Closed Thread
Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 49 to 64 of 75

  1. #49
    coontie is offline Vashudeva; Ferryman - doing the work...
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    3,392

    Re: Rebels -1 Moderators -0

    Quote Originally Posted by catch-22 View Post
    Who ever said you could expect a fair hearing on a message board? lol.

    It's mob mentality at it's finest, here. Always has been, always will be.

    Get on someone's nerves and out comes the lynching parties.

    Only this time it happened to be a Moderator who was being publically lynched while some, after pretending to steady the horse, gave it a quick slap on the ass.

    Well, I continure to hold out hope that there will be some civility and respect demonstrated AT SOME PLACES on the Internet!
    I really believe the single Moderator arrangement is a pretty sorry situation, especially since it is arranged much like a Dictator ship; too much latitude allowed on the part of people that are designated as having such authority.
    In ordinary human society, people that are in supreme or major positions of authority are either elected by the people or appointed by an individual elected by the people. Otherwise, self appointed and self-determined individuals too quickly become tyrants and dictators.
    The scheme in situation such as this should be a panel of at least three individuals that someone of responsibilty has determined are mature, sensbile and reasonable minded individuals that, when it is necessary to consider and deliberate upon the behavior of a certain individual and what action is necessary.
    It is only in a Kangaroo Court situation that determininate action is taken based upon already preconceived notiuons and attitudes that the body of authority has the first and last word and the person being dealt with is muzzled.
    Vasudeva

  2. #50
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    656

    Re: Rebels -1 Moderators -0

    Quote Originally Posted by coontie View Post
    Well, I continure to hold out hope that there will be some civility and respect demonstrated AT SOME PLACES on the Internet!
    I really believe the single Moderator arrangement is a pretty sorry situation, especially since it is arranged much like a Dictator ship; too much latitude allowed on the part of people that are designated as having such authority.
    In ordinary human society, people that are in supreme or major positions of authority are either elected by the people or appointed by an individual elected by the people. Otherwise, self appointed and self-determined individuals too quickly become tyrants and dictators.
    The scheme in situation such as this should be a panel of at least three individuals that someone of responsibilty has determined are mature, sensbile and reasonable minded individuals that, when it is necessary to consider and deliberate upon the behavior of a certain individual and what action is necessary.
    It is only in a Kangaroo Court situation that determininate action is taken based upon already preconceived notiuons and attitudes that the body of authority has the first and last word and the person being dealt with is muzzled.
    I agree with most of what you say here, except that as these message boards are moderated for very good reasons. The main ones being to keep the place civil and to protect themselves and the owners from being held responsible/liable when some of the more, shall we say, overly exuberant members post items that are clearly against the law or that violate other peoples basic human rights (of which freedom of speech is not one, but being able to defend oneself, is).

    These places are, in fact, meant to be dictatorial in the way the members who post outside the laws or rules are dealt with.
    Punishment should be swift and permanent.
    If other members don't like it, they can leave, there are thousands and thousands of other message boards to choose from. If they leave, they should stay away. (as Hot Paradox has said MANY times) If they come back to cause trouble and disrupt the site by undermining the authority of the Mods, they should also be banned permanently.

    Boy, I bet there are some people reading this who are glad I didn't stick my hand up to be a Mod!!!:spin2:

    btw, the idea of a panel to decide the fate of errant members on scam could be a good one (and a novel one,too!), provided that the member in question was immediately held in custody (temporarily banned) until a decision and if neccessary further punishment could be dished out. The same should apply to the Moderators (a temporary loss of Mod status until a ruling is made).

    In both cases all discussions in relation to the 'charge' should be done in private and in the interests of a fair hearing, asolutely NO PUBLIC COMMENT.
    Last edited by catch-22; 03-03-2009 at 08:46 PM.

  3. #51
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    5,324

    Re: Rebels -1 Moderators -0

    Quote Originally Posted by catch-22 View Post
    If other members don't like it, they can leave, there are thousands and thousands of other message boards to choose from. If they leave, they should stay away. (as Hot Paradox has said MANY times) If they come back to cause trouble and disrupt the site by undermining the authority of the Mods, they should also be banned permanently.
    In which case, why are you still here?

