|
On October 24 2012 09:46 Archas wrote:
KwarK is blunt, yes, but he's hardly a bad moderator. If you act stupid, he'll tell you that you are. You were acting stupid, and he told you that you were. He directed you to Website Feedback, which is a response anyone else would have complied with because they understand rational thinking. You, on the other hand, bitched about his reasonable suggestion.
Stop whining and man up. This isn't your house.
My rational thinking prevented me from posting in Website Feedback, as I was deprived posting privileges when banned.
On October 24 2012 09:46 Gene wrote:
Nevermind.
However, your post was homophobic. Your opinion is that an adult is not fit to be near children because of his sexual orientation. That is, simply put, a prejudice against homosexuals. A prejudice against homosexuals is commonly referred to as homophobia.
Stating it is simply your opinion does not change that fact.
Moreover, the patience is exhibited in the third PM, where after you were told how to voice your concerns about your ban, you decided to continue on your path of fruitless stupidity. Instead of telling you to piss off, he kindly said he was not interested in arguing with you about it.
No, that is your assumption.
|
On October 24 2012 10:12 Gene wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2012 10:06 neversummer wrote:On October 24 2012 10:00 Gene wrote:
"Why should I consider how my posts will be perceived by others?"
Because "others" are for whom your post is intended. If it is not, then don't post. If you don't care enough to put thought into how what you say affects others, don't be surprised to be shown just as little regard in return. You've misinterpreted the context in which my response was intended. Re-read what was said, as well as my response. I do not consider how each of my opinions will be perceived by others before presenting them, clearly as evident in my "homophobic" post. And you've clearly misinterpreted my response. Allow me to somehow re arrange the words to make it clearer. If you can not be bothered to consider other people, and what they think, you do not have the right to be surprised with other people can't be bothered by you. Still too lengthy? Do unto others, as you would have others do unto you. What goes around, comes around. Karma bites. I can't do better than two words. And allow me to cut you off before you use the same argument as your last post, Show nested quote +On October 24 2012 10:08 neversummer wrote:
Does Kwark have executive privilege, releasing him from these rules and regulations? Such is the purpose of this thread, please stop trying to devolve it into something unrelated. Don't hold someone up to a standard you can't to hold yourself to. Or, sticking with my previous theme, people in glass houses shouldnt throw stones.
Are you suggesting a moderator should not be held to a higher standard?
And no, I did not misinterpret your response. You've failed to realize my point, and instead reused the same argument with different words.
|
On October 24 2012 09:49 Jaaaaasper wrote:
Frankly having read your posts, i can't really blame Kwark for being a bit less than friendly in your case. Kwark may not be friendly to bad posters, but sometimes that's what it takes to get them to stop. Do you intend to make bigoted arguments in regards to pedophiles and homosexuals again? If not it worked, if so you will get another ban with a much less friendly message.
Mods speaking their mind may offend those who they say it to, but in some cases it is needed.
This, in its entirety, is based upon an assumption I contended in the OP. I really wish people would just read the damn OP before arguing for the sake of argument.
|
You don't seem to realize that KwarK has been around much longer than most. People don't become mods or remain mods unless there's a good reason, and they have had to have contributed to the site beforehand. And this forum has its biases like every other, one of which is that forum veterans have more leeway, because they've earned that by not getting perma banned for so long; for example, you'll see that IdrA and InControl get away with some stuff that would be bannable for guys under 100 posts.
|
On October 24 2012 10:16 neversummer wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2012 09:46 Archas wrote:
KwarK is blunt, yes, but he's hardly a bad moderator. If you act stupid, he'll tell you that you are. You were acting stupid, and he told you that you were. He directed you to Website Feedback, which is a response anyone else would have complied with because they understand rational thinking. You, on the other hand, bitched about his reasonable suggestion.
Stop whining and man up. This isn't your house. My rational thinking prevented me from posting in Website Feedback, as I was deprived posting privileges when banned.
