Humour now against forum rules

liamdubh

hullaball&#250 wrote:

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.

So, only your (incorrect) memory of quotations is sufficient? Wikipedia isn't to be trusted, some random bloke on the net is. That's some arrogance.

Boston

liamdubh wrote:

Wikipedia isn't to be trusted, some random bloke on the net is. That's some arrogance.

What the hell do you think Wikipedia is only some random bloke on the internet.

David Michael

Boston wrote:

What the hell do you think Wikipedia is only some random bloke on the internet.

Why do you think posting on feedback constantly has any value?

Boston

David Michael wrote:

Why do you think posting on feedback constantly has any value?

Why do you masturbate?

David Michael

Boston wrote:

Why do you masturbate?

I am a male?

Why do you attempt to be funny? And I ask that question loosely.

Boston

David Michael wrote:

I am a male?

Why do you attempt to be funny? And I ask that question loosely.

funny? Not being funny, attempting to draw a parallel. Your reply is basically because you can.

Hagar

Compromise is the essence of diplomacy.

Lift the ban and give him a good kicking.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Did you think I was going to say I'm just joking? Yeah, right.:D

David Michael

Boston wrote:

funny? Not being funny, attempting to draw a parallel. Your reply is basically because you can.

My reply is better suited than yours.

You drew no parallel as much as you might have imagined it?


Are you some weirdo or something?

Should I run for the hills?!?!

Faith

liamdubh wrote:

So, only your (incorrect) memory of quotations is sufficient? Wikipedia isn't to be trusted, some random bloke on the net is. That's some arrogance.

hullaballú is correct. The quote is "Power tends to corrupt; absolute power corrupts absolutely". See here, here, or here if you don't believe me.

Also, if you want to believe Wikipedia so much, look here, at the wiki entry for Lord Acton. It says:

In 1870 came the great crisis in the Roman Catholic world over the promulgation by Pope Pius IX of the dogma of papal infallibility. Lord Acton, who was in complete sympathy on this subject with Döllinger, went to Rome in order to throw all his influence against it, but the step he so much dreaded was not to be averted. The Old Catholic separation followed, but Acton did not personally join the seceders, and the authorities prudently refrained from forcing the hands of so competent and influential an English layman. It was in this context that in a letter dated April, 1887, to Bishop Mandell Creighton, Acton made his most famous pronouncement:

Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

/proudly points to Linguistics & Etymology mod badge.

hullaballoo

liamdubh wrote:

So, only your (incorrect) memory of quotations is sufficient? Wikipedia isn't to be trusted, some random bloke on the net is. That's some arrogance.

No. I'm not that naive. I actually looked it up to make sure first.

Now, just as a point of reference for you: I have so far made no attack on your person whatsoever. I've doubted some of the content of your posts alright, just as I would if you were saying these things to me in conversation. The only difference is.

On the other hand, you have so far called me a haughty, arrogant Gaelgóir with a superiority complex who cannot admit he's wrong.

Do you see why you might be on a losing battle with the internet? Do you think you might be taking it a little seriously?

RoundyMooney

Still waiting liamdubh.

You wouldn't want people thinking your claims are all piss and wind now, would you?

smashey

Faith wrote:

/proudly points to Linguistics & Etymology mod badge.

Self praise. Pah.

liamdubh

Faith wrote:

hullaballú is correct. The quote is "Power tends to corrupt; absolute power corrupts absolutely". See here, here, or here if you don't believe me.

Also, if you want to believe Wikipedia so much, look here, at the wiki entry for Lord Acton. It says:



/proudly points to Linguistics & Etymology mod badge.

I'll be forced to use CAPS in a minute. Both quotes are correct. He made both quotes.

liamdubh

hullaball&#250 wrote:

No. I'm not that naive. I actually looked it up to make sure first.

Both quotes were made. It's not one or the other.

liamdubh

RoundyMooney wrote:

Still waiting liamdubh.

You wouldn't want people thinking your claims are all piss and wind now, would you?

No. As they come up, I'll post them up here. I'm not about to trawl through years of boards.ie and go through every banning to find harsh-bans, just at the minute.

Owen

Piddling against the wind Liam, there is no procedure for handing out bans here, it's up to the Mod whether it's a week or a year, whether they PM or not. Unfortunately.

RoundyMooney

liamdubh wrote:

No. As they come up, I'll post them up here. I'm not about to trawl through years of boards.ie and go through every banning to find harsh-bans, just at the minute.

I'd better bookmark this thread so.

Seriously Liam, I know a ban isn't a pleasant thing (I got a week off PI once ), but to start a thread (which isn't a problem in itself either, your ban does seem quite harsh as I've said, assuming there isn't more to it), stating that there is a major problem with spurious and inconsistent banning by power hungry, corrupt mods, and then to fail to back up those assertions would lead me to believe that your argument is insupportable.

Can you point to even one example? You must have had something particular in mind when you said what you did.

@ned: Main reasoning that I see for the lack of a rigid ban procedure is that firstly, no two situations/posters are the same, and secondly, if mod discretion was not allowed, it would serve to stifle debate/banter and squeeze the life out of this place.

Boards is a big place, and to apply a rigid set of rules on such an eclectic mix of fora is impossible IMO.

liamdubh

Okay, I'm 99% sure you're wrong and that there are two quotations. I'd have to research it further. In the meantime, can somebody explain to me the fundamental difference in meaning between the two different versions? And besides, Hullabullu said I was "mincing" my words. I wasn't.

I'd be interested to hear what the fundamental difference is.

liamdubh

RoundyMooney wrote:

Can you point to even one example?

See first post.

Faith

liamdubh wrote:

Okay, I'm 99% sure you're wrong and that there are two quotations. I'd have to research it further. In the meantime, can somebody explain to me the fundamental difference in meaning between the two different versions? And besides, Hullabullu said I was "mincing" my words. I wasn't.

