|
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. The purpose of this post is not to undermine the credibility, in any way, of the TL website or vast majority of TL staff. The sole purpose of this post is to examine some of the recent moderation of Kwark, one of TL's "banlings," and ultimately to evaluate his overall performance as a moderator.
Allegations:
1. Kwark is unaware of his responsibilities as moderator, and is therefore unqualified to fulfill his obligations as moderator.
2. Kwark lacks both the professionalism and restraint necessary to execute even the most basic of his responsibilities as moderator.
3. Kwark is irascible; he is easily angered and lacks both the patience and mental fortitude to engage in civil or productive discussion to reach comprehensive and just resolutions.
Evidence/Proof of Malfeasance:
Note: I've copy/pasted the PM's, which accounts for the poor organization and visual aesthetic. If anyone is familiar with a better, alternative method, please let me know.
+ Show Spoiler +Exhibit A:
From: TL.net Bot TL Staff [ 3 posts | Profile | Buddy ]
Subject:You have been temp banned for 2 weeks.
Date:10/9/12 06:01
You have been temp banned for 2 weeks by KwarK.
Reason: Homophobia. Use of prancing was what got you although your assumption that gay men are also child molesters didn't earn you any credit. Your mod history is long and your posting is awful, you're on the fast track out of here.
Do not attempt to circumvent this ban by making a new account, or your ban duration will be increased.
Exhibit B:
To: KwarK [ Profile | Buddy ]
Subject: Ummm....... what?
Date: 10/9/12 12:38
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?
Exhibit C:
From: KwarK [ 17985 posts | Profile | Buddy ]
Subject:Re: Ummm....... what?
Date:10/9/12 14:26
We have a website feedback forum which we use for website feedback. If you'd like to give any website feedback then I recommend you take it to the website feedback forum. It can be found at the bottom of the left sidebar where the word website is followed by the word feedback. If you continue to have problems finding it then please let me know.
If you are still angry about the ban and wish to do something about it immediately then you could write us a letter. Just put whatever words you think are pertinent on a piece of paper and then put it in a mailbox.
Exhibit D:
To: KwarK [ Profile | Buddy ]
Subject:Re: Ummm....... what?
Date:10/9/12 14:31
Is that some sort of joke? Your sense of humor eludes me.
Anyway I'd appreciate it if you actually answered my message and acknowledged my rebuttal, as per your responsibility as moderator. You have banned me, and I have refuted your rationale for doing so. You have not answered my rebuttal, you have not addressed it and instead you've made a sore attempt at a joke.
Exhibit E:
From: KwarK [ 17985 posts | Profile | Buddy ]
Subject:Re: Ummm....... what?
Date: 10/9/12 14:39
I'm not sure you understand how this works. I wasn't laying down a challenge for a competition at arguing on the internet and I have absolutely no interest in engaging with you in one. I just banned you, that's pretty much it for my involvement in the matter.
Exhibit F:
To:KwarK [ Profile | Buddy ]
Subject:Re: Ummm....... what?
Date:10/9/12 14:43
I'm not quite certain you understand how this works. I've contacted another moderator, who has instructed me in order to lift my ban I must present a case for rebuttal, whereby if said case is accepted the ban will be lifted.
Accordingly I have submitted my rebuttal to you, with every ounce of civility I can muster, and you respond by disregarding my rebuttal and personally insulting me by both questioning my intelligence and belittling my original response.
Once again I'd appreciate some transparency in moderation; could you please respond to my rebuttal and offer reasons why my ban should remain in place?
Exhibit G:
From: KwarK [ 17985 posts | Profile | Buddy ]
Subject:Re: Ummm....... what?
Date:10/9/12 14:46
Okay, consider your case read and dismissed. If you feel you've been treated unfairly by the process then we have a website feedback forum.
Arguments:
Allegation 1:
As evident through examination of exhibits D-G, Kwark is unaware of his responsibility in instances of rebuttal, in which the banned individual has the opportunity to rebut the ban and the moderator has the duty to hear it.
Clearly in this instance my rebuttal has not been heard; he began by dismissing his duty in rebuttal, then completely disregarded my argument in its entirety (enlisting a generic response a mere three minutes after I informed him of his responsibility, clearly indicative of a lack of analysis or utter lack of care).
Furthermore, the hypocrisy of Kwark is on display in another thread in which his moderation is under scrutiny. In this thread, in which his response is dated nearly two weeks after my PM, Kwark attempts to lecture TL netizens about proper procedure for instances of rebuttal. I will label this auxiliary evidence Exhibit H:
+ Show Spoiler +Exhibit H: On October 21 2012 16:25 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2012 14:45 RebirthOfLeGenD wrote:On October 20 2012 15:48 NicolBolas wrote:On October 20 2012 14:46 RebirthOfLeGenD wrote:Not toopham, that guy is stupid. On October 20 2012 08:10 Supamang wrote:On October 20 2012 08:05 Pseudoku wrote:On October 20 2012 08:03 DownOnMyNiece wrote:On October 20 2012 07:00 Supamang wrote:
Is he the captain of the Mirrenium Farcon? hehehe
User was warned for this post Why does that Star Wars joke get warned? Han Solo, hilarious! I don't see anything wrong here.  The 'r's That's ridiculous. I've seen pictures by Manit0u in the funny pictures thread making jokes about black people not being able to read and he goes unscathed. I see a thread devoted bashing religion simply because they protest on their own private property about abortion, the creator went unwarned. I PMd the guy who warned me because I honestly don't know why I was warned, all he said was "dont do this". If it really is the whole switching of Rs and Ls, then im disappointed. I've stood up against racism against Asians (my own race) enough in my own life to be able to recognize real racism from harmless fun. Edit: I take more offense to people in this entire site claiming to know about Asian culture purely on Koreans' SC2 work ethic than an obviously stupid joke about the pronunciation of Rs or Ls. User was temp banned for this post. I was referring to this. I agree with the mods here. It's one thing to be warned for a thoughtless joke in poor taste. But then he decided to make an issue of it, publicly. That's whining, back-seat moderating, and off-topic, a hat-trick. Once again, I think you are really loosely applying each one of those except possibly hat trick. It was hardly whining, it was a single comment not done in a bitchy manner, and he was hardly back seat moderating. He explained his discontent with how his warning was only "Don't do that" which is completely valid to be annoyed about. It seems somewhat dismissive. The point is, I don't believe the ban was justified. A second warning, with the directions to take it to website feedback would of been much more appropriate, unless this user has been warned before not to bitch about moderation in public, and been told to do so in website feedback. I have been on the site for around 5 years, and around a year or two ago I did something similar after being warned, was told that it didn't look good and the MOD's would prefer I PM any type of issue or make a website feedback thread if I thought it necessary and since then I did so. I never naturally assumed I couldn't say something in a thread like that, but out of respect after receiving that message I have always PMed a mod if I ever had a question. In my case I felt the issue was dealt with mutual respect. If I was banned instead of just a kindly worded PM I definitely would of been annoyed. He's PMed the mod who warned him regarding the warning and is unhappy with the outcome. His next option is to explain to the mod that he is unhappy with the explanation and feels that the moderation is inconsistent. Should that fail, or if he wants to skip that step, it's straight to website feedback where the site admins do read stuff, even if they don't necessarily feel the need to intervene. What is not, and has never been, acceptable is grandstanding about the injustice in a completely unrelated topic. It's an issue between you and the tl staff which is irrelevant both to the general tl public and to the topic in question, going "Raaarggghhh, oppressed masses of tl! Rise up and throw off the shackles of the hated oppressors!" has no place there. Don't grandstand about how you disagree with moderation in non moderation related topics. It's that simple.
Allegation 2:
As evident in Exhibit B, I presented the premise of my argument for rebuttal (albeit with some degree of hostility, although I'm sure you can understand why). I stated the implication or "assumption" that gay men are child molesters is an illogical jump from my original statement, and should not be used as evidence against me. Furthermore I believe, although I did not explicitly state, that semantics (i.e., using "prancing" instead of "running") should not be grounds for banning.
Kwark failed to moderately or objectively examine my original post, which I will submit as Exhibit J, and instead banned me without proper cause or due course. Therefore it is evident Kwark lacks the restraint necessary to effectively and rightfully moderate these forums, as he is more inclined to act in regard to his own interests and opinions as opposed to the rules or guidelines set forth by TL management.
+ Show Spoiler +Exhibit J: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.
User was temp banned for this post.
Upon several people questioning his decision to ban me, as evident throughout the thread, Kwark responded by manipulating my original response to better suit his argument. Kwark's response in this thread will be labeled Exhibit K.
+ Show Spoiler +Exhibit K:On October 09 2012 06:52 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2012 06:13 jdseemoreglass wrote:
I will keep this in mind when you are moderating a thread, but we must also keep in mind that not all mods are so reasonable, clear, or consistent. When you say "in the past" I'm not sure how far back you are going... Anyway, some will aggressively moderate opinions without warning, and it has a kind of chilling effect on posting in my opinion, I myself have stifled my honest opinion in discussions, because half the time I have no idea if an opinion is acceptable or not, since it depends largely on the mod or mood or whatever. You can always check the ABL topic in the closed forum to see who banned for what. Micronesia is engaging in this topic as a regular poster and, as far as I know, hasn't banned anyone in it. Likewise I came into this topic as a banling and saw someone with a long history of awful posting imply that those fairies are out to molest children and handed out a ban. TL staff are generally unpaid community members but where the roles may overlap I believe we have a good track record of maintaining a responsible distinction of roles. If you would like to discuss this further then take it to website feedback.
I can assure you this post was originally far more hostile and unrepresentative of my initial statement, although I will not use this as evidence against him as it constitutes nothing more than hearsay. Regardless, Kwark has now relegated himself to manipulating my argument and putting words in my mouth (I'd guess the word "fairy" carries more negative gay connotations than the word "prance").
Allegation 3:
Although Exhibits C-G accurately depict Kwark's irascible demeanor, I'll enlist additional auxiliary evidence from other cases of malfeasance to help prove my point (see references at bottom for additional information).
The case I will reference is similarly in regard to questionable moderation (i.e, the rebuttal of a ban), but I will not examine whether Kwark was right or wrong to ban this individual, as it is not pertinent to the matter at hand. Instead, I will evaluate his course of action following the rebuttal. I will label these forms of auxiliary evidence Exhibits L and M.
+ Show Spoiler +Exhibit L:![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/UNL7l.png) Exhibit M:On October 04 2012 01:56 KwarK wrote:
The post you got warned for ended
"Am I just being stupid to feel offended?"
The answer was yes for then and doubly yes for now. A warning is no big deal, just an instruction not to do what you got warned for. For some reason (maybe stupidity, maybe some other deficiency on your part, maybe something else) you felt the need to post "first". Now I don't wish to speculate about why (maybe you're dumb?) but the why (dumb maybe?) doesn't really matter, you posted "first" and you got warned for it because it's a shitty post that we don't do on teamliquid.
You then felt the need for some reason (dropped on your head as a child?) to make a shitty topic in general forum asking if you were stupid for being offended by a standard warning message you got for making a shitty post. I then warned you for making such a shitty topic because you should have known better after you already got warned for shitposting but didn't know better for some reason (maybe foetal alcohol syndrome?). I also answered your question, although it was just my opinion and if you would like an official diagnosis of stupid then please consult a medical professional.
I would not like to hazard a guess at why you saw the need to make yet another topic as you may get offended by my speculation on the matter.
Exhibit L demonstrates Kwark's attitude, as well as his lack of patience and mental fortitude. The banned individual offered Kwark a civil discussion regarding his ban and consequent rebuttal, to which Kwark responded by calling him/her stupid.
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.
Concluding Argument:
Although previously mentioned, I'd like to reiterate this is neither a witch-hunt nor is it a criticism of any TL staff aside from Kwark. Furthermore, I'd like to commend a certain member of the TL staff and fellow banling, who will remain nameless, for his civility, professionalism and help in resolving this issue. He was the one who provided me with information regarding the rebuttal process, and although he could not lift my ban, provided me with all of the necessary information.
Kwark is ill-suited for his position as moderator as evident via the aforementioned allegations and ensuing evidence presented.
References:
-The awesome MODS of TL
-What to do if Mods incite mass bans.
-TL goes too far. KwarK
TL;DR: Kwark needs to go.
|
blame kwark; the new TL meme.
Im impressed by how much effort and writing you put into a complaint about being banned for saying something homophobic and being called out for it, patiently being told what to do if you didn't like it, ignored the suggestion and insisted on sending more PMs, though. You make a compelling argument.
|
On October 24 2012 09:00 Gene wrote:
blame kwark; the new TL meme.
Representative of a larger picture, is it not?
|
If you're not homophobic, why wouldn't you want gay men to lead boy scout troops?
There might've been a misunderstanding of the motives behind you posting this. And instead of writing this (for a non native speaker like me) horrific court-like essay, you could've tried to explain why you wrote what you wrote.
On October 24 2012 08:48 neversummer wrote:
Allegations:
1. Kwark is unaware of his responsibilities as moderator, and is therefore unqualified to fulfill his obligations as moderator.
I find that a little presumptuous. Why do you believe you know the extent of his responsibilities? He has to answer to the TL staff, not to you and your ideas of how this forum should be moderated. You're a guest, don't forget that.
|
On October 24 2012 09:00 Gene wrote:
blame kwark; the new TL meme.
Im impressed by how much effort and writing you put into a complaint about being banned for saying something homophobic and being called out for it, patiently being told what to do if you didn't like it, ignored the suggestion and insisted on sending more PMs, though. You make a compelling argument.
Hmm. This is a strange evolution from your original post. Anyway, thanks for the bump.
I don't believe my statement was homophobic, and it certainly isn't what I intended. I merely stated an opinion, without an attached assumption or implication, which was inaccurately perceived as homophobia.
Our perceptions of "patiently being told" are far apart; perhaps you could explain how belittling my response and completely ignoring my request is indicative of patience.
Finally, he did not offer me any suggestions or courses of action. It was I who informed him of his duty, after receiving the information from another moderator.
I'd appreciate it if you acknowledged all forms of evidence and read the OP in its entirety before jumping to conclusions, as it appears you have already done so based upon your quick response, then subsequent edit and modification. Thanks.
|
United States5162 Posts
I tend to agree that Kwark is much more inclined to insult and belittle posters he moderates. And while TL has never been built on equality, I don't think it speaks well when a moderator more than occasionally says things to members that would get a normal poster warned/banned.
|
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. And if that stirs up a lot of debate/flaming, then KwarK has the right to ban and edit.
|
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.
|
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.
|
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.
|
On October 24 2012 09:16 Spekulatius wrote:If you're not homophobic, why wouldn't you want gay men to lead boy scout troops? There might've been a misunderstanding of the motives behind you posting this. And instead of writing this (for a non native speaker like me) horrific court-like essay, you could've tried to explain why you wrote what you wrote. Show nested quote +On October 24 2012 08:48 neversummer wrote:
Allegations:
1. Kwark is unaware of his responsibilities as moderator, and is therefore unqualified to fulfill his obligations as moderator. I find that a little presumptuous. Why do you believe you know the extent of his responsibilities? He has to answer to the TL staff, not to you and your ideas of how this forum should be moderated. You're a guest, don't forget that.
Although it is not relevant to the purpose of this thread, I will answer your first question because it will probably come up again. I wouldn't want gay men leading boy scout troops because I believe it may affect, or even direct, a child's behavior. Normative social influence is a very real method of socialization, and no one is more susceptible to socialization or more impressionable than a child.
That is not to say homosexuality is a choice; it is merely to say a young, impressionable child may draw homosexual tendencies or homosexual behavior from a homosexual leader. Furthermore, this is NOT to say that homosexuality is wrong. It is merely to say that homosexual leadership may have unintended (which CAN be adverse, but are not REQUIRED to be) consequences and behavior modification.
Yes, you misunderstood my purpose. My purpose was not to exonerate (means to prove innocent) myself from homophobic allegations. My purpose was to evaluate the moderation of Kwark.
I do not believe I know the extent of his responsibilities. I believe HE does not know the extent of his responsibilities, and I have accompanied that allegation with evidence.
|
On October 24 2012 09:26 Myles wrote:
I tend to agree that Kwark is much more inclined to insult and belittle posters he moderates. And while TL has never been built on equality, I don't think it speaks well when a moderator more than occasionally says things to members that would get a normal poster warned/banned.
Thank you, I agree entirely.
|
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.
|
"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.
|
On October 24 2012 09:57 neversummer wrote:Show nested quote +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.
|
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.
|
On October 24 2012 10:02 aviator116 wrote:Show nested quote +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.
|
On October 24 2012 10:06 neversummer wrote:Show nested quote +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,
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.
|
United States5162 Posts
On October 24 2012 10:08 neversummer wrote:Show nested quote +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.
Actually, yes. As a longtime member and valued contributor, he has much more leeway regardless of being a banling. That being said, I still think he goes above and beyond too much, even though in your case I think he showed a good deal of patience.
|
On October 24 2012 10:08 neversummer wrote:Show nested quote +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.
|
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?
|
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.
|
Braavos36374 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 BLUES50118 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?
|
Braavos36374 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 States42565 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 States42565 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.
|
Lalalaland34490 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.
|
Lalalaland34490 Posts
On October 24 2012 15:59 KwarK wrote:
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."
As I read this part I expected a reference to myself. I was pleasantly disappointed.
|
OP I suggest from now on that you try to put as much effort in your post as you did for the one in this thread. that and stop picking idiotic arguments, and you should be fine.
|
On October 24 2012 15:59 KwarK wrote:
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.
Not that I ever lacked respect for you before, but I have even more for you now.
That analogy is fantastic.
At least the OP was organized 
|
The TL forums have long since served as a bastion for intellectual, or at the very least educated and civil, discussion
What forums would these be then?
I respect TL and enjoy browsing the forums, and lap up the free content TL Staff and voluntary contributors provide about pro SC2 and BW.
But seriously? How much time did you waste writing that? You DO realize that you are complaining about a forum... on the interwebs?
|
This thread is amazing and I'm glad that I didn't miss it. Kwark you so awesome <3
|
On October 24 2012 09:26 Myles wrote:
I tend to agree that Kwark is much more inclined to insult and belittle posters he moderates. And while TL has never been built on equality, I don't think it speaks well when a moderator more than occasionally says things to members that would get a normal poster warned/banned.
