INTENSITY²
Start here => What is Intensity²? => How To... => Topic started by: Callaway on October 30, 2007, 02:47:20 AM
-
Some people have been pranked in the past by administrators.
Duncvis suggested that we start a "Don't Prank Me" list, so the people who opt out of pranks won't be pranked.
Different people feel differently about being pranked.
For example, I used to see pranks as relatively harmless fun, but since I have seen both firsthand and from other members how it can make someone feel, I have changed my opinion about this. I pranked a few people on Intensity's Birthday which was April Fool's Day, but now I feel really bad that I might have hurt someone when I did. I tried to prank people who I thought would not mind, but how do I really know?
If you would prefer to opt out of pranks, please sign up here.
I do not want to be pranked.
-
I do not want to be pranked.
Question: What happens if someone pranks a person who in on the do not prank list?
-
The prankee can ask a staff member to reverse the prank and their status as a 'no pranks' member will be brought to the attention of the prankster. In practice this shouldn't be a problem, as an elected admin should be respecting the wishes of those they were elected to serve.
-
This thread is ridiculous. My pranks were meant to provide a lot of laughs in this place (and they have done, mind you), not intentionally harm a person. If they're easily offended, fuck off. I already allowed the membership to vote me off over this prank business, but the majority decided to keep me in. What does that tell you?
If this list ever comes to pass by the WC, I do think that we should discuss whether it's worth this site being called "IntensitySquared" when we're too busy trying to keep everyone happy in fear of losing members. Quite frankly, we're becoming soft over this nonsense -- it's tantamount to weakness. You are all in a panic because a lot of users (Willow's leaving, omg!) are supposedly unhappy, which to me shows the current lack of backbone this site has.
-
Indeed. WITHOUT having some official status,
does this list just become some big "kick me"
sign?
-
The prankee can ask a staff member to reverse the prank and their status as a 'no pranks' member will be brought to the attention of the prankster. In practice this shouldn't be a problem, as an elected admin should be respecting the wishes of those they were elected to serve.
In other words, anyone who puts their name up here gets pranked to hell. If thats the case, where do I sign? :laugh:
-
This thread is ridiculous. My pranks were meant to provide a lot of laughs in this place (and they have done, mind you), not intentionally harm a person. If they're easily offended, fuck off. I already allowed the membership to vote me off over this prank business, but the majority decided to keep me in. What does that tell you?
If this list ever comes to pass by the WC, I do think that we should discuss whether it's worth this site being called "IntensitySquared" when we're too busy trying to keep everyone happy in fear of losing members. Quite frankly, we're becoming soft over this nonsense -- it's tantamount to weakness. You are all in a panic because a lot of users (Willow's leaving, omg!) are supposedly unhappy, which to me shows the current lack of backbone this site has.
Peaguy, as administrators we are here to serve the community, therefore we should respect the individual member's preferences as to whether or not they wish to be pranked, don't you agree?
-
Is it anyone surprise that the first three negative comments to this list is from Peaguy, Calandale and Hadron.
-
This thread is ridiculous. My pranks were meant to provide a lot of laughs in this place (and they have done, mind you), not intentionally harm a person. If they're easily offended, fuck off. I already allowed the membership to vote me off over this prank business, but the majority decided to keep me in. What does that tell you?
If this list ever comes to pass by the WC, I do think that we should discuss whether it's worth this site being called "IntensitySquared" when we're too busy trying to keep everyone happy in fear of losing members. Quite frankly, we're becoming soft over this nonsense -- it's tantamount to weakness. You are all in a panic because a lot of users (Willow's leaving, omg!) are supposedly unhappy, which to me shows the current lack of backbone this site has.
Peaguy, as administrators we are here to serve the community, therefore we should respect the individual member's preferences as to whether or not they wish to be pranked, don't you agree?
Say what you like. I'm never going to concede to your boring vision of I2. The only way to stop me is to take away my admin privileges -- I'm never gonna stop pranking when I feel like it.
I'm a rebel, after all.
Oh yeah, I'm really disrespecting the community by making my poll. Jesus wept.
-
Is it anyone surprise that the first three negative comments to this list is from Peaguy, Calandale and Hadron.
Oh its not negative at all. In fact I think its briliant to have a targets list.
-
I think the problem is that we're attracting a fair few people who would never have come near Intensity² when it was first started and we're trying to change the site to keep these members happy. I'm not sold on this being a good idea personally, in some respects I think it takes away from what made us different in the first place and takes us a step closer to becoming a support site. My worry is that, considering there's plenty of support sites out there, we're effectively leaving those who can't be (or don't want to be) tactful with no-where to go. Like I said I'm not sure this kind of pandering to please a minority of members is really a good thing.
-
I'm really fucked off by Callaway's smug PM, the cocky bitch.
I'll answer it in public later.
-
I'm really fucked off by Callaway's smug PM, the cocky bitch.
I'll answer it in public later.
Do post the PM here as well. Maybe its an excuse for you to do another video...
-
Shoot me. NOW!
-
(http://media.pureprofile.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2006/12/target.jpg)
-
Is it anyone surprise that the first three negative comments to this list is from Peaguy, Calandale and Hadron.
GA, I'm anti prank. Don't put me in their camp.
I stated that I wouldn't prank anyone in my campaign
thread. I'm not thrilled about being pranked. I'm
simply stating that by putting yourself on this list,
without any official protection being given by it,
you may be painting a target on yourself.
