|
This thread is for discussing recent bans. Don't discuss other topics here. Take it to website feedback if you disagree with a ban or want to raise an issue. Keep it civil.NOTE: For those of you who want to find the actual ABL thread where the bans are posted. Please look in here: https://tl.net/forum/closed-threads/ |
On December 06 2012 05:45 Melliflue wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2012 05:33 KwarK wrote:I'm sure he'll continue to believe that it's because I couldn't accept his stance in the Trayvon Martin topic or something. Martyrs gotta keep on martyring. He got his first warning for this I suppose the warning must not apply to anti-Zimmerman hate crusaders, even when they say the most vitriolic and hateful lies possible. and the warning read If you think something deserves moderator attention then PM a moderator and let them know what and why. Bitching about moderation bias in the topic is never, ever acceptable. Our moderators are volunteers and deal with stuff as it is brought to their attention, be a part of the process rather than whining about it. If you feel there is an issue with moderation generally then the website feedback forum is the place to go. This was only a warning because of your low post count, learn from it.
Thanks in advance for your cooperation,
KwarK A day later he felt the need to make this post in the same topic Yeah, the moderation is heavily and blatantly biased. and this in another KwarK is apparently letting his personal bias cloud his moderation on this issue. I'd classify this under http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_by_cop As a new user I don't have a report button. I know I can pm a mod but I would not know which one to pm. I'm not sure if it would make a big deal but I get nervous that what happens will depend on which mod I pm. I suspect it depends somewhat on which subforum the offending post was in. It would be cool if there were a list of which mod to pm based on subforum, eg monk. for Strat 
Chill takes great joy in doling out justice. You should pm him any time you have the slightest question about someone's posting standards
|
On December 06 2012 05:45 Melliflue wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2012 05:33 KwarK wrote:I'm sure he'll continue to believe that it's because I couldn't accept his stance in the Trayvon Martin topic or something. Martyrs gotta keep on martyring. He got his first warning for this I suppose the warning must not apply to anti-Zimmerman hate crusaders, even when they say the most vitriolic and hateful lies possible. and the warning read If you think something deserves moderator attention then PM a moderator and let them know what and why. Bitching about moderation bias in the topic is never, ever acceptable. Our moderators are volunteers and deal with stuff as it is brought to their attention, be a part of the process rather than whining about it. If you feel there is an issue with moderation generally then the website feedback forum is the place to go. This was only a warning because of your low post count, learn from it.
Thanks in advance for your cooperation,
KwarK A day later he felt the need to make this post in the same topic Yeah, the moderation is heavily and blatantly biased. and this in another KwarK is apparently letting his personal bias cloud his moderation on this issue. I'd classify this under http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_by_cop As a new user I don't have a report button. I know I can pm a mod but I would not know which one to pm. I'm not sure if it would make a big deal but I get nervous that what happens will depend on which mod I pm. I suspect it depends somewhat on which subforum the offending post was in. It would be cool if there were a list of which mod to pm based on subforum, eg monk. for Strat
I could be mistaken but I think the reports just show up in a list and get taken care of as moderators look at them. In that sense you're only increasing your chances of your desired outcome by selecting the mod instead of leaving it up to chance/ whoever feels like looking at your report. You shouldn't be nervous as long as its report worthy
|
I'm scared to lol at what just occurred in the transgender thread in there, so:
+ Show Spoiler +
|
Nice to see Kwark is really adapting, putting those giant descriptions of why he banned in the red ban text. Hopefully for his sake it will help against the "OMG KWARK SO BI-EST"
|
On December 06 2012 05:45 Melliflue wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2012 05:33 KwarK wrote:I'm sure he'll continue to believe that it's because I couldn't accept his stance in the Trayvon Martin topic or something. Martyrs gotta keep on martyring. He got his first warning for this I suppose the warning must not apply to anti-Zimmerman hate crusaders, even when they say the most vitriolic and hateful lies possible. and the warning read If you think something deserves moderator attention then PM a moderator and let them know what and why. Bitching about moderation bias in the topic is never, ever acceptable. Our moderators are volunteers and deal with stuff as it is brought to their attention, be a part of the process rather than whining about it. If you feel there is an issue with moderation generally then the website feedback forum is the place to go. This was only a warning because of your low post count, learn from it.
