Moderator: Community Team
blakebowling wrote:AoG, just because you love your threads doesn't mean you have to bump them several years after they've died. Let's not keep up this trend.
Army of GOD wrote:Snorri was just and wise.
Blakebowling is evil and picks his nose.
blakebowling wrote:Army of GOD wrote:Snorri was just and wise.
Blakebowling is evil and picks his nose.
This flip flopping won't get you anywhere.
BBS, isn't this that "u wot m8?" thread?
owenshooter wrote:oh, look!!! *glances upwards*... FLAMEWARS has returned!!! way to further the discourse about bumping the first thread ever posted in the history of the INTERNETS, by calling the mods profane and derogatory names!!! jeez... the black jesus is amused...-el Jesus negro
notyou2 wrote:owenshooter wrote:oh, look!!! *glances upwards*... FLAMEWARS has returned!!! way to further the discourse about bumping the first thread ever posted in the history of the INTERNETS, by calling the mods profane and derogatory names!!! jeez... the black jesus is amused...-el Jesus negro
If you aren't part of the solution, you're part of the problem. I am trying to make the administration realize the negative issues of their actions. Yes I admit I used inflammatory language, but at least I am passionate about what I am saying.
I don't usually spew negativity at every post, unlike some here.
notyou2 wrote:owenshooter wrote:oh, look!!! *glances upwards*... FLAMEWARS has returned!!! way to further the discourse about bumping the first thread ever posted in the history of the INTERNETS, by calling the mods profane and derogatory names!!! jeez... the black jesus is amused...-el Jesus negro
If you aren't part of the solution, you're part of the problem. I am trying to make the administration realize the negative issues of their actions. Yes I admit I used inflammatory language, but at least I am passionate about what I am saying.
I don't usually spew negativity at every post, unlike some here.
BigBallinStalin wrote:blakebowling wrote:Army of GOD wrote:Snorri was just and wise.
Blakebowling is evil and picks his nose.
This flip flopping won't get you anywhere.
BBS, isn't this that "u wot m8?" thread?
I don't know what you're talking about, but you're doing a great job intimidating people for harmless activities. Presumably, you're trying to make this forum better, but I don't see how your means attain that goal.
The problem with regulators (within companies and governments) is that much of their regulating is unnecessary, but there's very little constraint on their behavior. You're currently proving yourself to be a prime example; I'm merely trying to constrain you by calling you out on your unnecessary enforcement. Maybe you can exercise some self-restraint by considering how your means actually promote a livelier forum.
notyou2 wrote:BigBallinStalin wrote:blakebowling wrote:Army of GOD wrote:Snorri was just and wise.
Blakebowling is evil and picks his nose.
This flip flopping won't get you anywhere.
BBS, isn't this that "u wot m8?" thread?
I don't know what you're talking about, but you're doing a great job intimidating people for harmless activities. Presumably, you're trying to make this forum better, but I don't see how your means attain that goal.
The problem with regulators (within companies and governments) is that much of their regulating is unnecessary, but there's very little constraint on their behavior. You're currently proving yourself to be a prime example; I'm merely trying to constrain you by calling you out on your unnecessary enforcement. Maybe you can exercise some self-restraint by considering how your means actually promote a livelier forum.
BBS Blake had to do it.
Owen whined as admitted above.
Some people live such a mundane existence, they feel it is their duty to whine, snivel and cry.
blakebowling wrote:Let's all take a step back and calm down. Just because I pointed out that AoG bumped an old thread doesn't mean I was punishing him. Just because I have a colored name does not mean every post I make is the word of CC law.
Just consider that:
I posted the message in the public forums.
I didn't lock the thread, or mention that it could be necessary.
I also didn't mention any sort of punishment.
I personally don't like old threads. Though I am an administrator, I occasionally post my personal opinions in the forums.
BigBallinStalin wrote:Let's conduct a thought experiment:
If I told blakebowling, "go shit on someone else's parade," would my chances of being kicked increase---compared to my telling that to owen?
Let's be real. bb's whitewashing doesn't eliminate the different consequences users face when interacting with the maroons and limes of this world.
To drive the point home: suppose a cop in uniform approached owen, the Black Jesus, and said, "you shouldn't be in the park. Let's not let that happen again." Owen and bystanders object, but the cop says, "Oh, I'm off-duty. I'm just stating my personal opinion." Should we conclude that the off-duty officer was never implying any kind of repercussions for failing to abide by his word? Of course not.
Dukasaur wrote:BigBallinStalin wrote:Let's conduct a thought experiment:
If I told blakebowling, "go shit on someone else's parade," would my chances of being kicked increase---compared to my telling that to owen?
Let's be real. bb's whitewashing doesn't eliminate the different consequences users face when interacting with the maroons and limes of this world.