-
Is it anyone surprise that the first three negative comments to this list is from Peaguy, Calandale and Hadron.
GA, I'm anti prank. Don't put me in their camp.
I stated that I wouldn't prank anyone in my campaign
thread. I'm not thrilled about being pranked. I'm
simply stating that by putting yourself on this list,
without any official protection being given by it,
you may be painting a target on yourself.
Thunk!
-
I think the problem is that we're attracting a fair few people who would never have come near Intensity² when it was first started and we're trying to change the site to keep these members happy. I'm not sold on this being a good idea personally, in some respects I think it takes away from what made us different in the first place and takes us a step closer to becoming a support site. My worry is that, considering there's plenty of support sites out there, we're effectively leaving those who can't be (or don't want to be) tactful with no-where to go. Like I said I'm not sure this kind of pandering to please a minority of members is really a good thing.
I'm torn by this issue. Both here, and at ZOMG (where the werd confusulator
is the fun/problem). Given the situation there, we did cut the number of
werds down, but we're not sure where we are going, in the end. But, that's
a support site. This isn't. If we want to move more in that direction, fine.
And, I don't know if it's an issue of a minority. I think that IF we do start
acting more staid, we will attract more people. But, do we really want to
change the nature of this place so much?
-
And, I don't know if it's an issue of a minority. I think that IF we do start
acting more staid, we will attract more people. But, do we really want to
change the nature of this place so much?
We have no way of knowing if it is a minority I agree, because the issue was never voted on and was only discussed at a peak drama period. Intensity was always supposed to be different to the 10 a penny supportive sites out there, and whilst I can understand the reasons some don't want to have pranks played on them, I wonder if this is just the first step towards taking away the essence of Intensity in order to make it more attractive to a greater number of people. What happened to us all being proud that Intensity was the site everyone loves to hate?
-
Oooooh peaguy!!!!! PPPPLLLLLLEEEEEEEEEEEEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAASSE!!!
DON'T Prank me you naughty boy!!! :booty: Oooooooooohhh PLEASE :booty: DON'T PRANK ME YOU NAUGHTY BOY!!!! :booty:
-
Yet another one of Callaway's rules imposed by fiat.
SEIG HEIL!!! SEIG HEIL!!! SEIG HEIL!!! SEIG HEIL!!! SIEG HEIL!!! SEIG HEIL!!!
-
This thread is ridiculous. My pranks were meant to provide a lot of laughs in this place (and they have done, mind you), not intentionally harm a person. If they're easily offended, fuck off. I already allowed the membership to vote me off over this prank business, but the majority decided to keep me in. What does that tell you?
If this list ever comes to pass by the WC, I do think that we should discuss whether it's worth this site being called "IntensitySquared" when we're too busy trying to keep everyone happy in fear of losing members. Quite frankly, we're becoming soft over this nonsense -- it's tantamount to weakness. You are all in a panic because a lot of users (Willow's leaving, omg!) are supposedly unhappy, which to me shows the current lack of backbone this site has.
wouldn't it be nice if everyone was like you? here's news for you, P: most people aren't, and you can unintentionally cause people real harm.
-
This thread is ridiculous. My pranks were meant to provide a lot of laughs in this place (and they have done, mind you), not intentionally harm a person. If they're easily offended, fuck off. I already allowed the membership to vote me off over this prank business, but the majority decided to keep me in. What does that tell you?
If this list ever comes to pass by the WC, I do think that we should discuss whether it's worth this site being called "IntensitySquared" when we're too busy trying to keep everyone happy in fear of losing members. Quite frankly, we're becoming soft over this nonsense -- it's tantamount to weakness. You are all in a panic because a lot of users (Willow's leaving, omg!) are supposedly unhappy, which to me shows the current lack of backbone this site has.
wouldn't it be nice if everyone was like you? here's news for you, P: most people aren't, and you can unintentionally cause people real harm.
The point of this website (or at least how I see it) is that the members are tough enough to take it, so we dont have to guard our words. If we start being the cuddly friendly society, we will just get lots of suicidal whiners, the ones that currently occupy WP's "Haven".
-
This thread is ridiculous. My pranks were meant to provide a lot of laughs in this place (and they have done, mind you), not intentionally harm a person. If they're easily offended, fuck off. I already allowed the membership to vote me off over this prank business, but the majority decided to keep me in. What does that tell you?
If this list ever comes to pass by the WC, I do think that we should discuss whether it's worth this site being called "IntensitySquared" when we're too busy trying to keep everyone happy in fear of losing members. Quite frankly, we're becoming soft over this nonsense -- it's tantamount to weakness. You are all in a panic because a lot of users (Willow's leaving, omg!) are supposedly unhappy, which to me shows the current lack of backbone this site has.
wouldn't it be nice if everyone was like you? here's news for you, P: most people aren't, and you can unintentionally cause people real harm.
If people are going to be really harmed by the pranks ask yourself should they really be on a site like Intensity in the first place? Even if we stop some of the pranks we can never stop people taking the piss out of them, aping their profile details or, shock horror, being mean to them. How do we protect them from all that?
-
This thread is ridiculous. My pranks were meant to provide a lot of laughs in this place (and they have done, mind you), not intentionally harm a person. If they're easily offended, fuck off. I already allowed the membership to vote me off over this prank business, but the majority decided to keep me in. What does that tell you?
