bannable offense, how on earth can it be biased ? This is 1+1=2 logics not a continued rhetorical set of arguments.

MAIA

P.S.: There are two questions in my post. If you reply, please take the time to comment them first before you start the usual rhetoric ...


--------------------
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
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]
    #5027409 - 12/07/05 06:31 AM (18 years, 1 month ago)

Quote:

I have said, more than once, in THIS VERY THREAD... I BELIEVE SWAMI TROLLED YOU... the evidence was just DELETED (by Maia) which caused future DRAMA. Also, Swami should've been warned instead of banned. AND if he was to be BANNED, he SHOULD'VE been banned for 24, RATHER THAN 12 hours.




Quote:

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.




Forum rules:

On banning
Quote:

A first offense for minor infractions will result in a written warning by moderator/administrator either via Private Message, or in the thread where the incident occurred. Immediate bans are often issued without warning in circumstances involving SPAM, explicitly illegal activity, excessive harassment, or any behavior deemed malicious.




Please memorize the next one ..
On harassment & respect
Quote:

If you cannot behave in a respectful manner, keep your words to yourself. Failure to comply will result in administrative action at the sole discretion of the staff.




On editing
Quote:

Posts will be edited if the material in them violates any general site or specific forum policy, yet resides within a developed thread of considerable value. Edited posts will be accompanied by explanation of the action in the post itself, and via private message if further explanation is deemed necessary.




You said he was trolling, yet you write in CAPITAL letters "DELETED", "the evidence was DELETED", as if it was a monstrous action perpetrated by myself. So is that thread the reason why you consider Swami a troll or not ?

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
OfflinegeokillsA
∙∙∙∙☼ º¿° ☼∙∙∙∙
Male User Gallery

Registered: 05/08/01
Posts: 23,417
Loc: city of angels Flag
Last seen: 50 minutes, 59 seconds
Re: Bias bans [Re: Rose]
    #5028155 - 12/07/05 11:22 AM (18 years, 1 month ago)

> Since this issue is currently being discussed in, at least, three
> forums (public AND private), geo... is a support ticket really needed?


Of course not, because I have already made my decision regarding matters surrounding your specific issue. This decision included (but was not limited to):
  • Revising the new forum guidelines and description
  • Removing certain moderators from certain forums to ease the perceived "control" over the S&P section of this website that certain members were concerned about
  • Revising the Administrative Rules & Guidelines to clarify certain policies
  • Sending a mass PM to related moderators regarding what I felt was inappropriate behavior and how future matters ought to be handled
  • Encouraging the creation, brainstorming, and implementation of our new Ban-O-Matic disciplinary record and point based system.


If you are trying to get me to overturn past bans, you may as well save your breath since I do not feel that anymore reactionary action is necessary at this time. As previously stated in one of your other threads, I am most concerned with future staff action and ensuring that we learn from mistakes we may have made. It seems that you have a really hard time letting go of this matter until you get your way, namely (from my understanding) an apology as well as a removal of Swami's MR&P forum ban. Well you've certainly received the former, but as for the latter I will not remove Swami's forum ban at this time due to his consistent ideologically confrontational behavior, which is precisely the type of behavior the MR&P forum was created in order to avoid! I will go further to note that he was banned for just reasons, based upon action that he took in the new forum and not speculation as to actions he would likely take. As with most inappropriate threads, his was moved to the Dump and has since been removed from the database as all threads in the Dump are after a couple weeks.



> And aren't YOU the Admin who handles MOST of the Support tickets, geo?
>Do your opinions differ when you are contacted via support ticket?


I don't believe so, I perhaps handle 20 - 40% of the tickets? Though in reality I have no idea as to the actual statistic, save to know that I see Anno and Ythan responding to tickets with much frequency. As for a different approach in responding to support tickets versus forum posts - it is not my opinion that would differ in itself, but rather the clarity of my understanding that would be different. As I've now stated many times, Support Tickets are the most effective in petitioning your case since they will not grow into such a huge mass of convoluted personal opinion, thereby allowing me to focus on the specific matter that the user has brought to light, while being able to avoid wading through so many tangents from other users that often confuse the initial matter.


