|
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
On the contrary, I think it's hilarious that he would still hold that his position is correct and that KwarK was not somehow justified.
Also to the OP, don't bother trying to PM me anything, I delete all PMs that come through unless they're on my buddy list or from a mod.
|
i didnt read the op, but kwark banned me once i think, so i agree with everything you say about him that is negative, and nothing you say that is positive. i think thats how these threads work. ;-)
edit: just checked, never been banned by kwark, so i take everything back.
|
On October 24 2012 11:02 dAPhREAk wrote:
i didnt read the op, but kwark banned me once i think, so i agree with everything you say about him that is negative, and nothing you say that is positive. i think thats how these threads work. ;-)
And vice versa. I think I've made my points though, and if anyone would actually like to refute them I'd be more than happy to engage in civil discussion either in this thread or via PM. Thanks.
|
On October 24 2012 11:02 dAPhREAk wrote:
i didnt read the op, but kwark banned me once i think, so i agree with everything you say about him that is negative, and nothing you say that is positive. i think thats how these threads work. ;-)
edit: just checked, never been banned by kwark, so i take everything back.
I havn't read the op and I'm waiting for kwark to say something.
|
Braavos36389 Posts
After reviewing the ban and all your arguments I've decided to elevate Kwark to banling level 2.
Congrats Kwark on your promotion.
|
ALLEYCAT BLUES50607 Posts
On October 24 2012 13:07 Hot_Bid wrote:
After reviewing the ban and all your arguments I've decided to elevate Kwark to banling level 2.
Congrats Kwark on your promotion.
huzzah!
|
On October 24 2012 13:07 Hot_Bid wrote:
After reviewing the ban and all your arguments I've decided to elevate Kwark to banling level 2.
Congrats Kwark on your promotion.
Hey Hot Bid, thanks for contributing to the thread.
Could you explain why you agree with Kwark? This thread has already devolved into rhetoric absent reasoning, and your voice carries considerable weight around here. I'd really appreciate it if you could explain your position so I could at least have a chance to explain myself. Thanks.
Also, could you (or anyone) address this point in particular?
"Exhibit M further demonstrates this behavior, as he continues to berate the individual and insinuates the individual may be either stupid or psychologically deficient. Kwark then continues to personally attack the individual, implying he/she must've been dropped on his/her head as a child, or that he/she suffered from fetal alcohol syndrome as an infant.
I find this particularly troubling, as well as immensely hypocritical, as Kwark so brazenly pokes fun at a debilitating illness and yet so valiantly stands to defend homosexuals. I'd venture to guess a homosexual man or woman would possess the mental capacity to deflect homophobic sentiment; to understand the ridicule derived from ignorance and to find solace in his or her physical and mental health. These luxuries are often not afforded to those affected by fetal alcohol syndrome."
|
On October 24 2012 13:23 neversummer wrote:
I find this particularly troubling, as well as immensely hypocritical, as Kwark so brazenly pokes fun at a debilitating illness and yet so valiantly stands to defend homosexuals. I'd venture to guess a homosexual man or woman would possess the mental capacity to deflect homophobic sentiment; to understand the ridicule derived from ignorance and to find solace in his or her physical and mental health.
I'm sorry but is this some roundabout way of calling Kwark gay?
|
On October 24 2012 14:12 MountainDewJunkie wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2012 13:23 neversummer wrote:
I find this particularly troubling, as well as immensely hypocritical, as Kwark so brazenly pokes fun at a debilitating illness and yet so valiantly stands to defend homosexuals. I'd venture to guess a homosexual man or woman would possess the mental capacity to deflect homophobic sentiment; to understand the ridicule derived from ignorance and to find solace in his or her physical and mental health.
I'm sorry but is this some roundabout way of calling Kwark gay?
Nope. Which part confused you?
|
Braavos36389 Posts
Here's my reasoning, since you asked for it so nicely. The ban was justified, reasons for ban were correct. You guys then exchange some PMs, and you feel its unfair because the basis of the ban is refuted by you. Unfortunately, simply stating that the ban was incorrect does not make this fact.
You are right in the sense that Kwark could have been nicer in his PMs to you, but the first PM you sent to him justified the tone that he took with you.
If I were the person receiving this paragraph:
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.
...especially after your original ban reason, I'd just perm you. That'd be it.
But since we're so nice and transparent, we're having this discussion in Website Feedback. Judging by the length and frequency of your replies in this thread I feel like you will argue this forever, so I'm just going to say that this is the last post I'm going to write about this topic.
|
United States22154 Posts
Personally I enjoyed the bit where he said that his previous bans were also based on moderators abusing their powers.
Its always great when someone defends posts like
On September 22 2012 05:12 neversummer wrote:
more like vagina-ism AMIRITE GUYZ?!?!?!?!?!?
User was temp banned for this post.
as totally acceptable.
You know, you could actually accomplish a lot more if instead of putting a ton of effort into getting Kwark demodded or whatever vengeance fantasy you have you put it into learning how to post acceptably.
Also, what makes you qualified to evaluate anyone? Have you ever moderated a site before? Or are we going to base this on the assumption that you know what you are talking about?
|
United States43474 Posts
There was a fundamental misunderstanding on your part into how this works.
1) You made a homophobic remark.
2) I banned you for it.
3) You attempted to explain to me why it was not ban worthy and asked how to appeal.