    The owner has made it pretty damn clear whose side he is on, and what sort of message board he wants this to be. It appears to be you that has a problem with the way this site is run, not the many people who were banned by Mumbles. If you don't like the fact that some of us understand how Zachary wants this place to be run better than Mumbles did, why don't you switch to one of those thousands and thousands of other boards?

  4. #52
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Mars
    Posts
    1,313

    Re: Rebels -1 Moderators -0

    Hours and hours have been spent by the moderators here sorting all this out and cleaning up the site. What you propose would only work with a reasonable number of full-time paid employees. Zachary makes the decisions around here as he pays the bills and that is perfectly acceptable in my book!

    Soapboxmom

  5. #53
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    656

    Re: Rebels -1 Moderators -0

    Quote Originally Posted by kazza View Post
    In which case, why are you still here?

    The owner has made it pretty damn clear whose side he is on, and what sort of message board he wants this to be. It appears to be you that has a problem with the way this site is run, not the many people who were banned by Mumbles. If you don't like the fact that some of us understand how Zachary wants this place to be run better than Mumbles did, why don't you switch to one of those thousands and thousands of other boards?
    I could ask you the same question!

    You didn't like the way Mumbles handled his position and I didn't like the way you handled Mumbles. Is that OK with you or should I just agree with it because you say so?

    It amazes me that you clowns bitch and whine about free speech and censorship and 'unfair' moderation, yet if someone opposes you, you tell them to shut up and leave.


    :rotz: :rotz:
    unbelievable!

    btw, in case you didn't notice, the post that Zachary made about the site was made in 2006 in reponse to Lady Mod banning dickwads who were disrupting the forum while there was only 4 Mods.

    I have seen nothing by Zachary in response to the latest 'panty-raid' by some of the members and until I do, I will keep repeating that the post doing the rounds at the moment is NOT in response to the latest bannings.

  6. #54
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Mars
    Posts
    1,313

    Re: Rebels -1 Moderators -0

    Check the rules, please. Zachary's 2006 announcement is incorporated into the rules and there is no need for him to make any further announcements or come on here. The moderators remaining are following his instructions and the spirit of the rules.

    Soapboxmom

  7. #55
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    302

    Re: Rebels -1 Moderators -0

    Quote Originally Posted by catch-22 View Post
    I could ask you the same question!

    You didn't like the way Mumbles handled his position and I didn't like the way you handled Mumbles. Is that OK with you or should I just agree with it because you say so?

    It amazes me that you clowns bitch and whine about free speech and censorship and 'unfair' moderation, yet if someone opposes you, you tell them to shut up and leave.


    :rotz: :rotz:
    unbelievable!

    btw, in case you didn't notice, the post that Zachary made about the site was made in 2006 in reponse to Lady Mod banning dickwads who were disrupting the forum while there was only 4 Mods.

    I have seen nothing by Zachary in response to the latest 'panty-raid' by some of the members and until I do, I will keep repeating that the post doing the rounds at the moment is NOT in response to the latest bannings.
    Catch, I don't understand this moral high ground position you're trying to take. You fail to see the situation for what it is. This was not a battle of 'free speech'. This message board does not guarantee free speech. The owner dictates what he wants on the board and he spells out the reasons people can be banned. Mumbles was clearly going against what the owner wanted and he was dealt with. He was not railroaded or targeted as you claim, he did this to himself.

    You sit and bitch and whine because you don't like the way it was handled but what other way could it have been handled? You have heard multiple mods come on here and tell you that multiple attempts were made to address him privately and politely with no luck. You have seen members explain how they tried to talk to him privately with no luck. So as a natural progression it got uglier and uglier. That's when you saw people starting threads and talking shit to Mumbles in open forums because nothing was working.

    You saw the comments on the other board and yea it turned into somewhat of a game. The majority of those people on that forum came from here so it is natural to see talk about what is going on over here. Mumbles decided on his own that he would take over the site and ban and edit whatever he wanted whenever he wanted. People wanted to see how far Mumbles would take it, they wanted to see what it took to get banned. Turns out he was banning people for simply asking what was going on.

    Don't try and say he was railroaded or baited because that's bullshit. He wanted to take over the site and make up the rules as he went along. Now his mod privileges were taken from him, good. I'm glad to see it. I don't apologize for anything I did or anything I said to him. He was wrong for his actions and I don't feel guilty for saying what I did to him.