If this list ever comes to pass by the WC, I do think that we should discuss whether it's worth this site being called "IntensitySquared" when we're too busy trying to keep everyone happy in fear of losing members. Quite frankly, we're becoming soft over this nonsense -- it's tantamount to weakness. You are all in a panic because a lot of users (Willow's leaving, omg!) are supposedly unhappy, which to me shows the current lack of backbone this site has.
wouldn't it be nice if everyone was like you? here's news for you, P: most people aren't, and you can unintentionally cause people real harm.
The point of this website (or at least how I see it) is that the members are tough enough to take it, so we dont have to guard our words. If we start being the cuddly friendly society, we will just get lots of suicidal whiners, the ones that currently occupy WP's "Haven".
one of the points with this place is that you can say pretty much what you want but you'll have to be able to back up your words. it's about your right to free speech, sure, but it's also about how to use that right and still remain on speaking terms with other members. not everyone will be "tough enough" according to your arbitrary criteria--we are all different--so you also have a responsibility to learn when to shut up because you can't go on all your life alienating people under the pretense that you aren't actually breaking any rules.
you actually thought it was all about what others could give to YOU, right?
-
This thread is ridiculous. My pranks were meant to provide a lot of laughs in this place (and they have done, mind you), not intentionally harm a person. If they're easily offended, fuck off. I already allowed the membership to vote me off over this prank business, but the majority decided to keep me in. What does that tell you?
If this list ever comes to pass by the WC, I do think that we should discuss whether it's worth this site being called "IntensitySquared" when we're too busy trying to keep everyone happy in fear of losing members. Quite frankly, we're becoming soft over this nonsense -- it's tantamount to weakness. You are all in a panic because a lot of users (Willow's leaving, omg!) are supposedly unhappy, which to me shows the current lack of backbone this site has.
wouldn't it be nice if everyone was like you? here's news for you, P: most people aren't, and you can unintentionally cause people real harm.
The point of this website (or at least how I see it) is that the members are tough enough to take it, so we dont have to guard our words. If we start being the cuddly friendly society, we will just get lots of suicidal whiners, the ones that currently occupy WP's "Haven".
one of the points with this place is that you can say pretty much what you want but you'll have to be able to back up your words. it's about your right to free speech, sure, but it's also about how to use that right and still remain on speaking terms with other members. not everyone will be "tough enough" according to your arbitrary criteria--we are all different--so you also have a responsibility to learn when to shut up because you can't go on all your life alienating people under the pretense that you aren't actually breaking any rules.
you actually thought it was all about what others could give to YOU, right?
True, you do have to be able to back up your words, and obviously this site would be very quiet if I wasnt on speaking terms with the other members. What I dont want to be doing is pussyfooting around some wusses sensitivities, if I did I would have made another acc on WP. This site has no point if it slowly morphs into WP-lite. As for my life, I do guard my words, probably to the point of paranoia in some cases. Just like to point out, in my 4 weeks in my new life, I havent alienated a single person. I save the rules game when dealing with any system of authority, not my peers.
-
Well, I'll tell you what pisses me off,
more than anything, is people NOT
engaging in debate, when they disagree.
So, I try and provoke them - which probably
pisses THEM off. But, none of us has the
secret of how to interact properly and
gracefully all the time. Personally, much as
I dislike certain pranks, I find this issue far
more annoying. We all have to deal with
what bothers us. And someone here
is pretty likely to dish it out.
-
This thread is ridiculous. My pranks were meant to provide a lot of laughs in this place (and they have done, mind you), not intentionally harm a person. If they're easily offended, fuck off. I already allowed the membership to vote me off over this prank business, but the majority decided to keep me in. What does that tell you?
If this list ever comes to pass by the WC, I do think that we should discuss whether it's worth this site being called "IntensitySquared" when we're too busy trying to keep everyone happy in fear of losing members. Quite frankly, we're becoming soft over this nonsense -- it's tantamount to weakness. You are all in a panic because a lot of users (Willow's leaving, omg!) are supposedly unhappy, which to me shows the current lack of backbone this site has.
wouldn't it be nice if everyone was like you? here's news for you, P: most people aren't, and you can unintentionally cause people real harm.
If people are going to be really harmed by the pranks ask yourself should they really be on a site like Intensity in the first place? Even if we stop some of the pranks we can never stop people taking the piss out of them, aping their profile details or, shock horror, being mean to them. How do we protect them from all that?
you're (deliberately?) misreading what i'm saying. i'm replying to P's attitudes, not saying that the pranks in themselves necessarily harm people. i'm specifically opposed to his view that that if it isn't one's intention to harm anyone, then it's ok even if someone is harmed.
look, we only accept adults as members because we believe that the members should be responsible for themselves. they should be old enough to see a porn picture or two without us getting sued. but we also accept anyone. in spite of what some say, we don't have labels warning the weaker ones off. this is what we say:
We stand for freedom of expression, combative debate, and the generation of ideas. There are no boundaries here over what may be said, save for one rule - be prepared to back up your words. Or face the wrath of the community.
As such this site is not suitable for children. If you are under 18 please come back when you aren't any more.
yes, i'm sure some n00bs should probably not join, but since when is there a new criterion stating that you should accept some "harmless" pranks where admins repeatedly change your private data, in spite of you asking them not to? since when are we saying that unless your opinions on this are similar to the "in" group's, you should either "grow some skin" or leave because that particular criterion is the one defining how tough you are?
i'm not saying that we have to "protect" them. it doesn't work like that here. i don't want moderation more than you do. i'm saying that we don't all have to be arseholes just because we can.