That's understandable. It definitely explains why you kept sobbing like a pansy about a justified ban.
|
On October 24 2012 10:27 Archas wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2012 10:16 neversummer wrote:On October 24 2012 09:46 Archas wrote:
KwarK is blunt, yes, but he's hardly a bad moderator. If you act stupid, he'll tell you that you are. You were acting stupid, and he told you that you were. He directed you to Website Feedback, which is a response anyone else would have complied with because they understand rational thinking. You, on the other hand, bitched about his reasonable suggestion.
Stop whining and man up. This isn't your house. My rational thinking prevented me from posting in Website Feedback, as I was deprived posting privileges when banned. That's understandable. It definitely explains why you kept sobbing like a pansy about a justified ban.
That's just your assumption.
|
On October 24 2012 10:30 Gene wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2012 10:27 Archas wrote:On October 24 2012 10:16 neversummer wrote:On October 24 2012 09:46 Archas wrote:
KwarK is blunt, yes, but he's hardly a bad moderator. If you act stupid, he'll tell you that you are. You were acting stupid, and he told you that you were. He directed you to Website Feedback, which is a response anyone else would have complied with because they understand rational thinking. You, on the other hand, bitched about his reasonable suggestion.
Stop whining and man up. This isn't your house. My rational thinking prevented me from posting in Website Feedback, as I was deprived posting privileges when banned. That's understandable. It definitely explains why you kept sobbing like a pansy about a justified ban. That's just your assumption.
How dare you.
|
I'm really sorry if the following comes off as me speaking for TL staff, I'm very much trying not to, and only expressing my reaction to this gentleman's mod complaint.
If you would excuse me, I hardly think the following:
Homophobia? I said gay men should not lead boy scout troops. That qualifies as homophobia? Are you an omnipresent being who is capable of deciphering the motives, rationale and reasoning for the thoughts and opinions of others? How can you possibly determine, with absolute certainty, that I am homophobic merely for that opinion?
Secondly, you ASSUME I am implying something? Is that a fucking joke? You're banning people for what they're implying, even when they're not implying anything at all? Holy shit dude, get some fucking perspective. If you are a gay man, that's fine, but don't abuse your privilege as a mod on these forums to pursue your own pro-gay agenda.
My so-called "mod-history" is two temp bans from GMarshal for similar reasons; people abusing mod privileges to ban people whose opinions are not congruent with their own. Unbelievable man. Who do I contact for personal complaints?
Provides KwarK with any reason to seriously consider your rebuttal, because it's written like a thirteen-year-old who's read the wrong kind of books, and thinks himself clever for it.
Detail:
Exhibit B
Homophobia? I said gay men should not lead boy scout troops. That qualifies as homophobia? Are you an omnipresent being who is capable of deciphering the motives, rationale and reasoning for the thoughts and opinions of others? How can you possibly determine, with absolute certainty, that I am homophobic merely for that opinion?
There's hardly any motives other than preset mistrust and dislike for gays that would motivate the opinion that they should not be "prancing around" with 8-10 year olds. It's quite obvious what you meant.
Exhibit X
Secondly, you ASSUME I am implying something?
I can't recall that being in the ban reason, perhaps 23% of my vision has blurred and defaulted to the shade of white that TL uses, and as such I missed the part where he assumed you were implying something.
Exhibit mmmmm
pro-gay agenda.
The above does not need my poorly-constructed japing; it stands entirely on its own.
Exhibit Ø
My so-called "mod-history" is two temp bans from GMarshal for similar reasons; people abusing mod privileges to ban people whose opinions are not congruent with their own. Unbelievable man. Who do I contact for personal complaints?
1: It is not your "so-called "mod history"', it is your mod history, which exists whether you want it to or not. Disputation of the existence of this mod history may be brought to Dr. Emmet Brown, who might go back in time and prevent it from ever existing.
2: Here are the following two bans you received in which GMarshal 'abused his mod privileges':
On September 22 2012 05:12 neversummer wrote:
more like vagina-ism AMIRITE GUYZ?!?!?!?!?!?
User was temp banned for this post.