+1. KwarK is a nice person, but honestly he gets away with posting things in general that would get a regular poster warned/temp banned.
Personally I think the ban was justified, but KwarK should seriously lighten up.
It was bad enough when you went all emotional in the Libya topic after saying "I just spent several hours consoling someone who was killed, so I'm not in the mood to take any crap", and then banning/warning left and right.
|
I do not know if you're on a crusade to save the world from an injust Kwark, if you're annoyed that you got banned for expressing an honest opinion or if you are simply just insecure about being called homophobic.
Maybe all 3 of them, your huge essay probally will serve no other purpose other than expanding some peoples vocabulary, Kwark is known to be blunt, and really, if you think that TL mods cant insult users, go back and find some Fakesteve bans for instance, you're being treated with silken gloves in comparison
|
On October 24 2012 22:12 Praetorial wrote:
Personally I think the ban was justified, but KwarK should seriously lighten up.
It was bad enough when you went all emotional in the Libya topic after saying "I just spent several hours consoling someone who was killed, so I'm not in the mood to take any crap", and then banning/warning left and right.
As noted quite a lot in this particular forum, sorting through reports and moderating is a pretty thankless job and banlings are forgiven for getting frustrated and going ban-crazy every once in a while.
That's not to say that the ban being discussed in this thread is not justified (it is, full stop), but purges happen because having to constantly deal with internet stupidity really sucks.
|
On October 24 2012 22:21 bonifaceviii wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2012 22:12 Praetorial wrote:
Personally I think the ban was justified, but KwarK should seriously lighten up.
It was bad enough when you went all emotional in the Libya topic after saying "I just spent several hours consoling someone who was killed, so I'm not in the mood to take any crap", and then banning/warning left and right. As noted quite a lot in this particular forum, sorting through reports and moderating is a pretty thankless job and banlings are forgiven for getting frustrated and going ban-crazy every once in a while. That's not to say that the ban being discussed in this thread is not justified (it is, full stop), but purges happen because having to constantly deal with internet stupidity really sucks.
Who knows, maybe banning is awesome for relieving stress? 
|
Wow, when I first read the ban and banned post, I didn't know if your post was homophobic or not. It could be that you had some kind of pragmatic/politico-organizational reasons in mind (which is why some people that don't mind gay people don't want their favourite party to support gay marriage, etc). But then you add a derogatory comment about prancing (google images for "prancing" is pretty hilarious, btw) and spend what must have been hours on making comment after comment that reinforces the judgement that you're homophobic. *slow-clap*
I personally think Kwark is a bit of an asshole + Show Spoiler +he probably thinks worse about me, if he remembers me at all
|
Lalalaland34490 Posts
On October 24 2012 22:40 Ghanburighan wrote:I personally think Kwark is a bit of an asshole + Show Spoiler +he probably thinks worse about me, if he remembers me at all , but GJ on banning this guy!
Kwark's girlfriend says he's the sweetest guy on Earth.
|
On October 24 2012 22:46 Firebolt145 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2012 22:40 Ghanburighan wrote:I personally think Kwark is a bit of an asshole + Show Spoiler +he probably thinks worse about me, if he remembers me at all , but GJ on banning this guy! Kwark's girlfriend says he's the sweetest guy on Earth.
How do you know this? O.o
|
United States42565 Posts
On October 24 2012 22:53 Ghanburighan wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2012 22:46 Firebolt145 wrote:On October 24 2012 22:40 Ghanburighan wrote:I personally think Kwark is a bit of an asshole + Show Spoiler +he probably thinks worse about me, if he remembers me at all , but GJ on banning this guy! Kwark's girlfriend says he's the sweetest guy on Earth. How do you know this? O.o
Firebolt and I are friends. They're facebook buddies. I am the sweetest guy.
|
On October 24 2012 23:29 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2012 22:53 Ghanburighan wrote:On October 24 2012 22:46 Firebolt145 wrote:On October 24 2012 22:40 Ghanburighan wrote:I personally think Kwark is a bit of an asshole + Show Spoiler +he probably thinks worse about me, if he remembers me at all , but GJ on banning this guy! Kwark's girlfriend says he's the sweetest guy on Earth. How do you know this? O.o Firebolt and I are friends. They're facebook buddies. I am the sweetest guy.
On the other hand, some people have described kwark as a "cheating grid tofu"
|
Hyrule19033 Posts
I believe the technical term is "tofu grid faggy"
|
On October 24 2012 21:12 Firebolt145 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2012 15:59 KwarK wrote:
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." As I read this part I expected a reference to myself. I was pleasantly disappointed.
While many people (other than yourself) would appreciate the reference you were expecting, it would neither fit into the story properly, and the humor would be missed by the vast majority of people who read that reply.
Also, lol. Kwark can be a bit of an asshole at times, but this was not one of them. But if you'd like, you can keep trying, it'll just be more entertaining for everyone else here.
|
In case it hasn't been made sufficiently clear yet, OP, this is where your I-might-have-a-legitimate-reason-to-be-offended-by-KwarK's-attitude train went off the rails:
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?
I mean personally I'm all about fighting the power and sticking it to the man and protesting against TL groupthink all over this Website Feedback forum, but disrespecting a mod in the first PM you send him or her doesn't seem like the behavior of a level-headed and unfairly-maligned poster who received an unwarranted ban. Like Hot_Bid says, it just seems like further bannable behavior. Who knows? You might have had a leg to stand on if KwarK had been dismissive toward you out of the blue, rather than in response to your personal attacks on him. But you never gave him that option. You were shooting to kill from the jump.
Also I think the word you were looking for is "omniscient."
|
Kwark definitely not the sweetest guy on earth. Also he is pretty bad at math. However, he is a good moderator, and this ban was definitely justified.
|
Seeker
Where dat snitch at?37022 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.
LOL! KwarK special icon gogo?
|
On October 25 2012 05:37 SeeKeR wrote:Show nested quote +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. LOL! KwarK special icon gogo?
He should get a glowing hammer. I nominate pink in honor of this topic.
|
Lalalaland34490 Posts
On October 25 2012 05:59 Mandini wrote:Show nested quote +On October 25 2012 05:37 SeeKeR wrote: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. LOL! KwarK special icon gogo? He should get a glowing hammer. I nominate pink in honor of this topic.
Agreed. He did cure cancer after all.
|
this thread was a gem... i have to remember coming back to TL to read this... or get sc2 so i get interested in strategy again
|
On October 24 2012 15:10 Hot_Bid wrote: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: Show nested quote +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.
Thanks for your reply. I did, in fact, state WHY I thought the ban was unjustified, then asked him to review my ban, to which he had no knowledge of such responsibility, then dismissed my case altogether without reasoning.
Based upon your initial response in this thread, and this as well, it appears TL is just the "good ole boys" who just look out for one another and have no real intention of creating a set of universal ground rules, which everyone (including mods) must abide by. You've completely ignored my second request, which was to explain how I could be banned for a perceived homophobic statement when Kwark can insult the mentally deficient and physically handicapped without so much as a warning.
I suppose I'll retract my original purpose, since there's no chance of a one-hundred post user to challenge the establishment. Instead, I'll ask for a list of subjects that are bannable and unbannable, so that I may avoid this conflict in the future.
So far here is the list I've created:
Bannable Offenses:
1. Stating opinions which may be perceived as homophobic
Unbannable Offenses:
1. Insulting the mentally deficient
2. Insulting the physically handicapped
Edit: It appears the vast majority of contributors to this thread have completely missed the purpose of my post. It is NOT to exonerate myself. It is to examine the behavior and moderation of Kwark.
|
You can just leave the site and come back when you've matured a bit, otherwise you won't last long here.
|
On October 25 2012 07:24 Cokefreak wrote:
You can just leave the site and come back when you've matured a bit, otherwise you won't last long here.
Agreed, but I dont think 2 weeks is long enough for that
|
"Hello? Leg factory? Yeah. We're looking for something neversummer can stand on. Nothing? Oh, okay. thanks."
|
Vancouver14381 Posts
On October 25 2012 07:22 neversummer wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2012 15:10 Hot_Bid wrote: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. Thanks for your reply. I did, in fact, state WHY I thought the ban was unjustified, then asked him to review my ban, to which he had no knowledge of such responsibility, then dismissed my case altogether without reasoning. Based upon your initial response in this thread, and this as well, it appears TL is just the "good ole boys" who just look out for one another and have no real intention of creating a set of universal ground rules, which everyone (including mods) must abide by. You've completely ignored my second request, which was to explain how I could be banned for a perceived homophobic statement when Kwark can insult the mentally deficient and physically handicapped without so much as a warning. I suppose I'll retract my original purpose, since there's no chance of a one-hundred post user to challenge the establishment. Instead, I'll ask for a list of subjects that are bannable and unbannable, so that I may avoid this conflict in the future. So far here is the list I've created: Bannable Offenses: 1. Stating opinions which may be perceived as homophobic Unbannable Offenses: 1. Insulting the mentally deficient 2. Insulting the physically handicapped Edit: It appears the vast majority of contributors to this thread have completely missed the purpose of my post. It is NOT to exonerate myself. It is to examine the behavior and moderation of Kwark.
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=17883#cmd06
You're not wrong that veteran members get preferential treatment. They have earned their positions by contributing for a long time. When someone new comes along and thinks s/he knows how to run TL better than the staff members, the veterans will put them in their place. Some mods go about it in a nicer manner but the message is still the same - you get warned/banned for writing stupid stuff.
edit: No one knows how you think. But if you write something that for some reason the majority of the people reading it took it to be homophobic, then it just means you should have written it in a non-ambiguous way.
|
Edit: It appears the vast majority of contributors to this thread have completely missed the purpose of my post. It is NOT to exonerate myself. It is to examine the behavior and moderation of Kwark.
We already examined the behavior and moderation of KwarK on this case and the general consensus and more importantly the staff's opinion was that everything KwarK did was completely justifiable and you're just digging a deeper hole for yourself with this, just swallow your pride and let it go.
|
On October 25 2012 07:38 Cokefreak wrote:Show nested quote +Edit: It appears the vast majority of contributors to this thread have completely missed the purpose of my post. It is NOT to exonerate myself. It is to examine the behavior and moderation of Kwark. We already examined the behavior and moderation of KwarK on this case and the general consensus and more importantly the staff's opinion was that everything KwarK did was completely justifiable and you're just digging a deeper hole for yourself with this, just swallow your pride and let it go.
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=377611¤tpage=3#47
This point in particular has not been refuted. Perhaps you could?
Edit: Unless this falls under "respect forum veterans." Am I to interpret that as moderators do not follow the same rules as posters? Then what is the purpose of rules? Why not just let the moderators ban whoever they want, for whatever reason they want, as that seems to be the case already.
|
On October 25 2012 07:22 neversummer wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2012 15:10 Hot_Bid wrote: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. Thanks for your reply. I did, in fact, state WHY I thought the ban was unjustified, then asked him to review my ban, to which he had no knowledge of such responsibility, then dismissed my case altogether without reasoning. Based upon your initial response in this thread, and this as well, it appears TL is just the "good ole boys" who just look out for one another and have no real intention of creating a set of universal ground rules, which everyone (including mods) must abide by. You've completely ignored my second request, which was to explain how I could be banned for a perceived homophobic statement when Kwark can insult the mentally deficient and physically handicapped without so much as a warning. I suppose I'll retract my original purpose, since there's no chance of a one-hundred post user to challenge the establishment. Instead, I'll ask for a list of subjects that are bannable and unbannable, so that I may avoid this conflict in the future. So far here is the list I've created: Bannable Offenses: 1. Stating opinions which may be perceived as homophobic Unbannable Offenses: 1. Insulting the mentally deficient 2. Insulting the physically handicapped Edit: It appears the vast majority of contributors to this thread have completely missed the purpose of my post. It is NOT to exonerate myself. It is to examine the behavior and moderation of Kwark.
actually, i will agree with you about the good ol' boys group and different standards applying to different people. its relatively clear that low post users are moderated more heavily than high post users, and if you are a part of the good ol' boys network (admins, mods, old ass users, progamers), you can almost get away with murder. the only problem with your objection to this double standard is that (1) they dont give a shit, and (2) they say in their tl.net commandments (or whatever they call it) that they can totally do the double standard and they don't give a fuck-all to your objections. so, although you made a valid point philosophically, it means nothing because their house, their rules.
|
On October 25 2012 07:40 neversummer wrote:Show nested quote +On October 25 2012 07:38 Cokefreak wrote:Edit: It appears the vast majority of contributors to this thread have completely missed the purpose of my post. It is NOT to exonerate myself. It is to examine the behavior and moderation of Kwark. We already examined the behavior and moderation of KwarK on this case and the general consensus and more importantly the staff's opinion was that everything KwarK did was completely justifiable and you're just digging a deeper hole for yourself with this, just swallow your pride and let it go. http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=377611¤tpage=3#47This point in particular has not been refuted. Perhaps you could?
Fine, I resign...for you have bested me in the great battle of internet wits oh great neversummer, how can I ever get past such humiliation!
+ Show Spoiler +Seriously though, read my previous post again and think if you still want to press the issue.
|
On October 25 2012 07:41 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On October 25 2012 07:22 neversummer wrote:On October 24 2012 15:10 Hot_Bid wrote: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. Thanks for your reply. I did, in fact, state WHY I thought the ban was unjustified, then asked him to review my ban, to which he had no knowledge of such responsibility, then dismissed my case altogether without reasoning. Based upon your initial response in this thread, and this as well, it appears TL is just the "good ole boys" who just look out for one another and have no real intention of creating a set of universal ground rules, which everyone (including mods) must abide by. You've completely ignored my second request, which was to explain how I could be banned for a perceived homophobic statement when Kwark can insult the mentally deficient and physically handicapped without so much as a warning. I suppose I'll retract my original purpose, since there's no chance of a one-hundred post user to challenge the establishment. Instead, I'll ask for a list of subjects that are bannable and unbannable, so that I may avoid this conflict in the future. So far here is the list I've created: Bannable Offenses: 1. Stating opinions which may be perceived as homophobic Unbannable Offenses: 1. Insulting the mentally deficient 2. Insulting the physically handicapped Edit: It appears the vast majority of contributors to this thread have completely missed the purpose of my post. It is NOT to exonerate myself. It is to examine the behavior and moderation of Kwark. actually, i will agree with you about the good ol' boys group and different standards applying to different people. its relatively clear that low post users are moderated more heavily than high post users, and if you are a part of the good ol' boys network (admins, mods, old ass users, progamers), you can almost get away with murder. the only problem with your objection to this double standard is that (1) they dont give a shit, and (2) they say in their tl.net commandments (or whatever they call it) that they can totally do the double standard and they don't give a fuck-all to your objections. so, although you made a valid point philosophically, it means nothing because their house, their rules.
Yea it certainly appears that way, and I agree with your assessment of the triviality of my pursuit. Also, thanks for not resorting to ad hominem and actually addressing the points I brought up/
|
On October 25 2012 07:43 Cokefreak wrote:Show nested quote +On October 25 2012 07:40 neversummer wrote:On October 25 2012 07:38 Cokefreak wrote:Edit: It appears the vast majority of contributors to this thread have completely missed the purpose of my post. It is NOT to exonerate myself. It is to examine the behavior and moderation of Kwark. We already examined the behavior and moderation of KwarK on this case and the general consensus and more importantly the staff's opinion was that everything KwarK did was completely justifiable and you're just digging a deeper hole for yourself with this, just swallow your pride and let it go. http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=377611¤tpage=3#47This point in particular has not been refuted. Perhaps you could? Fine, I resign...for you have bested me in the great battle of internet wits oh great neversummer, how can I ever get past such humiliation! + Show Spoiler +Seriously though, read my previous post again and think if you still want to press the issue.
Dude..... can you (or the vast majority of people in this thread) actually engage in civil argument?
|
On October 25 2012 07:45 neversummer wrote:Show nested quote +On October 25 2012 07:43 Cokefreak wrote:On October 25 2012 07:40 neversummer wrote:On October 25 2012 07:38 Cokefreak wrote:Edit: It appears the vast majority of contributors to this thread have completely missed the purpose of my post. It is NOT to exonerate myself. It is to examine the behavior and moderation of Kwark. We already examined the behavior and moderation of KwarK on this case and the general consensus and more importantly the staff's opinion was that everything KwarK did was completely justifiable and you're just digging a deeper hole for yourself with this, just swallow your pride and let it go. http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=377611¤tpage=3#47This point in particular has not been refuted. Perhaps you could? Fine, I resign...for you have bested me in the great battle of internet wits oh great neversummer, how can I ever get past such humiliation! + Show Spoiler +Seriously though, read my previous post again and think if you still want to press the issue. Dude..... can you (or the vast majority of people in this thread) actually engage in civil argument?
Can you?
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.
|
United States5162 Posts
On October 25 2012 07:22 neversummer wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2012 15:10 Hot_Bid wrote: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. Thanks for your reply. I did, in fact, state WHY I thought the ban was unjustified, then asked him to review my ban, to which he had no knowledge of such responsibility, then dismissed my case altogether without reasoning. Based upon your initial response in this thread, and this as well, it appears TL is just the "good ole boys" who just look out for one another and have no real intention of creating a set of universal ground rules, which everyone (including mods) must abide by. You've completely ignored my second request, which was to explain how I could be banned for a perceived homophobic statement when Kwark can insult the mentally deficient and physically handicapped without so much as a warning. I suppose I'll retract my original purpose, since there's no chance of a one-hundred post user to challenge the establishment. Instead, I'll ask for a list of subjects that are bannable and unbannable, so that I may avoid this conflict in the future. So far here is the list I've created: Bannable Offenses: 1. Stating opinions which may be perceived as homophobic Unbannable Offenses: 1. Insulting the mentally deficient 2. Insulting the physically handicapped
You clearly have no idea how TL works. You should have read the commandments thread before assuming people on TL are equals and everyone gets treated 'fairly'. It's never worked like that, and it likely never will.
TL also doesn't abide by 'black and white' or 'zero tolerance' rules, except martyring. However, there is something almost as hardline; intolerance of opinions that can be perceived as bigoted. So unless it's written more eloquently than Shakespeare(I'm generalizing here, writing something in iambic pentameter isn't what I mean), you're likely to be warned/banned. And if you write something offensive and get flamed for it(by anyone) they're not going to be treated the same. I've told a person that 'You're a fucking piece of shit' and 'So go die a fire' because of they thought terrorism on civilians was justified. Had the mods disagreed that it was justified I would have been warned/banned, as I was in another case when I called someone an idiot. If the mods think you deserved what you got, then that's how it going to be.