4) I did not accept your argument as to why it was not homophobic. My opinion was that it was homophobic and I upheld the ban. I also explained how to appeal should you not be satisfied with the result.
5) You insisted that I explain to you to your satisfaction why you should be banned. This point here is where I think the fundamental misunderstanding is. You see how it works is that you are the forum poster, you make the posts on the forum. Then I am the moderator and my purpose is to moderate them and judge those which don't meet our standards. I don't need to persuade you that your posting is so bad that you should take two weeks off, if I feel that it is so bad that you should take time off then I use a ban. I make the judgement. I considered your PM explaining why you felt you shouldn't be banned and then I dismissed it because you were, in my opinion, wrong.
Imagine you were speeding and a police officer pulled you over and the following exchange happened.
Police officer: "Sir, you were going 20mph over the speed limit so I'm going to give you a ticket for speeding"
Neversummer: "I hardly think that I was doing qualifies as speeding. Who do I contact to complain about you?"
the police officer continues writing his ticket
Police officer: "Well you could contact the police department or if you are unhappy with the law then I guess you could contact your representative or if you are unhappy with the way that one number can be higher than another then please contact the universe."
Neversummer: "Is that a joke? Please address my complaint about how I think going 20mph over the speed limit wasn't speeding."
Police officer: "I'm not sure you understand how this works. I'm not here to convince you you need a ticket or to debate traffic law with you. You were speeding and I'm giving you a ticket."
Neversumer: "But my car has excellent brakes and the visibility is good so I feel that if anything happened then I could easily have stopped in time and anyway the traffic laws in question are bad and what gives you the right? I heard once that a guy who was pulled over for speeding and had his pregnant wife in labour in the back of his car and was on the way to the hospital made a successful appeal against a ticket. The police officer in that case felt that the ticket wouldn't be justified. I would therefore like you to explain to me why my situation is different to that and then, if you can explain to me to my satisfaction why my case isn't the same, I will accept the ticket."
Police officer: "Sir, you were speeding, here is your ticket".
Neversummer: "But we didn't even discuss how the speed limit doesn't vary depending upon the weather even though stopping distances do vary! How can you give me a ticket if you are unwilling to do that?!?!?"
Hopefully that explains why I think your objection was completely retarded. You were homophobic, I judged you as homophobic and banned you for it. It doesn't matter what you think.
|
The court is now adjourned...
|
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.
This is slightly problematic in my opinion. If moderators claim that the only way to get unbanned is to post here and the only way to post here is while unbanned, then there is clearly a flaw.
I would like to think that in the case of an inappropriate ban (be it a mistake or an abuse of power) that someone would be able to get it revoked, i guess it's a bit disappointing to find that this is not always the case.
|
Russian Federation3631 Posts
Topic name: Should the US reduce its global military presence?
Absolutely not. The military provides jobs. A lot of jobs.
I am really sad that Kwark is depriving TL of potential quality posts like this.
Preface: The TL forums have long since served as a bastion for intellectual, or at the very least educated and civil, discussion; a veritable safe-haven which has delivered us from the bitter depths of the Blizzard forums to an internet utopia where trolling, QQing and ad hominem attacks are neither accepted nor tolerated.
hahahahaha
your dreams were destined to be crushed
|
United States43474 Posts
On October 24 2012 16:05 chaokel 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. This is slightly problematic in my opinion. If moderators claim that the only way to get unbanned is to post here and the only way to post here is while unbanned, then there is clearly a flaw. I would like to think that in the case of an inappropriate ban (be it a mistake or an abuse of power) that someone would be able to get it revoked, i guess it's a bit disappointing to find that this is not always the case.
The system is
1) PM the mod involved and explain. Usually an unban through this will happen because either the ban was the result of a misunderstanding of what the banned poster was trying to say or the banned poster convinces the moderator that a ban is not needed because they learned their lesson.
In cases in which there has been a misunderstanding and the intent of the post is not that for which the poster has been banned this route will result in rapid unbanning at the discretion of the moderator. Similarly an apology and a request for leniency can get you unbanned in this case. There was a recent case with lyberbeth in which I tempbanned him and he PMed me apologising for his post and any offence that it had caused. I felt he was sincere and that the post did not represent his conduct as a poster and therefore the ban was revoked.
2) Ask that the mod raise the issue in the moderators forum for debate.
In particularly contentious cases in which a mod wants to get other opinions they may accede to this request.
3) PM another mod asking that they give you their opinion. They may also wish to raise it in the moderators forum.
Another mod will not immediately unban you but they will discuss the issue with the first mod if they feel the ban was inappropriate and, should that fail, a moderators forum topic for a larger discussion can result.
4) Wait it out and then make a topic in website feedback.
For issues where you and the mod do not have a misunderstanding, you both agree on what you did but you do not feel you should have been banned for it, you can discuss the principles underlying moderation in the website feedback forum. The ban doesn't interfere with this because you are suggesting a change in policy, not attempting to retrospectively deal with one specific issue.
|
Seems entirely reasonable. I withdraw my previous concerns.
|
So many of these threads lately. When are people gonna stop embarassing themselves? Not that I mind tho, these threads makes time fly at work. Kwark always entertaining :D
|
I rarely see a ban where I think it unjustified. Moderators are what makes TL worth reading.
|
Lalalaland34500 Posts
On October 24 2012 10:40 Spekulatius wrote:
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.
Oh you have no idea.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