(in a thread about veganism)
I trust you will forgive me if I do not see how GMarshal was abusing his mod powers by banning you for this post, which might be called less than a contribution.
In your second ban you argued long, hard and completely pointlessly in the [SFW] Pics thread, despite the warning at the top. You called someone stalin, too, and started the argument completely unprovoked. There was a warning at the top of the thread, made long before you even registered on the site, yet you claim it abuse by GMarshal when he bans you for not heeding the warning.
Were I not to heed the courtesies, I would say you are bitter and incapable of understanding how these rules work, and I am not heeding the goddamned courtesies. This is one of the silliest mod criticisms I've seen as of recent.
|
On October 24 2012 10:15 aviator116 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2012 10:08 neversummer wrote:On October 24 2012 10:02 aviator116 wrote:On October 24 2012 09:57 neversummer wrote:On October 24 2012 09:42 Whatson wrote:
lol KwarK is a total boss in terms of speaking his mind, maybe people should stop being idiots.
It also seems like you have WAY too much time on your hands, especially considering how much you spent on the OP in a complaint about moderation on a private site. Maybe you should spend more of that time thinking about your posts and how they are perceived by others.
EDIT: And yes, your post was being homophobic, prejudice against somebody on the sole ground of him being a homosexual. Why should I consider how my posts will be perceived by others? Unless I'm attacking someone personally, then I am doing no harm. I did not attack the homosexual community; my opinion was mistaken. Kwark, conversely, personally attacked me as well as a multitude of others. Do you spend time thinking about how each word you speak will be perceived by others, how each argument you make will be perceived by every individual and how you can ameliorate the concerns of every potential demographic? I don't, but that's because I don't have a lot of time on my hands. Maybe you do. 2. THOU SHALL OBSERVE FORUM ETIQUETTE 3. THOU SHALL THINK BEFORE POSTING In general, thinking through your post and considering its potential ramifications is a good thing on any moderated website. Does Kwark have executive privilege, releasing him from these rules and regulations? Such is the purpose of this thread, please stop trying to devolve it into something unrelated. He's a mod. Since you've seemed to have read through a lot of his posts, I'd say he thinks through things pretty deliberately, and as people have pointed out before, if you're going to try to voice an opinion like that, then I would say he has the right to call you out for being an idiot. You should also look back at that thread, 5 or 6 other people on the first two pages, including another mod, have also called you out on your opinion and why it's pretty atrocious, and deserving of a ban and an earful.
Why? What makes my opinion wrong and his right? Are you basing your argument upon the implication I've already refuted?
|
I so envision KwarK just standing right around the corner, giggling uncontrollably at the effort you put forth in refuting one of the most obviously justified mod decisions ever to be contested in the website feedback forums.
|
On October 24 2012 10:32 marttorn wrote:I'm really sorry if the following comes off as me speaking for TL staff, I'm very much trying not to, and only expressing my reaction to this gentleman's mod complaint. If you would excuse me, I hardly think the following: Show nested quote +Homophobia? I said gay men should not lead boy scout troops. That qualifies as homophobia? Are you an omnipresent being who is capable of deciphering the motives, rationale and reasoning for the thoughts and opinions of others? How can you possibly determine, with absolute certainty, that I am homophobic merely for that opinion?
Secondly, you ASSUME I am implying something? Is that a fucking joke? You're banning people for what they're implying, even when they're not implying anything at all? Holy shit dude, get some fucking perspective. If you are a gay man, that's fine, but don't abuse your privilege as a mod on these forums to pursue your own pro-gay agenda.