I already agreed that I think Kwark goes too far sometimes, but this is an old boys club and he has been a longtime member that has earned the respect of far more people around here than you or I.
|
On October 25 2012 07:48 Myles wrote:Show nested quote +On October 25 2012 07:22 neversummer wrote:On October 24 2012 15:10 Hot_Bid wrote: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. Thanks for your reply. I did, in fact, state WHY I thought the ban was unjustified, then asked him to review my ban, to which he had no knowledge of such responsibility, then dismissed my case altogether without reasoning. Based upon your initial response in this thread, and this as well, it appears TL is just the "good ole boys" who just look out for one another and have no real intention of creating a set of universal ground rules, which everyone (including mods) must abide by. You've completely ignored my second request, which was to explain how I could be banned for a perceived homophobic statement when Kwark can insult the mentally deficient and physically handicapped without so much as a warning. I suppose I'll retract my original purpose, since there's no chance of a one-hundred post user to challenge the establishment. Instead, I'll ask for a list of subjects that are bannable and unbannable, so that I may avoid this conflict in the future. So far here is the list I've created: Bannable Offenses: 1. Stating opinions which may be perceived as homophobic Unbannable Offenses: 1. Insulting the mentally deficient 2. Insulting the physically handicapped You clearly have no idea how TL works. You should have read the commandments thread before assuming people on TL are equals and everyone gets treated 'fairly'. It's never worked like that, and it likely never will. TL also doesn't abide by 'black and white' or 'zero tolerance' rules, except martyring. However, there is something almost as hardline; intolerance of opinions that can be perceived as bigoted. So unless it's written more eloquently than Shakespeare(I'm generalizing here, writing something in iambic pentameter isn't what I mean), you're likely to be warned/banned. And if you write something offensive and get flamed for it(by anyone) they're not going to be treated the same. I've told a person that 'You're a fucking piece of shit' and 'So go die a fire' because of they thought terrorism on civilians was justified. Had the mods disagreed that it was justified I would have been warned/banned, as I was in another case when I called someone an idiot. If the mods think you deserved what you got, then that's how it going to be. I already agreed that I think Kwark goes too far sometimes, but this is an old boys club and he has been a longtime member that has earned the respect of far more people around here than you or I.
I suppose it is characteristic of the sheep to blindly follow the herd.
|
I assume the lot of us think you're a bit homophobic and generally unpleasant. We don't follow you around and ask you to be nice to people you don't like.
This is a community oriented website. Just ask yourself this: "Am I possibly offending people? Is my opinion best kept to myself? Could I still say my opinion but say it in a way that is the least offensive while still staying true to what I mean?"
Yeah sure some people people get preferential treatment. I feel like I get preferential treatment once in a while. I even have a fair few reds on my skype list and one on facebook. How? Well, once in a while I help out when I'm needed. And I try to keep my highly opinionated views to myself. Klogons a huge PAC-12 fan and I do say raw things occasionally about USC but I don't make it my pledge to piss him off until he bans me. So, yeah, some people are held to different standards. Just like every single facet of life. The oddity is TL is transparent about the matter. Either way, that's life.
Back to the matter at hand: You want everyone to think you're right. Over five pages you've convinced very few people and alienated yourself (or let's be honest, embarrassed yourself) to a few more. In my humble opinion, quit while you're behind. If it's 4th and 21 you don't try to pass it again. You punt and play solid defense. You come back and you try to do better on the next set of downs.
|
On October 25 2012 07:36 JBright wrote:Show nested quote +On October 25 2012 07:22 neversummer wrote:On October 24 2012 15:10 Hot_Bid wrote: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. Thanks for your reply. I did, in fact, state WHY I thought the ban was unjustified, then asked him to review my ban, to which he had no knowledge of such responsibility, then dismissed my case altogether without reasoning. Based upon your initial response in this thread, and this as well, it appears TL is just the "good ole boys" who just look out for one another and have no real intention of creating a set of universal ground rules, which everyone (including mods) must abide by. You've completely ignored my second request, which was to explain how I could be banned for a perceived homophobic statement when Kwark can insult the mentally deficient and physically handicapped without so much as a warning. I suppose I'll retract my original purpose, since there's no chance of a one-hundred post user to challenge the establishment. Instead, I'll ask for a list of subjects that are bannable and unbannable, so that I may avoid this conflict in the future. So far here is the list I've created: Bannable Offenses: 1. Stating opinions which may be perceived as homophobic Unbannable Offenses: 1. Insulting the mentally deficient 2. Insulting the physically handicapped Edit: It appears the vast majority of contributors to this thread have completely missed the purpose of my post. It is NOT to exonerate myself. It is to examine the behavior and moderation of Kwark. http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=17883#cmd06You're not wrong that veteran members get preferential treatment. They have earned their positions by contributing for a long time. When someone new comes along and thinks s/he knows how to run TL better than the staff members, the veterans will put them in their place. Some mods go about it in a nicer manner but the message is still the same - you get warned/banned for writing stupid stuff. edit: No one knows how you think. But if you write something that for some reason the majority of the people reading it took it to be homophobic, then it just means you should have written it in a non-ambiguous way.
I agree, another strong counter-argument against me. I should have known it was a controversial issue, and therefore been less ambiguous with my statement.
|
United States5162 Posts
On October 25 2012 07:51 neversummer wrote:Show nested quote +On October 25 2012 07:48 Myles wrote:On October 25 2012 07:22 neversummer wrote:On October 24 2012 15:10 Hot_Bid wrote: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. Thanks for your reply. I did, in fact, state WHY I thought the ban was unjustified, then asked him to review my ban, to which he had no knowledge of such responsibility, then dismissed my case altogether without reasoning. Based upon your initial response in this thread, and this as well, it appears TL is just the "good ole boys" who just look out for one another and have no real intention of creating a set of universal ground rules, which everyone (including mods) must abide by. You've completely ignored my second request, which was to explain how I could be banned for a perceived homophobic statement when Kwark can insult the mentally deficient and physically handicapped without so much as a warning. I suppose I'll retract my original purpose, since there's no chance of a one-hundred post user to challenge the establishment. Instead, I'll ask for a list of subjects that are bannable and unbannable, so that I may avoid this conflict in the future. So far here is the list I've created: Bannable Offenses: 1. Stating opinions which may be perceived as homophobic Unbannable Offenses: 1. Insulting the mentally deficient 2. Insulting the physically handicapped You clearly have no idea how TL works. You should have read the commandments thread before assuming people on TL are equals and everyone gets treated 'fairly'. It's never worked like that, and it likely never will. TL also doesn't abide by 'black and white' or 'zero tolerance' rules, except martyring. However, there is something almost as hardline; intolerance of opinions that can be perceived as bigoted. So unless it's written more eloquently than Shakespeare(I'm generalizing here, writing something in iambic pentameter isn't what I mean), you're likely to be warned/banned. And if you write something offensive and get flamed for it(by anyone) they're not going to be treated the same. I've told a person that 'You're a fucking piece of shit' and 'So go die a fire' because of they thought terrorism on civilians was justified. Had the mods disagreed that it was justified I would have been warned/banned, as I was in another case when I called someone an idiot. If the mods think you deserved what you got, then that's how it going to be. I already agreed that I think Kwark goes too far sometimes, but this is an old boys club and he has been a longtime member that has earned the respect of far more people around here than you or I. I suppose it is characteristic of the sheep to blindly follow the herd.
There's nothing blind about it. I'm well aware how things work here and like it most of the time. The occasional judgement disagreement is nothing compared to the quality of the forums the mods provide.
|
On October 25 2012 07:51 neversummer wrote:Show nested quote +On October 25 2012 07:48 Myles wrote:On October 25 2012 07:22 neversummer wrote:On October 24 2012 15:10 Hot_Bid wrote: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. Thanks for your reply. I did, in fact, state WHY I thought the ban was unjustified, then asked him to review my ban, to which he had no knowledge of such responsibility, then dismissed my case altogether without reasoning. Based upon your initial response in this thread, and this as well, it appears TL is just the "good ole boys" who just look out for one another and have no real intention of creating a set of universal ground rules, which everyone (including mods) must abide by. You've completely ignored my second request, which was to explain how I could be banned for a perceived homophobic statement when Kwark can insult the mentally deficient and physically handicapped without so much as a warning. I suppose I'll retract my original purpose, since there's no chance of a one-hundred post user to challenge the establishment. Instead, I'll ask for a list of subjects that are bannable and unbannable, so that I may avoid this conflict in the future. So far here is the list I've created: Bannable Offenses: 1. Stating opinions which may be perceived as homophobic Unbannable Offenses: 1. Insulting the mentally deficient 2. Insulting the physically handicapped You clearly have no idea how TL works. You should have read the commandments thread before assuming people on TL are equals and everyone gets treated 'fairly'. It's never worked like that, and it likely never will. TL also doesn't abide by 'black and white' or 'zero tolerance' rules, except martyring. However, there is something almost as hardline; intolerance of opinions that can be perceived as bigoted. So unless it's written more eloquently than Shakespeare(I'm generalizing here, writing something in iambic pentameter isn't what I mean), you're likely to be warned/banned. And if you write something offensive and get flamed for it(by anyone) they're not going to be treated the same. I've told a person that 'You're a fucking piece of shit' and 'So go die a fire' because of they thought terrorism on civilians was justified. Had the mods disagreed that it was justified I would have been warned/banned, as I was in another case when I called someone an idiot. If the mods think you deserved what you got, then that's how it going to be. I already agreed that I think Kwark goes too far sometimes, but this is an old boys club and he has been a longtime member that has earned the respect of far more people around here than you or I. I suppose it is characteristic of the sheep to blindly follow the herd.
K, noone is asking you to stay around.
|
so i just read through the whole op. are you saying your ban wasn't justified? or, are you saying your ban was justified, but kwark mishandled your "claim?"
i actually don't think your post was terribly offensive. the only relatively homophobic word was "prancing," but that was pretty ambiguous. if i read through your post history in that thread would it show other homophobic references?
|
On October 25 2012 07:58 dAPhREAk wrote:
so i just read through the whole op. are you saying your ban wasn't justified? or, are you saying your ban was justified, but kwark mishandled your "claim?"
i actually don't think your post was terribly offensive. the only relatively homophobic word was "prancing," but that was pretty ambiguous. if i read through your post history in that thread would it show other homophobic references?
That was my only post in the thread. I was promptly banned.
I'm saying both, although I'm not trying to exonerate myself as a homophobe (even thought I'm not), even thought the vast majority of contributors seem to think so. Some also seem to think that by disagreeing with me they have defeated me and embarrassed me (lol).
|
why did you use the word prancing?
|
United States42565 Posts
On October 25 2012 07:58 dAPhREAk wrote:
so i just read through the whole op. are you saying your ban wasn't justified? or, are you saying your ban was justified, but kwark mishandled your "claim?"
i actually don't think your post was terribly offensive. the only relatively homophobic word was "prancing," but that was pretty ambiguous. if i read through your post history in that thread would it show other homophobic references?
You think the use of the word prancing was the questionable part of it. Curious, I recall reading this somewhere.
Reason: Homophobia. Use of prancing was what got you although your assumption that gay men are also child molesters didn't earn you any credit. Your mod history is long and your posting is awful, you're on the fast track out of here.
|
On October 25 2012 08:04 dAPhREAk wrote:
why did you use the word prancing?
Ahh, the primary reason I was banned. Good question.
The reason I used the word "prancing" is because gay men tend to be more flamboyant than straight men. A sore attempt at a joke, I suppose, and a mistake in retrospect.
Now I have a question for you. Do you think semantics are justifications for bans? Although I used the word prance, I'm implying the word run, which is an issue of semantics. Had I used the word run, would I have been banned?
|
On October 25 2012 08:04 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On October 25 2012 07:58 dAPhREAk wrote:
so i just read through the whole op. are you saying your ban wasn't justified? or, are you saying your ban was justified, but kwark mishandled your "claim?"
i actually don't think your post was terribly offensive. the only relatively homophobic word was "prancing," but that was pretty ambiguous. if i read through your post history in that thread would it show other homophobic references? You think the use of the word prancing was the questionable part of it. Curious, I recall reading this somewhere. Show nested quote +Reason: Homophobia. Use of prancing was what got you although your assumption that gay men are also child molesters didn't earn you any credit. Your mod history is long and your posting is awful, you're on the fast track out of here.
Why would you enlist such hostile language against someone who isn't even agreeing with me? This is exactly what I'm talking about.
It's curious, too, because I recall reading somewhere that "use of prancing is what got you."
|
On October 25 2012 08:04 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On October 25 2012 07:58 dAPhREAk wrote:
so i just read through the whole op. are you saying your ban wasn't justified? or, are you saying your ban was justified, but kwark mishandled your "claim?"
i actually don't think your post was terribly offensive. the only relatively homophobic word was "prancing," but that was pretty ambiguous. if i read through your post history in that thread would it show other homophobic references? You think the use of the word prancing was the questionable part of it. Curious, I recall reading this somewhere. Show nested quote +Reason: Homophobia. Use of prancing was what got you although your assumption that gay men are also child molesters didn't earn you any credit. Your mod history is long and your posting is awful, you're on the fast track out of here.
other than prancing, he was basically saying that he didn't want older men that are attracted to other men to be around his male children. thats an opinion that i dont think is bannable. put another way, if he said i dont want older men that are attracted to females to be around my female children, i dont think that is bannable as well. i dont see that his post was saying that older gay men are pedophiles moreso than older heterosexual men. i dont agree with his assessment, but im not sure why its ban worthy.
i dont know his mod history so i am disabled in that aspect.
|
On October 25 2012 07:22 neversummer wrote:
Edit: It appears the vast majority of contributors to this thread have completely missed the purpose of my post. It is NOT to exonerate myself. It is to examine the behavior and moderation of Kwark.
It is impossible to separate the two. As you have posted here shortly after you were bannedby Kwark, and have argued in this thread against the specifics of your ban (then saying but guys it's about Kwark), any point you may or may not have about Kwarks moderation are hard to take seriously. No matter what your INTENTION is, whe we read your posts all we see is someone who got banned, trying to get back at the moderator who banned him.
And despite your previous posts about how what we infer from your posts isn't important, it's all we've got to go on. If you had not been recently banned by Kwark then maybe we could take your complaints seriously. But as it is, all the majority of TL member see is the fact that you are raging against the mod who banned you.
Sure Kwark can be a bit rude, but when you send a PM including the below 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.
I'm inclined to side with him.
|
|
|
United States42565 Posts
Also this idea that I am insulting disabled people seems to have come out of nowhere. I am insulting people who I am assuming are entirely able by comparing to those who are medically recognised as being less able. I am using the concept of a person who is commonly understood to be deficient medically as a benchmark by which I negatively compare the victim of the insult.
If I were to describe someone as being as stupid as neversummer then the implication would be that neversummer is stupid (for he would have to be for the insult to have meaning) and both neversummer and the victim should feel offended.
If, however, I were to describe neversummer as having the understanding of a 4 year old then 4 year olds everywhere shouldn't feel particularly offended because they do have the understanding of 4 year olds, it's a fair description, whereas neversummer, who is probably nearer to the 8 or 9 year old level, should feel insulted by this.
I can't believe I'm having to explain to someone how describing works but here we are.
|
On October 25 2012 08:10 ControlMonkey wrote:Show nested quote +On October 25 2012 07:22 neversummer wrote:
Edit: It appears the vast majority of contributors to this thread have completely missed the purpose of my post. It is NOT to exonerate myself. It is to examine the behavior and moderation of Kwark. It is impossible to separate the two. As you have posted here shortly after you were bannedby Kwark, and have argued in this thread against the specifics of your ban (then saying but guys it's about Kwark), any point you may or may not have about Kwarks moderation are hard to take seriously. No matter what your INTENTION is, whe we read your posts all we see is someone who got banned, trying to get back at the moderator who banned him. And despite your previous posts about how what we infer from your posts isn't important, it's all we've got to go on. If you had not been recently banned by Kwark then maybe we could take your complaints seriously. But as it is, all the majority of TL member see is the fact that you are raging against the mod who banned you. Sure Kwark can be a bit rude, but when you send a PM including the below paragraph: Show nested quote +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. I'm inclined to side with him.
I'm curious as to how you would respond to this, then:
Which was followed by this:
On October 04 2012 01:56 KwarK wrote:
The post you got warned for ended
"Am I just being stupid to feel offended?"
The answer was yes for then and doubly yes for now. A warning is no big deal, just an instruction not to do what you got warned for. For some reason (maybe stupidity, maybe some other deficiency on your part, maybe something else) you felt the need to post "first". Now I don't wish to speculate about why (maybe you're dumb?) but the why (dumb maybe?) doesn't really matter, you posted "first" and you got warned for it because it's a shitty post that we don't do on teamliquid.
You then felt the need for some reason (dropped on your head as a child?) to make a shitty topic in general forum asking if you were stupid for being offended by a standard warning message you got for making a shitty post. I then warned you for making such a shitty topic because you should have known better after you already got warned for shitposting but didn't know better for some reason (maybe foetal alcohol syndrome?). I also answered your question, although it was just my opinion and if you would like an official diagnosis of stupid then please consult a medical professional.
I would not like to hazard a guess at why you saw the need to make yet another topic as you may get offended by my speculation on the matter.
|
On October 25 2012 08:12 KwarK wrote:
Also this idea that I am insulting disabled people seems to have come out of nowhere. I am insulting people who I am assuming are entirely able by comparing to those who are medically recognised as being less able. I am using the concept of a person who is commonly understood to be deficient medically as a benchmark by which I negatively compare the victim of the insult.
If I were to describe someone as being as stupid as neversummer then the implication would be that neversummer is stupid (for he would have to be for the insult to have meaning) and both neversummer and the victim should feel offended.
If, however, I were to describe neversummer as having the understanding of a 4 year old then 4 year olds everywhere shouldn't feel particularly offended because they do have the understanding of 4 year olds, it's a fair description, whereas neversummer, who is probably nearer to the 8 or 9 year old level, should feel insulted by this.
