INTENSITY²
Start here => What is Intensity²? => How To... => Topic started by: Callaway on October 30, 2007, 07:02:56 AM
-
Since different people have different preferences concerning pranking, I think we need to know whether people want to be pranked or not.
One of the pranks that was played on me was when Peaguy exchanged profiles with me including our email addresses and he changed my password, so I couldn't do my job here.
Another prank played on me was when Hadron adminned Scrapheap and one of them de-adminned me, which again kept me from doing my job.
So I don't think that pranks are all that funny anymore, but I understand and I'm willing to accept that other people see it differently.
If you think that pranks are harmless fun that gives a laugh to the community, and you don't mind being pranked, please sign up to be pranked here.
(I'm not signing up here, since I prefer not to be pranked.)
-
I would like to sign the list, though I suspect it might have the annoying side effect of being pranked less...
-
:yawn:
Why do you think I'm taking a break if making pranks 24/7 is fun and exciting?
I'll be absent from next week, so don't worry your pretty, little heads now over future pranks. ;)
-
To be honest I don't think this list goes anywhere close to addressing the concerns that the anti-prank list raises.
-
.
One of the pranks that was played on me was when Peaguy exchanged profiles with me including our email addresses and he changed my password, so I couldn't do my job here.
Another prank played on me was when Hadron adminned Scrapheap and one of them de-adminned me, which again kept me from doing my job.
Some of these may have gone too far. Wouldn't it be better
to set some general rules as to what pranks are NOT acceptable?
-
.
One of the pranks that was played on me was when Peaguy exchanged profiles with me including our email addresses and he changed my password, so I couldn't do my job here.
Another prank played on me was when Hadron adminned Scrapheap and one of them de-adminned me, which again kept me from doing my job.
Some of these may have gone too far. Wouldn't it be better
to set some general rules as to what pranks are NOT acceptable?
One thing that should be unacceptable is blocking someone from accessing the site.
-
.
One of the pranks that was played on me was when Peaguy exchanged profiles with me including our email addresses and he changed my password, so I couldn't do my job here.
Another prank played on me was when Hadron adminned Scrapheap and one of them de-adminned me, which again kept me from doing my job.
Some of these may have gone too far. Wouldn't it be better
to set some general rules as to what pranks are NOT acceptable?
One thing that should be unacceptable is blocking someone from accessing the site.
I think it was a brilliant prank. Asides the blocking was a side effect, not the prank itself.
-
One thing that should be unacceptable is blocking someone from accessing the site.
I agree - and this is exactly HOW the points should be phrased.
Open enough that the effects are important - not the actions.
-
BTW- you can spank ... I mean prank me if you so desire.
-
I don't care if people prank me, but if they just want to be a racist prick, then I'm going off on them period.
-
I'll tell people off,
even if they don't prank
me.
-
I don't care if people prank me, but if they just want to be a racist prick, then I'm going off on them period.
Piss off. You're only targeting me because it's far easier to do than having a go at the KKK.
-
I hate the KKK, they took my baby away, away from me. :'(
-
I hate the KKK, they took my baby away, away from me. :'(
That's 'cause Dunc has black blood in his big, fat body. >:D
-
I hate the KKK, they took my baby away, away from me. :'(
That's 'cause Dunc has black blood in his big, fat body. >:D
Why yes, yes he does :eyebrows:
-
I hate the KKK, they took my baby away, away from me. :'(
That's 'cause Dunc has black blood in his big, fat body. >:D
Why yes, yes he does :eyebrows:
Heathen!
-
Peaguy,
If you had a problem with the "Don't Prank Me List" why did you not take it up with Duncvis when he suggested it in the ground rules thread in the admin forum? I waited a few days before I started this thread, to see whether there were any objections.
Duncvis said that such a thread would be started and that we as administrators would respect their wishes.
Since you have such great respect for Dunc and Mel, I would have assumed that you would have no problem with it.
Lisa
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=M66K2R7BZ14
:finger:
-
Peaguy,
If you had a problem with the "Don't Prank Me List" why did you not take it up with Duncvis when he suggested it in the ground rules thread in the admin forum? I waited a few days before I started this thread, to see whether there were any objections.
