Humour now against forum rules

RoundyMooney

ned78 wrote:

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.

Again, it *should* come down to discretion. Where someone who is a regular positive contributor does something that warrants a ban, then that person should be IMO (a) pm'd, and (b) a post should be made on the thread. In both instances of course, reason and duration should be mentioned, as applicable.

Frankly, I'm surprised that this didn't happen in your case.

When an obvious muppet or troll does it, then all bets are off, at least at this point in time.

I do support the assertion that it should be left up to the mod, but I don't see why the extra minute or two cannot be taken to clarify the situation, where the circumstances aren't clear-cut or the bannee is an otherwise "good citizen".

These are all just my opinions by the way.

The Sweeper

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?

That's easy.

Because the two Faith has quoted are quotes from recognised sources and people that the world once considered to be important said them.

Your one, however, comes from you, and you're just a jumped up little fight the powah attention whore.

It appears to be a shock to a lot of n00b nutjobs these days - but just because you think something, it doesn't mean you're right. Just because you have an opinion, that doesn't mean we have to consider it. Just because your tiny, tiny little brain had an independent thought, that doesn't make it the only valid independent thought in the whole wide world.

Oh - and hey, jokes have punchlines.

Owen

RoundyMooney wrote:

Frankly, I'm surprised that this didn't happen in your case.

To be fair, I was being a bit of a di*khead, but it was the first and only time I'd posted on boards in that fashion.

liamdubh

Minesajackdaniels wrote:

That's easy.

Because the two Faith has quoted are quotes from recognised sources and people that the world once considered to be important said them.

Your one, however, comes from you, and you're just a jumped up little fight the powah attention whore.

It appears to be a shock to a lot of n00b nutjobs these days - but just because you think something, it doesn't mean you're right. Just because you have an opinion, that doesn't mean we have to consider it. Just because your tiny, tiny little brain had an independent thought, that doesn't make it the only valid independent thought in the whole wide world.

Oh - and hey, jokes have punchlines.

Oh the irony, it kills me. Such an utterly pointless, pointless post. And I do mean pointless. You probably regard yourself as intelligent and interesting.

Time Magazine

liamdubh wrote:

Oh the irony, it kills me.

Literally?

liamdubh

Ibid wrote:

Literally?

She'd be a lifer on E wing if it could.

Karl Hungus

You know, with everyone jumping on Liamdubh (Admittedly, he deserves it for the whole mods are petty powertrippers rant) I think we're just avoiding the real issue here, and that's the ban.

Reguardless of his actions on Feedback, I still don't think that a month's ban was justified. But this thread has really gone off on a tangent, almost avoiding the issue entirely.

What rule was broken? Nobody seems to want to answer that question.

liamdubh

Karl Hungus wrote:

You know, with everyone jumping on Liamdubh (Admittedly, he deserves it for the whole mods are petty powertrippers rant)

I used, and was careful to use, the word "some".

The Sweeper

Karl Hungus wrote:

You know, with everyone jumping on Liamdubh (Admittedly, he deserves it for the whole mods are petty powertrippers rant) I think we're just avoiding the real issue here, and that's the ban.

Reguardless of his actions on Feedback, I still don't think that a month's ban was justified. But this thread has really gone off on a tangent, almost avoiding the issue entirely.

What rule was broken? Nobody seems to want to answer that question.

The original ban was overly harsh, didn't need to be a month long and should really have been preceded by a warning.

But that doen't mean liamdubh isn't a moron.

RoundyMooney

Some instances would be great...but that's not going to happen.

Faith

I said back on page 1 that the ban wasn't deserved. I didn't follow it up because his subsequent posts were childish insults. However, I do still think that the ban was too harsh, and I don't see what rule was actually broken. It's not the only tasteless comment that's ever been made on boards. Is Victor aware of this thread?