I can't believe I'm having to explain to someone how describing works but here we are.
Oh, the irony!
The idea that I am insinuating all homosexuals are pedophiles similarly "came out of nowhere," and I was even banned for it!
Just for the record, then, you're suggesting it IS okay to insult people fully capable, but NOT okay to insult those who are not. Are homosexuals not fully capable?
|
just so its clear, i am only looking at the ban. that first pm that was sent by neversummer was ridiculous (as i have told him in pm), and i am surprised that kwark responded at all let alone with the restraint he had just to call him stupid.
|
United States42565 Posts
On October 25 2012 08:17 neversummer wrote:Show nested quote +On October 25 2012 08:12 KwarK wrote:
Also this idea that I am insulting disabled people seems to have come out of nowhere. I am insulting people who I am assuming are entirely able by comparing to those who are medically recognised as being less able. I am using the concept of a person who is commonly understood to be deficient medically as a benchmark by which I negatively compare the victim of the insult.
If I were to describe someone as being as stupid as neversummer then the implication would be that neversummer is stupid (for he would have to be for the insult to have meaning) and both neversummer and the victim should feel offended.
If, however, I were to describe neversummer as having the understanding of a 4 year old then 4 year olds everywhere shouldn't feel particularly offended because they do have the understanding of 4 year olds, it's a fair description, whereas neversummer, who is probably nearer to the 8 or 9 year old level, should feel insulted by this.
I can't believe I'm having to explain to someone how describing works but here we are. Oh, the irony! The idea that I am insinuating all homosexuals are pedophiles similarly "came out of nowhere," and I was even banned for it! Just for the record, then, you're suggesting it IS okay to insult people fully capable, but NOT okay to insult those who are not. Are homosexuals not fully capable?
You have failed to read or understand anything that I wrote. You have brain power comparable to a lesser animal, perhaps one of the great apes.
|
On October 25 2012 08:20 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On October 25 2012 08:17 neversummer wrote:On October 25 2012 08:12 KwarK wrote:
Also this idea that I am insulting disabled people seems to have come out of nowhere. I am insulting people who I am assuming are entirely able by comparing to those who are medically recognised as being less able. I am using the concept of a person who is commonly understood to be deficient medically as a benchmark by which I negatively compare the victim of the insult.
If I were to describe someone as being as stupid as neversummer then the implication would be that neversummer is stupid (for he would have to be for the insult to have meaning) and both neversummer and the victim should feel offended.
If, however, I were to describe neversummer as having the understanding of a 4 year old then 4 year olds everywhere shouldn't feel particularly offended because they do have the understanding of 4 year olds, it's a fair description, whereas neversummer, who is probably nearer to the 8 or 9 year old level, should feel insulted by this.
I can't believe I'm having to explain to someone how describing works but here we are. Oh, the irony! The idea that I am insinuating all homosexuals are pedophiles similarly "came out of nowhere," and I was even banned for it! Just for the record, then, you're suggesting it IS okay to insult people fully capable, but NOT okay to insult those who are not. Are homosexuals not fully capable? You have failed to read or understand anything that I wrote. You have brain power comparable to a lesser animal, perhaps one of the great apes.
You've just activated my trump card.
|
You seem to be approaching this like you're on the edge of winning.
|
Lalalaland34490 Posts
On October 25 2012 08:08 neversummer wrote:Ahh, the primary reason I was banned. Good question. The reason I used the word "prancing" is because gay men tend to be more flamboyant than straight men. A sore attempt at a joke, I suppose, and a mistake in retrospect. Now I have a question for you. Do you think semantics are justifications for bans? Although I used the word prance, I'm implying the word run, which is an issue of semantics. Had I used the word run, would I have been banned?
You know, if you had pm'd Kwark saying 'I did not mean any offence with the word 'prancing', it was supposed to be a feeble attempt at a joke, though in retrospect I probably shouldn't have done it', this whole thing would've blown over by now.
|
On October 25 2012 08:21 Probe1 wrote:
You seem to be approaching this like you're on the edge of winning.
Am I not? I do believe Kwark has just dug himself a hole from which he cannot dig himself out. God, the irony in this thread just gets greater and greater, doesn't it?
|
On October 25 2012 08:22 Firebolt145 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 25 2012 08:08 neversummer wrote:On October 25 2012 08:04 dAPhREAk wrote:
why did you use the word prancing? Ahh, the primary reason I was banned. Good question. The reason I used the word "prancing" is because gay men tend to be more flamboyant than straight men. A sore attempt at a joke, I suppose, and a mistake in retrospect. Now I have a question for you. Do you think semantics are justifications for bans? Although I used the word prance, I'm implying the word run, which is an issue of semantics. Had I used the word run, would I have been banned? You know, if you had pm'd Kwark saying 'I did not mean any offence with the word 'prancing', it was supposed to be a feeble attempt at a joke, though in retrospect I probably shouldn't have done it', this whole thing would've blown over by now.
Where's the fun in that?
|
Lalalaland34490 Posts
On October 25 2012 08:23 neversummer wrote:Show nested quote +On October 25 2012 08:21 Probe1 wrote:
You seem to be approaching this like you're on the edge of winning. Am I not? I do believe Kwark has just dug himself a hole from which he cannot dig himself out. God, the irony in this thread just gets greater and greater, doesn't it?
I don't see this hole.
|
On October 25 2012 08:23 neversummer wrote:Show nested quote +On October 25 2012 08:21 Probe1 wrote:
You seem to be approaching this like you're on the edge of winning. Am I not? I do believe Kwark has just dug himself a hole from which he cannot dig himself out. God, the irony in this thread just gets greater and greater, doesn't it?
Perhaps. Guide me to the hole he just digged out. Because I cant find it lol
|
Lalalaland34490 Posts
On October 25 2012 08:23 neversummer wrote:Show nested quote +On October 25 2012 08:22 Firebolt145 wrote:On October 25 2012 08:08 neversummer wrote:On October 25 2012 08:04 dAPhREAk wrote:
why did you use the word prancing? Ahh, the primary reason I was banned. Good question. The reason I used the word "prancing" is because gay men tend to be more flamboyant than straight men. A sore attempt at a joke, I suppose, and a mistake in retrospect. Now I have a question for you. Do you think semantics are justifications for bans? Although I used the word prance, I'm implying the word run, which is an issue of semantics. Had I used the word run, would I have been banned? You know, if you had pm'd Kwark saying 'I did not mean any offence with the word 'prancing', it was supposed to be a feeble attempt at a joke, though in retrospect I probably shouldn't have done it', this whole thing would've blown over by now. Where's the fun in that?
Rofl.
'Hey guys I got banned for this, I disagree with this ban'
'Maybe if you approached it this way..............etc etc'
'Lololol fuk dat mate, where's the fun in that? YOLO SWAG YOLO'
|
On October 25 2012 08:17 neversummer wrote:Show nested quote +On October 25 2012 08:12 KwarK wrote:
Also this idea that I am insulting disabled people seems to have come out of nowhere. I am insulting people who I am assuming are entirely able by comparing to those who are medically recognised as being less able. I am using the concept of a person who is commonly understood to be deficient medically as a benchmark by which I negatively compare the victim of the insult.
If I were to describe someone as being as stupid as neversummer then the implication would be that neversummer is stupid (for he would have to be for the insult to have meaning) and both neversummer and the victim should feel offended.
If, however, I were to describe neversummer as having the understanding of a 4 year old then 4 year olds everywhere shouldn't feel particularly offended because they do have the understanding of 4 year olds, it's a fair description, whereas neversummer, who is probably nearer to the 8 or 9 year old level, should feel insulted by this.
I can't believe I'm having to explain to someone how describing works but here we are. Oh, the irony! The idea that I am insinuating all homosexuals are pedophiles similarly "came out of nowhere," and I was even banned for it! Just for the record, then, you're suggesting it IS okay to insult people fully capable, but NOT okay to insult those who are not. Are homosexuals not fully capable?
|
On October 25 2012 08:24 Firebolt145 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 25 2012 08:23 neversummer wrote:On October 25 2012 08:21 Probe1 wrote:
You seem to be approaching this like you're on the edge of winning. Am I not? I do believe Kwark has just dug himself a hole from which he cannot dig himself out. God, the irony in this thread just gets greater and greater, doesn't it? I don't see this hole.
You don't see the emperor's new clothes?
|
On October 25 2012 08:13 neversummer wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On October 25 2012 08:10 ControlMonkey wrote:Show nested quote +On October 25 2012 07:22 neversummer wrote:
Edit: It appears the vast majority of contributors to this thread have completely missed the purpose of my post. It is NOT to exonerate myself. It is to examine the behavior and moderation of Kwark. It is impossible to separate the two. As you have posted here shortly after you were bannedby Kwark, and have argued in this thread against the specifics of your ban (then saying but guys it's about Kwark), any point you may or may not have about Kwarks moderation are hard to take seriously. No matter what your INTENTION is, whe we read your posts all we see is someone who got banned, trying to get back at the moderator who banned him. And despite your previous posts about how what we infer from your posts isn't important, it's all we've got to go on. If you had not been recently banned by Kwark then maybe we could take your complaints seriously. But as it is, all the majority of TL member see is the fact that you are raging against the mod who banned you. Sure Kwark can be a bit rude, but when you send a PM including the below paragraph: Show nested quote +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. I'm inclined to side with him. I'm curious as to how you would respond to this, then: Which was followed by this: On October 04 2012 01:56 KwarK wrote:
The post you got warned for ended
"Am I just being stupid to feel offended?"
The answer was yes for then and doubly yes for now. A warning is no big deal, just an instruction not to do what you got warned for. For some reason (maybe stupidity, maybe some other deficiency on your part, maybe something else) you felt the need to post "first". Now I don't wish to speculate about why (maybe you're dumb?) but the why (dumb maybe?) doesn't really matter, you posted "first" and you got warned for it because it's a shitty post that we don't do on teamliquid.
You then felt the need for some reason (dropped on your head as a child?) to make a shitty topic in general forum asking if you were stupid for being offended by a standard warning message you got for making a shitty post. I then warned you for making such a shitty topic because you should have known better after you already got warned for shitposting but didn't know better for some reason (maybe foetal alcohol syndrome?). I also answered your question, although it was just my opinion and if you would like an official diagnosis of stupid then please consult a medical professional.
I would not like to hazard a guess at why you saw the need to make yet another topic as you may get offended by my speculation on the matter.
By restating my main argument. In my mind any validity your argument may have is reduced by the fact that you were recently banned by Kwark. If someone else were making this point I'd be more inclined to listen to them.
|
On October 25 2012 08:25 ControlMonkey wrote:Show nested quote +On October 25 2012 08:13 neversummer wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On October 25 2012 08:10 ControlMonkey wrote:Show nested quote +On October 25 2012 07:22 neversummer wrote:
Edit: It appears the vast majority of contributors to this thread have completely missed the purpose of my post. It is NOT to exonerate myself. It is to examine the behavior and moderation of Kwark. It is impossible to separate the two. As you have posted here shortly after you were bannedby Kwark, and have argued in this thread against the specifics of your ban (then saying but guys it's about Kwark), any point you may or may not have about Kwarks moderation are hard to take seriously. No matter what your INTENTION is, whe we read your posts all we see is someone who got banned, trying to get back at the moderator who banned him. And despite your previous posts about how what we infer from your posts isn't important, it's all we've got to go on. If you had not been recently banned by Kwark then maybe we could take your complaints seriously. But as it is, all the majority of TL member see is the fact that you are raging against the mod who banned you. Sure Kwark can be a bit rude, but when you send a PM including the below paragraph: Show nested quote +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. I'm inclined to side with him. I'm curious as to how you would respond to this, then: Which was followed by this: On October 04 2012 01:56 KwarK wrote:
The post you got warned for ended
"Am I just being stupid to feel offended?"
The answer was yes for then and doubly yes for now. A warning is no big deal, just an instruction not to do what you got warned for. For some reason (maybe stupidity, maybe some other deficiency on your part, maybe something else) you felt the need to post "first". Now I don't wish to speculate about why (maybe you're dumb?) but the why (dumb maybe?) doesn't really matter, you posted "first" and you got warned for it because it's a shitty post that we don't do on teamliquid.
You then felt the need for some reason (dropped on your head as a child?) to make a shitty topic in general forum asking if you were stupid for being offended by a standard warning message you got for making a shitty post. I then warned you for making such a shitty topic because you should have known better after you already got warned for shitposting but didn't know better for some reason (maybe foetal alcohol syndrome?). I also answered your question, although it was just my opinion and if you would like an official diagnosis of stupid then please consult a medical professional.
I would not like to hazard a guess at why you saw the need to make yet another topic as you may get offended by my speculation on the matter. By restating my main argument. In my mind any validity your argument may have is reduced by the fact that you were recently banned by Kwark. If someone else were making this point I'd be more inclined to listen to them.
That is called circumstantial ad hominem and is a logical fallacy.
|
On October 25 2012 08:25 Firebolt145 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 25 2012 08:23 neversummer wrote:On October 25 2012 08:22 Firebolt145 wrote:On October 25 2012 08:08 neversummer wrote:On October 25 2012 08:04 dAPhREAk wrote:
why did you use the word prancing? Ahh, the primary reason I was banned. Good question. The reason I used the word "prancing" is because gay men tend to be more flamboyant than straight men. A sore attempt at a joke, I suppose, and a mistake in retrospect. Now I have a question for you. Do you think semantics are justifications for bans? Although I used the word prance, I'm implying the word run, which is an issue of semantics. Had I used the word run, would I have been banned? You know, if you had pm'd Kwark saying 'I did not mean any offence with the word 'prancing', it was supposed to be a feeble attempt at a joke, though in retrospect I probably shouldn't have done it', this whole thing would've blown over by now. Where's the fun in that? Rofl. 'Hey guys I got banned for this, I disagree with this ban' 'Maybe if you approached it this way..............etc etc' 'Lololol fuk dat mate, where's the fun in that? YOLO SWAG YOLO'
xD
homie dont play like dat.
|
United States42565 Posts
For neversummer, the only man who doesn't get this. I apologise to every other poster in the topic who understands exactly what happened.
Saying "homosexual men cannot be trusted around children" is making the implication that homosexual men are a risk to children, or rather, more of a risk than heterosexual men, sufficient to be worthy of distinction. This is a homophobic comment.
Saying "neversummer is stupid" is not a homophobic comment.
|
On October 25 2012 08:23 neversummer wrote:Show nested quote +On October 25 2012 08:21 Probe1 wrote:
You seem to be approaching this like you're on the edge of winning. Am I not? I do believe Kwark has just dug himself a hole from which he cannot dig himself out. God, the irony in this thread just gets greater and greater, doesn't it?
What are you talking about?
|
United States8476 Posts
On October 25 2012 08:10 ControlMonkey wrote:Show nested quote +On October 25 2012 07:22 neversummer wrote:
Edit: It appears the vast majority of contributors to this thread have completely missed the purpose of my post. It is NOT to exonerate myself. It is to examine the behavior and moderation of Kwark. It is impossible to separate the two. As you have posted here shortly after you were bannedby Kwark, and have argued in this thread against the specifics of your ban (then saying but guys it's about Kwark), any point you may or may not have about Kwarks moderation are hard to take seriously. No matter what your INTENTION is, whe we read your posts all we see is someone who got banned, trying to get back at the moderator who banned him. And despite your previous posts about how what we infer from your posts isn't important, it's all we've got to go on. If you had not been recently banned by Kwark then maybe we could take your complaints seriously. But as it is, all the majority of TL member see is the fact that you are raging against the mod who banned you. Sure Kwark can be a bit rude, but when you send a PM including the below paragraph: Show nested quote +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. I'm inclined to side with him.
This, in addition to the fact that, according to your moderation history, every time you've banned, you've sent the moderator an angry PM.
Yes, Kwark could be a bit nicer. Yes, there is preferential treatment for people who have contributed to the community. But think about what it looks like when a 100 post user who's just recently been banned by a moderator to call for his demodding.
1. You just come off like you're looking for revenge.
2. You come off as a new user who clearly doesn't know anything about the site and tries to tell us how we should run things and who should be out of a job with things like:
TL;DR: Kwark needs to go.
TL;DR: Perhaps you should go if you don't like it here so much. Or just, you know, let it go and follow the rules. You're clearly not winning this argument.
|
Man, being bitchy after a temp.. well, warnings. I'm 100% guilty. I think I sent KwarK a bitchy one once.
Sry m8
|
On October 25 2012 08:29 monk. wrote:Show nested quote +On October 25 2012 08:10 ControlMonkey wrote:On October 25 2012 07:22 neversummer wrote:
Edit: It appears the vast majority of contributors to this thread have completely missed the purpose of my post. It is NOT to exonerate myself. It is to examine the behavior and moderation of Kwark. It is impossible to separate the two. As you have posted here shortly after you were bannedby Kwark, and have argued in this thread against the specifics of your ban (then saying but guys it's about Kwark), any point you may or may not have about Kwarks moderation are hard to take seriously. No matter what your INTENTION is, whe we read your posts all we see is someone who got banned, trying to get back at the moderator who banned him. And despite your previous posts about how what we infer from your posts isn't important, it's all we've got to go on. If you had not been recently banned by Kwark then maybe we could take your complaints seriously. But as it is, all the majority of TL member see is the fact that you are raging against the mod who banned you. Sure Kwark can be a bit rude, but when you send a PM including the below 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. I'm inclined to side with him. This, in addition to the fact that, according to your moderation history, every time you've banned, you've sent the moderator an angry PM. Yes, Kwark could be a bit nicer. Yes, there is preferential treatment for people who have contributed to the community. But think about what it looks like when a 100 post user who's just recently been banned by a moderator to call for his demodding. 1. You just come off like you're looking for revenge. 2. You come off as a new user who clearly doesn't know anything about the site and tries to tell us how we should run things and who should be out of a job with things like: TL;DR: Perhaps you should go if you don't like it here so much. Or just, you know, let it go and follow the rules. You're clearly not winning this argument.
Psh. Why should he go when he is clearly winning the argument?