I'd be interested to hear what the fundamental difference is.

I did research it further, and there is in fact two quotes. Your original one was a mixture of the two.

One is: “Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.”

The other is: “And remember, where you have a concentration of power in a few hands, all too frequently men with the mentality of gangsters get control. History has proven that. All power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely.”

This is all completely off the point, of course, but that's one matter cleared up...

Owen

RoundyMooney wrote:

@ned: Main reasoning that I see for the lack of a rigid ban procedure is that firstly, no two situations/posters are the same, and secondly, if mod discretion was not allowed, it would serve to stifle debate/banter and squeeze the life out of this place.

Understood. I still stand by the premise that people should be PM'd that either a) They're about to be banned, or b) They're actually banned. People are still banned from Forums without an opportunity to learn from their mistakes, or worse again, they don't even know they're banned. Of course the argument is that Mods don't have time to implement a due process, and that it's a voluntary position, etc., but users do feel frustration that there is no set process in place.

I do enjoy the banter it creates though @Liam, don't stress it. I'm still banned from the "ZOMG! I just thought of a show, and it came on the TV, am I Psychic???!!1!!" carnival that is the Paranormal Forum.

liamdubh

Faith wrote:

I did research it further, and there is in fact two quotes. Your original one was a mixture of the two.

One is: “Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.”

The other is: “And remember, where you have a concentration of power in a few hands, all too frequently men with the mentality of gangsters get control. History has proven that. All power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely.”

And in 1000 words or less, my "version" of it:

"All power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely"

...is different to the one you've included above how exactly?

aidan_walsh

ned78 wrote:

I still stand by the premise that people should be PM'd that either a) They're about to be banned, or b) They're actually banned.

The second, yes. The first, a warning in thread should suffice. It also serves to discourage other posters from following suit.

liamdubh

RoundyMooney wrote:

Because neither of them apply to Boards.ie

?

RoundyMooney

@ liamdubh: Because neither of them apply to Boards.ie

@ned: I know where you're coming from. However, most mods will pm out of courtesy, and where there's a frequent contributor involved, that's usually a given.

Again the problem with a rigid pm rule is that some mods would be swamped with sending pms to 10 post n00bs who are about 40 minutes away from a siteban anyway.

It is possible that the vBulletin upgrade comes with ban notification as a feature though, and the admins are aware of the issue.

Owen

aidan_walsh wrote:

The second, yes. The first, a warning in thread should suffice. It also serves to discourage other posters from following suit.

Agreed, a warning in the thread would be scrumptious. The majority of Mods do it, and it usually works. Some however don't.

smashey

ned78 wrote:

Understood. I still stand by the premise that people should be PM'd that either a) They're about to be banned, or b) They're actually banned.

In certain circumstances, yes. Earlier today, I banned a guy from the Construction/Building/Planning forum. I posted it on the thread in question along with the reason and the duration. I then asked him to pm me in a month to lift the ban. I did this on thread so that everybody could see it and the reasons etc.

WhiteWashMan

ned78 wrote:

They're actually banned. People are still banned from Forums without an opportunity to learn from their mistakes, or worse again, they don't even know they're banned. .

i completely agree with you here, i think mods should PM someone whenthey are banned. its easy to do and it makes life simpler for everyone. after that, well, its usually the case of coming here and arguing about the ban. oh look, here we are

ned78 wrote:

a) They're about to be banned, .

that i dont agree with. i think we are all responsible people and that we should know when we are sailing too close to the wind. besides, youre just doubling a work load for a bunch of people who are here of their own back.
besides, i dont believe moderators are responsible for guiding and directling people, only for running a forum. if there are set rules, then if people step over them, they get banned. its pretty simple. im not here to nanny user1234 and hold their hand, or mark their homework!

ned78 wrote:

Of course the argument is that Mods don't have time to implement a due process, and that it's a voluntary position, etc., but users do feel frustration that there is no set process in place..

thats rubbish. when you ban someone you get the option to pm someone. it takes an extra 20 seconds to tell someone they are banned.

buit dont talk about due process. there youre getting into business speak, and im not paid.... etc etc etc.
mods should do it becuase it saves time inthe long run and makes their life easier. not because of due process.

ned78 wrote:

I do enjoy the banter it creates though @Liam, don't stress it. I'm still banned from the "ZOMG! I just thought of a show, and it came on the TV, am I Psychic???!!1!!" carnival that is the Paranormal Forum.

personally, if these people are psychic, then why didnt they type a response to you before you posted it? huh?

yeah, think about it....


you know, if you get banned, take it at the end of the day. people get banned for all sorts fo reasons. not all of them right. not all of them becuase the person who is banned understands. and you cant make people understand. they either do or dont.
take the ban, and learn from it, or just dont post there and think the mod is a dick from now on. who cares. its a week or two usually, get on with it. theres better things to be doing in life than wasting hours of your day complaining about being banned. unless youre inwork and complaining about being banned is better than working!

RoundyMooney

liamdubh wrote:

And in 1000 words or less, my "version" of it:

"All power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely"

...is different to the one you've included above how exactly?

me wrote:

Because neither of them apply to Boards.ie...

...at least you have been unable to provide examples of where they do.

Owen

WhiteWashMan wrote:

thats rubbish. when you ban someone you get the option to pm someone. it takes an extra 20 seconds to tell someone they are banned.

Sorry, it wasn't meant to be accusational. When I was banned from the Paranormal Forum, I asked why people couldn't PM when banning a user, and it was met with digust, distain, and contempt by many Mods. The general gyst was that being a Mod was a voluntary position, and unhelpful Mods said they would do as they saw fit.