Thanks in advance for your cooperation,
KwarK A day later he felt the need to make this post in the same topic Yeah, the moderation is heavily and blatantly biased. and this in another KwarK is apparently letting his personal bias cloud his moderation on this issue. I'd classify this under http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_by_cop As a new user I don't have a report button. I know I can pm a mod but I would not know which one to pm. I'm not sure if it would make a big deal but I get nervous that what happens will depend on which mod I pm. I suspect it depends somewhat on which subforum the offending post was in. It would be cool if there were a list of which mod to pm based on subforum, eg monk. for Strat
i've seen a suggestion that you pm it to the last mod to issue a ban in the ABL thread (considering the date and time of the ban of course).
|
On December 06 2012 06:09 sc2superfan101 wrote:I'm scared to lol at what just occurred in the transgender thread in there, so: + Show Spoiler +
You found the right place to "lol," lol. 
|
United States42971 Posts
Asking if any of the mods are around on IRC can also work.
|
On December 06 2012 06:15 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2012 05:45 Melliflue wrote:On December 06 2012 05:33 KwarK wrote:I'm sure he'll continue to believe that it's because I couldn't accept his stance in the Trayvon Martin topic or something. Martyrs gotta keep on martyring. He got his first warning for this I suppose the warning must not apply to anti-Zimmerman hate crusaders, even when they say the most vitriolic and hateful lies possible. and the warning read If you think something deserves moderator attention then PM a moderator and let them know what and why. Bitching about moderation bias in the topic is never, ever acceptable. Our moderators are volunteers and deal with stuff as it is brought to their attention, be a part of the process rather than whining about it. If you feel there is an issue with moderation generally then the website feedback forum is the place to go. This was only a warning because of your low post count, learn from it.
Thanks in advance for your cooperation,
KwarK A day later he felt the need to make this post in the same topic Yeah, the moderation is heavily and blatantly biased. and this in another KwarK is apparently letting his personal bias cloud his moderation on this issue. I'd classify this under http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_by_cop As a new user I don't have a report button. I know I can pm a mod but I would not know which one to pm. I'm not sure if it would make a big deal but I get nervous that what happens will depend on which mod I pm. I suspect it depends somewhat on which subforum the offending post was in. It would be cool if there were a list of which mod to pm based on subforum, eg monk. for Strat i've seen a suggestion that you pm it to the last mod to issue a ban in the ABL thread (considering the date and time of the ban of course).
I use most recent thread closure or ban issuer, whichever is more recent.
|
Nooooo!!!! What did he do to MY anti-kwark thread?
This is exactly what I hate the most. I have created an elaborate, deeply thought-out and inconspiciously intelectual masterpiece of secret kwark-hatery and he comes in and starts calling people names. People like this are why we can't have nice things.
edit: too blindfolded by rage for spelling, excuse me
|
lol
gordons1973 was just banned by KwarK. That account was created on 2012-12-06 05:43:29 and had 1 posts. Reason: Who the hell sees some idiot getting banned for arguing about moderation in the topic, sees this post clarifying exactly why he was banned and then tries to dispute it IN THE TOPIC?!?! Show nested quote +I just wanted to address this before anyone got the wrong idea and the topic devolved further, if anyone has anything more to add then please PM me or take it to website feedback. Thank you. It's like fish in a barrel. Sigh.
On December 06 2012 05:50 gordons1973 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2012 05:28 KwarK wrote:On December 06 2012 05:03 Klondikebar wrote:On December 06 2012 04:57 mortonm wrote:On December 06 2012 04:28 mortonm wrote:On December 06 2012 04:20 iamahydralisk wrote:On December 06 2012 03:44 mortonm wrote:On December 06 2012 03:34 sunprince wrote:On December 06 2012 03:28 mortonm wrote:On December 06 2012 03:12 NicolBolas wrote:
Why does it matter what it is called? What matters is that there is a distinction between "mental sexual state" and "physical sexual state". As my comparison to furries alluded, the idea that there even is such a thing as a "mental sexual state" is as ridiculous as claiming there is a "mental species state". Actually there is already a word for it: imagination. Do you deny that it's possible for someone to mentally feel like a member of a different species? And if there happen to be enough people who have that mental condition, wouldn't it make sense to have a name for it? You can invent whatever words you want, for whatever reason you want. If it catches in in common speech it might even make it into a dictionary. I don't like when people try to redefine an existing word, contrary to how it is used in speech, and then go around smugly "correcting" people who use the word properly (the same way it always has been). as someone who's experienced strong gender dysphoria and is a linguistics major... please, stop posting in this thread. you're completely and demonstrably wrong on all fronts. the reason I even bring up my major is because you're not even arguing about the topic at hand anymore. you're arguing about the direction of the english language in a thread about transsexuals. it's great that you're old fashioned when it comes to language and you apparently think that any sort of change in lexicon is a "degradation" of the language, but given the subject of this thread, we reeeeeeaaaaaaaaaaally don't care. If you want to debate about how words should keep their original meanings, then great, make a new thread. also, if you're just using this "blah blah I don't like it when new things happen in my language" argument as a front to cover for your "gender and sex are exactly the same thing comment," then guess what, you're demonstrably wrong there, like pretty much every poster has shown you. In our current language usage, gender and sex are two distinctly different things, even if they're used interchangeably in conversation. You constantly repeating that "they're the same thing" with no factual backing whatsoever doesn't change that. It doesn't even matter if they meant exactly the same thing at some point in time (which is debatable). The important thing is that they don't mean the same thing NOW means your entire argument is invalid. I have no problem with language changing over time. For example "gay" obviously has changed meaning and I wouldn't use the word gay in its historical sense. But the word gender has not changed. It's used the same as it always has been. The people clamoring for the acceptance of this new definition are a small minority of people in Western nations. These people often see it as a badge of pride to tell the majority of people they are wrong and only this new fabricated definition that has not caught on and probably never will is the truly correct one. User was warned for this post I was warned for this post, the reasoning given being: Insisting that gender and sex are the same thing because the words used to be used interchangeably is flat out idiotic. You're degrading the entire topic by starting and then continuing an argument based on linguistics for the sake of linguistics at the expense of communication.