-
I like the Ass Fairy prank.
-
Though, one suspects there was a bit
of intended bite to it.
-
i think it's mostly funny, too. sadly, it seems that either you have to like it or you aren't "tough enough".
-
i think it's mostly funny, too. sadly, it seems that either you have to like it or you aren't "tough enough".
This is obviously NOT the case. I don't like pranks,
in general. I do like silliness. But, liking them doesn't
really test one's toughness, does it? It's feeling a bit
of the bite, and not crying about it that is a sign of
toughness.
-
i think it's mostly funny, too. sadly, it seems that either you have to like it or you aren't "tough enough".
This is obviously NOT the case. I don't like pranks,
in general. I do like silliness. But, liking them doesn't
really test one's toughness, does it? It's feeling a bit
of the bite, and not crying about it that is a sign of
toughness.
i don't see that it's anywhere near obvious, care to enlighten me?
-
i think it's mostly funny, too. sadly, it seems that either you have to like it or you aren't "tough enough".
This is obviously NOT the case. I don't like pranks,
in general. I do like silliness. But, liking them doesn't
really test one's toughness, does it? It's feeling a bit
of the bite, and not crying about it that is a sign of
toughness.
i don't see that it's anywhere near obvious, care to enlighten me?
Toughness isn't about enjoying something which might
hurt others. It's about handling what hurts you, gracefully.
-
I'd join this debate if I thought it would do any good or be worth my time and since I have already made my opinion known about pranks, why should I bother!
-
Well, I'll tell you what pisses me off,
more than anything, is people NOT
engaging in debate, when they disagree.
So, I try and provoke them - which probably
pisses THEM off. But, none of us has the
secret of how to interact properly and
gracefully all the time. Personally, much as
I dislike certain pranks, I find this issue far
more annoying. We all have to deal with
what bothers us. And someone here
is pretty likely to dish it out.
Indeed.
Learning how to deal with these sorts of situations gracefully (as you said calandale) is a pretty important life skill. I am dismayed at how GA dealt with the pranking.
But as I said before, messing with someone's ranking and their account so that they can't log on to the site is going a bit far.
-
This thread is ridiculous. My pranks were meant to provide a lot of laughs in this place (and they have done, mind you), not intentionally harm a person. If they're easily offended, fuck off. I already allowed the membership to vote me off over this prank business, but the majority decided to keep me in. What does that tell you?
If this list ever comes to pass by the WC, I do think that we should discuss whether it's worth this site being called "IntensitySquared" when we're too busy trying to keep everyone happy in fear of losing members. Quite frankly, we're becoming soft over this nonsense -- it's tantamount to weakness. You are all in a panic because a lot of users (Willow's leaving, omg!) are supposedly unhappy, which to me shows the current lack of backbone this site has.
wouldn't it be nice if everyone was like you? here's news for you, P: most people aren't, and you can unintentionally cause people real harm.
If people are going to be really harmed by the pranks ask yourself should they really be on a site like Intensity in the first place? Even if we stop some of the pranks we can never stop people taking the piss out of them, aping their profile details or, shock horror, being mean to them. How do we protect them from all that?
you're (deliberately?) misreading what i'm saying. i'm replying to P's attitudes, not saying that the pranks in themselves necessarily harm people. i'm specifically opposed to his view that that if it isn't one's intention to harm anyone, then it's ok even if someone is harmed.
No- I wasn't deliberately misreading what you were saying. My point is that unless people could be harmed by the pranks then the point is moot. For it to be a problem, one that requires us to start introducing rules disguised as a courtesy anyway, the potential for harm would have to be there, otherwise all we're doing is protecting people's feelings from getting hurt and if that's the case it makes no sense that we stop at the pranking. You, yourself have already started laying out the standards for what you see as bullying behaviour as a result of this no prank list. Yes, there just your own personal opinions but it illustrates perfectly the slippery slope we're on if we start introducing any kind of 'rules' to protect the more sensitive members (and if this isn't about protecting them what is it about?).
look, we only accept adults as members because we believe that the members should be responsible for themselves. they should be old enough to see a porn picture or two without us getting sued. but we also accept anyone. in spite of what some say, we don't have labels warning the weaker ones off. this is what we say:
We stand for freedom of expression, combative debate , and the generation of ideas. There are no boundaries here over what may be said, save for one rule - be prepared to back up your words. Or face the wrath of the community.
As such this site is not suitable for children. If you are under 18 please come back when you aren't any more.
I would have thought that the phrases I bolded do serve as a warning to the 'weaker' ones, in fact you thought so yourself when RobertN was claiming he was being bullied.
yes, i'm sure some n00bs should probably not join, but since when is there a new criterion stating that you should accept some "harmless" pranks where admins repeatedly change your private data, in spite of you asking them not to? since when are we saying that unless your opinions on this are similar to the "in" group's, you should either "grow some skin" or leave because that particular criterion is the one defining how tough you are?
Hang on a minute- what happened to the 'there is no clique' argument?? Is there only a clique when you don't happen to have been lumped in it? If there is in fact an "in group" I think a lot would argue that those opposing the no prank list aren't in it since they generally tend to be on the side with the lowest number of people in a debate.