The Sweeper

This is boards. Victor is aware of all threads.

tallaght01

Liamdubh.....you've said what most people probably already think. Fair play to you. But it's time to walk away now. feedback is where you air your grievances. Then a load of mods attack you and it all goes off topic. Just walk away, dude. You've made your point and I'm pretty sure most lurkers agree with it.

liamdubh

Minesajackdaniels wrote:

The original ban was overly harsh, didn't need to be a month long and should really have been preceded by a warning.

But that doen't mean liamdubh isn't a moron.

Personal abuse. Is this not a banning offence?

Karl Hungus

Minesajackdaniels wrote:

The original ban was overly harsh, didn't need to be a month long and should really have been preceded by a warning.

But that doen't mean liamdubh isn't a moron.

Yes but whether he is or isn't a moron should have no bearing on possible harshness of the original ban.

This should really be about whether or not the ban was justified, but it's become a slagfest against someone who was foolish enough to speak out against moderators.

The Sweeper

liamdubh wrote:

Personal abuse. Is this not a banning offence?

Statement of fact, tbh.

Bottom line is you should have been warned instead of banned for your comments re kicking a dog to death.

Second line is that, through the sheer idiocy of your performance on this thread, you're unlikely to have your ban revoked. (Though Victor may still lessen it.)

You don't understand that humour is relative, or that jokes have punchlines.
You don't understand that suggesting kicking a dog to death is something that some people may have a very low tolerance for. You refuse to see anyone else's point on this matter.

One wonders where you'd be right now, if you'd just PM'd Victor and said "hey I'm sorry for the joke, but a one-month ban is a bit harsh" and then, if you had to take it to feedback, you hadn't approached it with the now hackneyed 'teh mods power blah blah blah' argument.

Karl Hungus

Minesajackdaniels wrote:

You don't understand that suggesting kicking a dog to death is something that some people may have a very low tolerance for. You refuse to see anyone else's point on this matter.

Some people 'may' have a very low tolerance for the joke? That's just moral-majority posturing; righteous indignation; along the lines of saying 'won't somebody please think of children!'

You're taking a moral stance on something that some people may find offensive, on behalf of said people who may or may not even be here!

People really should wait untill someone actually objects before claiming such outrage on their behalf.

liamdubh

Minesajackdaniels wrote:

Statement of fact, tbh.

Sorry, still amounts to personal abuse and is against the forum charter.

Second line is that, through the sheer idiocy of your performance on this thread, you're unlikely to have your ban revoked. (Though Victor may still lessen it.)

When I'm up against intellects like yours it's difficult to come off anything but 2nd best. 4th or 5th time I've said this in this thread, I don't care if the ban is overturned or not.

You don't understand that humour is relative, or that jokes have punchlines.

Sorry, you're wrong, a "joke" doesn't necessarily have to have a punch-line. I understand humour is relative, it's the Mod who doesn't, hence the ban and this post.

You don't understand that suggesting kicking a dog to death is something that some people may have a very low tolerance for. You refuse to see anyone else's point on this matter.

I didn't actually suggest going out and kicking a dog to death. I just don't see how a joke is against the forum charter and don't accept that it's a banning offence. What you really mean is I refuse to agree wholeheartedly with your viewpoint. Hence the whinging and personal abuse.

I'll leave the thread at this point. Some people just can't accept any criticism or debate, with some Mods piling in the way they have and the above Mod engaging in personal abuse in response to my posts, I think I've proved my point. Good night!

(Sorry, I've just noticed Minesajackdaniels isn't a Mod....anyway, good night)

oleras

RoundyMooney wrote:

Some instances would be great...but that's not going to happen.

Talk about a dog with a bone, out of your 13 posts on this thread 10 of them have been hounding the op for "proof". Its getting quiet boring and childish at this stage..... :rolleyes:

nesf

Karl Hungus wrote:

Some people 'may' have a very low tolerance for the joke? That's just moral-majority posturing; righteous indignation; along the lines of saying 'won't somebody please think of children!'

You're taking a moral stance on something that some people may find offensive, on behalf of said people who may or may not even be here!