> This case WAS handled just as you suggested.

You are correct. It WAS handled, and though I don't often like to take this tone - you are beating a dead horse. You should have realized by now that while you have inspired a second (and third) take at recent events, which in turn has lead to the changes I've listed above, you are not going to get everything you want. Not because of any personal intention other than the fact that I do not feel a revocation of Swami's forum ban is at all appropriate at this point in time. Perhaps in the future, but not now.


> Didn't YOU pass the MONTHS of conversations (concerning LEGITIMATE Staff
> bias AND written in a TIMELY fashion) along to your Administrative partners, geo?


As I stated to you the last time you offered to send a PM to all administrators, I advised you that you could simply request from any admin that they post your messages for the rest of the admins to review. While I'm sure I have paraphrased many of your initial comments, it was not until very recently that you specifically requested me to post certain statements for all the other admins to review, which when you asked, I certainly did. If on the other hand you are PM'ing me with concerns that I have a conviction to answer but that you did not formally request full administrative review, it is common practice for the admins to delegate responsibility to whomever is most informed and active in handling any given situation. In keeping with this trust, most of our conversations (namely the ones leading up to your specific request) were in fact not relayed word-for-word to the rest of the admins.

You really need to understand that we have taken a helluva lot of time in reviewing the situations you have brought to light, we are not ignoring you, but you also cannot honestly expect that we will agree with everything you are saying. If you do, you are engaging in an exercise of futility. I appreciate input, but when decisions have obviously been made, it is counterproductive to continue hammering your own disposition into the face of the community. You wonder why there isn't a rash of supporters for the administration's stance here - and while there may or may not in fact be people in favor of our action, I contend that most users have simply given up on following this whole mess due to its incredible repetition. In the interests of full disclosure, I should also note that nearly all of the members who have been vocalizing support for your position are members who were either directly involved with disciplinary action arising from the stated incidents, or have been banned by the administration on other occasions by which they may have felt unfairly treated. It is not wrong to feel that you have been unfairly treated, and it is not wrong to contest the action by stating your case clearly and concisely.. however, if it is painfully obvious that the administration of this website will not concede to all of your wishes, it would save all of us time and stress to accept that fact and let bygones be bygones.

I will leave this thread open for now, as perhaps it may take a turn and begin to focus on positive ideas as to how we may improve future actions - but if it continues to reiterate matters that have already been decided, do not expect it to stay active much longer.


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

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


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: geokills]
    #5028585 - 12/07/05 01:31 PM (18 years, 1 month ago)

Quote:

Removing certain moderators from certain forums to ease the perceived "control" over the S&P section of this website that certain members were concerned about




Just a quick side note about this issue. No moderator was forced to step down from any forum. When we were discussing about the split, an initial set of moderators were presented for both forums, i chose not to moderate Philosophy for the reasons presented above by geo.

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
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: MAIA]
    #5028715 - 12/07/05 02:02 PM (18 years, 1 month ago)

Quote:

MAIA said:
I wonder why you and all Swami supporters seem to avoid this facts ...




I'll answer ONE (but not both) of your questions without the usual rhetoric... by saying:

Your first question is OFFENSIVE TO ME... and theresore, I choose NOT to answer your second one.

Now, let me ask YOU a question, Maia.

How DARE you suggest me, and ALL THE OTHER SHROOMERITES WHO HAVE POSTED IN THIS THREAD (other than Hippie3) are AVOIDING the facts?

From where I sit, the opposite is happening.