Amirightno?
|
Lalalaland34490 Posts
Half of me is screaming 'oh god mods close this thread already'
The other half of me is in the kitchen making more popcorn
|
On October 25 2012 08:29 monk. wrote:Show nested quote +On October 25 2012 08:10 ControlMonkey wrote:On October 25 2012 07:22 neversummer wrote:
Edit: It appears the vast majority of contributors to this thread have completely missed the purpose of my post. It is NOT to exonerate myself. It is to examine the behavior and moderation of Kwark. It is impossible to separate the two. As you have posted here shortly after you were bannedby Kwark, and have argued in this thread against the specifics of your ban (then saying but guys it's about Kwark), any point you may or may not have about Kwarks moderation are hard to take seriously. No matter what your INTENTION is, whe we read your posts all we see is someone who got banned, trying to get back at the moderator who banned him. And despite your previous posts about how what we infer from your posts isn't important, it's all we've got to go on. If you had not been recently banned by Kwark then maybe we could take your complaints seriously. But as it is, all the majority of TL member see is the fact that you are raging against the mod who banned you. Sure Kwark can be a bit rude, but when you send a PM including the below 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. I'm inclined to side with him. This, in addition to the fact that, according to your moderation history, every time you've banned, you've sent the moderator an angry PM. Yes, Kwark could be a bit nicer. Yes, there is preferential treatment for people who have contributed to the community. But think about what it looks like when a 100 post user who's just recently been banned by a moderator to call for his demodding. 1. You just come off like you're looking for revenge. 2. You come off as a new user who clearly doesn't know anything about the site and tries to tell us how we should run things and who should be out of a job with things like: TL;DR: Perhaps you should go if you don't like it here so much. Or just, you know, let it go and follow the rules. You're clearly not winning this argument.
I assume you've read the OP in its entirety. I'm curious as to how you'd respond to this:
On October 25 2012 08:17 neversummer wrote:Show nested quote +On October 25 2012 08:12 KwarK wrote:
Also this idea that I am insulting disabled people seems to have come out of nowhere. I am insulting people who I am assuming are entirely able by comparing to those who are medically recognised as being less able. I am using the concept of a person who is commonly understood to be deficient medically as a benchmark by which I negatively compare the victim of the insult.
If I were to describe someone as being as stupid as neversummer then the implication would be that neversummer is stupid (for he would have to be for the insult to have meaning) and both neversummer and the victim should feel offended.
If, however, I were to describe neversummer as having the understanding of a 4 year old then 4 year olds everywhere shouldn't feel particularly offended because they do have the understanding of 4 year olds, it's a fair description, whereas neversummer, who is probably nearer to the 8 or 9 year old level, should feel insulted by this.
I can't believe I'm having to explain to someone how describing works but here we are. Oh, the irony! The idea that I am insinuating all homosexuals are pedophiles similarly "came out of nowhere," and I was even banned for it! Just for the record, then, you're suggesting it IS okay to insult people fully capable, but NOT okay to insult those who are not. Are homosexuals not fully capable?
Also, winning an argument is not based upon how many people disagree with you or agree with your opponent. It is based upon who is right and who is wrong.
|
There's no winning. Everyone here is embarrassed to still be here.
This is where we start talking about pokemon or smth.
|
United States42565 Posts
On October 25 2012 08:35 neversummer wrote:
Also, winning an argument is not based upon how many people disagree with you or agree with your opponent. It is based upon who is right and who is wrong.
I see we're back to the "yes, but I don't think I was speeding and it doesn't count until you explain to me to my satisfaction that I was" part of the game. Similar to your "I do have bad mod history but I think I don't so it doesn't count" defence.
|
Lalalaland34490 Posts
On October 25 2012 08:35 neversummer wrote:Show nested quote +On October 25 2012 08:29 monk. wrote:On October 25 2012 08:10 ControlMonkey wrote:On October 25 2012 07:22 neversummer wrote:
Edit: It appears the vast majority of contributors to this thread have completely missed the purpose of my post. It is NOT to exonerate myself. It is to examine the behavior and moderation of Kwark. It is impossible to separate the two. As you have posted here shortly after you were bannedby Kwark, and have argued in this thread against the specifics of your ban (then saying but guys it's about Kwark), any point you may or may not have about Kwarks moderation are hard to take seriously. No matter what your INTENTION is, whe we read your posts all we see is someone who got banned, trying to get back at the moderator who banned him. And despite your previous posts about how what we infer from your posts isn't important, it's all we've got to go on. If you had not been recently banned by Kwark then maybe we could take your complaints seriously. But as it is, all the majority of TL member see is the fact that you are raging against the mod who banned you. Sure Kwark can be a bit rude, but when you send a PM including the below 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. I'm inclined to side with him. This, in addition to the fact that, according to your moderation history, every time you've banned, you've sent the moderator an angry PM. Yes, Kwark could be a bit nicer. Yes, there is preferential treatment for people who have contributed to the community. But think about what it looks like when a 100 post user who's just recently been banned by a moderator to call for his demodding. 1. You just come off like you're looking for revenge. 2. You come off as a new user who clearly doesn't know anything about the site and tries to tell us how we should run things and who should be out of a job with things like: TL;DR: Kwark needs to go. TL;DR: Perhaps you should go if you don't like it here so much. Or just, you know, let it go and follow the rules. You're clearly not winning this argument. I assume you've read the OP in its entirety. I'm curious as to how you'd respond to this: Show nested quote +On October 25 2012 08:17 neversummer wrote:On October 25 2012 08:12 KwarK wrote:
Also this idea that I am insulting disabled people seems to have come out of nowhere. I am insulting people who I am assuming are entirely able by comparing to those who are medically recognised as being less able. I am using the concept of a person who is commonly understood to be deficient medically as a benchmark by which I negatively compare the victim of the insult.
If I were to describe someone as being as stupid as neversummer then the implication would be that neversummer is stupid (for he would have to be for the insult to have meaning) and both neversummer and the victim should feel offended.
If, however, I were to describe neversummer as having the understanding of a 4 year old then 4 year olds everywhere shouldn't feel particularly offended because they do have the understanding of 4 year olds, it's a fair description, whereas neversummer, who is probably nearer to the 8 or 9 year old level, should feel insulted by this.
I can't believe I'm having to explain to someone how describing works but here we are. Oh, the irony! The idea that I am insinuating all homosexuals are pedophiles similarly "came out of nowhere," and I was even banned for it! Just for the record, then, you're suggesting it IS okay to insult people fully capable, but NOT okay to insult those who are not. Are homosexuals not fully capable? Also, winning an argument is not based upon how many people disagree with you or agree with your opponent. It is based upon who is right and who is wrong.
No one ever accused you of calling homosexuals paedophiles. People are accusing you of making a distinction between homosexuals and heterosexuals.
Homophobia insults homosexual people. Calling a mentally retarded kid 'stupid' is harsh, but it's kinda fact.
I've never given Kwark brownie points for being nice, and I am struggling to figure out exactly what he's doing to his girlfriend to make her think he's the 'sweetest guy like evaaaar', but he generally tells the truth as it is.
|
United States5162 Posts
On October 25 2012 08:35 neversummer wrote:Show nested quote +On October 25 2012 08:29 monk. wrote:On October 25 2012 08:10 ControlMonkey wrote:On October 25 2012 07:22 neversummer wrote:
Edit: It appears the vast majority of contributors to this thread have completely missed the purpose of my post. It is NOT to exonerate myself. It is to examine the behavior and moderation of Kwark. It is impossible to separate the two. As you have posted here shortly after you were bannedby Kwark, and have argued in this thread against the specifics of your ban (then saying but guys it's about Kwark), any point you may or may not have about Kwarks moderation are hard to take seriously. No matter what your INTENTION is, whe we read your posts all we see is someone who got banned, trying to get back at the moderator who banned him. And despite your previous posts about how what we infer from your posts isn't important, it's all we've got to go on. If you had not been recently banned by Kwark then maybe we could take your complaints seriously. But as it is, all the majority of TL member see is the fact that you are raging against the mod who banned you. Sure Kwark can be a bit rude, but when you send a PM including the below 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. I'm inclined to side with him. This, in addition to the fact that, according to your moderation history, every time you've banned, you've sent the moderator an angry PM. Yes, Kwark could be a bit nicer. Yes, there is preferential treatment for people who have contributed to the community. But think about what it looks like when a 100 post user who's just recently been banned by a moderator to call for his demodding. 1. You just come off like you're looking for revenge. 2. You come off as a new user who clearly doesn't know anything about the site and tries to tell us how we should run things and who should be out of a job with things like: TL;DR: Kwark needs to go. TL;DR: Perhaps you should go if you don't like it here so much. Or just, you know, let it go and follow the rules. You're clearly not winning this argument. I assume you've read the OP in its entirety. I'm curious as to how you'd respond to this: Show nested quote +On October 25 2012 08:17 neversummer wrote:On October 25 2012 08:12 KwarK wrote:
Also this idea that I am insulting disabled people seems to have come out of nowhere. I am insulting people who I am assuming are entirely able by comparing to those who are medically recognised as being less able. I am using the concept of a person who is commonly understood to be deficient medically as a benchmark by which I negatively compare the victim of the insult.
If I were to describe someone as being as stupid as neversummer then the implication would be that neversummer is stupid (for he would have to be for the insult to have meaning) and both neversummer and the victim should feel offended.
If, however, I were to describe neversummer as having the understanding of a 4 year old then 4 year olds everywhere shouldn't feel particularly offended because they do have the understanding of 4 year olds, it's a fair description, whereas neversummer, who is probably nearer to the 8 or 9 year old level, should feel insulted by this.
I can't believe I'm having to explain to someone how describing works but here we are. Oh, the irony! The idea that I am insinuating all homosexuals are pedophiles similarly "came out of nowhere," and I was even banned for it! Just for the record, then, you're suggesting it IS okay to insult people fully capable, but NOT okay to insult those who are not. Are homosexuals not fully capable? Also, winning an argument is not based upon how many people disagree with you or agree with your opponent. It is based upon who is right and who is wrong.
LOL considering you're arguing an opinion -that Kwark doesn't handle his responsibilities properly and that TL should care/do something about that- it actually is about how many people agree with you.
|
On October 25 2012 08:40 Myles wrote:Show nested quote +On October 25 2012 08:35 neversummer wrote:On October 25 2012 08:29 monk. wrote:On October 25 2012 08:10 ControlMonkey wrote:On October 25 2012 07:22 neversummer wrote:
Edit: It appears the vast majority of contributors to this thread have completely missed the purpose of my post. It is NOT to exonerate myself. It is to examine the behavior and moderation of Kwark. It is impossible to separate the two. As you have posted here shortly after you were bannedby Kwark, and have argued in this thread against the specifics of your ban (then saying but guys it's about Kwark), any point you may or may not have about Kwarks moderation are hard to take seriously. No matter what your INTENTION is, whe we read your posts all we see is someone who got banned, trying to get back at the moderator who banned him. And despite your previous posts about how what we infer from your posts isn't important, it's all we've got to go on. If you had not been recently banned by Kwark then maybe we could take your complaints seriously. But as it is, all the majority of TL member see is the fact that you are raging against the mod who banned you. Sure Kwark can be a bit rude, but when you send a PM including the below 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. I'm inclined to side with him. This, in addition to the fact that, according to your moderation history, every time you've banned, you've sent the moderator an angry PM. Yes, Kwark could be a bit nicer. Yes, there is preferential treatment for people who have contributed to the community. But think about what it looks like when a 100 post user who's just recently been banned by a moderator to call for his demodding. 1. You just come off like you're looking for revenge. 2. You come off as a new user who clearly doesn't know anything about the site and tries to tell us how we should run things and who should be out of a job with things like: TL;DR: Kwark needs to go. TL;DR: Perhaps you should go if you don't like it here so much. Or just, you know, let it go and follow the rules. You're clearly not winning this argument. I assume you've read the OP in its entirety. I'm curious as to how you'd respond to this: On October 25 2012 08:17 neversummer wrote:On October 25 2012 08:12 KwarK wrote:
Also this idea that I am insulting disabled people seems to have come out of nowhere. I am insulting people who I am assuming are entirely able by comparing to those who are medically recognised as being less able. I am using the concept of a person who is commonly understood to be deficient medically as a benchmark by which I negatively compare the victim of the insult.
If I were to describe someone as being as stupid as neversummer then the implication would be that neversummer is stupid (for he would have to be for the insult to have meaning) and both neversummer and the victim should feel offended.
If, however, I were to describe neversummer as having the understanding of a 4 year old then 4 year olds everywhere shouldn't feel particularly offended because they do have the understanding of 4 year olds, it's a fair description, whereas neversummer, who is probably nearer to the 8 or 9 year old level, should feel insulted by this.
I can't believe I'm having to explain to someone how describing works but here we are. Oh, the irony! The idea that I am insinuating all homosexuals are pedophiles similarly "came out of nowhere," and I was even banned for it! Just for the record, then, you're suggesting it IS okay to insult people fully capable, but NOT okay to insult those who are not. Are homosexuals not fully capable? Also, winning an argument is not based upon how many people disagree with you or agree with your opponent. It is based upon who is right and who is wrong. LOL considering you're arguing an opinion -that Kwark doesn't handle his responsibilities properly and that TL should care/do something about that- it actually is about how many people agree with you.
actually, it only matters what a few, privileged people think, and hot_bid has already spoken. this thread is merely for philosophical discussions and amusement at this point.
|
United States5162 Posts
On October 25 2012 08:42 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On October 25 2012 08:40 Myles wrote:On October 25 2012 08:35 neversummer wrote:On October 25 2012 08:29 monk. wrote:On October 25 2012 08:10 ControlMonkey wrote:On October 25 2012 07:22 neversummer wrote:
Edit: It appears the vast majority of contributors to this thread have completely missed the purpose of my post. It is NOT to exonerate myself. It is to examine the behavior and moderation of Kwark. It is impossible to separate the two. As you have posted here shortly after you were bannedby Kwark, and have argued in this thread against the specifics of your ban (then saying but guys it's about Kwark), any point you may or may not have about Kwarks moderation are hard to take seriously. No matter what your INTENTION is, whe we read your posts all we see is someone who got banned, trying to get back at the moderator who banned him. And despite your previous posts about how what we infer from your posts isn't important, it's all we've got to go on. If you had not been recently banned by Kwark then maybe we could take your complaints seriously. But as it is, all the majority of TL member see is the fact that you are raging against the mod who banned you. Sure Kwark can be a bit rude, but when you send a PM including the below 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. I'm inclined to side with him. This, in addition to the fact that, according to your moderation history, every time you've banned, you've sent the moderator an angry PM. Yes, Kwark could be a bit nicer. Yes, there is preferential treatment for people who have contributed to the community. But think about what it looks like when a 100 post user who's just recently been banned by a moderator to call for his demodding. 1. You just come off like you're looking for revenge. 2. You come off as a new user who clearly doesn't know anything about the site and tries to tell us how we should run things and who should be out of a job with things like: TL;DR: Kwark needs to go. TL;DR: Perhaps you should go if you don't like it here so much. Or just, you know, let it go and follow the rules. You're clearly not winning this argument. I assume you've read the OP in its entirety. I'm curious as to how you'd respond to this: On October 25 2012 08:17 neversummer wrote:On October 25 2012 08:12 KwarK wrote:
Also this idea that I am insulting disabled people seems to have come out of nowhere. I am insulting people who I am assuming are entirely able by comparing to those who are medically recognised as being less able. I am using the concept of a person who is commonly understood to be deficient medically as a benchmark by which I negatively compare the victim of the insult.
If I were to describe someone as being as stupid as neversummer then the implication would be that neversummer is stupid (for he would have to be for the insult to have meaning) and both neversummer and the victim should feel offended.
If, however, I were to describe neversummer as having the understanding of a 4 year old then 4 year olds everywhere shouldn't feel particularly offended because they do have the understanding of 4 year olds, it's a fair description, whereas neversummer, who is probably nearer to the 8 or 9 year old level, should feel insulted by this.
I can't believe I'm having to explain to someone how describing works but here we are. Oh, the irony! The idea that I am insinuating all homosexuals are pedophiles similarly "came out of nowhere," and I was even banned for it! Just for the record, then, you're suggesting it IS okay to insult people fully capable, but NOT okay to insult those who are not. Are homosexuals not fully capable? Also, winning an argument is not based upon how many people disagree with you or agree with your opponent. It is based upon who is right and who is wrong. LOL considering you're arguing an opinion -that Kwark doesn't handle his responsibilities properly and that TL should care/do something about that- it actually is about how many people agree with you. actually, it only matters what a few, privileged people think, and hot_bid has already spoken. this thread is merely for philosophical discussions and amusement at this point.
Very true, I should have been more specific and said how many of the admins agree with him.
|
On October 25 2012 08:40 Firebolt145 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 25 2012 08:35 neversummer wrote:On October 25 2012 08:29 monk. wrote:On October 25 2012 08:10 ControlMonkey wrote:On October 25 2012 07:22 neversummer wrote:
Edit: It appears the vast majority of contributors to this thread have completely missed the purpose of my post. It is NOT to exonerate myself. It is to examine the behavior and moderation of Kwark. It is impossible to separate the two. As you have posted here shortly after you were bannedby Kwark, and have argued in this thread against the specifics of your ban (then saying but guys it's about Kwark), any point you may or may not have about Kwarks moderation are hard to take seriously. No matter what your INTENTION is, whe we read your posts all we see is someone who got banned, trying to get back at the moderator who banned him. And despite your previous posts about how what we infer from your posts isn't important, it's all we've got to go on. If you had not been recently banned by Kwark then maybe we could take your complaints seriously. But as it is, all the majority of TL member see is the fact that you are raging against the mod who banned you. Sure Kwark can be a bit rude, but when you send a PM including the below 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. I'm inclined to side with him. This, in addition to the fact that, according to your moderation history, every time you've banned, you've sent the moderator an angry PM. Yes, Kwark could be a bit nicer. Yes, there is preferential treatment for people who have contributed to the community. But think about what it looks like when a 100 post user who's just recently been banned by a moderator to call for his demodding. 1. You just come off like you're looking for revenge. 2. You come off as a new user who clearly doesn't know anything about the site and tries to tell us how we should run things and who should be out of a job with things like: TL;DR: Kwark needs to go. TL;DR: Perhaps you should go if you don't like it here so much. Or just, you know, let it go and follow the rules. You're clearly not winning this argument. I assume you've read the OP in its entirety. I'm curious as to how you'd respond to this: On October 25 2012 08:17 neversummer wrote:On October 25 2012 08:12 KwarK wrote:
Also this idea that I am insulting disabled people seems to have come out of nowhere. I am insulting people who I am assuming are entirely able by comparing to those who are medically recognised as being less able. I am using the concept of a person who is commonly understood to be deficient medically as a benchmark by which I negatively compare the victim of the insult.