Duncvis said that such a thread would be started and that we as administrators would respect their wishes.
Since you have such great respect for Dunc and Mel, I would have assumed that you would have no problem with it.
Lisa
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=M66K2R7BZ14
:finger:
:LMAO:
-
Queen of Darkness. :laugh: :plus:
-
I just made a sexy dance video for Callaway... :-[
-
I just made a sexy dance video for Callaway... :-[
Do we not get to see that one then? Not even in a private showing? ;)
-
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=nvd9tH7MMdQ
No sound, though.
-
Shake dat booty. :laugh:
-
To be honest I don't think this list goes anywhere close to addressing the concerns that the anti-prank list raises.
How do you think that we can address them better?
-
Peaguy,
If you had a problem with the "Don't Prank Me List" why did you not take it up with Duncvis when he suggested it in the ground rules thread in the admin forum? I waited a few days before I started this thread, to see whether there were any objections.
Duncvis said that such a thread would be started and that we as administrators would respect their wishes.
Since you have such great respect for Dunc and Mel, I would have assumed that you would have no problem with it.
Lisa
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=M66K2R7BZ14
:finger:
Peaguy, thanks for making the Youtube where you talk to me about what you are feeling.
I started to post what I PMed you in the "Don't Prank Me List" thread, but then I thought that might not be appropriate to talk in that thread about what Duncvis said in the the Ground Rules topic that he started in the Admin forum, so I decided to put it in a PM to you instead. I wasn't trying to be condescending to you.
You apparently think that The "Don't Prank Me List" was my idea, but it was actually Dunc's.
I know that you saw his post because you responded to other points he raised in that post in the thread, but you did not object to such a list being made or to us as administrators respecting the wishes of members who don't want to be pranked.
I waited for a few days to start the "Don't Prank Me List" after he made that post.
I think that there is a difference between a member pranking someone by copying them or whatever and an administrator abusing his or her position to prank people who have already made it clear that they don't want to be pranked. This is my opinion.
Your opinion is that if someone does not like being pranked by you or another administrator, then they should just leave Intensity. I disagree with this opinion. You don't know how many people want to leave, you only know about the one who posted about it. Maybe the others don't want to make themselves targets (or even more so targets than they already are) while they decide what to do.
I don't believe that I state my opinions as facts. I believe that almost every opinion that I express has "I believe" or "I think" or "IMO" or something like that in it.
And I am not trying to turn Intensity into my "personal playground" or a support site. I'm not trying to turn Intensity into anything at all. I think that Intensity should be allowed to be itself, whatever that is. I think that we are a community, and I don't think that we should be driving people away from this community.
-
What Intensity IS drives people away.
Whether the pranks are part of what we
are, is something that we have to consider.
But, what drives some away, makes others
happier here. I'm not convinced that admin's
using their powers for playing pranks is too
much of a draw for other people, though it
does liven up our lives.
-
Peaguy,
If you had a problem with the "Don't Prank Me List" why did you not take it up with Duncvis when he suggested it in the ground rules thread in the admin forum? I waited a few days before I started this thread, to see whether there were any objections.
Duncvis said that such a thread would be started and that we as administrators would respect their wishes.
Since you have such great respect for Dunc and Mel, I would have assumed that you would have no problem with it.
Lisa
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=M66K2R7BZ14
:finger:
Peaguy, thanks for making the Youtube where you talk to me about what you are feeling.
I started to post what I PMed you in the "Don't Prank Me List" thread, but then I thought that might not be appropriate to talk in that thread about what Duncvis said in the the Ground Rules topic that he started in the Admin forum, so I decided to put it in a PM to you instead. I wasn't trying to be condescending to you.
You apparently think that The "Don't Prank Me List" was my idea, but it was actually Dunc's.
I know that you saw his post because you responded to other points he raised in that post in the thread, but you did not object to such a list being made or to us as administrators respecting the wishes of members who don't want to be pranked.
I waited for a few days to start the "Don't Prank Me List" after he made that post.
I think that there is a difference between a member pranking someone by copying them or whatever and an administrator abusing his or her position to prank people who have already made it clear that they don't want to be pranked. This is my opinion.