To drive the point home: suppose a cop in uniform approached owen, the Black Jesus, and said, "you shouldn't be in the park. Let's not let that happen again." Owen and bystanders object, but the cop says, "Oh, I'm off-duty. I'm just stating my personal opinion." Should we conclude that the off-duty officer was never implying any kind of repercussions for failing to abide by his word? Of course not.
Actually, it does happen. Cops do sometimes give casual opinions where they are speaking as people and not as cops.
But even if it were not so, it is a long way from this. Cops are designed to look menacing, with their bandoliers of weaponry and torture instruments. Given the implicit threat of violence in their appearance, one could be forgiven for inferring a threat in a cop's words even one there isn't one. There's no reason to infer any such thing in dealing with unarmed CC admins.
I remember a very similar incident in OT about a year ago, when I was a victim of a similar over-reaction by you. I pointed out to someone that they were skirting the line on something, and you had this kind of meltdown. I'm not even a discussions mod; outside of a select few forums I have no special authority, and I certainly wasn't threatening the individual, just pointing out that they were crossing a line, but because I have a coloured nametag you decided I was abusing my non-existent authority.
You've become very negative toward CC of late, and it's starting to distort your perspective. CC mods and admins are first and foremost members of the community. Only rarely and with great reluctance do they invoke any of their disciplinary powers (and most mods don't even have any disciplinary powers) while most of their/our forum interactions are from the point of view of an ordinary member.
BigBallinStalin wrote:Dukasaur wrote:BigBallinStalin wrote:Let's conduct a thought experiment:
If I told blakebowling, "go shit on someone else's parade," would my chances of being kicked increase---compared to my telling that to owen?
Let's be real. bb's whitewashing doesn't eliminate the different consequences users face when interacting with the maroons and limes of this world.
To drive the point home: suppose a cop in uniform approached owen, the Black Jesus, and said, "you shouldn't be in the park. Let's not let that happen again." Owen and bystanders object, but the cop says, "Oh, I'm off-duty. I'm just stating my personal opinion." Should we conclude that the off-duty officer was never implying any kind of repercussions for failing to abide by his word? Of course not.
Actually, it does happen. Cops do sometimes give casual opinions where they are speaking as people and not as cops.
But even if it were not so, it is a long way from this. Cops are designed to look menacing, with their bandoliers of weaponry and torture instruments. Given the implicit threat of violence in their appearance, one could be forgiven for inferring a threat in a cop's words even one there isn't one. There's no reason to infer any such thing in dealing with unarmed CC admins.
I remember a very similar incident in OT about a year ago, when I was a victim of a similar over-reaction by you. I pointed out to someone that they were skirting the line on something, and you had this kind of meltdown. I'm not even a discussions mod; outside of a select few forums I have no special authority, and I certainly wasn't threatening the individual, just pointing out that they were crossing a line, but because I have a coloured nametag you decided I was abusing my non-existent authority.
You've become very negative toward CC of late, and it's starting to distort your perspective. CC mods and admins are first and foremost members of the community. Only rarely and with great reluctance do they invoke any of their disciplinary powers (and most mods don't even have any disciplinary powers) while most of their/our forum interactions are from the point of view of an ordinary member.
Given the context here, I don't find your exception about some number of cops to be applicable. When a cop says, "don't let X continue," you know his word is backed by enforcement; otherwise, no one would care so much about what cops tell them. I recall blake having a history of intervening at unnecessary moments, so why would I expect him to have changed? His later whitewashing isn't convincing.
RE: the last two paragraphs, note: "maroons and limes." I didn't include all the colors, so that should signal my updating.
If you'd like to support the underlined claim, please do. Remember to separate my jokes from my serious comments.
BigBallinStalin wrote:If you can't see (or are unwilling to admit) that your comment doesn't convey a warning and that your status doesn't influence enforcement decisions, then I'm not sure what to tell ya. (haha, you even mentioned that you could've locked the thread but didn't. Sure, you could lock it later; we know that). Somehow, user-user interactions are magically the same as admin/mod-user interactions.
Back to the main point: does implicitly warning people to the letter of the law (no necrobumping) foster greater liveliness in the fora? Does discouraging joke bumps somehow discourage new threads and comments?
ManBungalow wrote:Somebody go to the suggestions forum and suggest a rule which demands that anybody posting to GD must be naked.
King Troll wrote:Duk, you know that I personally bumped several old threads about 6 weeks ago. I believe it was in OT, but absolutely nothing was said.
It appears that one or more individuals complained when this thread was bumped.
Bumping an old thread is harmless. Why is the rule there is it's not going to be enforced?
Why was it created in the first place?
Why is the tail wagging the dog?
Surely mods have better things to do than react when a repeat complainer whines about something harmless and frivolous?
Is there an incessant complainer rule? There should be.
If you repeatedly call 911 for frivolous reasons you get fined because it is using resources that could be used elsewhere. How is this different?
Return to Conquer Club Discussion
Users browsing this forum: No registered users