My so-called "mod-history" is two temp bans from GMarshal for similar reasons; people abusing mod privileges to ban people whose opinions are not congruent with their own. Unbelievable man. Who do I contact for personal complaints? Provides KwarK with any reason to seriously consider your rebuttal, because it's written like a thirteen-year-old who's read the wrong kind of books, and thinks himself clever for it. Detail: Exhibit BShow nested quote +Homophobia? I said gay men should not lead boy scout troops. That qualifies as homophobia? Are you an omnipresent being who is capable of deciphering the motives, rationale and reasoning for the thoughts and opinions of others? How can you possibly determine, with absolute certainty, that I am homophobic merely for that opinion? There's hardly any motives other than preset mistrust and dislike for gays that would motivate the opinion that they should not be "prancing around" with 8-10 year olds. It's quite obvious what you meant. Exhibit XI can't recall that being in the ban reason, perhaps 23% of my vision has blurred and defaulted to the shade of white that TL uses, and as such I missed the part where he assumed you were implying something. Exhibit mmmmmThe above does not need my poorly-constructed japing; it stands entirely on its own. Exhibit ØShow nested quote +My so-called "mod-history" is two temp bans from GMarshal for similar reasons; people abusing mod privileges to ban people whose opinions are not congruent with their own. Unbelievable man. Who do I contact for personal complaints? 1: It is not your "so-called "mod history"', it is your mod history, which exists whether you want it to or not. Disputation of the existence of this mod history may be brought to Dr. Emmet Brown, who might go back in time and prevent it from ever existing. 2: Here are the following two bans you received in which GMarshal 'abused his mod privileges': Show nested quote +On September 22 2012 05:12 neversummer wrote:
more like vagina-ism AMIRITE GUYZ?!?!?!?!?!?
User was temp banned for this post. (in a thread about veganism) I trust you will forgive me if I do not see how GMarshal was abusing his mod powers by banning you for this post, which might be called less than a contribution. In your second ban you argued long, hard and completely pointlessly in the [SFW] Pics thread, despite the warning at the top. You called someone stalin, too, and started the argument completely unprovoked. There was a warning at the top of the thread, made long before you even registered on the site, yet you claim it abuse by GMarshal when he bans you for not heeding the warning. Were I not to heed the courtesies, I would say you are bitter and incapable of understanding how these rules work, and I am not heeding the goddamned courtesies. This is one of the silliest mod criticisms I've seen as of recent.
Not really sure where to start with this one. I guess I'll start with GMarshal. This thread has absolutely nothing to do with him, his rationale for banning me or whether the ban was legitimate.
Moving along to "what I meant," I've addressed this point already and you can find my response on the first page. The assumption I'm referring to was deliberately stated in the ban message, in which the word assume is used.
Thank you for your contribution to this thread.
|
Honestly. That you defend the post 'gays should not be "prancing around" children' as not homophobic displays an incomprehensible level of stupidity.
The fact that you do this, and use the phrase 'argue for the sake of arguing', is mindblowing.
|
On October 09 2012 00:54 micronesia wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2012 00:47 neversummer wrote:
First of all I don't think anyone is supporting the Boy Scouts of America.
Secondly I applaud them for maintaining their position in the midst of criticism from the community; I've never really cared for what is "politically" correct and quite frankly I don't think gay men should be prancing around with large groups of 8-10 year old boys. The BSA doesn't have 8-10 year old boys in it... it starts at like 6-7th grade. Your comment isn't related to a gay scout being able to advance in the organization... you are talking about the leadership which is two different things. Sticking with leadership though, why is a gay male more of a thread to the scouts than a heterosexual female? Are gays more likely to be rapists than heterosexual females (which often help lead in the BSA) or male leaders in the girl scouts? Why do you call it 'prancing around' when it's a gay man? If it was a heterosexual man dedicated his free time to help run a troop, would it be 'prancing around' then? There are regulations in place to prevent sexual misconduct in the BSA. I hear about gays being punished/ejected by the BSA from time to time, but I don't hear about the ones who kept their sexuality (and therefore apparent rapists' personality, as you imply) a secret getting caught only after going on a raping binge. If you want to support the BSA in their legal right to discriminate, that is your right as well. But if you are going to try to justify your opinion on this forum, be prepared for us to call you out on your idiocy (I doubt I'm the only person who has commended as I type this)
I'm just going to drop this from Micronesia, who probably would've banned you too had KwarK not already done so.
|
On October 24 2012 10:41 Gene wrote:
Honestly. That you defend the post 'gays should not be "prancing around" children' as not homophobic displays an incomprehensible level of stupidity.
