I miss the old Feedback.

Jazzy · 09-09-2009 2:58am

was it not towards guanyin? thats what i thought tbh (the whole helix getting banned from soccer thing)
ah well so, guess there must have been 2 cases then. hmmmmmmmm
and of course the banning was for what you said. easy enough to point out. but at the end of the day (of which the specific case i thought) he was right. you can see gender bias all over boards. it aint hard. there is a lot you can see if you look closer, but that doesnt suit. think ill read that new announcements forum. oh you can win tickets i see. handy thing that forum, innit?

Dudess · 09-09-2009 3:01am

I actually defended Helix on that thread. And also, LOL at your reasoning that the likelihood of a banning for personal abuse increases if the person on the receiving end is female - first I've heard of it.

Jazzy · 09-09-2009 3:19am

should be looking instead of hearing then

makes no difference if you defended him. it was all a touch obvious

orestes · 09-09-2009 3:44am

Jazzy wrote: »

should be looking instead of hearing then
makes no difference if you defended him. it was all a touch obvious

So female mod stands up for a poster that a female mod has banned and it is all a bias in favour of female mods? What are you even talking about at this point?

Here, how about this. You have said Boston got banned for giving his opinions even though it was for abuse. I have said I agree with a lot of what Boston has said on this thread. Now I shall demonstrate the point that is apparently beyond you and have not been banned since I made my points without resorting to personal abuse. You see the difference there? No? Let me demonstrate for the sake of clarity.

Version A: your points are baseless as you have provided no evidence to back up your claims but are instead using vague generalities to try and support them. Therefore, unless you can provide links/examples of the things you are claiming, coupled with the broad and unfounded generalisations made regarding the entire site and admin/mod procedures your arguement is not worthy of reasonable discussion, particularly as you are avoiding answering any and all direct questions and are dealing solely in generalisations which are based only on your subjective, clearly biased, perspective.

Version B: Fukk off and take your whingy little soapboxing crap with you, whatever issues you have with women have nothing to do with female mods, it's not their fault mommy didn't hug you enough as a kid. Get over it and quit whinging.

Guess which one of those just got me banned from feedback?

randylonghorn · 09-09-2009 4:33am

Jazzy wrote: »

i do understand what he was banned for. i dont think he could have made his point without it though, hence what my point is dudess.

Whyever not?

As far as I'm concerned, Boston often makes good points, but then shoots himself in the foot by trotting out something abusive or patronising, and everyone gets distracted from the point he was actually making. Nor has he been the only one who does that.

(I feel quite bad about commenting about him when he can't actually respond here, actually, so apologies for that if you're looking in, Boston.)

Jazzy wrote: »

and i also think the current feedback makes it easier for mods to 'gang up' but i wouldnt call it that.

How does it do that?

One of the complaints from users about "old" feedback was that it encouraged mods to "gang up" on users (whether fair comment or not).

How does the new approach make it "easier"?

Personally, I hardly ever post here any more, because I noticed that while I could make a post in here as a user, and people would either agree or disagree, but at least accept it for what it was: my opinion, after I was asked to mod Noc any post I made here was immediately treated as suspect, coz I woz part of teh mod conspiraceh!!!11!! ZOMG!!

Of course, if anyone had bothered to check, my opinions hadn't changed an iota from the week before, and while I think Boards has a lot of good things going on, I would have been far from completely uncritical in my comments in this forum at times.

But I was tagged, and therefore gagged, so I just gave up posting here much.

orestes · 09-09-2009 5:42am

randylonghorn wrote: »

Personally, I hardly ever post here any more, because I noticed that while I could make a post in here as a user, and people would either agree or disagree, but at least accept it for what it was: my opinion, after I was asked to mod Noc any post I made here was immediately treated as suspect, coz I woz part of teh mod conspiraceh!!!11!! ZOMG!!

Of course, if anyone had bothered to check, my opinions hadn't changed an iota from the week before, and while I think Boards has a lot of good things going on, I would have been far from completely uncritical in my comments in this forum at times.

But I was tagged, and therefore gagged, so I just gave up posting here much.