I agree that there never has been anything warning members that they may get pranked, but neither the less pranks have always happened to some extent, and if we start bringing in rules against them where do we stop? Its the slippery slope to becomming Intensitylite again,
i'm not saying that we have to "protect" them. it doesn't work like that here. i don't want moderation more than you do. i'm saying that we don't all have to be arseholes just because we can.
But who decides what behaviour is someone being an arsehole? It could be argued that a lot of what is said on here could be interepretted as an arsehole thing to say, including some of the things you say yourself. If we say that one set of arsehole behaviour isn't ok, then how can we then say that another set is? I am not saying whether the pranks are an arsehole thing to do, what I'm saying is that we don't moderate people for being an arsehole because if we did there'd be a hell of a lot of work for the admin staff to do.
-
this is going in circles, so let me try to make my points clear, if possible:
1/ i'm NOT advocating rules and i don't want a moderated intensity.
2/ i have NOT "started laying out the standards for what see as bullying behaviour". i have repeatedly stated MY OPINIONS. you claiming that i'm doing it doesn't make it true.
3/ i'm not in a position to define any such standards or rules.
4/ i'm talking about the people that did *nothing* to deserve the repeated pranks (note that i'm still talking about the pranks). thus, i don't consider it fair to generalise what i've said and apply them into past examples such as RobertN (who, in fact, wanted to sue you and Dunc), scrap, and others i've been arguing against.
5/ the "in" group i mentioned was more about those whose responses were "grow some skin", etc, rather than an actual clique, but you have a good point there. i wasn't being very clear.
6/ in my book, you are on your way to be an arsehole when you repeatedly get on the case of those that have asked you not to, when you attack those that have done nothing. notice the "in my book" phrase. there are other ways to make it into that list but i'm trying to stay on topic here.
and finally.........................
7/ i'm against rules and moderation at intensity. i don't want a moderated intensity. i've said this i don't know how many times, and therefore i don't really understand why you wish to make it appear as if i was advocating a moderated board.
that, however, doesn't stop me from commenting on what i see as wrong.
-
1. I never said you did, but unless we bring in rules to prevent the pranking aren't we really just giving the more sensitive members a false sense of security since we can't actually guarantee that they won't get pranked?
2. Yes I know you're stating your own opinion, everything that's been said on here is just someone's own opinion I thought that was already clear. It doesn't change the fact that people are already starting to say what they feel is bullying behaviour and my worry is that its the first step to laying down standards for 'acceptable' Intensity behaviour.
3. I never said you were- that's the point, no-one can enforce these rules unless we allow the site to become moderated.
4. But from his point of view Robertn did nothing to deserve what he saw as the bullying behaviour that made him act in such a way that it was suddenly alright to prank him. How can we start saying its ok to prank some people because they deserve it but not others? Who decides who has done enough to deserve pranking. BTW- my robertn point wasn't that people said pranking him was ok, it was that people felt the warning on the front page was enough to warn the 'weaker' members what kind of place this is then, but now you don't think it is.
5.I really don't see the difference between saying that people agree on other issues simply because they're in a clique and people being in an in group because they agree on this issue. Perhaps you're still not being clear but I don't get how one assumption can be incorrect and the other isn't.
6. Again that all depends on where you draw the line at what constitutes both 'attacking' and 'nothing to deserve it'- its subjective.
7. I'm not trying to make it appear that you wish Intensity to be a moderated board- what I am saying is that if we claim that there are members who can be harmed or feel bullied by the pranks, we also have to accept that there are other aspects to Intensity that could have the same effect on them. Who decides where we draw the line?
-
there's no way to clearly draw that line, PI, not if we want to remain unmoderated. the one way i know of is that those of us who would prefer not to be pranked have their wishes respected. it has to be a voluntary thing, and it has to be about respecting that member's wishes.
so maybe we should all learn how to respect and listen to other people better. that hasn't been my strong point, i know, but maybe it's not too late to change?
-
1/ i'm NOT advocating rules and i don't want a moderated intensity.
As long as this is the case, then we have no danger. Sadly, a do not prank
list may make some think that they ARE protected by some rules. And some
members may actually desire such rules.
4/ i'm talking about the people that did *nothing* to deserve the repeated pranks (note that i'm still talking about the pranks). thus, i don't consider it fair to generalise what i've said and apply them into past examples such as RobertN (who, in fact, wanted to sue you and Dunc), scrap, and others i've been arguing against.
Purely a subjective manner. And, where the 'prank' is of
malicious intent, it's a lot less that, and closer to bullying,
or worse.
7/ i'm against rules and moderation at intensity. i don't want a moderated intensity. i've said this i don't know how many times, and therefore i don't really understand why you wish to make it appear as if i was advocating a moderated board.
There's a point about this that I tried to bring up
before though. If one of the staff is pranked, by
having their profile changed, they can change it
back. Up to, and including, the custom tag (why
is this only accessible from the admin panel?). Worse,
they can reverse someone else's prank, done in their
own profile. Something the rest of us certainly cannot
do. So, pranks don't fall upon everyone equally, even if
they are equally skinned.
-
Its more than toughness, its about knowledge. You know how to deal, your tougher. I carried 100 cans in a ripped bag on my bike to the recycle center for $10. I wasn't mine, but the neighbor was in jail, and is evicted. That was partly knowing how to cope. My shoulder hurt after. I do enough exercise for christ sakes. I can't remember the last time I did one session a day. Sometimes both are extra long. Part of what would make me give up is the power of suggestion, so I imagine myself full of energy that makes me stronger. I have more energy to do the job. I have had a flat tire from walmart, and had to drag/carry my bike 6-12 miles home, because I had no minutes on my phone. Staying in shape protects me.