The fact that you do this, and use the phrase 'argue for the sake of arguing', is mindblowing.
Actually this displays your incomprehensible level of intolerance. Ironic, isn't it?
|
On October 24 2012 10:41 neversummer wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2012 10:32 marttorn wrote:I'm really sorry if the following comes off as me speaking for TL staff, I'm very much trying not to, and only expressing my reaction to this gentleman's mod complaint. If you would excuse me, I hardly think the following: Homophobia? I said gay men should not lead boy scout troops. That qualifies as homophobia? Are you an omnipresent being who is capable of deciphering the motives, rationale and reasoning for the thoughts and opinions of others? How can you possibly determine, with absolute certainty, that I am homophobic merely for that opinion?
Secondly, you ASSUME I am implying something? Is that a fucking joke? You're banning people for what they're implying, even when they're not implying anything at all? Holy shit dude, get some fucking perspective. If you are a gay man, that's fine, but don't abuse your privilege as a mod on these forums to pursue your own pro-gay agenda.
My so-called "mod-history" is two temp bans from GMarshal for similar reasons; people abusing mod privileges to ban people whose opinions are not congruent with their own. Unbelievable man. Who do I contact for personal complaints? Provides KwarK with any reason to seriously consider your rebuttal, because it's written like a thirteen-year-old who's read the wrong kind of books, and thinks himself clever for it. Detail: Exhibit BHomophobia? I said gay men should not lead boy scout troops. That qualifies as homophobia? Are you an omnipresent being who is capable of deciphering the motives, rationale and reasoning for the thoughts and opinions of others? How can you possibly determine, with absolute certainty, that I am homophobic merely for that opinion? There's hardly any motives other than preset mistrust and dislike for gays that would motivate the opinion that they should not be "prancing around" with 8-10 year olds. It's quite obvious what you meant. Exhibit XSecondly, you ASSUME I am implying something? I can't recall that being in the ban reason, perhaps 23% of my vision has blurred and defaulted to the shade of white that TL uses, and as such I missed the part where he assumed you were implying something. Exhibit mmmmmpro-gay agenda. The above does not need my poorly-constructed japing; it stands entirely on its own. Exhibit ØMy so-called "mod-history" is two temp bans from GMarshal for similar reasons; people abusing mod privileges to ban people whose opinions are not congruent with their own. Unbelievable man. Who do I contact for personal complaints? 1: It is not your "so-called "mod history"', it is your mod history, which exists whether you want it to or not. Disputation of the existence of this mod history may be brought to Dr. Emmet Brown, who might go back in time and prevent it from ever existing. 2: Here are the following two bans you received in which GMarshal 'abused his mod privileges': On September 22 2012 05:12 neversummer wrote:
more like vagina-ism AMIRITE GUYZ?!?!?!?!?!?
User was temp banned for this post. (in a thread about veganism) I trust you will forgive me if I do not see how GMarshal was abusing his mod powers by banning you for this post, which might be called less than a contribution. In your second ban you argued long, hard and completely pointlessly in the [SFW] Pics thread, despite the warning at the top. You called someone stalin, too, and started the argument completely unprovoked. There was a warning at the top of the thread, made long before you even registered on the site, yet you claim it abuse by GMarshal when he bans you for not heeding the warning. Were I not to heed the courtesies, I would say you are bitter and incapable of understanding how these rules work, and I am not heeding the goddamned courtesies. This is one of the silliest mod criticisms I've seen as of recent. Not really sure where to start with this one. I guess I'll start with GMarshal. This thread has absolutely nothing to do with him, his rationale for banning me or whether the ban was legitimate. Moving along to "what I meant," I've addressed this point already and you can find my response on the first page. The assumption I'm referring to was deliberately stated in the ban message, in which the word assume is used. Thank you for your contribution to this thread.
It does have something to do with it, because you completely misconstrued why he banned you, by saying it was because you were voicing an opinion he did not agree with. Neither of the bans from GM conform to that, do they? Now, in my eyes this alone renders you unreliable, thus affecting the way one might view the rest of your post.
