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

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

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

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

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

Jump to first unread post Pages: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |  [ show all ]
Re: Bias bans [Re: MAIA]
    #5018020 -

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
Re: Bias bans [Re: Rose]
    #5018040 -

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
Re: Bias bans [Re: trendal]
    #5018066 -

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
Re: Bias bans [Re: Rose]
    #5018097 -

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
Re: Bias bans [Re: trendal]
    #5018150 -

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.

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
Re: Bias bans [Re: Rose]
    #5018187 -

: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
Re: Bias bans [Re: Rose]
    #5018190 -

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
Re: Bias bans [Re: Rose]
    #5018200 -

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
Re: Bias bans [Re: Rose]
    #5018205 -

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
Re: Bias bans [Re: trendal]
    #5018235 -

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
Re: Bias bans [Re: Rose]
    #5018280 -

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
Re: Bias bans [Re: trendal]
    #5018301 -

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
Re: Bias bans [Re: trendal]
    #5018313 -

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
Re: Bias bans [Re: Rose]
    #5018314 -

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
Re: Bias bans [Re: trendal]
    #5018338 -

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
Re: Bias bans [Re: Rose]
    #5018363 -

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
Re: Bias bans [Re: trendal]
    #5018411 -

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
Re: Bias bans [Re: shirley knott]
    #5019404 -

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
Re: Bias bans [Re: Icelander]
    #5020671 -

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
Re: Bias bans [Re: Icelander]
    #5021054 -

Icelander said:
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
Jump to top Pages: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |  [ show all ]

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

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

Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Drama 102: Please, Stop Banning Me RoseM 1,680 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 5,483 58 12/05/04 11:47 AM
by Anno
* Please ban me again... or answer my questions... RoseM 3,059 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 11,272 143 05/11/05 10:17 AM
by Thor
* Cyber Cop, plz ban.
( 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 all )		 40oz 10,392 126 03/12/05 10:56 PM
by geokills
* Poll based ban system for OTD! EDITED
( 1 2 3 4 5 6 all )		 Hanky 9,825 117 02/16/07 07:37 PM
by Lightningfractal
* The Usual M&P Moderator Bias OrgoneConclusion 759 5 01/03/08 12:21 AM
by Middleman
* Banned without warning
( 1 2 3 4 5 all )		 Silversoul 5,421 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
10,923 topic views. 0 members, 29 guests and 6 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2026 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.045 seconds spending 0.007 seconds on 16 queries.