Your opinion is that if someone does not like being pranked by you or another administrator, then they should just leave Intensity. I disagree with this opinion. You don't know how many people want to leave, you only know about the one who posted about it. Maybe the others don't want to make themselves targets (or even more so targets than they already are) while they decide what to do.
I don't believe that I state my opinions as facts. I believe that almost every opinion that I express has "I believe" or "I think" or "IMO" or something like that in it.
And I am not trying to turn Intensity into my "personal playground" or a support site. I'm not trying to turn Intensity into anything at all. I think that Intensity should be allowed to be itself, whatever that is. I think that we are a community, and I don't think that we should be driving people away from this community.
Callaway. This site is not a church, step down from the pulpit. And enjoy P's dance.
-
Callaway. This site is not a church, step down from the pulpit. And enjoy P's dance.
QFT :agreed:
-
To be honest I don't think this list goes anywhere close to addressing the concerns that the anti-prank list raises.
How do you think that we can address them better?
I really don't know. How can we enforce the anti-prank list without bringing in rules? Its possible that good faith alone will be enough most of the time, but what do we do about the times when it isn't? Should we even be considering such a list without a vote to see how many people really dislike the pranks?
-
What Intensity IS drives people away.
Whether the pranks are part of what we
are, is something that we have to consider.
But, what drives some away, makes others
happier here. I'm not convinced that admin's
using their powers for playing pranks is too
much of a draw for other people, though it
does liven up our lives.
I don't think anyone ever envisioned that Intensity was going to appeal to everyone and I bet that some of us even dread the day when it starts to have the appeal of WP. And whilst the pranks no doubt are unlikely to be a draw I'm wondering if trying to ban them is just the first concession we're going to be making to those that would be better off sticking to more supportive sites. Some of us feel almost like this place is a second home, because its somewhere we can make off-colour comments, be tactless, share porn pictures and not have to constantly worry about getting our wrists slap for not playing nice- where the fuck will we go if this place becomes IntensityLite?
-
What Intensity IS drives people away.
Whether the pranks are part of what we
are, is something that we have to consider.
But, what drives some away, makes others
happier here. I'm not convinced that admin's
using their powers for playing pranks is too
much of a draw for other people, though it
does liven up our lives.
I don't think anyone ever envisioned that Intensity was going to appeal to everyone and I bet that some of us even dread the day when it starts to have the appeal of WP. And whilst the pranks no doubt are unlikely to be a draw I'm wondering if trying to ban them is just the first concession we're going to be making to those that would be better off sticking to more supportive sites. Some of us feel almost like this place is a second home, because its somewhere we can make off-colour comments, be tactless, share porn pictures and not have to constantly worry about getting our wrists slap for not playing nice- where the fuck will we go if this place becomes IntensityLite?
Exactly. If this wishy washy watering down carries on, we will end up with Intensity Cubed...
-
CallawaySquared, more like.
-
What Intensity IS drives people away.
Whether the pranks are part of what we
are, is something that we have to consider.
But, what drives some away, makes others
happier here. I'm not convinced that admin's
using their powers for playing pranks is too
much of a draw for other people, though it
does liven up our lives.
I don't think anyone ever envisioned that Intensity was going to appeal to everyone and I bet that some of us even dread the day when it starts to have the appeal of WP. And whilst the pranks no doubt are unlikely to be a draw I'm wondering if trying to ban them is just the first concession we're going to be making to those that would be better off sticking to more supportive sites. Some of us feel almost like this place is a second home, because its somewhere we can make off-colour comments, be tactless, share porn pictures and not have to constantly worry about getting our wrists slap for not playing nice- where the fuck will we go if this place becomes IntensityLite?
Good point, but I don't think that having a "don't prank me" list and asking the admins to respect the rights of these members not to be pranked is the same as banning pranks.
-
What Intensity IS drives people away.
Whether the pranks are part of what we
are, is something that we have to consider.
But, what drives some away, makes others
happier here. I'm not convinced that admin's
using their powers for playing pranks is too
much of a draw for other people, though it
does liven up our lives.