    As for the mods telling you you can leave. They're not saying you have to leave and they're not saying you have to agree with them but like it or not they dealt with a mod who was obviously out of line and had the support of the owner. Now you can disagree with that action but the fact remains that what happened was the owner's wishes and his rules are not up for debate. They're saying if you don't like the owner's rules for this site noone is putting a gun to your head and making you come here. If his decisions bother you that much, well, bye.

    So you can either drop it and move on, or you can just not come back. Either way shut up about it. You've made your point and we've all heard it. Objection noted by Zach -- Overruled. Now sit down.

  8. #56
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    656

    Re: Rebels -1 Moderators -0

    Quote Originally Posted by Big Slick View Post
    Catch, I don't understand this moral high ground position you're trying to take. You fail to see the situation for what it is. This was not a battle of 'free speech'. This message board does not guarantee free speech. The owner dictates what he wants on the board and he spells out the reasons people can be banned. Mumbles was clearly going against what the owner wanted and he was dealt with. He was not railroaded or targeted as you claim, he did this to himself.

    You sit and bitch and whine because you don't like the way it was handled but what other way could it have been handled? You have heard multiple mods come on here and tell you that multiple attempts were made to address him privately and politely with no luck. You have seen members explain how they tried to talk to him privately with no luck. So as a natural progression it got uglier and uglier. That's when you saw people starting threads and talking shit to Mumbles in open forums because nothing was working.

    You saw the comments on the other board and yea it turned into somewhat of a game. The majority of those people on that forum came from here so it is natural to see talk about what is going on over here. Mumbles decided on his own that he would take over the site and ban and edit whatever he wanted whenever he wanted. People wanted to see how far Mumbles would take it, they wanted to see what it took to get banned. Turns out he was banning people for simply asking what was going on.

    Don't try and say he was railroaded or baited because that's bullshit. He wanted to take over the site and make up the rules as he went along. Now his mod privileges were taken from him, good. I'm glad to see it. I don't apologize for anything I did or anything I said to him. He was wrong for his actions and I don't feel guilty for saying what I did to him.

    As for the mods telling you you can leave. They're not saying you have to leave and they're not saying you have to agree with them but like it or not they dealt with a mod who was obviously out of line and had the support of the owner. Now you can disagree with that action but the fact remains that what happened was the owner's wishes and his rules are not up for debate. They're saying if you don't like the owner's rules for this site noone is putting a gun to your head and making you come here. If his decisions bother you that much, well, bye.

    So you can either drop it and move on, or you can just not come back. Either way shut up about it. You've made your point and we've all heard it. Objection noted by Zach -- Overruled. Now sit down.
    Yeah, thanks for that slick. Did you check your sig lately, you jerk?

    And, hey...What's a noone?

  9. #57
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    656

    Re: Rebels -1 Moderators -0

    Quote Originally Posted by Big Slick View Post
    Catch, I don't understand this moral high ground position you're trying to take. You fail to see the situation for what it is...................

    ..................You saw the comments on the other board and yea it turned into somewhat of a game. The majority of those people on that forum came from here so it is natural to see talk about what is going on over here. Mumbles decided on his own that he would take over the site and ban and edit whatever he wanted whenever he wanted. People wanted to see how far Mumbles would take it, they wanted to see what it took to get banned. Turns out he was banning people for simply asking what was going on..............
    Bullshit! No one simply asked him what was going on..It was a contrived, calculated and planned attack. Paint it how you like slick, you pricks set Mumbles up and you hung him out to dry.

    Quote Originally Posted by Big Slick View Post
    Don't try and say he was railroaded or baited because that's bullshit. He wanted to take over the site and make up the rules as he went along. Now his mod privileges were taken from him, good. I'm glad to see it. I don't apologize for anything I did or anything I said to him. He was wrong for his actions and I don't feel guilty for saying what I did to him.
    Do you people honestly condone this?

    Quote Originally Posted by Big Slick View Post
    As for the mods telling you you can leave. They're not saying you have to leave and they're not saying you have to agree with them but like it or not they dealt with a mod who was obviously out of line and had the support of the owner. Now you can disagree with that action but the fact remains that what happened was the owner's wishes and his rules are not up for debate. They're saying if you don't like the owner's rules for this site noone is putting a gun to your head and making you come here. If his decisions bother you that much, well, bye.