Thanks in advance for your cooperation,
KwarK Of course the warning is patently false. My argument has never hinged on linguistics, it is people arguing that gender is something different who have to fall back to linguistics to justify their claims. Gender and sex are the same thing because they are the same concept. The idea that there is a "mental sex" is utterly hogwash unsupported by any scientific evidence. The reason this devolved to linguistics is because people who try and claim there is some separate "mental sex" have no evidence and can only claim that linguistics or history support them. KwarK is apparently letting his personal bias cloud his moderation on this issue. Also arguing with a mod on an account with 27 posts will probably get you banned or even nuked. Arguing with a mod about gender issues certainly won't, provided you are civil. Arguing with a mod about moderation issues anywhere outside of the website feedback forum after an explicit warning not to will absolutely get you banned, he was warned for that exact offence. Arguing with a mod generally is fine though. I just wanted to address this before anyone got the wrong idea and the topic devolved further, if anyone has anything more to add then please PM me or take it to website feedback. Thank you. Did you not issue him that warning? It does seem to be on the basis of you disagreeing with his argument. The warning looks like a very clear threat to stop making arguments you disagree with, KwarK. Show nested quote +Insisting that gender and sex are the same thing because the words used to be used interchangeably is flat out idiotic. You're degrading the entire topic by starting and then continuing an argument based on linguistics for the sake of linguistics at the expense of communication.
Thanks in advance for your cooperation,
KwarK Maybe he faked that warning text, in which case I apologize. I don't see you anywhere in this thread actually rebut his arguments, just that "warning" (threat) to stop saying things you disagree with. EDIT: You say arguing about gender issues won't be punished, but gender issue arguments are the basis of the warning he was complaining about. If you hadn't issued a threat to stop disagreeing, he wouldn't have any complaint about moderation. You are being disingenuous. In particular: Thanks in advance for your cooperation,How could he have cooperated? What does cooperation mean in this case? It seems like a very clear threat, and "cooperation" means shutting up and not disagreeing anymore. User was banned for seeing a guy banned for disputing moderation in a topic rather than website feedback after a specific warning to not to do that and then deciding the correct route was to criticise it in the same topic rather than website feedback.
|
Wait.
meteorskunk, EffervescentAureola, and StateOfReverie are all banned now.
THE BLOG SECTION HAS BEEN LIBERATED!
Also,
ADCarry was just banned by Nyovne.
That account was created on 2012-12-06 03:10:25 and had 0 posts.
Reason: Previously banned user.
I'd like to see a couple more, Nyovne, don't AFK now!
|
lol, I want to see Kwark writing out essays in bright red text explaining his ban reasoning.
ABL is the best. :D
|
On December 06 2012 07:40 jdseemoreglass wrote:
lol, I want to see Kwark writing out essays in bright red text explaining his ban reasoning.
ABL is the best. :D
Eventually, somebody is going to make a greasemonkey script that you can install to show only the red text on TL, as it will, by then, succintly summarize everything interesting anyway.
|
On December 06 2012 04:52 Deleuze wrote:So is SoR the CharlieMurphy of SC2? SoR for people's choice awards? Vote #State of Reverie
What? If he's Racenilatr, he was a raging 13 year old like 3 years ago, and he eventually got banned for it, glad he's gone tho. Havent seen any quality rage blogs, but then i again i so rarely leave the league forum that might be why haha
|
On December 06 2012 05:54 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2012 05:46 SKC wrote:
He was actually worse on the transgender thread. He registered today and managed to start a (stupid) argument in the only 2 threads he has ever posted. 28 posts on your first day is ussually not a good sign as well.