I don't think anyone ever envisioned that Intensity was going to appeal to everyone and I bet that some of us even dread the day when it starts to have the appeal of WP. And whilst the pranks no doubt are unlikely to be a draw I'm wondering if trying to ban them is just the first concession we're going to be making to those that would be better off sticking to more supportive sites. Some of us feel almost like this place is a second home, because its somewhere we can make off-colour comments, be tactless, share porn pictures and not have to constantly worry about getting our wrists slap for not playing nice- where the fuck will we go if this place becomes IntensityLite?
Good point, but I don't think that having a "don't prank me" list and asking the admins to respect the rights of these members not to be pranked is the same as banning pranks.
Its another step down a slippery slope. A slippery slope you seem hell bent on sending this site down. Stop oiling it, before someone sets it on fire.
-
Good point, but I don't think that having a "don't prank me" list and asking the admins to respect the rights of these members not to be pranked is the same as banning pranks.
That all depends on whether those admins who decide that they don't want to pay any attention to the prank list will have sanctions taken against them.
-
i really think we're headed in the WP direction if we start making rules to protect the sensitive ones. it's a scary thought. there's no place like Intensity that i know of out there but there's at least a big fuckin handful of aspie sites for those sensitive souls that i'm aware of. so what are we who want Intensity to remain the way it is supposed to do? where are *we* supposed to go if this place gets turned into what all the other sites are like? it's unfair because this is a rare place. it should be put on the endangered species protection list.
people can always ask nicely if something bothers them. the real problems forum has worked fairly well that way, people have the right to be mean but they can choose to respect the forum and be nicer. i see the pranks and things are same, people can ask nicely to not be pranked, they might get pranked but that's Intensity. why the hell come here if you don't respect the site's right to be the way it is?
-
:plus: I agree it is a scary thought.
-
i just got pranked. :laugh:
-
now all the ADDs will think i'm Scrapheap. :LMAO:
-
Pea probably changed your av Milla haha. He didn't go through much trouble it seems with just the avatar change.
-
Good point, but I don't think that having a "don't prank me" list and asking the admins to respect the rights of these members not to be pranked is the same as banning pranks.
That all depends on whether those admins who decide that they don't want to pay any attention to the prank list will have sanctions taken against them.
Callaway will certainly try to bully them out.
-
Pea probably changed your av Milla haha. He didn't go through much trouble it seems with just the avatar change.
True; I'm half-asleep over this Prank List bollocks.
-
Good point, but I don't think that having a "don't prank me" list and asking the admins to respect the rights of these members not to be pranked is the same as banning pranks.
That all depends on whether those admins who decide that they don't want to pay any attention to the prank list will have sanctions taken against them.
Callaway will certainly try to bully them out.
And lets not forget about the karma police. ::)
-
there, a name to suit the face. :P
-
Good point, but I don't think that having a "don't prank me" list and asking the admins to respect the rights of these members not to be pranked is the same as banning pranks.
That all depends on whether those admins who decide that they don't want to pay any attention to the prank list will have sanctions taken against them.
Callaway will certainly try to bully them out.
And lets not forget about the karma police. ::)
They are little better, though they can do nothing to admins. Callaway is worse, however.
-
Callaway is a bane to freedom of speech.
-
The ONE issue to consider is whether using one's
admin powers is indeed a matter of free speech at
all. This is where I'm torn. I see Callaway's point, because
unlike all other forms of expression, this one simply
can't be answered in kind.
-
:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
assfairy army!
-
I got an ass fairy pic.
http://tenser.typepad.com/tenser_said_the_tensor/2005/03/fairy_shrimp_my.html
-
assfairies are cute. :laugh: look like face huggers.
who is King Oberon's first prime?
-
2 is the first prime number, so it must be me.
-
The ONE issue to consider is whether using one's
admin powers is indeed a matter of free speech at
all. This is where I'm torn. I see Callaway's point, because
unlike all other forms of expression, this one simply
can't be answered in kind.
imo, the pranks are not about free speech, anyway,
-
That's the question that I'm asking, really.
-
The ONE issue to consider is whether using one's
admin powers is indeed a matter of free speech at
all. This is where I'm torn. I see Callaway's point, because
unlike all other forms of expression, this one simply
can't be answered in kind.
imo, the pranks are not about free speech, anyway,
Well they can suggest pranks for the admin in question to take.
-
2 is the first prime number, so it must be me.
i'll jomo'sequ you for it!