    So you can either drop it and move on, or you can just not come back. Either way shut up about it. You've made your point and we've all heard it. Objection noted by Zach -- Overruled. Now sit down.
    Which Mod has told me to leave, jerk off?

    So you have given me two choices....Either I drop it and move on or just not come back. Is that it?

    So tell me, who or what gave you the right to give me that ultimatum?
    Last edited by catch-22; 03-04-2009 at 07:36 AM.

  10. #58
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    302

    Re: Rebels -1 Moderators -0

    Quote Originally Posted by catch-22 View Post
    Yeah, thanks for that slick. Did you check your sig lately, you jerk?
    Yes that was directed at Mumbles and he knows it.

  11. #59
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    656

    Re: Rebels -1 Moderators -0

    Quote Originally Posted by Soapboxmom View Post
    Check the rules, please. Zachary's 2006 announcement is incorporated into the rules and there is no need for him to make any further announcements or come on here. The moderators remaining are following his instructions and the spirit of the rules.

    Soapboxmom
    Is that the rules as set out in 2006 or the new rules as set out in 2009? Just curious so I know where I stand?

  12. #60
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    656

    Re: Rebels -1 Moderators -0

    Quote Originally Posted by Big Slick View Post
    Yes that was directed at Mumbles and he knows it.
    Mumbles is banned, Slick...Just in case you didn't know!

    :yelcutelaughA:

  13. #61
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    302

    Re: Rebels -1 Moderators -0

    Quote Originally Posted by catch-22 View Post
    Bullshit! No one simply asked him what was going on..It was a contrived, calculated and planned attack. Paint it how you like slick, you pricks set Mumbles up and you hung him out to dry.
    Umm...yea they did...I did. Before I knew all the details, I asked him what happened and he threatened to ban me for asking about it. So you shouldn't speak on matters that you don't have all the facts on.

    He hung himself out to dry. We just gave him the blowdryer.


    Quote Originally Posted by catch-22 View Post
    Which Mod has told me to leave, jerk off?
    I have no idea, I was referring to your comment:

    "It amazes me that you clowns bitch and whine about free speech and censorship and 'unfair' moderation, yet if someone opposes you, you tell them to shut up and leave."


    Quote Originally Posted by catch-22 View Post
    So you have given me two choices....Either I drop it and move on or just not come back. Is that it?

    So tell me, who or what gave you the right to give me that ulimatum?
    Nobody gave me that right. That's the only two options there are. I guess there is a third option, you can continue to complain about it but I don't really see that leading to anything.

    I like how you resorted to name calling like a little kid. That's funny. Did I hurt your feelings little girl?

  14. #62
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Mars
    Posts
    1,313

    Re: Rebels -1 Moderators -0

    Quote Originally Posted by catch-22 View Post
    Is that the rules as set out in 2006 or the new rules as set out in 2009? Just curious so I know where I stand?
    Until Zachary says differently, the rules he and Sojustask posted will stand. The current moderators simply agreed that there will be times folks will come to us for help and that we have an obligation to work together and support one another as we honor Zachary's vision for his site. We were all working together as the events discusssed here unfolded as well. We are happy to see people freely expressing their views here and welcome honest feedback.

    Soapboxmom

  15. #63
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    302

    Re: Rebels -1 Moderators -0

    Quote Originally Posted by catch-22 View Post
    Mumbles is banned, Slick...Just in case you didn't know!

    :yelcutelaughA:
    Don't care. That's not the issue at hand here.

  16. #64
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    302

    Re: Rebels -1 Moderators -0

    happy now catch? I took off my sig, all for you.

Similar Threads

  1. israel Covertly Helping Syrian Rebels?
    By rogerbovee in forum Political Scams
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 06-08-2013, 11:49 AM
  2. Li**an rebels round up black Africans
    By SnappyDan in forum Political Scams
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 09-04-2011, 03:50 PM
  3. The British Army Rebels Against Propaganda
    By sojustask in forum Political Scams
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 06-10-2007, 07:55 PM
  4. Bush Says G.O.P. Rebels Are Putting Nation at Risk
    By sojustask in forum Political Scams
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 09-16-2006, 11:43 PM
  5. Rebels 'control Half Of Afghanistan'
    By Solve et Coagula in forum Political Scams
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 09-07-2006, 09:28 AM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may post new threads
  • You may post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may edit your posts
  •