I have presented facts, as the UNBAISED (IME) Admins have asked for them. More facts will be presented ONLY if I am asked to present them by Thor, Seuss, Ythan, Vamp or even Anno... but Maia, you, geo, Wiccan and Trendal will get NO SUCH treatment in public, not from me. For you are the Mods and Admin who push people around (or ban them) for TELLING THE TRUTH.

I hope you can respect my feelings, and can keep your thoughts private... until at least SOME progress has been made.


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



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: geokills]
    #5028746 - 12/07/05 02:11 PM (18 years, 1 month ago)

Quote:

I will leave this thread open for now, as perhaps it may take a turn and begin to focus on positive ideas as to how we may improve future actions - but if it continues to reiterate matters that have already been decided, do not expect it to stay active much longer.






This thread is doing JUST THAT. It has focused on POSITIVE suggestions since its FIRST POST. Kindly scroll up, and review it, as well as the rest of the posts which have made positive suggestions, in this thread.

In fact geo, if you would SIMPLY advise your Staff, particularly those who's behavior I am asking the Admin to review, to keep their thoughts PRIVATE (or at least, away from THIS particular thread)... this thread would be MUCH MORE POSITIVE.

Of the accused, only Trendal has handled himself like a gentleman, in this thread. Although, I appreciate Wiccan and Shroomism's silence.

Maia and Shirl's posts, of all the posts made in THIS thread, are begging for a negative response. Trendal acted like a gentleman, and was TREATED like a gentleman.

Let the victims and the unbiased, discuss this issue in THIS THREAD, and tell The Staff to use their PRIVATE FORUMS, and PM's to have THEIR discussion.

It doesn't look good, when I am saying I was pushed around by The Staff, for you to then allow your Staff to continue pushing me around, in THE MIDDLE OF my COMPLAINT thread. In fact, from where I sit, it serves as further EVIDENCE.

This isn't rocket science, geo. I'm suggesting ways to HAVE THIS DISCUSSION, in a MORE POSITIVE MANOR.

The ONE Admin I'm accusing of bias SHOULD NOT BE the Admin to lock this thread.

Inform your other Admins that you aren't helping things, in here. Ask if someone else would handle it. Geo, I've seen what Thor, Ythan and Seuss have said about bias, and you don't sing the same tune.

Nobody needs to leave their post, they just need to apologize... in Public. All I'm asking for is an apology, a PUBLIC APOLOGY to ALL who were mistreated. MY SUGGESTION IS SO SIMPLE... AND POSITIVE.

Please don't suggest otherwise, for it makes me think you aren't reading my posts, geo. I know, it may not SEEM like a positive solution... if you are one of the people I am asking to give a public apology, for your public acts of bias.

And PLEASE geo, in the future, pass all pertinent info along to your fellow admins, I give you permission, although I shouldn't have to... it is your job.

Thanks


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



Edited by Rose (12/07/05 02:59 PM)


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]
    #5029054 - 12/07/05 03:16 PM (18 years, 1 month ago)

Wow well, this certainly 'blew up'.. The whole idea of us admins stepping back was so we'd stop encouraging a cycle arguing that isnt serving much purpose at this point.

I agree with everything Geo has said here, and I really suggest that any 'user' that feels they have an unjust ban use the support ticket system as this kind of post is not helping anyone, in fact when it turns ugly its actually hurting.

If someone feels a ban is unjustly done on them, contact the support ticket system. If the answer is, ban stands.. Try again later, say 1 month..

My point is beating a dead horse isn't helping anyone, this started out with good intentions but has ended in a mess, yet again we are not going to continue these debates here anymore.

So I'm closing this, and you can all thank me or hate me for it.


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]
    #5029062 - 12/07/05 03:18 PM (18 years, 1 month ago)

This thread has been closed.

Reason:
As I said. DEAD HORSE.


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

Shop: North Spore Bulk Substrate   PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   Left Coast Kratom Buy Kratom Extract   Original Sensible Seeds Bulk Cannabis Seeds   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 0.081 seconds spending 0.011 seconds on 14 queries.