-
2 is the first prime number, so it must be me.
i'll jomo'sequ you for it!
Do I need lucifer to translate that?
-
a battle to the death. winner gets to be first prime.
-
I AM the first prime.
Deal with it. You're not
prime at all.
-
no way. i demand a battle! *slap with glove*
-
The ONE issue to consider is whether using one's
admin powers is indeed a matter of free speech at
all. This is where I'm torn. I see Callaway's point, because
unlike all other forms of expression, this one simply
can't be answered in kind.
imo, the pranks are not about free speech, anyway,
Well they can suggest pranks for the admin in question to take.
That was how it was dealt with in the early days of Intensity. Anyone who was pranked by an admin could prank the admins back.
-
no way. i demand a battle! *slap with glove*
Whip me, beat me, make me your butt shrimp.
-
The ONE issue to consider is whether using one's
admin powers is indeed a matter of free speech at
all. This is where I'm torn. I see Callaway's point, because
unlike all other forms of expression, this one simply
can't be answered in kind.
imo, the pranks are not about free speech, anyway,
Well they can suggest pranks for the admin in question to take.
That was how it was dealt with in the early days of Intensity. Anyone who was pranked by an admin could prank the admins back.
Admin for a day would be nice to have back, or something equally as exciting. This site has lost some of the fun aspects of old.
-
whipped cream,
butt cream,
sausage cream
-
Ya gonna lick up that cream?
-
Frac it!
(http://i1.tinypic.com/6frvbro.jpg)
It has taken me ten minutes and I can't eve upload this image. I am fucking pissed at my Internet Service Preventer!! We are haveing bandwidth issues again, apparenttly!
I used to be able to at least minimally function online, but lately I have had problems even downloading I squared pages.
The mother fuckers are still taking the same amount of money!!!
-
The ONE issue to consider is whether using one's
admin powers is indeed a matter of free speech at
all. This is where I'm torn. I see Callaway's point, because
unlike all other forms of expression, this one simply
can't be answered in kind.
imo, the pranks are not about free speech, anyway,
Well they can suggest pranks for the admin in question to take.
That was how it was dealt with in the early days of Intensity. Anyone who was pranked by an admin could prank the admins back.
Admin for a day would be nice to have back, or something equally as exciting. This site has lost some of the fun aspects of old.
you weren't there.
i don't think pranks are the way to keep this place alive. they aren't making free speech happen, they rather intimidate some, they effectively make some people keep quiet so they won't be pranked.
as for the admin for one day thing, no thanks. this place has grown too much so it wouldn't be safe.
-
Ya gonna lick up that cream?
which one?
-
The ONE issue to consider is whether using one's
admin powers is indeed a matter of free speech at
all. This is where I'm torn. I see Callaway's point, because
unlike all other forms of expression, this one simply
can't be answered in kind.
imo, the pranks are not about free speech, anyway,
Well they can suggest pranks for the admin in question to take.
That was how it was dealt with in the early days of Intensity. Anyone who was pranked by an admin could prank the admins back.
Admin for a day would be nice to have back, or something equally as exciting. This site has lost some of the fun aspects of old.
you weren't there.
i don't think pranks are the way to keep this place alive. they aren't making free speech happen, they rather intimidate some, they effectively make some people keep quiet so they won't be pranked.
as for the admin for one day thing, no thanks. this place has grown too much so it wouldn't be safe.
Even when we had it the last time, it wasn't really safe. Remember Shima taking over the site and Omega and Eamonn retaking it and them IP banning Duncvis, Purposeful Insanity and McJagger? We lost a lot of posts and it created a lot of drama.
I don't get these people who just seem to think that you and Duncvis can just automatically fix everything if we crash, so they think that security for Intensity is unimportant.
-
i can live without that kind of drama and i'm sure Dunc can, too.
-
The ONE issue to consider is whether using one's
admin powers is indeed a matter of free speech at
all. This is where I'm torn. I see Callaway's point, because
unlike all other forms of expression, this one simply
can't be answered in kind.
imo, the pranks are not about free speech, anyway,
Well they can suggest pranks for the admin in question to take.
That was how it was dealt with in the early days of Intensity. Anyone who was pranked by an admin could prank the admins back.