One of the reasons I gave up modding was so that I wouldn't have to deal with that crap, turns out apparently being a former mod means you're still part of the conspiracy. Let's just ignore the fact that Boston was a mod on this site once and he got banned from feedback for his posts in this thread, all mods/former mods in feedback are just part of the conspiracy and back each other up, yada yada yada.

Jazzy · 09-09-2009 1:01pm

orestes, i think its just easier for me to say you dont get it.
its easy to say 'conspiracy' isnt it randy? makes the people aware of all the circle jerking sound dumb. plucking out the best words, thats the sign of the volunteer. the officialism of it makes it easier I reckon. its more like a mock court then it ever was. you can always tell how its going to go.
but yeah, i dont believe the prime directive/personal abuse rule works on about 90% of the forums here. thats just me though

Winters · 09-09-2009 1:21pm

MarkMI6 · 09-09-2009 1:28pm

OH SHI-

Sherifu · 09-09-2009 1:54pm

dr.bollocko · 09-09-2009 3:26pm

Can somebody show up like maybe.... 5 examples of when a complaint against a moderator was upheld. Or a moderator done doned something wrong and admitted it?

Winters · 09-09-2009 4:12pm

dr.bollocko wrote: »

Can somebody show up like maybe.... 5 examples of when a complaint against a moderator was upheld. Or a moderator done doned something wrong and admitted it?

Prime Example:

Hank Scorpio · 09-09-2009 5:15pm

dr.bollocko wrote: »

Can somebody show up like maybe.... 5 examples of when a complaint against a moderator was upheld. Or a moderator done doned something wrong and admitted it?

Doubt it ever happened, the only time i seen a decision reversed was when the poker forums main sticky thread was deleted.

Oh boy were the other mods quick to clamp down on the poker forum that day, including some of the site admins. I mean the entire forum.

Sure enough they got the finger out when they seen the poker community was willing to move to another website without hesitation, was pretty hilarious at the time

Thats the only one i can think of though since i joined this "Community" lol.

dr.bollocko · 09-09-2009 5:18pm

nuxxx wrote: »

Doubt it ever happened, the only time i seen a decision reversed was when the poker forums main sticky thread was deleted.

Oh boy were the other mods quick to clamp down on the poker forum that day, including some of the site admins. I mean the entire forum.

Sure enough they got the finger out when they seen the poker community was willing to move to another website without hesitation, was pretty hilarious at the time

Thats the only one i can think of though since i joined this "Community" lol.

As I recall there were a fair few mods on the side of the poker mods also.

Hank Scorpio · 09-09-2009 5:22pm

dr.bollocko wrote: »

As I recall there were a fair few mods on the side of the poker mods also.

That is true , maybe a nice 80/20 percentage

Jazzy · 09-09-2009 6:12pm

orestes wrote: »

Version B: Fukk off and take your whingy little soapboxing crap with you, whatever issues you have with women have nothing to do with female mods, it's not their fault mommy didn't hug you enough as a kid. Get over it and quit whinging.

but i thought you could make any point without abuse? the proof is in the pudding, and the pudding is shaped like a football

Dudess · 09-09-2009 6:16pm

Have you ever been struck by the irony of how you get to bitch and moan here relentlessly (and also troll since yesterday) in this evil, fascist place where voices are silenced swiftly and mercilessly?

Steve · 09-09-2009 6:18pm

Nature lesson:
Trolls need food, if they don't get it then they die.

Sherifu · 09-09-2009 6:27pm

File under: 'water is wet'

javaboy · 09-09-2009 6:32pm

Jazzy wrote: »

but i thought you could make any point without abuse? the proof is in the pudding, and the pudding is shaped like a football

You missed the point of orestes' demonstration completely. His point is that a legitimate point, for example Boston's one, can be made in either an abusive manner or a non-abusive manner.

Point being it is the abuse that earns the ban and not the poster's opinion.

Point.

orestes · 09-09-2009 6:36pm

javaboy wrote: »

You missed the point of orestes' demonstration completely. His point is that a legitimate point, for example Boston's one, can be made in either an abusive manner or a non-abusive manner.

Point being it is the abuse that earns the ban and not the poster's opinion.

Point.

I don't think there's any point in arguing this point beyond this point

javaboy · 09-09-2009 6:47pm

orestes wrote: »

I don't think there's any point in arguing this point beyond this point

Point. Narf.