-
1/ i'm NOT advocating rules and i don't want a moderated intensity.
As long as this is the case, then we have no danger. Sadly, a do not prank
list may make some think that they ARE protected by some rules. And some
members may actually desire such rules.
4/ i'm talking about the people that did *nothing* to deserve the repeated pranks (note that i'm still talking about the pranks). thus, i don't consider it fair to generalise what i've said and apply them into past examples such as RobertN (who, in fact, wanted to sue you and Dunc), scrap, and others i've been arguing against.
Purely a subjective manner. And, where the 'prank' is of
malicious intent, it's a lot less that, and closer to bullying,
or worse.
7/ i'm against rules and moderation at intensity. i don't want a moderated intensity. i've said this i don't know how many times, and therefore i don't really understand why you wish to make it appear as if i was advocating a moderated board.
There's a point about this that I tried to bring up
before though. If one of the staff is pranked, by
having their profile changed, they can change it
back. Up to, and including, the custom tag (why
is this only accessible from the admin panel?). Worse,
they can reverse someone else's prank, done in their
own profile. Something the rest of us certainly cannot
do. So, pranks don't fall upon everyone equally, even if
they are equally skinned.
You were not a member here then, but RobertN, egged on by Omega and Ascan, threatened to sue Duncvis and PI personally because he was upset by a picture that someone posted of him here anonymously, I believe. The person who posted the picture took it down quickly, of his own accord, but RobertN found other things to be upset about, if I remember correctly. He dragged every grievance he had ever had with Duncvis, Purposeful Insanity, or Intensity into it and he said that he wanted to shut Intensity down and make them homeless and have their children taken away from them. A lot of people, including me, were highly outraged by his behavior. Some people might see the "Happy Birthday, RobertN" thread as me bullying him, but I saw it as an effort to make him see the truth about his "sweetie" and her boyfriend, when RobertN thought that he was her boyfriend. She had been stringing him along and manipulating him for quite some time. She begged the people who knew about her duplicitous behavior to keep it a secret so she could tell RobertN the truth herself, but it dragged on for many months. Somehow she never quite got around to doing it until after I started the birthday thread.
-
Some people might see the "Happy Birthday, RobertN" thread as me bullying him, but I saw it as an effort to make him see the truth about his "sweetie" and her boyfriend, when RobertN thought that he was her boyfriend.
A perfect example of subjectivity. But, I meant lesser issues.
For example, someone might be so upset by a prank, that they
might step over some line. But see what they did as less offensive.
I'm sure that QM thinks my insinuating that he was homophobic
is far worse than the pure vitriol he was spewing - if only because
I know not to show what hurts. Likewise, in the case of a recent
prank against you, the fact that you were able to immediately reverse
it COULD have been seen as just cause for making you incapable of
logging in. We all have our different levels, and thoughts about what
is fair play - and these change due to immediate happenings.
-
There's a point about this that I tried to bring up
before though. If one of the staff is pranked, by
having their profile changed, they can change it
back. Up to, and including, the custom tag (why
is this only accessible from the admin panel?). Worse,
they can reverse someone else's prank, done in their
own profile. Something the rest of us certainly cannot
do. So, pranks don't fall upon everyone equally, even if
they are equally skinned.
That is an excellent point, Calandale. Administrators don't really have to keep the pranks that are imposed on them by members, so even if the member asks that the administrator be pranked back or something, he or she could just reverse it and prank the person who asked for the prank even worse, so it doesn't really affect them in the same way, so I think that may be why they can't understand it.
It's still annoying to me to have my profile changed over and over, against my wishes, and I was quite upset to have my password and profile changed. I was also very upset to have been de-adminned. I'm sure that some people might see all this as a "harmless prank" but I didn't see it that way at all. I'm equally certain that some members don't consider repeated changes to their profiles as "harmless pranks" either, and I think that their wishes concerning their own profiles should be respected, once these wishes are made clear. After all, administrators are here to serve the community and people who don't want their profiles altered are part of this community.
Some people might see the "Happy Birthday, RobertN" thread as me bullying him, but I saw it as an effort to make him see the truth about his "sweetie" and her boyfriend, when RobertN thought that he was her boyfriend.
A perfect example of subjectivity. But, I meant lesser issues.
For example, someone might be so upset by a prank, that they
might step over some line. But see what they did as less offensive.
I'm sure that QM thinks my insinuating that he was homophobic
is far worse than the pure vitriol he was spewing - if only because
I know not to show what hurts. Likewise, in the case of a recent
prank against you, the fact that you were able to immediately reverse
it COULD have been seen as just cause for making you incapable of
logging in. We all have our different levels, and thoughts about what
is fair play - and these change due to immediate happenings.
I see what you are saying, but why should the administrators who did these things to me think that their "right" to "prank" me superseded my "right" to be left alone? After all, it was my profile, not theirs.
-
there's no way to clearly draw that line, PI, not if we want to remain unmoderated. the one way i know of is that those of us who would prefer not to be pranked have their wishes respected. it has to be a voluntary thing, and it has to be about respecting that member's wishes.
so maybe we should all learn how to respect and listen to other people better. that hasn't been my strong point, i know, but maybe it's not too late to change?