Admin for a day would be nice to have back, or something equally as exciting. This site has lost some of the fun aspects of old.
you weren't there.
i don't think pranks are the way to keep this place alive. they aren't making free speech happen, they rather intimidate some, they effectively make some people keep quiet so they won't be pranked.
as for the admin for one day thing, no thanks. this place has grown too much so it wouldn't be safe.
Well maybe not direct access to the panel. But a rotating nominate a prank would be fun.
-
you weren't there.
i don't think pranks are the way to keep this place alive. they aren't making free speech happen, they rather intimidate some, they effectively make some people keep quiet so they won't be pranked.
as for the admin for one day thing, no thanks. this place has grown too much so it wouldn't be safe.
I agree that admin for the day was a bad idea.
As for the intimation thing where do you draw the line? The main event concept, the karma system, the fact the there is no play nice rules here (yet) and the fact that if you offer a dissenting opinion you're likely to get either shouted down by group of people or just have your views written off as being bull shit cos you're billy no mates could all be seen as a lot more intimidating then the pranks. But this is still Intensity last time I checked.
-
The ONE issue to consider is whether using one's
admin powers is indeed a matter of free speech at
all. This is where I'm torn. I see Callaway's point, because
unlike all other forms of expression, this one simply
can't be answered in kind.
imo, the pranks are not about free speech, anyway,
Well they can suggest pranks for the admin in question to take.
That was how it was dealt with in the early days of Intensity. Anyone who was pranked by an admin could prank the admins back.
Admin for a day would be nice to have back, or something equally as exciting. This site has lost some of the fun aspects of old.
you weren't there.
i don't think pranks are the way to keep this place alive. they aren't making free speech happen, they rather intimidate some, they effectively make some people keep quiet so they won't be pranked.
as for the admin for one day thing, no thanks. this place has grown too much so it wouldn't be safe.
Well maybe not direct access to the panel. But a rotating nominate a prank would be fun.
I think that really would be a fun idea for a thread, assuming that the admins aren't pranking people who have already asked not to be pranked and the member can change their stuff back if they don't want it.
-
Frac it!
(http://i1.tinypic.com/6frvbro.jpg)
It has taken me ten minutes and I can't eve upload this image. I am fucking pissed at my Internet Service Preventer!! We are haveing bandwidth issues again, apparenttly!
I used to be able to at least minimally function online, but lately I have had problems even downloading I squared pages.
The mother fuckers are still taking the same amount of money!!!
That's a pretty ass fairy though. :plus:
-
you weren't there.
i don't think pranks are the way to keep this place alive. they aren't making free speech happen, they rather intimidate some, they effectively make some people keep quiet so they won't be pranked.
as for the admin for one day thing, no thanks. this place has grown too much so it wouldn't be safe.
Well, the ass fairy prank's been funner than hell. :finger:
-
Ya gonna lick up that cream?
which one?
ALL of it.
-
The ONE issue to consider is whether using one's
admin powers is indeed a matter of free speech at
all. This is where I'm torn. I see Callaway's point, because
unlike all other forms of expression, this one simply
can't be answered in kind.
imo, the pranks are not about free speech, anyway,
Well they can suggest pranks for the admin in question to take.
That was how it was dealt with in the early days of Intensity. Anyone who was pranked by an admin could prank the admins back.
Admin for a day would be nice to have back, or something equally as exciting. This site has lost some of the fun aspects of old.
you weren't there.
i don't think pranks are the way to keep this place alive. they aren't making free speech happen, they rather intimidate some, they effectively make some people keep quiet so they won't be pranked.
as for the admin for one day thing, no thanks. this place has grown too much so it wouldn't be safe.
Well maybe not direct access to the panel. But a rotating nominate a prank would be fun.
I think that really would be a fun idea for a thread, assuming that the admins aren't pranking people who have already asked not to be pranked and the member can change their stuff back if they don't want it.
The only problem with such a thread is it would lose the element of surprise. Unless there is a AAM function in the SM software.
-
you weren't there.
i don't think pranks are the way to keep this place alive. they aren't making free speech happen, they rather intimidate some, they effectively make some people keep quiet so they won't be pranked.
as for the admin for one day thing, no thanks. this place has grown too much so it wouldn't be safe.