Jazzy · 09-09-2009 6:50pm

but he couldnt make that point without being abusive could he? and imo, neither could boston, at least to the effect that the point should have.

and dudess, i dont believe its fascist and evil. its far from it. it seems to be more ppl making up for a lack of control. it might be a touch fascist.. but only a dab. i think (ironically enough) that its more to with boredom.

selective thinking there javaboy. a lot of things tend to be selective

javaboy · 09-09-2009 6:53pm

Jazzy wrote: »

but he couldnt make that point without being abusive could he?

Em. Yes. Yes he could. And he did. See Version A - the one without abuse. You're either deliberately missing the point or you're incapable of understanding it. Either way I'm wasting my time.

Dudess · 09-09-2009 6:58pm

Jazzy wrote: »

selective thinking there javaboy. a lot of things tend to be selective

No, you'd be the one doing the selective thinking - actually no, you're just trolling.

Jazzy · 09-09-2009 7:10pm

javaboy wrote: »

Em. Yes. Yes he could. And he did. See Version A - the one without abuse. You're either deliberately missing the point or you're incapable of understanding it. Either way I'm wasting my time.

but doesnt version A just become version, or just the normal one? version B looked a bit precise didnt it? should he just have put version B - lots of abuse mixed into the point instead? but he didnt, but his point was well made. why? because of the abuse

selective again, i seem to be saying that a lot so i will just say narrow instead.

im not 'just trolling' dudess, i think im making a pretty relevant point about the abuse rule and about how selective thinking is very easy to put across in text without admitting it. it quite reminds me of the soccer forum when you'd see fans of different teams being hyper-selective of the words they choose just because they happen to support x,y or z and couldnt possibly show weakness and then they would hate team a,b or c so again they would be super selective in what they say there. like player transfer values. fernando torres was £25m or thereabouts for liverpool.. most liverpool fans would say he was £20m (thereby bigging up their club/manager for buying him at a lower amount) and then Utd fans would say he was £25m or more (trying to show how liverpool werent as clever as they were). the same style of thinking is at work all over here.
at the end of the day i think the total ban on abuse in a forum is unworkable. i understand why it is there alright and can see the point in it, but it is unworkable. its too open and too easy to abuse

MarkMI6 · 09-09-2009 7:16pm

orestes · 09-09-2009 7:22pm

Jazzy wrote: »

but doesnt version A just become version, or just the normal one? version B looked a bit precise didnt it? should he just have put version B - lots of abuse mixed into the point instead? but he didnt, but his point was well made. why? because of the abuse selective again, i seem to be saying that a lot so i will just say narrow instead.

That was the point of the demonstration, the point was well made either way, but one didn't involve abuse. If you can't get the point unless there is abuse in the post then I don't think boards is the right site for you to be using for discussion since it's pretty much the cardinal rule here not to be abusive to other posters.

Jazzy wrote: »

im not 'just trolling' dudess, i think im making a pretty relevant point about the abuse rule and about how selective thinking is very easy to put across in text without admitting it. it quite reminds me of the soccer forum when you'd see fans of different teams being hyper-selective of the words they choose just because they happen to support x,y or z and couldnt possibly show weakness and then they would hate team a,b or c so again they would be super selective in what they say there. like player transfer values. fernando torres was £25m or thereabouts for liverpool.. most liverpool fans would say he was £20m (thereby bigging up their club/manager for buying him at a lower amount) and then Utd fans would say he was £25m or more (trying to show how liverpool werent as clever as they were).

That's called discussion or debate, it's what the site is for.

Jazzy wrote: »

the same style of thinking is at work all over here.
at the end of the day i think the total ban on abuse in a forum is unworkable. i understand why it is there alright and can see the point in it, but it is unworkable. its too open and too easy to abuse

You don't think a ban on abuse is workable? Seems to be working pretty well for boards so far judging by the numbers.

Jazzy · 09-09-2009 7:26pm

orestes wrote: »

but one didn't involve abuse.

and the other didnt have to

Dudess · 09-09-2009 7:28pm

Interesting. It was about female moderators, now it's about how points can be made well with abuse. Do you even know what you're rambling about any more?

I miss the old Feedback.

Comments