I think that this argument has a lot more validity than the highly emotive bullying one because although it still brings up some issues- for instance, is it wise to give those more sensitive people a false sense of security since it can't be enforced? (which possibly doesn't stop at the pranks, its possible that the fact we allow those people to put their name down on such a list also lends a false sense of security as far as how they're going to be treated in other areas)- but the bullying argument opens up a jumbo can of worms and sets of double standards that are going to be impossible to work through (some of which have already been pointed out).
-
Which is why I'm coming around to wondering if
the only fair solution is to FORBID changing a
member's profile, without their consent. This
would keep admins from abusing their power
to avoid pranks BY the membership, as well as
keep any such actions from happening. I enjoy
the pranks at times - and don't feel that they're
that terrible a thing, but I am bothered by the
unequal positions which admins have, in this matter.
EDIT: this was in response to Callaway's post.
-
there's no way to clearly draw that line, PI, not if we want to remain unmoderated. the one way i know of is that those of us who would prefer not to be pranked have their wishes respected. it has to be a voluntary thing, and it has to be about respecting that member's wishes.
so maybe we should all learn how to respect and listen to other people better. that hasn't been my strong point, i know, but maybe it's not too late to change?
I think that this argument has a lot more validity than the highly emotive bullying one because although it still brings up some issues- for instance, is it wise to give those more sensitive people a false sense of security since it can't be enforced? (which possibly doesn't stop at the pranks, its possible that the fact we allow those people to put their name down on such a list also lends a false sense of security as far as how they're going to be treated in other areas)- but the bullying argument opens up a jumbo can of worms and sets of double standards that are going to be impossible to work through (some of which have already been pointed out).
agreed, and i don't have a solution. i don't want a moderated board, but i don't want people targeted because they put their names on a list, either.
maybe the rookie board actually did serve a purpose, after all? i'm thinking that it was a way to ease new members into the rest of the board, even if most people never used it. the fact that it was the only "safe" place here, albeit during a 30-day period, and that this was clearly pointed out, was perhaps more useful than i thought.
-
Which is why I'm coming around to wondering if
the only fair solution is to FORBID changing a
member's profile, without their consent. This
would keep admins from abusing their power
to avoid pranks BY the membership, as well as
keep any such actions from happening. I enjoy
the pranks at times - and don't feel that they're
that terrible a thing, but I am bothered by the
unequal positions which admins have, in this matter.
EDIT: this was in response to Callaway's post.
this is an excellent point.
-
there's no way to clearly draw that line, PI, not if we want to remain unmoderated. the one way i know of is that those of us who would prefer not to be pranked have their wishes respected. it has to be a voluntary thing, and it has to be about respecting that member's wishes.
so maybe we should all learn how to respect and listen to other people better. that hasn't been my strong point, i know, but maybe it's not too late to change?
I think that this argument has a lot more validity than the highly emotive bullying one because although it still brings up some issues- for instance, is it wise to give those more sensitive people a false sense of security since it can't be enforced? (which possibly doesn't stop at the pranks, its possible that the fact we allow those people to put their name down on such a list also lends a false sense of security as far as how they're going to be treated in other areas)- but the bullying argument opens up a jumbo can of worms and sets of double standards that are going to be impossible to work through (some of which have already been pointed out).
agreed, and i don't have a solution. i don't want a moderated board, but i don't want people targeted because they put their names on a list, either.
maybe the rookie board actually did serve a purpose, after all? i'm thinking that it was a way to ease new members into the rest of the board, even if most people never used it. the fact that it was the only "safe" place here, albeit during a 30-day period, and that this was clearly pointed out, was perhaps more useful than i thought.
Pranks apply across all boards though. So the rookie board isnt going to help in that respect, though it may help weaker members. We need to ask ourselves if we want these weaker members.
-
Most new members seem to come in,
guns blazing. Our reputation precedes
us.
-
The rookie refuge was a flop cos hardly anyone posted in there-there wasn't much a sensitive noob could respond to so they always ventured out straight away. Besides there's also the issue of how we could force other members to go easy on the ones that did restrict their posting to that one board without moderation or rules. Also to be considered is that all of the people objecting to the pranks, in other words the more sensitive members the rookie refuge would 'protect' have been here a lot longer than 30 days.
If the sensitive noobs managed to restrict their posts to such a forum; and if the members all respected their right to ask us not to take the piss or be mean for the whole of that 30 days refuge period, can you imagine the shock they'd get when those 30 days were up. :laugh: If we were an evil board that would be a really cunning plan- lull them into a false sense of security with 30 days of everyone being nice to them, then bamm! hit them when they least expect with full Intensity force. >:D
-
I was actually worried that I couldn't LEAVE the newbie area. :laugh:
I came in to defend against scrap's accusations.
-
what i meant about the rookie board was not as much that the n00bs would be untouchable there--because that was the unspoken agreement, wasn't it?--but the very fact that it existed, that there was a need for one.
and i agree that it didn't work the way it was intended.
-
I was actually worried that I couldn't LEAVE the newbie area. :laugh:
I came in to defend against scrap's accusations.
Of what??
-
I was actually worried that I couldn't LEAVE the newbie area. :laugh:
I came in to defend against scrap's accusations.
Of what??
When you first got banned, and thought it was Flagg.
I don't even much remember, but I figured that I had
to answer some of that shit, before I'd be accepted here.