I agree that admin for the day was a bad idea.
As for the intimation thing where do you draw the line? The main event concept, the karma system, the fact the there is no play nice rules here (yet) and the fact that if you offer a dissenting opinion you're likely to get either shouted down by group of people or just have your views written off as being bull shit cos you're billy no mates could all be seen as a lot more intimidating then the pranks. But this is still Intensity last time I checked.
i don't know where to draw the line either. i'm just saying what i think about the pranks. the ass fairy stuff today had its moments, imo, but i still wouldn't like to have that done to me. but that's just me.
what i'm also trying to say is that free speech doesn't mean that you have to behave like an arse just because you can. it doesn't mean that you should stop respecting your fellow members, including the ones that ask not to be pranked. free speech isn't--or shouldn't be, at least--about bullying or about some group mentality where it's ok to tell the dissenting voice to grow some skin, stop being such a grumpy old man, or whatever, because you belong to a group that's loud enough.
sure, you can choose to see my views as more intimidating than some of the pranks, but if you do, then you really aren't addressing my concerns, you are simply sidestepping the issue.
see how this works, btw--i just made any one of you that asks me to grow some skin into a bully,
-
you weren't there.
i don't think pranks are the way to keep this place alive. they aren't making free speech happen, they rather intimidate some, they effectively make some people keep quiet so they won't be pranked.
as for the admin for one day thing, no thanks. this place has grown too much so it wouldn't be safe.
Well, the ass fairy prank's been funner than hell. :finger:
i didn't say what i thought of them so you might as well save your middle finger for something more productive than that, whoever you are.
-
you weren't there.
i don't think pranks are the way to keep this place alive. they aren't making free speech happen, they rather intimidate some, they effectively make some people keep quiet so they won't be pranked.
as for the admin for one day thing, no thanks. this place has grown too much so it wouldn't be safe.
Well, the ass fairy prank's been funner than hell. :finger:
i didn't say what i thought of them so you might as well save your middle finger for something more productive than that, whoever you are.
Its Calandale. His middle finger has just finshed with colonic irrigation. I hope he didnt wipe it on you... :laugh:
-
you weren't there.
i don't think pranks are the way to keep this place alive. they aren't making free speech happen, they rather intimidate some, they effectively make some people keep quiet so they won't be pranked.
as for the admin for one day thing, no thanks. this place has grown too much so it wouldn't be safe.
Well, the ass fairy prank's been funner than hell. :finger:
i didn't say what i thought of them so you might as well save your middle finger for something more productive than that, whoever you are.
I'm an ass fairy, and I'm usin' it on yer ass. :laugh:
-
what i'm also trying to say is that free speech doesn't mean that you have to behave like an arse just because you can. it doesn't mean that you should stop respecting your fellow members, including the ones that ask not to be pranked. free speech isn't--or shouldn't be, at least--about bullying or about some group mentality where it's ok to tell the dissenting voice to grow some skin, stop being such a grumpy old man, or whatever, because you belong to a group that's loud enough.
sure, you can choose to see my views as more intimidating than some of the pranks, but if you do, then you really aren't addressing my concerns, you are simply sidestepping the issue.
see how this works, btw--i just made any one of you that asks me to grow some skin into a bully,
ANY group is going to disintegrate into that kind of mentality though.
Well, unless we were to all do our damnedest not to, which I've seen
little effort from most of us towards. This is really the SAME kind of
respect which one might put into dealing with one another, in terms
of pranks. I doubt that it would hold up, in the heat of an argument,
for most of us.
-
The thing that gets me about your point of view on this Odeon is that you think its all fair free speech when you call someone a little boy or a cunt or write off someone's real views as them just shit stirring, but its a problem to tell someone to stop being such a grumpy old man or to tell them that Intensity isn't the place for sensitive types. Its all fair free speech if someone has the piss taken out of them constantly because of their difficulties in communication (btw- I'm thinking of both Flo and Calandale here), but its wrong to take the piss out of people that don't see the funny side to the pranks. Its hypocritical imo.
The real issue is that Intensity is not, and never has been the place for those who need protecting from any kind of ridicule, and introducing quasi-rules is not really addressing this issue.