It was the kind of stuff you just know is only a matter of time. I did think he would last more than a day though. Yeah, when he posted this, Show nested quote +On December 06 2012 04:11 mortonm wrote:So easily found, maybe you should put some effort in yourself. Gender (dʒe'ndəɹ), sb. Also 4 gendre. [a. OF. gen(d)re (F. genre) = Sp. género, Pg. gênero, It. genere, ad. L. gener- stem form of genus race, kind = Gr. γένος, Skr. jánas:— OAryan *genes-, f. root γεν- to produce; cf. KIN.]
†1. Kind, sort, class; also, genus as opposed to species. The general gender: the common sort (of people). Obs.
13.. E.E.Allit. P. P. 434 Alle gendrez so ioyst wern ioyned wyth-inne. c 1384 CHAUSER H. Fame* 1. 18 To knowe of hir signifiaunce The gendres. 1398 TREVISA Barth. De P. K. VIII. xxix. (1495) 34I Byshynynge and lyghte ben dyuers as species and gendre, for suery shinyng is lyght, but not ayenwarde. 1602 SHAKES. Ham. IV. vii. 18 The great loue the generall gender beare him. 1604—Oth. I. iii. 326 Supplie it with one gender of Hearbes, or distract it with many. 1643 and so on.- 1387–8: No mo genders been there but masculine, and femynyne, all the remnaunte been no genders but of grace, in facultie of grammar—Thomas Usk, The Testament of Love II iii (Walter William Skeat) 13.
- c. 1460: Has thou oght written there of the femynyn gendere?—Towneley Mystery Plays xxx 161 Act One.
- 1632: Here's a woman! The soul of Hercules has got into her. She has a spirit, is more masculine Than the first gender—Shackerley Marmion, Holland's Leaguer III iv.
- 1658: The Psyche, or soul, of Tiresias is of the masculine gender—Thomas Browne, Hydriotaphia.
- 1709: Of the fair sex ... my only consolation for being of that gender has been the assurance it gave me of never being married to any one among them—Mary Wortley Montagu, Letters to Mrs Wortley lxvi 108.
- 1768: I may add the gender too of the person I am to govern—Laurence Sterne, A Sentimental Journey Through France and Italy.
- 1859: Black divinities of the feminine 'gender —Charles Dickens, A Tale of Two Cities.
- 1874: It is exactly as if there were a sex in mountains, and their contours and curves and complexions were here all of the feminine gender—Henry James, 'A Chain of Italian Cities', The Atlantic Monthly 33 (February, p. 162.)
- 1892: She was uncertain as to his gender—Robert Grant, 'Reflections of a Married Man', Scribner's Magazine 11 (March, p. 376.)
- 1896: As to one's success in the work one does, surely that is not a question of gender either—Daily News 17 July.
c. 1900: Our most lively impression is that the sun is there assumed to be of the feminine gender—Henry James, Essays on Literature.
I knew it was time to slowly back away from the thread and never return lol
I'm sorry he got banned. I was going to ask him if it was ok to use a female pronoun when it was on its period.
|
loveless11 was just banned by LosingID8.
That account was created on 2012-12-06 10:23:52 and had 3 posts.
Reason: spambot
Woah, I've never seen this mod before, I don't think. Am I the only one?
|
well, he has been around for a very long time.
|
You pretty much only see him when you get linked to some of the really old threads.
|
On December 06 2012 11:40 CyDe wrote:Show nested quote +
loveless11 was just banned by LosingID8.
That account was created on 2012-12-06 10:23:52 and had 3 posts.
Reason: spambot
Woah, I've never seen this mod before, I don't think. Am I the only one?
LosingID8 was more active while broodwar was bigger (he still posts from time to time I think)
so its a very old mod 
|
On December 06 2012 12:18 DODswe4 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2012 11:40 CyDe wrote:
loveless11 was just banned by LosingID8.
That account was created on 2012-12-06 10:23:52 and had 3 posts.
Reason: spambot
Woah, I've never seen this mod before, I don't think. Am I the only one? LosingID8 was more active while broodwar was bigger (he still posts from time to time I think) so its a very old mod
I had the pleasure of meeting him in person one time during the last BW OSL Finals party in NYC. We share the same name, pretty much (our last names are different by one letter).
On topic, I know these are old bans, but I haven't looked at bans in a while and want to discuss two of them.
Gamegene was just banned by EvilTeletubby.
That account was created on 2011-06-16 06:24:17 and had 5922 posts.
Reason: Warned and temp banned far too many times for the same thing. Hope it was worth it!
Can someone link me the exact post that broke the camel's back? I am curious because I didn't know him very well and thought he was just another poster.
duoform was just banned by motbob.
That account was created on 2012-08-08 21:41:02 and had 400 posts.
Reason: LOL, how was this not a ban???
I knew from the first time I bumped into him that he wouldn't last very long. Good riddance, I say.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