If I were to describe someone as being as stupid as neversummer then the implication would be that neversummer is stupid (for he would have to be for the insult to have meaning) and both neversummer and the victim should feel offended.
If, however, I were to describe neversummer as having the understanding of a 4 year old then 4 year olds everywhere shouldn't feel particularly offended because they do have the understanding of 4 year olds, it's a fair description, whereas neversummer, who is probably nearer to the 8 or 9 year old level, should feel insulted by this.
I can't believe I'm having to explain to someone how describing works but here we are. Oh, the irony! The idea that I am insinuating all homosexuals are pedophiles similarly "came out of nowhere," and I was even banned for it! Just for the record, then, you're suggesting it IS okay to insult people fully capable, but NOT okay to insult those who are not. Are homosexuals not fully capable? Also, winning an argument is not based upon how many people disagree with you or agree with your opponent. It is based upon who is right and who is wrong. No one ever accused you of calling homosexuals paedophiles. People are accusing you of making a distinction between homosexuals and heterosexuals. Homophobia insults homosexual people. Calling a mentally retarded kid 'stupid' is harsh, but it's kinda fact. I've never given Kwark brownie points for being nice, and I am struggling to figure out exactly what he's doing to his girlfriend to make her think he's the 'sweetest guy like evaaaar', but he generally tells the truth as it is.
Child molester=pedophile
Kwark said insulting people who are not fully capable is wrong. Mentally impaired children are not fully capable. Most homosexuals are.
Edit: Actually, Kwark said insulting people who are fully capable is okay. This adds more credibility to my argument than the previous wording.
|
On October 25 2012 08:27 neversummer wrote:Show nested quote +On October 25 2012 08:25 ControlMonkey wrote:On October 25 2012 08:13 neversummer wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On October 25 2012 08:10 ControlMonkey wrote:Show nested quote +On October 25 2012 07:22 neversummer wrote:
Edit: It appears the vast majority of contributors to this thread have completely missed the purpose of my post. It is NOT to exonerate myself. It is to examine the behavior and moderation of Kwark. It is impossible to separate the two. As you have posted here shortly after you were bannedby Kwark, and have argued in this thread against the specifics of your ban (then saying but guys it's about Kwark), any point you may or may not have about Kwarks moderation are hard to take seriously. No matter what your INTENTION is, whe we read your posts all we see is someone who got banned, trying to get back at the moderator who banned him. And despite your previous posts about how what we infer from your posts isn't important, it's all we've got to go on. If you had not been recently banned by Kwark then maybe we could take your complaints seriously. But as it is, all the majority of TL member see is the fact that you are raging against the mod who banned you. Sure Kwark can be a bit rude, but when you send a PM including the below paragraph: Show nested quote +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. I'm inclined to side with him. I'm curious as to how you would respond to this, then: Which was followed by this: On October 04 2012 01:56 KwarK wrote:
The post you got warned for ended
"Am I just being stupid to feel offended?"
The answer was yes for then and doubly yes for now. A warning is no big deal, just an instruction not to do what you got warned for. For some reason (maybe stupidity, maybe some other deficiency on your part, maybe something else) you felt the need to post "first". Now I don't wish to speculate about why (maybe you're dumb?) but the why (dumb maybe?) doesn't really matter, you posted "first" and you got warned for it because it's a shitty post that we don't do on teamliquid.
You then felt the need for some reason (dropped on your head as a child?) to make a shitty topic in general forum asking if you were stupid for being offended by a standard warning message you got for making a shitty post. I then warned you for making such a shitty topic because you should have known better after you already got warned for shitposting but didn't know better for some reason (maybe foetal alcohol syndrome?). I also answered your question, although it was just my opinion and if you would like an official diagnosis of stupid then please consult a medical professional.
I would not like to hazard a guess at why you saw the need to make yet another topic as you may get offended by my speculation on the matter. By restating my main argument. In my mind any validity your argument may have is reduced by the fact that you were recently banned by Kwark. If someone else were making this point I'd be more inclined to listen to them. That is called circumstantial ad hominem and is a logical fallacy.
Thanks for pointing out that it is a logical fallacy. I don't agree or care. The intention of your post, IMO, is to get back at the moderator who banned you. That affects the way I see your post, logical fallacy or not.
But if you want me to address your claims of Kwark's moderation, I believe in your specific case, he is in the right. You sent an aggressive PM and he responded dismissively.
In the case where Kwark insults the other poster, this is the first post in that thread:
On October 04 2012 00:45 HanClan wrote:
I don't give a fuck who you are, but it seems like you are the dumb fuck who's not understanding the situation ^^
Yes, I did post a comment on the GSL predictions saying "First one to comment! Sad to see Nestea fail D:"
If doing so was wrong, you could have just said "Comments saying first is not allowed"
or those sorts of comments in my PM.
But instead of doing so, you guys chose to insult not only me but also my relatives including my grandmother and my family.
I don't know where you guys learned your manners but seems like the one who taught you guys(mostly like to be your parents) are full of shit ^^
"You were shitposting, got a warning for it and seem confused by the situation. Don't shitpost. Also don't make shitty topics"
Thanks KwarK. Seems like you are the real one who is fucking confused by the situation. Learn how to use better words than "Shitty" and "Stupid"
User was temp banned for this post.
Once again Kwark responding to a rude and aggressive post. Sure Kwark is a bit rude, but in both of those cases he was merely responding in kind.
|
On October 25 2012 08:40 Firebolt145 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 25 2012 08:35 neversummer wrote:On October 25 2012 08:29 monk. wrote:On October 25 2012 08:10 ControlMonkey wrote:On October 25 2012 07:22 neversummer wrote:
Edit: It appears the vast majority of contributors to this thread have completely missed the purpose of my post. It is NOT to exonerate myself. It is to examine the behavior and moderation of Kwark. It is impossible to separate the two. As you have posted here shortly after you were bannedby Kwark, and have argued in this thread against the specifics of your ban (then saying but guys it's about Kwark), any point you may or may not have about Kwarks moderation are hard to take seriously. No matter what your INTENTION is, whe we read your posts all we see is someone who got banned, trying to get back at the moderator who banned him. And despite your previous posts about how what we infer from your posts isn't important, it's all we've got to go on. If you had not been recently banned by Kwark then maybe we could take your complaints seriously. But as it is, all the majority of TL member see is the fact that you are raging against the mod who banned you. Sure Kwark can be a bit rude, but when you send a PM including the below 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. I'm inclined to side with him. This, in addition to the fact that, according to your moderation history, every time you've banned, you've sent the moderator an angry PM. Yes, Kwark could be a bit nicer. Yes, there is preferential treatment for people who have contributed to the community. But think about what it looks like when a 100 post user who's just recently been banned by a moderator to call for his demodding. 1. You just come off like you're looking for revenge. 2. You come off as a new user who clearly doesn't know anything about the site and tries to tell us how we should run things and who should be out of a job with things like: TL;DR: Kwark needs to go. TL;DR: Perhaps you should go if you don't like it here so much. Or just, you know, let it go and follow the rules. You're clearly not winning this argument. I assume you've read the OP in its entirety. I'm curious as to how you'd respond to this: On October 25 2012 08:17 neversummer wrote:On October 25 2012 08:12 KwarK wrote:
Also this idea that I am insulting disabled people seems to have come out of nowhere. I am insulting people who I am assuming are entirely able by comparing to those who are medically recognised as being less able. I am using the concept of a person who is commonly understood to be deficient medically as a benchmark by which I negatively compare the victim of the insult.
If I were to describe someone as being as stupid as neversummer then the implication would be that neversummer is stupid (for he would have to be for the insult to have meaning) and both neversummer and the victim should feel offended.
If, however, I were to describe neversummer as having the understanding of a 4 year old then 4 year olds everywhere shouldn't feel particularly offended because they do have the understanding of 4 year olds, it's a fair description, whereas neversummer, who is probably nearer to the 8 or 9 year old level, should feel insulted by this.
I can't believe I'm having to explain to someone how describing works but here we are. Oh, the irony! The idea that I am insinuating all homosexuals are pedophiles similarly "came out of nowhere," and I was even banned for it! Just for the record, then, you're suggesting it IS okay to insult people fully capable, but NOT okay to insult those who are not. Are homosexuals not fully capable? Also, winning an argument is not based upon how many people disagree with you or agree with your opponent. It is based upon who is right and who is wrong. No one ever accused you of calling homosexuals paedophiles. People are accusing you of making a distinction between homosexuals and heterosexuals. Homophobia insults homosexual people. Calling a mentally retarded kid 'stupid' is harsh, but it's kinda fact. I've never given Kwark brownie points for being nice, and I am struggling to figure out exactly what he's doing to his girlfriend to make her think he's the 'sweetest guy like evaaaar', but he generally tells the truth as it is.
i still have a problem with banning for making that distinction. ultimately, many people believe its a shitty opinion, but if someone truly feels that way, they should be allowed to discuss it in a professional manner. adding "prancing" to the opinion didn't help much though. i'm not clear why neversummer didn't address micronesia's post though. he seems to respond pretty quickly in this thread, but not that one....
|
Lalalaland34490 Posts
I personally wouldn't have banned for that post, perhaps a warning; parts of it could have either been interpreted as a joke or as a true homophobic post. But as with most bans on this site there is past moderation history to look at.
No one is truly focusing on the original post any more though. That stuff is old and boring. The funny part of this entire thing is how he reacted with the PMs etc, leading all the way to this topic.
|
|
|
On October 25 2012 08:50 Firebolt145 wrote:
I personally wouldn't have banned for that post, perhaps a warning; parts of it could have either been interpreted as a joke or as a true homophobic post. But as with most bans on this site there is past moderation history to look at.
No one is truly focusing on the original post any more though. That stuff is old and boring. The funny part of this entire thing is how he reacted with the PMs etc, leading all the way to this topic.
Oh I agree this thread is awesome. Someone really needs to address the major holes in Kwark's argument, though. It will only lead to more lulz. If I do it, no one will take me seriously ;/
I'll cry myself to sleep tonight. Or maybe pass out after 4 world series blunts to the face. We shall see my friend. We shall see.
|
On October 25 2012 08:50 Firebolt145 wrote:
I personally wouldn't have banned for that post, perhaps a warning; parts of it could have either been interpreted as a joke or as a true homophobic post. But as with most bans on this site there is past moderation history to look at.
No one is truly focusing on the original post any more though. That stuff is old and boring. The funny part of this entire thing is how he reacted with the PMs etc, leading all the way to this topic.
yeah, my devil's advocacy won't extend to his PMs--i consider those abusive all things being considered (e.g., that Kwark is volunteering his time to take out the trash).
|
neversummer, as I see it, the truth is as follows:
You are impossible to argue with (this is not a good thing), and you are the only person in this thread who does not see that you've lost, awfully. That is, assuming there was anything to 'lose', in the first place; your continuous efforts to be entirely unreasonable in this thread could hardly be classified as having an argument. I read the 'argument' you had with just about everyone in the [SFW] Pics thread, and it was eerily similar to this, in that everyone but you realized you were wrong.
|
United States8476 Posts
On October 25 2012 08:35 neversummer wrote:Show nested quote +On October 25 2012 08:29 monk. wrote:On October 25 2012 08:10 ControlMonkey wrote:On October 25 2012 07:22 neversummer wrote:
Edit: It appears the vast majority of contributors to this thread have completely missed the purpose of my post. It is NOT to exonerate myself. It is to examine the behavior and moderation of Kwark. It is impossible to separate the two. As you have posted here shortly after you were bannedby Kwark, and have argued in this thread against the specifics of your ban (then saying but guys it's about Kwark), any point you may or may not have about Kwarks moderation are hard to take seriously. No matter what your INTENTION is, whe we read your posts all we see is someone who got banned, trying to get back at the moderator who banned him. And despite your previous posts about how what we infer from your posts isn't important, it's all we've got to go on. If you had not been recently banned by Kwark then maybe we could take your complaints seriously. But as it is, all the majority of TL member see is the fact that you are raging against the mod who banned you. Sure Kwark can be a bit rude, but when you send a PM including the below 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. I'm inclined to side with him. This, in addition to the fact that, according to your moderation history, every time you've banned, you've sent the moderator an angry PM. Yes, Kwark could be a bit nicer. Yes, there is preferential treatment for people who have contributed to the community. But think about what it looks like when a 100 post user who's just recently been banned by a moderator to call for his demodding. 1. You just come off like you're looking for revenge. 2. You come off as a new user who clearly doesn't know anything about the site and tries to tell us how we should run things and who should be out of a job with things like: TL;DR: Kwark needs to go. TL;DR: Perhaps you should go if you don't like it here so much. Or just, you know, let it go and follow the rules. You're clearly not winning this argument. I assume you've read the OP in its entirety. I'm curious as to how you'd respond to this: Show nested quote +On October 25 2012 08:17 neversummer wrote:On October 25 2012 08:12 KwarK wrote:
Also this idea that I am insulting disabled people seems to have come out of nowhere. I am insulting people who I am assuming are entirely able by comparing to those who are medically recognised as being less able. I am using the concept of a person who is commonly understood to be deficient medically as a benchmark by which I negatively compare the victim of the insult.
If I were to describe someone as being as stupid as neversummer then the implication would be that neversummer is stupid (for he would have to be for the insult to have meaning) and both neversummer and the victim should feel offended.
If, however, I were to describe neversummer as having the understanding of a 4 year old then 4 year olds everywhere shouldn't feel particularly offended because they do have the understanding of 4 year olds, it's a fair description, whereas neversummer, who is probably nearer to the 8 or 9 year old level, should feel insulted by this.
I can't believe I'm having to explain to someone how describing works but here we are. Oh, the irony! The idea that I am insinuating all homosexuals are pedophiles similarly "came out of nowhere," and I was even banned for it! Just for the record, then, you're suggesting it IS okay to insult people fully capable, but NOT okay to insult those who are not. Are homosexuals not fully capable? Also, winning an argument is not based upon how many people disagree with you or agree with your opponent. It is based upon who is right and who is wrong.
First, I like how you just ignored everything I said and directed me to something else entirely.
Next, I have no idea the point you're trying to make with the quote you gave me. What Kwark said has nothing to do with who's capable or not capable. He's saying that being mentally handicapped means you're not that smart by definition, which isn't really an insult to mentally handicapped people. Whereas what you said implied that homosexuals are generally child molesters, which is definitely not in the definition of a child molester. I actually had to read what you said many times to figure out what you were trying to get at and then figured out that it was just a weak point.
Finally, since the purpose of your initial post was to demod Kwark, and you've failed to convince anyone that could influence that, or rather anyone at all actually, I'd say you're losing the argument. The only place you're winning is inside your own head.
|
On October 25 2012 08:56 monk. wrote:Show nested quote +On October 25 2012 08:35 neversummer wrote:On October 25 2012 08:29 monk. wrote:On October 25 2012 08:10 ControlMonkey wrote:On October 25 2012 07:22 neversummer wrote:
Edit: It appears the vast majority of contributors to this thread have completely missed the purpose of my post. It is NOT to exonerate myself. It is to examine the behavior and moderation of Kwark. It is impossible to separate the two. As you have posted here shortly after you were bannedby Kwark, and have argued in this thread against the specifics of your ban (then saying but guys it's about Kwark), any point you may or may not have about Kwarks moderation are hard to take seriously. No matter what your INTENTION is, whe we read your posts all we see is someone who got banned, trying to get back at the moderator who banned him. And despite your previous posts about how what we infer from your posts isn't important, it's all we've got to go on. If you had not been recently banned by Kwark then maybe we could take your complaints seriously. But as it is, all the majority of TL member see is the fact that you are raging against the mod who banned you. Sure Kwark can be a bit rude, but when you send a PM including the below 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. I'm inclined to side with him. This, in addition to the fact that, according to your moderation history, every time you've banned, you've sent the moderator an angry PM. Yes, Kwark could be a bit nicer. Yes, there is preferential treatment for people who have contributed to the community. But think about what it looks like when a 100 post user who's just recently been banned by a moderator to call for his demodding. 1. You just come off like you're looking for revenge. 2. You come off as a new user who clearly doesn't know anything about the site and tries to tell us how we should run things and who should be out of a job with things like: TL;DR: Kwark needs to go. TL;DR: Perhaps you should go if you don't like it here so much. Or just, you know, let it go and follow the rules. You're clearly not winning this argument. I assume you've read the OP in its entirety. I'm curious as to how you'd respond to this: On October 25 2012 08:17 neversummer wrote:On October 25 2012 08:12 KwarK wrote:
Also this idea that I am insulting disabled people seems to have come out of nowhere. I am insulting people who I am assuming are entirely able by comparing to those who are medically recognised as being less able. I am using the concept of a person who is commonly understood to be deficient medically as a benchmark by which I negatively compare the victim of the insult.
If I were to describe someone as being as stupid as neversummer then the implication would be that neversummer is stupid (for he would have to be for the insult to have meaning) and both neversummer and the victim should feel offended.
If, however, I were to describe neversummer as having the understanding of a 4 year old then 4 year olds everywhere shouldn't feel particularly offended because they do have the understanding of 4 year olds, it's a fair description, whereas neversummer, who is probably nearer to the 8 or 9 year old level, should feel insulted by this.
I can't believe I'm having to explain to someone how describing works but here we are. Oh, the irony! The idea that I am insinuating all homosexuals are pedophiles similarly "came out of nowhere," and I was even banned for it! Just for the record, then, you're suggesting it IS okay to insult people fully capable, but NOT okay to insult those who are not. Are homosexuals not fully capable? Also, winning an argument is not based upon how many people disagree with you or agree with your opponent. It is based upon who is right and who is wrong. First, I like how you just ignored everything I said and directed me to something else entirely. Next, I have no idea the point you're trying to make with the quote you gave me. What Kwark said has nothing to do with who's capable or not capable. He's saying that being mentally handicapped means you're not that smart by definition, which isn't really an insult to mentally handicapped people. Whereas what you said implied that homosexuals are generally child molesters, which is definitely not in the definition of a child molester. I actually had to read what you said many times to figure out what you were trying to get at and then figured out that it was just a weak point. Finally, since the purpose of your initial post was to demod Kwark, and you've failed to convince anyone that could influence that, or rather anyone at all actually, I'd say you're losing the argument. The only place you're winning is inside your own head.
