Humour now against forum rules

Giblet

Na it's not like that at all Boston.

Faith

I think a ban was harsh there, and a one-month ban was even harsher. I think a warning would have sufficed. However, Victor is usually a very fair mod, so it's possible he was just having a bad day and you happened to suffer because of it.

I don't know what you said in your PM, but the best way to deal with the situation would have been to PM him and say, "Sorry about the "joke", it was in poor taste. I won't do it again. Any chance of having the lenght of the ban reduced?" or something along those lines.

I doubt this thread will help at all, they rarely do. Also, if you've been content just reading boards for years, then another month won't hurt! You can still post everywhere else.

kaimera

..it's not a particularly funny joke though and I hate dogs....

How in the hell can you hate dogs? :boggle:

Mans best friend and all that yacc.

6th

Kaimera, its monkeys or nothing for that guy.

liamdubh

hullaball&#250 wrote:

You said "humour" in the thread title. By definition, humour has to be funny. So what is your complaint, then?

Ok pedant, I was responding to somebody saying the joke wasn't funny. I wasn't saying my joke wasn't funny.

If you mean, "power tends to corrupt; absolute power corrupts absolutely", then you have again minced your words:

Your pedantry has caught you out for the 2nd time in 1 post. Mincing words implies the meaning was lost. And besides, you're wrong.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Dalberg-Acton,_1st_Baron_Acton

Ha.

(ii) or, is it that a particular instance represents an abuse of "power"

Jesus. Quite cleary, it's number 2.

liamdubh

Boston wrote:

It's like the way people abuse others then add no offense at the end

The question here is, "Is it ok to make a retarded comment if I acknowledge that it is, in fact, reatarded".

Answer on a post card.

This wasn't abuse. It was a joke.

liamdubh

biko wrote:

No you didn't. This is your post, including space lines to make the first comment look real.

Er...I wrote below that I was joking. Such utter pedantry.

Take your ban and learn from it.

I've already said more than once that I don't really care about not being able to post. I don't care if it's overturned or not. Thanks for your contribution.

RoundyMooney

Meh. It wasn't funny,but such is life.

liamdubh wrote:

completely over the top...authority...zealous and petty...power-trip...a significant number of Mods have gone literally insane with banning people

Karl Hungus wrote:

But you really have to ask yourself, is all this "OMG, OTT powertripping petty zealous mods gone insane!1!!" bullcrap helping your arguement at all?

liamdubh wrote:

a serious problem on boards.ie with over-zealous Mods ready to hand-out bans or even lifetime bans on a whim...crazy banning decisions...temporarily insane...All power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely

Firstly, give the mod in question (Victor I presume) a chance to reply. A "few minutes" is not a reasonable response time in the real world. To me, a month seems harsh, but if you used the same flowery tone elsewhere on the forum (not saying you did), or in your subsequent pms to him, then you certainly won't help your case.

The mods are not "hungry on power" (paraphrasing), and even if they were, hypothetically, they can be demodded. One mod was demoted only last week as a matter of fact.

At the end of the day, mods provide a voluntary service to give something back to a site that we enjoy, and it's widely acknowledged that the system works well. If you have a genuine grievance, allegations of inconsistency and power tripping will not help you in your argument.

Perhaps you can link us to a few examples of spurious bannings and power tripping by moderators around the site, as a guide to where you're coming from?

tbh

RoundyMooney wrote:

Perhaps you can link us to a few examples of spurious bannings and power tripping by moderators around the site, as a guide to where you're coming from?

Roundy, your transformation is now complete. Ascend the crystal staircase

RoundyMooney

LOL!

You mean, I'm now...one of...them?

ZOMG!

liamdubh

RoundyMooney wrote:

Firstly, give the mod in question (Victor I presume) a chance to reply. A "few minutes" is not a reasonable response time in the real world.

Where did I say it was unreasonable that he hadn't responded in a "few minutes"? I said the exact opposite.

In fact I said it was ONLY a few minutes since I had PM'ed him SO he hasn't replied.

stovelid

liamdubh wrote:

Where did I say it was unreasonable that he hadn't responded in a "few minutes"? I said the exact opposite.

In fact I said it was ONLY a few minutes since I had PM'ed him SO he hasn't replied.

Dude, you would probably have got a lot further just waiting for the PM.

Coming to feedback with guns blazing fulfills a vital entertainment service for the rest of us but rarely seems gets you anywhere re: ban.

RoundyMooney

liamdubh wrote:

Where did I say it was unreasonable that he hadn't responded in a "few minutes"? I said the exact opposite.

In fact I said it was ONLY a few minutes since I had PM'ed him SO he hasn't replied.

Grand job, I withdraw that, citing a quick read as my excuse

Has he replied as of now?

While we're at it, with a view to your allegations (as detailed in my last post)...

me wrote:

Perhaps you can link us to a few examples of spurious bannings and power tripping by moderators around the site, as a guide to where you're coming from?

Enquiring minds want to know.

liamdubh

stovelid wrote:

Dude, you would probably have got a lot further just waiting for the PM.

Coming to feedback with guns blazing fulfills a vital entertainment service for the rest of us but rarely seems gets you anywhere re: ban.