-
Most new members seem to come in,
guns blazing. Our reputation precedes
us.
Also, their custom titles are set as:
Newbie - 0 to 9 posts
Rookie (be kind to me)- 10 to 24 posts
Fresh Meat- 25 to 49 posts.
After that, they become part of the chaos!
-
Well, I guess I'd better put my name here on the list. Not that I think it will do any good. Especially since it may interfere with someones god given right to amuse themselves at others expense. ::) :finger:
-
Robert N should be self actualizing like me, then he could take hits like a man. I don't matter if you get shot down by a woman, as long as you know you tried your best. Keep continuing to work on your game, and see if you can improve further. Opt out pranks? babies, that is who ops em out. Learning how to cope adapt teaches you to fish for a life time.
-
I laugh at My new avatar :rofl:
-
I laugh at My new avatar :rofl:
So do you want to keep it, Kevv?
If not, I have your old avatar saved on my computer and I can change it back for you.
-
I laugh at My new avatar :rofl:
So do you want to keep it, Kevv?
If not, I have your old avatar saved on my computer and I can change it back for you.
We will keep it for awhile. Even kinda looks like Me.
-
Opt out pranks? babies, that is who ops em out. Learning how to cope adapt teaches you to fish for a life time.
:agreed:
-
I laugh at My new avatar :rofl:
So do you want to keep it, Kevv?
If not, I have your old avatar saved on my computer and I can change it back for you.
We will keep it for awhile. Even kinda looks like Me.
Charles was a hell of a good general too.
Scapegoat for a loss in an absolutely brilliant
campaign along the Danube.
-
Its more than toughness, its about knowledge. You know how to deal, your tougher. I carried 100 cans in a ripped bag on my bike to the recycle center for $10. I wasn't mine, but the neighbor was in jail, and is evicted. That was partly knowing how to cope. My shoulder hurt after. I do enough exercise for christ sakes. I can't remember the last time I did one session a day. Sometimes both are extra long. Part of what would make me give up is the power of suggestion, so I imagine myself full of energy that makes me stronger. I have more energy to do the job. I have had a flat tire from walmart, and had to drag/carry my bike 6-12 miles home, because I had no minutes on my phone. Staying in shape protects me.
:STFU:
-
do what you want with me.
-
slut.
-
slut.
C'mon, you can do better than that, he's a dirty filthy slut, and he loves it.
-
feel free to continue in that vein. I feel funny making him hard, myself. :evillaugh:
-
feel free to continue in that vein. I feel funny making him hard, myself. :evillaugh:
Yeah, just the word slut gives him a twitch in his nether regions.
-
slut.
C'mon, you can do better than that, he's a dirty filthy slut, and he loves it.
i am your bitch.
-
slut.
C'mon, you can do better than that, he's a dirty filthy slut, and he loves it.
i am your bitch.
Well be prepared to be bent over very soon then.
-
slut.
C'mon, you can do better than that, he's a dirty filthy slut, and he loves it.
i am your bitch.
oh la la.
Well be prepared to be bent over very soon then.
-
slut.
C'mon, you can do better than that, he's a dirty filthy slut, and he loves it.
i am your bitch.
Well be prepared to be bent over very soon....you'll be gagging for it, bitch.
-
slut.
C'mon, you can do better than that, he's a dirty filthy slut, and he loves it.
i am your bitch.
Well be prepared to be bent over very soon....you'll be gagging for it, bitch.
i am already salivating for it, whore.
-
slut.
C'mon, you can do better than that, he's a dirty filthy slut, and he loves it.
i am your bitch.
Well be prepared to be bent over very soon....you'll be gagging for it, bitch.
i am already salivating for it, whore.
Whore? For that, you won't be able to speak OR walk straight by the time I've finished with you.
Your eyes will be watering. And yes, you will be McJello.
-
you are so easily challenged.
-
you are so easily challenged.
Challenged?
-
you are so easily challenged.
Methinks she would twist you like a pretzel and have you screaming, "THANK YOU MA'AM, CAN I HAVE ANOTHER??!!!" :evillaugh:
-
Mmm pretzels
-
I like the big thick ones, freshly baked and hot out of the Oven!! :green:
-
you are so easily challenged.
Methinks she would twist you like a pretzel and have you screaming, "THANK YOU MA'AM, CAN I HAVE ANOTHER??!!!" :evillaugh:
He'd have to add "Ooooh Pleeease............ Pleeease" at the end before I'd even consider it.
-
you are so easily challenged.
Methinks she would twist you like a pretzel and have you screaming, "THANK YOU MA'AM, CAN I HAVE ANOTHER??!!!" :evillaugh:
He'd have to add "Ooooh Pleeease............ Pleeease" at the end before I'd even consider it.
Damn I already :plus: you. I owe you one! You do understand the mind of Mcj, :evillaugh:
-
you are so easily challenged.
Methinks she would twist you like a pretzel and have you screaming, "THANK YOU MA'AM, CAN I HAVE ANOTHER??!!!" :evillaugh:
He'd have to add "Ooooh Pleeease............ Pleeease" at the end before I'd even consider it.
Damn I already :plus: you. I owe you one! You do understand the mind of Mcj, :evillaugh:
Rather, I know where his mind is located is more the point.
-
Possibly, but his mind location is a slippery thing! :P
-
I like the big thick ones, freshly baked and hot out of the Oven!! :green:
With mustard.