I feel like my verbosity in the OP has led several, less capable minds astray.
Allow me to answer your question in the simplest way I can:
Kwark said it was okay that he insulted that individual, because he is fully capable. Kwark banned me for insulting homosexuals (even though I did not, but that's a separate matter). Homosexuals are fully capable.
|
On October 25 2012 08:27 neversummer wrote:Show nested quote +On October 25 2012 08:25 ControlMonkey wrote:On October 25 2012 08:13 neversummer wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On October 25 2012 08:10 ControlMonkey wrote:Show nested quote +On October 25 2012 07:22 neversummer wrote:
Edit: It appears the vast majority of contributors to this thread have completely missed the purpose of my post. It is NOT to exonerate myself. It is to examine the behavior and moderation of Kwark. It is impossible to separate the two. As you have posted here shortly after you were bannedby Kwark, and have argued in this thread against the specifics of your ban (then saying but guys it's about Kwark), any point you may or may not have about Kwarks moderation are hard to take seriously. No matter what your INTENTION is, whe we read your posts all we see is someone who got banned, trying to get back at the moderator who banned him. And despite your previous posts about how what we infer from your posts isn't important, it's all we've got to go on. If you had not been recently banned by Kwark then maybe we could take your complaints seriously. But as it is, all the majority of TL member see is the fact that you are raging against the mod who banned you. Sure Kwark can be a bit rude, but when you send a PM including the below paragraph: Show nested quote +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. I'm inclined to side with him. I'm curious as to how you would respond to this, then: Which was followed by this: On October 04 2012 01:56 KwarK wrote:
The post you got warned for ended
"Am I just being stupid to feel offended?"
The answer was yes for then and doubly yes for now. A warning is no big deal, just an instruction not to do what you got warned for. For some reason (maybe stupidity, maybe some other deficiency on your part, maybe something else) you felt the need to post "first". Now I don't wish to speculate about why (maybe you're dumb?) but the why (dumb maybe?) doesn't really matter, you posted "first" and you got warned for it because it's a shitty post that we don't do on teamliquid.
You then felt the need for some reason (dropped on your head as a child?) to make a shitty topic in general forum asking if you were stupid for being offended by a standard warning message you got for making a shitty post. I then warned you for making such a shitty topic because you should have known better after you already got warned for shitposting but didn't know better for some reason (maybe foetal alcohol syndrome?). I also answered your question, although it was just my opinion and if you would like an official diagnosis of stupid then please consult a medical professional.
I would not like to hazard a guess at why you saw the need to make yet another topic as you may get offended by my speculation on the matter. By restating my main argument. In my mind any validity your argument may have is reduced by the fact that you were recently banned by Kwark. If someone else were making this point I'd be more inclined to listen to them. That is called circumstantial ad hominem and is a logical fallacy.
While you're right in this specific situation, you still have much to learn.
Real life is a little fucked up. A lot of political bullshit happens every day. What you just experienced here is exactly that. You seem to be a pretty intelligent guy with how you word your posts, and the logical construction of your initial arguments, but at the same time, you are also very dumb.
At the start of all of this, you fucked up. You made a homophobic remark. Kwark gave you a temp ban for it. Granted, it was a bit on the long side for that type of remark, at least in my opinion, however, the ban was deserving. I, myself, am heterosexual, but I do have family and friends who have different sexual preferences than myself, and would have definitely taken offense to that kind of statement if it was aimed at my sexual orientation. That's a good signal to me that others may take offense towards it.
Remember how I said that I thought the ban was a little long? At this point, you should have PMed either Kwark or another mod and tried to salvage your situation, getting the ban removed or reduced after explaining yourself in a civil fashion. Instead, the first PM you sent Kwark was, and I quote from your opening post:
To: KwarK [ Profile | Buddy ]
Subject: Ummm....... what?
Date: 10/9/12 12:38
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?
What, exactly, is the reasoning for preventing gay men from leading boy scout troops? That's like saying your female child should not be taught by straight male teachers..... Even if you do not find your post to be homophobic, it sure came across that way to not just Kwark, but to many other people. The second and third paragraphs kill any chance of redemption though. Had you made yourself a case at this point in a more civil tone, you might have gotten somewhere. At this point, Kwark starts to really belittle you. Nobody, however, is going to give him shit for that. Why? Because it is in rebuttal to your PM, which happened after you got banned for that comment.
This is where politics come into play. It's not always about whether you are right or wrong (although that's a fuzzy concept in itself), a lot of the time the outcome can be partially decided by the reputation you have. Your reputation goes a long way, and in this respect, compare yourself and Kwark. One is a long-standing, respected member of the TL community, the other is a new person who has already been banned before, and has just made a comment that appears to be homophobic. Instead of cutting your losses at this point, you went through all the trouble to make this thread to try to publicly ostracize Kwark. You're using your clever arguments and logic, and think you're winning.
You're not.
Let's just get that straight.
You are not winning this argument.
It isn't about the logic you're using, or the quality of the arguments. What it comes down to at this point is that you started in a bad position, with the momentum swinging the opposite direction, and no matter what you do at this point, you won't be able to pull up in time. I really suggest you just quit posting in this thread, and learn from this experience. It's time to put on a parachute.....
|
I'd like to say that speaking decent English doesn't make you smart.
Keep digging your own hole.
Edit : this reinforce my idea that the people who use the words "logical fallacy" are in fact stupid.
Oh fuck, I implied stupid people are stupid.
|
United States42565 Posts
On October 25 2012 08:59 neversummer wrote:Show nested quote +On October 25 2012 08:56 monk. wrote:On October 25 2012 08:35 neversummer wrote:On October 25 2012 08:29 monk. wrote:On October 25 2012 08:10 ControlMonkey wrote:On October 25 2012 07:22 neversummer wrote:
Edit: It appears the vast majority of contributors to this thread have completely missed the purpose of my post. It is NOT to exonerate myself. It is to examine the behavior and moderation of Kwark. It is impossible to separate the two. As you have posted here shortly after you were bannedby Kwark, and have argued in this thread against the specifics of your ban (then saying but guys it's about Kwark), any point you may or may not have about Kwarks moderation are hard to take seriously. No matter what your INTENTION is, whe we read your posts all we see is someone who got banned, trying to get back at the moderator who banned him. And despite your previous posts about how what we infer from your posts isn't important, it's all we've got to go on. If you had not been recently banned by Kwark then maybe we could take your complaints seriously. But as it is, all the majority of TL member see is the fact that you are raging against the mod who banned you. Sure Kwark can be a bit rude, but when you send a PM including the below 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. I'm inclined to side with him. This, in addition to the fact that, according to your moderation history, every time you've banned, you've sent the moderator an angry PM. Yes, Kwark could be a bit nicer. Yes, there is preferential treatment for people who have contributed to the community. But think about what it looks like when a 100 post user who's just recently been banned by a moderator to call for his demodding. 1. You just come off like you're looking for revenge. 2. You come off as a new user who clearly doesn't know anything about the site and tries to tell us how we should run things and who should be out of a job with things like: TL;DR: Kwark needs to go. TL;DR: Perhaps you should go if you don't like it here so much. Or just, you know, let it go and follow the rules. You're clearly not winning this argument. I assume you've read the OP in its entirety. I'm curious as to how you'd respond to this: On October 25 2012 08:17 neversummer wrote:On October 25 2012 08:12 KwarK wrote:
Also this idea that I am insulting disabled people seems to have come out of nowhere. I am insulting people who I am assuming are entirely able by comparing to those who are medically recognised as being less able. I am using the concept of a person who is commonly understood to be deficient medically as a benchmark by which I negatively compare the victim of the insult.
If I were to describe someone as being as stupid as neversummer then the implication would be that neversummer is stupid (for he would have to be for the insult to have meaning) and both neversummer and the victim should feel offended.
If, however, I were to describe neversummer as having the understanding of a 4 year old then 4 year olds everywhere shouldn't feel particularly offended because they do have the understanding of 4 year olds, it's a fair description, whereas neversummer, who is probably nearer to the 8 or 9 year old level, should feel insulted by this.
I can't believe I'm having to explain to someone how describing works but here we are. Oh, the irony! The idea that I am insinuating all homosexuals are pedophiles similarly "came out of nowhere," and I was even banned for it! Just for the record, then, you're suggesting it IS okay to insult people fully capable, but NOT okay to insult those who are not. Are homosexuals not fully capable? Also, winning an argument is not based upon how many people disagree with you or agree with your opponent. It is based upon who is right and who is wrong. First, I like how you just ignored everything I said and directed me to something else entirely. Next, I have no idea the point you're trying to make with the quote you gave me. What Kwark said has nothing to do with who's capable or not capable. He's saying that being mentally handicapped means you're not that smart by definition, which isn't really an insult to mentally handicapped people. Whereas what you said implied that homosexuals are generally child molesters, which is definitely not in the definition of a child molester. I actually had to read what you said many times to figure out what you were trying to get at and then figured out that it was just a weak point. Finally, since the purpose of your initial post was to demod Kwark, and you've failed to convince anyone that could influence that, or rather anyone at all actually, I'd say you're losing the argument. The only place you're winning is inside your own head. I feel like my verbosity in the OP has led several, less capable minds astray. Allow me to answer your question in the simplest way I can: Kwark said it was okay that he insulted that individual, because he is fully capable. Kwark banned me for insulting homosexuals (even though I did not, but that's a separate matter). Homosexuals are fully capable.
You are not homosexuals. Homosexuals are homosexuals. You are neversummer. An identity crisis like yours is really quite remarkable. Anyway...
If I said "homosexuals are stupid" then that would be a homophobic comment. If I said "neversummer is stupid" then that would be an insult to you (although I would argue there is sufficient evidence for it to simply be a description at this point). Hopefully that clarifies it.
|
On October 25 2012 09:03 corumjhaelen wrote:
I'd like to say that speaking decent English doesn't make you smart.
Keep digging your own hole.
Edit : this reinforce my idea that the people who use the words "logical fallacy" are in fact stupid.
Oh fuck, I implied stupid people are stupid.
This thread is so lol-worthy that even the horrific mess called Star Wars: Episode I has some pertinent words of wisdom for you.
"The ability to speak does not make you intelligent."
|
for the sole purpose of throwing further gas on the fire, what if he meant that he didn't want homosexuals around the scouts because he felt that they were immoral according to his religious beliefs? people keep saying what he was implying, but this is an equally plausible theory as pedophilia. =D
|
On October 25 2012 09:04 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On October 25 2012 08:59 neversummer wrote:On October 25 2012 08:56 monk. wrote:On October 25 2012 08:35 neversummer wrote:On October 25 2012 08:29 monk. wrote:On October 25 2012 08:10 ControlMonkey wrote:On October 25 2012 07:22 neversummer wrote:
Edit: It appears the vast majority of contributors to this thread have completely missed the purpose of my post. It is NOT to exonerate myself. It is to examine the behavior and moderation of Kwark. It is impossible to separate the two. As you have posted here shortly after you were bannedby Kwark, and have argued in this thread against the specifics of your ban (then saying but guys it's about Kwark), any point you may or may not have about Kwarks moderation are hard to take seriously. No matter what your INTENTION is, whe we read your posts all we see is someone who got banned, trying to get back at the moderator who banned him. And despite your previous posts about how what we infer from your posts isn't important, it's all we've got to go on. If you had not been recently banned by Kwark then maybe we could take your complaints seriously. But as it is, all the majority of TL member see is the fact that you are raging against the mod who banned you. Sure Kwark can be a bit rude, but when you send a PM including the below 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. I'm inclined to side with him. This, in addition to the fact that, according to your moderation history, every time you've banned, you've sent the moderator an angry PM. Yes, Kwark could be a bit nicer. Yes, there is preferential treatment for people who have contributed to the community. But think about what it looks like when a 100 post user who's just recently been banned by a moderator to call for his demodding. 1. You just come off like you're looking for revenge. 2. You come off as a new user who clearly doesn't know anything about the site and tries to tell us how we should run things and who should be out of a job with things like: TL;DR: Kwark needs to go. TL;DR: Perhaps you should go if you don't like it here so much. Or just, you know, let it go and follow the rules. You're clearly not winning this argument. I assume you've read the OP in its entirety. I'm curious as to how you'd respond to this: On October 25 2012 08:17 neversummer wrote:On October 25 2012 08:12 KwarK wrote:
Also this idea that I am insulting disabled people seems to have come out of nowhere. I am insulting people who I am assuming are entirely able by comparing to those who are medically recognised as being less able. I am using the concept of a person who is commonly understood to be deficient medically as a benchmark by which I negatively compare the victim of the insult.
If I were to describe someone as being as stupid as neversummer then the implication would be that neversummer is stupid (for he would have to be for the insult to have meaning) and both neversummer and the victim should feel offended.
If, however, I were to describe neversummer as having the understanding of a 4 year old then 4 year olds everywhere shouldn't feel particularly offended because they do have the understanding of 4 year olds, it's a fair description, whereas neversummer, who is probably nearer to the 8 or 9 year old level, should feel insulted by this.
I can't believe I'm having to explain to someone how describing works but here we are. Oh, the irony! The idea that I am insinuating all homosexuals are pedophiles similarly "came out of nowhere," and I was even banned for it! Just for the record, then, you're suggesting it IS okay to insult people fully capable, but NOT okay to insult those who are not. Are homosexuals not fully capable? Also, winning an argument is not based upon how many people disagree with you or agree with your opponent. It is based upon who is right and who is wrong. First, I like how you just ignored everything I said and directed me to something else entirely. Next, I have no idea the point you're trying to make with the quote you gave me. What Kwark said has nothing to do with who's capable or not capable. He's saying that being mentally handicapped means you're not that smart by definition, which isn't really an insult to mentally handicapped people. Whereas what you said implied that homosexuals are generally child molesters, which is definitely not in the definition of a child molester. I actually had to read what you said many times to figure out what you were trying to get at and then figured out that it was just a weak point. Finally, since the purpose of your initial post was to demod Kwark, and you've failed to convince anyone that could influence that, or rather anyone at all actually, I'd say you're losing the argument. The only place you're winning is inside your own head. I feel like my verbosity in the OP has led several, less capable minds astray. Allow me to answer your question in the simplest way I can: Kwark said it was okay that he insulted that individual, because he is fully capable. Kwark banned me for insulting homosexuals (even though I did not, but that's a separate matter). Homosexuals are fully capable. You are not homosexuals. Homosexuals are homosexuals. You are neversummer. An identity crisis like yours is really quite remarkable. Anyway... If I said "homosexuals are stupid" then that would be a homophobic comment. If I said "neversummer is stupid" then that would be an insult to you (although I would argue there is sufficient evidence for it to simply be a description at this point). Hopefully that clarifies it.
Clarifies nothing. Literally have no clue wtf you're talking about.
|
Man, I tried to read the OP in a serious light, but it's worded so awkwardly formatted in a formal way that I kept thinking wtf is this HotBid? That and the separate reply for each quote lol, this formatting.
|
I'd like to point out that the OP is a Logic Minor, but that he felt the argument wasn't that great so he PMed it. I'm sharing it because I think it's hilarious.
I do feel bad about it though.
|
On October 25 2012 09:13 corumjhaelen wrote:
I'd like to point out that the OP is a Logic Minor, but that he felt the argument wasn't that great so he PMed it. I'm sharing it because I think it's hilarious.
I do feel bad about it though.
yea me being a logic minor is hilarious. Will really be a detriment to me when I take the LSAT this spring.
Edit: Spring, and fuck off, Frenchie.
User was banned for this post.
|
On October 25 2012 09:14 neversummer wrote:Show nested quote +On October 25 2012 09:13 corumjhaelen wrote:
I'd like to point out that the OP is a Logic Minor, but that he felt the argument wasn't that great so he PMed it. I'm sharing it because I think it's hilarious.
I do feel bad about it though. yea me being a logic minor is hilarious. Will really be a detriment to me when I take the LSAT this spring. Edit: Spring, and fuck off, Frenchie.
ugh, internet lawyers are the absolute worst. hate those dicks! ;-)
|
Hyrule19033 Posts
neversummer you seem to be reading every post, then deciding to ignore it, then replying to it as if it said something else instead.
tl;dr: + Show Spoiler +
|
On October 25 2012 09:09 neversummer wrote:Show nested quote +On October 25 2012 09:04 KwarK wrote:On October 25 2012 08:59 neversummer wrote:On October 25 2012 08:56 monk. wrote:On October 25 2012 08:35 neversummer wrote:On October 25 2012 08:29 monk. wrote:On October 25 2012 08:10 ControlMonkey wrote:On October 25 2012 07:22 neversummer wrote:
Edit: It appears the vast majority of contributors to this thread have completely missed the purpose of my post. It is NOT to exonerate myself. It is to examine the behavior and moderation of Kwark. It is impossible to separate the two. As you have posted here shortly after you were bannedby Kwark, and have argued in this thread against the specifics of your ban (then saying but guys it's about Kwark), any point you may or may not have about Kwarks moderation are hard to take seriously. No matter what your INTENTION is, whe we read your posts all we see is someone who got banned, trying to get back at the moderator who banned him. And despite your previous posts about how what we infer from your posts isn't important, it's all we've got to go on. If you had not been recently banned by Kwark then maybe we could take your complaints seriously. But as it is, all the majority of TL member see is the fact that you are raging against the mod who banned you. Sure Kwark can be a bit rude, but when you send a PM including the below 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. I'm inclined to side with him. This, in addition to the fact that, according to your moderation history, every time you've banned, you've sent the moderator an angry PM. Yes, Kwark could be a bit nicer. Yes, there is preferential treatment for people who have contributed to the community. But think about what it looks like when a 100 post user who's just recently been banned by a moderator to call for his demodding. 1. You just come off like you're looking for revenge. 2. You come off as a new user who clearly doesn't know anything about the site and tries to tell us how we should run things and who should be out of a job with things like: TL;DR: Kwark needs to go. TL;DR: Perhaps you should go if you don't like it here so much. Or just, you know, let it go and follow the rules. You're clearly not winning this argument. I assume you've read the OP in its entirety. I'm curious as to how you'd respond to this: On October 25 2012 08:17 neversummer wrote:On October 25 2012 08:12 KwarK wrote:
Also this idea that I am insulting disabled people seems to have come out of nowhere. I am insulting people who I am assuming are entirely able by comparing to those who are medically recognised as being less able. I am using the concept of a person who is commonly understood to be deficient medically as a benchmark by which I negatively compare the victim of the insult.