As I've said 3 times in this thread, I can do without posting to an obscure forum for 1 month. I don't particularly care if it's overturned or not.

Mr. Presentable

liamdubh wrote:

As I've said 3 times in this thread, I can do without posting to an obscure forum for 1 month. I don't particularly care if it's overturned or not.

Sound man. Take your ban and learn from it that some fora are so po-faced in moderation that you feel you are on egg shells when you reply. Read the charters and understand that some Mods are spirit of the law Mods, and others are letter of the law (extreme moderators if you will. Oxymoron, I believe )

But mostly, as you said, who gives one? It's only an internet forum. Not like you've been banned from your Off-licence

jhegarty

liamdubh wrote:

As I've said 3 times in this thread, I can do without posting to an obscure forum for 1 month. I don't particularly care if it's overturned or not.

first ban was it ? me thinks you have found your way here very quickly....

RoundyMooney

liamdubh wrote:

As I've said 3 times in this thread, I can do without posting to an obscure forum for 1 month. I don't particularly care if it's overturned or not.

Your eagerness to start a Feedback thread would appear to indicate otherwise.

My question above stands, by the way.

WindSock

But would you kick cats...?

amp

I'm am on record as being insane, therefore sometimes I become stark raving SANE when I go on a banning spree. Also I masterbate.

RoundyMooney

While you're banning?

You're so hot right now.

Suppose it's cat time now since I didn't get a reply from the OP...

hullaballoo

liamdubh wrote:

...

Quite.

If you don't know the answer something, there's no compulsion for you to post about it.

I mean, quoting things like wikipedia at someone doesn't really prove anything. Especially when the article you quote proves you wrong.

However, you still haven't pointed out exactly what your complaint is. You've just argued yourself around in little trite circles. I can't say I blame you. The internet's an oh-so-frustrating place betimes. Yes, siree.

liamdubh

hullaball&#250 wrote:

I mean, quoting things like wikipedia at someone doesn't really prove anything.

...yes it does, it proved you were wrong with your haughty remark(s). Read the quotes at the bottom. I know it's hard for a Gaelgoir with a superiority complex to admit being in the wrong (what is it about Gaelgoirs that makes them think like that?), you'd probably be the first

However, you still haven't pointed out exactly what your complaint is.

You asked. I told you. Even though it was clear before. Can't break it down any further.

RoundyMooney

Would you like to post a few examples of these mod injustices you refer to, or do you just want to sit around and harass people?

liamdubh

RoundyMooney wrote:

Would you like to post a few examples of these mod injustices you refer to, or do you just want to sit around and harass people?

Well, it's Hullabullu doing the harrassing. And you harrassing me to give you an answer.

RoundyMooney

I don't see any harrassment from Hulla or myself tbh.

What I am trying to get across is a genuine curiosity as to what examples you've come across of spurious bannings and "power-tripping" by moderators on this website.

I can't posit examples of these because, tbh I can't think of any, and I'm not the one who made the assertion.

You OTOH are, and if you can provide even three examples of this activity where the mod wasn't censured and/or the ban overturned then I'll eat my keyboard and upload the video to youtube.

BrianCalgary

Ahh yess the entertainment value of feedback.

Well liamdubh in only 48 posts you have gotten yourself banned, slammed gaelgoirs and called a Christianity mod an idiot (being none other than yours truly).

And then complain about mods being on power trips. Count me among the

InFront

I'm among the too, I just can't believe someone actually got banned for that joke.

BrianCalgary

InFront wrote:

I'm among the too, I just can't believe someone actually got banned for that joke.

My guess is that the mod didn't scroll all the way down to see that it was intended as a joke.

But if I banned someone like that and they pm'ed me. I would probably give a whoops!!!

But to bring it to feedback this fast, I'd probably dig my heels in.

hullaballoo

liamdubh wrote:

...yes it does, it proved you were wrong with your haughty remark(s). Read the quotes at the bottom.

The point is that wikipedia is not a reliable source of information - it doesn't pass muster - especially for history and the likes. The reason for this is that any idiot can come along and edit the page with titles like, "Famous sayings of Mr X" and run off a few approximations of commonly-held misquotes. It happens all the time. In Conan Doyle's books, Holmes never said "elementary, my dear Watson", but if you ask people to quote something from Sherlock Holmes, what do you think they'd say?

I know it's hard for a Gaelgoir with a superiority complex to admit being in the wrong (what is it about Gaelgoirs that makes them think like that?), you'd probably be the first

I honestly don't see what impact my linguistic skills have on our little discussion. I don't expect you to enlighten me, however; I expect you to avoid the inference of the point you are trying to make. Call it a hunch.

You asked. I told you. Even though it was clear before. Can't break it down any further.

So what's your complaint? Has the world gone mad, and left you victimised? Or have you been banned from a page on a website because you had a crack at what you thought was humour, to the displeasure of the person who makes the decision on who to ban from that webpage?

liamdubh

BrianCalgary wrote:

Ahh yess the entertainment value of feedback.

Well liamdubh in only 48 posts you have gotten yourself banned, slammed gaelgoirs and called a Christianity mod an idiot (being none other than yours truly).

Now THAT was against the rules, apologies, and thanks for not banning me!