I assure you the pleasure was all mine.
The word assume is used in KwarK's ban message, but then again, the word 'pleasure' has been used in this post, yet it has nothing to do with pleasure houses.
|
On October 24 2012 10:43 Whatson wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2012 00:54 micronesia wrote:On October 09 2012 00:47 neversummer wrote:
First of all I don't think anyone is supporting the Boy Scouts of America.
Secondly I applaud them for maintaining their position in the midst of criticism from the community; I've never really cared for what is "politically" correct and quite frankly I don't think gay men should be prancing around with large groups of 8-10 year old boys. The BSA doesn't have 8-10 year old boys in it... it starts at like 6-7th grade. Your comment isn't related to a gay scout being able to advance in the organization... you are talking about the leadership which is two different things. Sticking with leadership though, why is a gay male more of a thread to the scouts than a heterosexual female? Are gays more likely to be rapists than heterosexual females (which often help lead in the BSA) or male leaders in the girl scouts? Why do you call it 'prancing around' when it's a gay man? If it was a heterosexual man dedicated his free time to help run a troop, would it be 'prancing around' then? There are regulations in place to prevent sexual misconduct in the BSA. I hear about gays being punished/ejected by the BSA from time to time, but I don't hear about the ones who kept their sexuality (and therefore apparent rapists' personality, as you imply) a secret getting caught only after going on a raping binge. If you want to support the BSA in their legal right to discriminate, that is your right as well. But if you are going to try to justify your opinion on this forum, be prepared for us to call you out on your idiocy (I doubt I'm the only person who has commended as I type this) I'm just going to drop this from Micronesia, who probably would've banned you too had KwarK not already done so.
Micronesia is the mod I consulted.
|
On October 24 2012 10:45 neversummer wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2012 10:43 Whatson wrote:On October 09 2012 00:54 micronesia wrote:On October 09 2012 00:47 neversummer wrote:
First of all I don't think anyone is supporting the Boy Scouts of America.
Secondly I applaud them for maintaining their position in the midst of criticism from the community; I've never really cared for what is "politically" correct and quite frankly I don't think gay men should be prancing around with large groups of 8-10 year old boys. The BSA doesn't have 8-10 year old boys in it... it starts at like 6-7th grade. Your comment isn't related to a gay scout being able to advance in the organization... you are talking about the leadership which is two different things. Sticking with leadership though, why is a gay male more of a thread to the scouts than a heterosexual female? Are gays more likely to be rapists than heterosexual females (which often help lead in the BSA) or male leaders in the girl scouts? Why do you call it 'prancing around' when it's a gay man? If it was a heterosexual man dedicated his free time to help run a troop, would it be 'prancing around' then? There are regulations in place to prevent sexual misconduct in the BSA. I hear about gays being punished/ejected by the BSA from time to time, but I don't hear about the ones who kept their sexuality (and therefore apparent rapists' personality, as you imply) a secret getting caught only after going on a raping binge. If you want to support the BSA in their legal right to discriminate, that is your right as well. But if you are going to try to justify your opinion on this forum, be prepared for us to call you out on your idiocy (I doubt I'm the only person who has commended as I type this) I'm just going to drop this from Micronesia, who probably would've banned you too had KwarK not already done so. Micronesia is the mod I consulted.
Then you fully understand why the ban was justified.
|
I feel so bad for teaming up on this poor poster :'(
He's trying so hard to keep his argument afloat, and I feel so sorry for him when people keep on shooting his already flimsy argument down with evidence
|
Are you attempting to undermine my position by highlighting my intolerance of homophobia?
I don't think it works like that.
Or am I just assuming something you didn't intend when not considering what you were saying
|
On October 24 2012 10:47 aviator116 wrote:
I feel so bad for teaming up on this poor poster :'(
He's trying so hard to keep his argument afloat, and I feel so sorry for him when people keep on shooting his already flimsy argument down with evidence
Which evidence?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