If I were to describe someone as being as stupid as neversummer then the implication would be that neversummer is stupid (for he would have to be for the insult to have meaning) and both neversummer and the victim should feel offended.
If, however, I were to describe neversummer as having the understanding of a 4 year old then 4 year olds everywhere shouldn't feel particularly offended because they do have the understanding of 4 year olds, it's a fair description, whereas neversummer, who is probably nearer to the 8 or 9 year old level, should feel insulted by this.
I can't believe I'm having to explain to someone how describing works but here we are. Oh, the irony! The idea that I am insinuating all homosexuals are pedophiles similarly "came out of nowhere," and I was even banned for it! Just for the record, then, you're suggesting it IS okay to insult people fully capable, but NOT okay to insult those who are not. Are homosexuals not fully capable? Also, winning an argument is not based upon how many people disagree with you or agree with your opponent. It is based upon who is right and who is wrong. First, I like how you just ignored everything I said and directed me to something else entirely. Next, I have no idea the point you're trying to make with the quote you gave me. What Kwark said has nothing to do with who's capable or not capable. He's saying that being mentally handicapped means you're not that smart by definition, which isn't really an insult to mentally handicapped people. Whereas what you said implied that homosexuals are generally child molesters, which is definitely not in the definition of a child molester. I actually had to read what you said many times to figure out what you were trying to get at and then figured out that it was just a weak point. Finally, since the purpose of your initial post was to demod Kwark, and you've failed to convince anyone that could influence that, or rather anyone at all actually, I'd say you're losing the argument. The only place you're winning is inside your own head. I feel like my verbosity in the OP has led several, less capable minds astray. Allow me to answer your question in the simplest way I can: Kwark said it was okay that he insulted that individual, because he is fully capable. Kwark banned me for insulting homosexuals (even though I did not, but that's a separate matter). Homosexuals are fully capable. You are not homosexuals. Homosexuals are homosexuals. You are neversummer. An identity crisis like yours is really quite remarkable. Anyway... If I said "homosexuals are stupid" then that would be a homophobic comment. If I said "neversummer is stupid" then that would be an insult to you (although I would argue there is sufficient evidence for it to simply be a description at this point). Hopefully that clarifies it. Clarifies nothing. Literally have no clue wtf you're talking about.
NS - "clarify this statement"
everyone - "here's a clarification"
NS - "I don't accept this clarification, therefore I am winning this argument."
Stop doing this, I really don't know how you can twist your reality to think you are winning in any sense of the word. Just take the advice of everyone and quit before you dig yourself into Disneyland.
|
On October 25 2012 09:14 neversummer wrote:Show nested quote +On October 25 2012 09:13 corumjhaelen wrote:
I'd like to point out that the OP is a Logic Minor, but that he felt the argument wasn't that great so he PMed it. I'm sharing it because I think it's hilarious.
I do feel bad about it though. yea me being a logic minor is hilarious. Will really be a detriment to me when I take the LSAT this spring. Edit: Spring, and fuck off, Frenchie.
I'm afraid I can't hear you from the bottom of your hole. It has grown considerably deeper in the last page or so. Might I suggest a form of speech-enhancement, a microphone, megaphone, something of the sort?
|
On October 25 2012 09:14 neversummer wrote:Show nested quote +On October 25 2012 09:13 corumjhaelen wrote:
I'd like to point out that the OP is a Logic Minor, but that he felt the argument wasn't that great so he PMed it. I'm sharing it because I think it's hilarious.
I do feel bad about it though. Edit: Spring, and fuck off, Frenchie.
Are you forela?
|
the Dagon Knight4002 Posts
On October 25 2012 08:59 neversummer wrote:
Homosexuals are fully capable.
I'm really sorry if I've missed it buried in prior pages, but I'm very curious. If you believe, as you say, that homosexuals are fully capable, why is it that you think they shouldn't be allowed work with children?
|
On October 25 2012 09:28 SirJolt wrote:I'm really sorry if I've missed it buried in prior pages, but I'm very curious. If you believe, as you say, that homosexuals are fully capable, why is it that you think they shouldn't be allowed work with children?
He seems to have homosexuals and pedophiles confused, and hasn't really stated why this is.
|
United States8476 Posts
On October 25 2012 08:59 neversummer wrote:Show nested quote +On October 25 2012 08:56 monk. wrote:On October 25 2012 08:35 neversummer wrote:On October 25 2012 08:29 monk. wrote:On October 25 2012 08:10 ControlMonkey wrote:On October 25 2012 07:22 neversummer wrote:
Edit: It appears the vast majority of contributors to this thread have completely missed the purpose of my post. It is NOT to exonerate myself. It is to examine the behavior and moderation of Kwark. It is impossible to separate the two. As you have posted here shortly after you were bannedby Kwark, and have argued in this thread against the specifics of your ban (then saying but guys it's about Kwark), any point you may or may not have about Kwarks moderation are hard to take seriously. No matter what your INTENTION is, whe we read your posts all we see is someone who got banned, trying to get back at the moderator who banned him. And despite your previous posts about how what we infer from your posts isn't important, it's all we've got to go on. If you had not been recently banned by Kwark then maybe we could take your complaints seriously. But as it is, all the majority of TL member see is the fact that you are raging against the mod who banned you. Sure Kwark can be a bit rude, but when you send a PM including the below 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. I'm inclined to side with him. This, in addition to the fact that, according to your moderation history, every time you've banned, you've sent the moderator an angry PM. Yes, Kwark could be a bit nicer. Yes, there is preferential treatment for people who have contributed to the community. But think about what it looks like when a 100 post user who's just recently been banned by a moderator to call for his demodding. 1. You just come off like you're looking for revenge. 2. You come off as a new user who clearly doesn't know anything about the site and tries to tell us how we should run things and who should be out of a job with things like: TL;DR: Kwark needs to go. TL;DR: Perhaps you should go if you don't like it here so much. Or just, you know, let it go and follow the rules. You're clearly not winning this argument. I assume you've read the OP in its entirety. I'm curious as to how you'd respond to this: On October 25 2012 08:17 neversummer wrote:On October 25 2012 08:12 KwarK wrote:
Also this idea that I am insulting disabled people seems to have come out of nowhere. I am insulting people who I am assuming are entirely able by comparing to those who are medically recognised as being less able. I am using the concept of a person who is commonly understood to be deficient medically as a benchmark by which I negatively compare the victim of the insult.
If I were to describe someone as being as stupid as neversummer then the implication would be that neversummer is stupid (for he would have to be for the insult to have meaning) and both neversummer and the victim should feel offended.
If, however, I were to describe neversummer as having the understanding of a 4 year old then 4 year olds everywhere shouldn't feel particularly offended because they do have the understanding of 4 year olds, it's a fair description, whereas neversummer, who is probably nearer to the 8 or 9 year old level, should feel insulted by this.
I can't believe I'm having to explain to someone how describing works but here we are. Oh, the irony! The idea that I am insinuating all homosexuals are pedophiles similarly "came out of nowhere," and I was even banned for it! Just for the record, then, you're suggesting it IS okay to insult people fully capable, but NOT okay to insult those who are not. Are homosexuals not fully capable? Also, winning an argument is not based upon how many people disagree with you or agree with your opponent. It is based upon who is right and who is wrong. First, I like how you just ignored everything I said and directed me to something else entirely. Next, I have no idea the point you're trying to make with the quote you gave me. What Kwark said has nothing to do with who's capable or not capable. He's saying that being mentally handicapped means you're not that smart by definition, which isn't really an insult to mentally handicapped people. Whereas what you said implied that homosexuals are generally child molesters, which is definitely not in the definition of a child molester. I actually had to read what you said many times to figure out what you were trying to get at and then figured out that it was just a weak point. Finally, since the purpose of your initial post was to demod Kwark, and you've failed to convince anyone that could influence that, or rather anyone at all actually, I'd say you're losing the argument. The only place you're winning is inside your own head. I feel like my verbosity in the OP has led several, less capable minds astray. Allow me to answer your question in the simplest way I can: Kwark said it was okay that he insulted that individual, because he is fully capable. Kwark banned me for insulting homosexuals (even though I did not, but that's a separate matter). Homosexuals are fully capable.
I like how you keep ignoring what I had originally said and attempt to throw a thinly veiled insult at my intelligence at the same time. ^^
Ok so Kwark compared you(neversummer) to a mentally handicapped person. In this example, only the mentally handicapped person isn't "fully capable."
You seem to think that this is analogous to Kwark banning you(neversummer) for insulting a homosexual, which leads you to draw the conclusion that Kwark thinks homosexuals are not "fully capable".
While in reality, the analogous comparison would be you comparing homosexuals to child molesters. So I guess you don't think child molesters are capable. Poor child molesters.
|
mentally handicapped person, homosexual and child molesters are all blue. Got it boss!
Chomos are retarded homos.
|
On October 25 2012 09:37 Probe1 wrote:
mentally handicapped person, homosexual and child molesters are all blue. Got it boss!
Chomos are retarded homos.
tofucake is blue.....O.o
|
|
|
|
|
Hyrule19033 Posts
On October 25 2012 09:40 Impervious wrote:
O.O
That explains a lot.
:\
|
Thanks for coloring the subjects and predicates. How did you know that I like colors, too?
You spoil me.
Moving on, my point was not to suggest Kwark believes homosexuals are not fully capable and therefore unjust subjects of ridicule. My point was not to suggest anything (a recurring theme here).
On October 25 2012 08:12 KwarK wrote:
Also this idea that I am insulting disabled people seems to have come out of nowhere. I am insulting people who I am assuming are entirely able by comparing to those who are medically recognised as being less able. I am using the concept of a person who is commonly understood to be deficient medically as a benchmark by which I negatively compare the victim of the insult.
If I were to describe someone as being as stupid as neversummer then the implication would be that neversummer is stupid (for he would have to be for the insult to have meaning) and both neversummer and the victim should feel offended.
If, however, I were to describe neversummer as having the understanding of a 4 year old then 4 year olds everywhere shouldn't feel particularly offended because they do have the understanding of 4 year olds, it's a fair description, whereas neversummer, who is probably nearer to the 8 or 9 year old level, should feel insulted by this.
I can't believe I'm having to explain to someone how describing works but here we are.
Kwark said his personal attack upon that individual (who is NOT me, this appears to have led to more confusion) was justified due to the fact that individual is, in his words, "entirely able." I think it's a natural progression to assume homosexuals are fully able. I think it's even more of a natural progression to assume homosexuals are individuals. Therefore, based upon Kwark's logic, ridicule of homosexuals is justified.
Let's examine Kwark's logic:
Premise 1: Personal attacks are acceptable when the receiving party is "fully able."
Premise 2: Homosexuals are "fully able."
Conclusion: Personal attacks upon homosexuals are acceptable.
Now, we can debate whether my comment constituted a personal attack on homosexuals (which I vehemently deny), or I can share with you my true implication, as explained on the first page:
Although it is not relevant to the purpose of this thread, I will answer your first question because it will probably come up again. I wouldn't want gay men leading boy scout troops because I believe it may affect, or even direct, a child's behavior. Normative social influence is a very real method of socialization, and no one is more susceptible to socialization or more impressionable than a child.
That is not to say homosexuality is a choice; it is merely to say a young, impressionable child may draw homosexual tendencies or homosexual behavior from a homosexual leader. Furthermore, this is NOT to say that homosexuality is wrong. It is merely to say that homosexual leadership may have unintended (which CAN be adverse, but are not REQUIRED to be) consequences and behavior modification.
Yes, you misunderstood my purpose. My purpose was not to exonerate (means to prove innocent) myself from homophobic allegations. My purpose was to evaluate the moderation of Kwark.
I do not believe I know the extent of his responsibilities. I believe HE does not know the extent of his responsibilities, and I have accompanied that allegation with evidence.
Edit: Kwark's quote
|
United States42565 Posts
That individual was also not homosexuals. He was an individual. Why do you keep thinking people are homosexuals? At most they could be a single homosexual.
|
On October 25 2012 10:10 KwarK wrote:
That individual was also not homosexuals. He was an individual. Why do you keep thinking people are homosexuals? At most they could be a single homosexual.
Let me just say this response explains a lot. I honestly do not know how to explain my point any simpler than I already have. At this point I can only wish you good luck, sir.
|
On October 25 2012 10:12 neversummer wrote:Show nested quote +On October 25 2012 10:10 KwarK wrote:
That individual was also not homosexuals. He was an individual. Why do you keep thinking people are homosexuals? At most they could be a single homosexual. Let me just say this response explains a lot. I honestly do not know how to explain my point any simpler than I already have. At this point I can only wish you good luck, sir.
I've only but one question;
Why are you not comfortable with homosexuals being around 8-10 year olds
Please don't refer me to any of the rambling, nonsensical vagueties which you've dealt in so far, just answer right on this page, if it pleases the little lord.
edit: I can see the euthanizer was dispensed before he could formulate a reply. Thank you.
|
United States42565 Posts
You keep asking "Why is it that you can describe a fully able individual who appears, due to stupidity to be less than fully able, as less than fully able for the purpose of insulting them but you can't stereotype a group of people, who are also fully able, as child molesters without evidence?".
The answer is because the individual who I insulted wasn't a group of people and that my insult was specific to them and based upon something they had done. The reason the answer is so absurd is because you're asking a really, really stupid question over and over. You are not, and never will be, homosexuals. Any protection afforded to them as a group will never apply to you as an individual.
|
United States8476 Posts
On October 25 2012 10:08 neversummer wrote:
Kwark said his personal attack upon that individual (who is NOT me, this appears to have led to more confusion) was justified due to the fact that individual is, in his words, "entirely able." I think it's a natural progression to assume homosexuals are fully able. I think it's even more of a natural progression to assume homosexuals are individuals. Therefore, based upon Kwark's logic, ridicule of homosexuals is justified.
Let's examine Kwark's logic:
Premise 1: Personal attacks are acceptable when the receiving party is "fully able."
Premise 2: Homosexuals are "fully able."
Conclusion: Personal attacks upon homosexuals are acceptable.
Now, we can debate whether my comment constituted a personal attack on homosexuals (which I vehemently deny), or I can share with you my true implication, as explained on the first page:
Premise 1 is not correct. Nowhere in the quote you linked does Kwark imply it. He's merely suggesting that if you called someone as dumb as a mentally handicapped person, as short as a midget, or as quiet as someone in a coma, it's not an insult to the mentally handicapped person, midget, or comatose individual.
According to Kwark's logic, if you called someone who just happens to be a homosexual "as dumb as a mentally handicapped person", it's not an insult to the mentally handicapped person, but it is an insult to the homosexual. That's not even to touch upon the fact that there's a difference between insulting an individual and generally a whole group of people, in your case, homosexuals.
|
Way to ruin everything, ToKoreaWithLove. :/
|
Ehh. About time he was banned.
|
Awaiting new feedback thread about ToKoreaWithLove from a "new" poster soon.
|
So ends another thread that we'll laugh about once in a year then it let slip into the annals of forgotten time.
|
LOL, surely this one qualifies for the peoples choice awards
|
Alas, poor neversummer! I knew him, Horatio; a fellow of infinite jest
|
since he has been banned. our PM history:
entitled "Honestly, Thank You."
Original Message From neversummer: whatever your intention, please continue xD Show nested quote +Original Message From dAPhREAk: i think you were an asshole to him and he responded in kind. but the thread intrigues me and i like pushing their buttons. =D Original Message From neversummer:
I've become so disillusioned with the TL community at this point, it's a welcome change for civil argument and rational thinking (whether you agree or disagree with me).
entitled "yo"
Original Message From neversummer:
not responding to that, then?
|
United States42565 Posts
Original Message From neversummer:
Hey pal. I left you a little present in the Website Feedback forum. I forgot to wrap it, but I still think you'll enjoy it. I certainly did.
:p
Original Message From KwarK:
Congratulations on my promotion I guess?
then later after he believed he had trapped me with his "Why can't I be homosexuals (the group in society) but homosexuals (as a group) can be?!?!?"
Original Message From neversummer:
I believe that's called checkmate.
|
On October 25 2012 10:35 dAPhREAk wrote:since he has been banned. our PM history: entitled "Honestly, Thank You." Show nested quote +Original Message From neversummer: whatever your intention, please continue xD Original Message From dAPhREAk: i think you were an asshole to him and he responded in kind. but the thread intrigues me and i like pushing their buttons. =D Original Message From neversummer:
I've become so disillusioned with the TL community at this point, it's a welcome change for civil argument and rational thinking (whether you agree or disagree with me). entitled "yo"
He sent me a PM entitled "Honestly" in which he accused me of a logical fallacy and then called me stupid.
|
Wow this thread turned golden in the day that I left it...
|
Russian Federation3631 Posts
this thread is almost as good as the great crossbow massacre of 2011
almost.
|
I can see that whatever school neversummer is minoring in logic in has failed him terribly.
|
We have a new master logician here guys. Sylvex has been overthrown.
|
On October 25 2012 11:44 419 wrote:
this thread is almost as good as the great crossbow massacre of 2011
almost.
You mean that time a slew of people were banned for laughing at someone being shot with a crossbow? Wasn't it a kid that was throwing rocks or something at cars passing by?
|
On October 25 2012 10:29 MountainDewJunkie wrote:
Awaiting new feedback thread about ToKoreaWithLove from a "new" poster soon.
Rofl, I had thought about doing this yesterday when I got my first warning from him which may or may not have been deserved. But it's just a warning. I'm sad that my perfect record is blemished with this warning.
*Sees PM highlighted in top right. Thinks someone is interested in me. Turns out to be warning lol.
|
United States24670 Posts
This thread brought up a topic that is no longer being discussed, by a currently-banned user.
It has run its course.
|
Braavos36374 Posts
TLDR; banned poster is wrong, loses argument, but will not let it go despite overwhelming evidence and opinion otherwise, continues to believe he is winning and smarter than everyone.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/Z7tEt.gif)