People really should wait untill someone actually objects before claiming such outrage on their behalf.

Tbh, I'd have warned him about it (though I wouldn't ever ban for something like this). It's the kind of comment that's going to upset some people and drag a thread way off-topic when they inevitably rise to the defence of the canine race and get all worked up about it.

Easier to nip it in the bud tbh.

Blowfish

liamdubh wrote:

I used, and was careful to use, the word "some".

You should have learnt by now with the whole silly 'power corrupts' thing that if you are going to make a statement, you had better be able to back it up.

liamdubh wrote:

When I'm up against intellects like yours it's difficult to come off anything but 2nd best. 4th or 5th time I've said this in this thread, I don't care if the ban is overturned or not.

Once again what is this thread here for then?

Being honest I do think your ban was harsh, but any sympathy disapeared when you decided to come here and post the 'loads of mods are on a power trip' crap. If you had come here and posted reasonably about it instead of doing that the response to you would have been far better.

amp

liamdubh wrote:

Sorry, still amounts to personal abuse and is against the forum charter.



When I'm up against intellects like yours it's difficult to come off anything but 2nd best. 4th or 5th time I've said this in this thread, I don't care if the ban is overturned or not.



Sorry, you're wrong, a "joke" doesn't necessarily have to have a punch-line. I understand humour is relative, it's the Mod who doesn't, hence the ban and this post.



I didn't actually suggest going out and kicking a dog to death. I just don't see how a joke is against the forum charter and don't accept that it's a banning offence. What you really mean is I refuse to agree wholeheartedly with your viewpoint. Hence the whinging and personal abuse.

I'll leave the thread at this point. Some people just can't accept any criticism or debate, with some Mods piling in the way they have and the above Mod engaging in personal abuse in response to my posts, I think I've proved my point. Good night!

(Sorry, I've just noticed Minesajackdaniels isn't a Mod....anyway, good night)

When I read this post I hear a baby going WAWAWAWAWAWAWA in my head. Anybody else get that?

Tar.Aldarion

It appears lol is banned in the 33rd county

The Sweeper

liamdubh wrote:

Sorry, still amounts to personal abuse and is against the forum charter.

And I think it's a statement of fact that you're a moron when you're quoting a forum charter at me for a forum that doesn't have a charter.

KarlHungus wrote:

Some people 'may' have a very low tolerance for the joke? That's just moral-majority posturing; righteous indignation; along the lines of saying 'won't somebody please think of children!'

You're taking a moral stance on something that some people may find offensive, on behalf of said people who may or may not even be here!

People really should wait untill someone actually objects before claiming such outrage on their behalf.

Actually I'm not taking a moral stance on anything. I was just pointing out that it's possible that maybe Victor finds it extremely unfunny to suggest kicking a dog to death.

Now why don't you stop being such a pussy-sucking pissant fucknut?



...that's a joke by the way.

Isn't it good how apparently you can do that and it makes everything okay?

the joke tactic.

WhiteWashMan

ned78 wrote:

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.

sorry, no, my mistake, that rubbish was at anyone who says it takes too long to PM someone when they ban them. not aimed at you at all

while the response you got certainly is an excuse used in many cases, and i use it myself when people ask why they dont get a 5 page essay on the reasoning behind some technicality, then yes, im too busy in my life, and i dont get paid for it!
especially whenthe person who was banned is a dick.

amp

Tar.Aldarion wrote:

It appears lol is banned in the 33rd county

LOL

Karl Hungus

Minesajackdaniels wrote:

Now why don't you stop being such a pussy-sucking pissant fucknut?

I shall do no such thing! :eek:

I'll continue to suck pussy, and be proud of it, and nothing you or anyone else can say shall stop me!

6th

liamdubh wrote:

Personal abuse. Is this not a banning offence?

Did you report the post?

tbh

6th wrote:

Did you report the post?

change the record for gawds sake.

stovelid

6th wrote:

Did you report the post?

Do you get a small referral fee when somebody clicks the Report Post button or something?