Why do you get to be the one that decides when free speech suddenly becomes bullying? In a lot of the discussions that take place in the WC you belong to the group that's the loudest, with the constant no other comment " :plus:'s" that add nothing to the debate but make it clear to anyone that dares to argue with the status quo that you don't like their opinion, and the various takes on the dismissive 'nobby no mates is whining again' comments. That seems just as much, if not more so, an attempt to silence those who disagree than the pranks do. Why is that not bullying then?
-
Because the other side has grown some skin.
-
Why do you get to be the one that decides when free speech suddenly becomes bullying? In a lot of the discussions that take place in the WC you belong to the group that's the loudest, with the constant no other comment " :plus:'s" that add nothing to the debate but make it clear to anyone that dares to argue with the status quo that you don't like their opinion, and the various takes on the dismissive 'nobby no mates is whining again' comments. That seems just as much, if not more so, an attempt to silence those who disagree than the pranks do. Why is that not bullying then?
the short answer is that i don't get to decide when free speech becomes bullying. i'm offering my opinion, just as you are.
the slightly longer answer is that it's not an attempt to silence anyone. how can it be, here of all places? if someone is intimidated or quiet or doesn't know what to say, should i try to be less persuasive in my argumentation? is that what you're saying? there is a hell of a lot of difference between arguing in a thread (including the plussing, the remarks and whatnot), and repeatedly changing the profile of someone who hasn't done anything at all, except asking the prankster to not do it again, don't you think? in my book, the latter is bullying while the former is debating.
oh, and are you placing me in a clique, now, PI?
-
I'm not saying that you're in some clique (although I find it interesting that you would ask me that since you were also using the 'groups' argument), what I am saying is that you are usually in the group that shouts the loudest when it comes to WC discussions and that uses practically every tactic to show just how much you dislike the opinions of those who disagree (and by this I'm not just talking about arguing your own point of view- I'm talking about writing off people's arguments completely because of who they are, I'm talking about those of you that decide they're going to smite someone they disagree with every hour on the hour just to show just how much people dislike their point of view,etc). Silencing the dissenting voice was something you said you considered bullying in your previous post, a point you tried to wedge home with this comment:
see how this works, btw--i just made any one of you that asks me to grow some skin into a bully,
All I did was show that perhaps your behaviour could also be considered bullying or a way of silencing the dissenting voice using the standards you were applying to that of others.
there is a hell of a lot of difference between arguing in a thread (including the plussing, the remarks and whatnot), and repeatedly changing the profile of someone who hasn't done anything at all, except asking the prankster to not do it again, don't you think? in my book, the latter is bullying while the former is debating.
But that wasn't the only thing you were arguing in your previous post was it and you know perfectly well that wasn't the point I was replying to. You said "free speech isn't--or shouldn't be, at least--about bullying or about some group mentality where it's ok to tell the dissenting voice to grow some skin, stop being such a grumpy old man, or whatever, because you belong to a group that's loud enough."
And that's what I was replying to with my examples of your behaviour that could be considered bullying using your own standards because I think that's where the hypocrisy lies- you say its bullying to tell someone to stop being a grumpy old man or to grow some skin if you happen to belong to what some see as the loudest group on this issue (although really which side is the loudest group is debatable), but its simple debate/free speech when you call people names or use the other tactics I mentioned for disagreeing on other issues when you belong to the loudest group. Either both are covered by free speech or we introduce play nice rules that cover all of it, you can't apply it selectively.
My issue with the no prank list has always been that its questionable whether we ought to start introducing rules (whether we come right out and be honest about this or not that's what they are) to protect people from certain kinds of behaviour on a no holds barred place like Intensity. I just think that perhaps people ought to look at how their own behaviour could come across before they go applying standards to what's bullying and what isn't.
-
I'm not saying that you're in some clique (although I find it interesting that you would ask me that since you were also using the 'groups' argument), what I am saying is that you are usually in the group that shouts the loudest when it comes to WC discussions and that uses practically every tactic to show just how much you dislike the opinions of those who disagree (and by this I'm not just talking about arguing your own point of view- I'm talking about writing off people's arguments completely because of who they are, I'm talking about those of you that decide they're going to smite someone they disagree with every hour on the hour just to show just how much people dislike their point of view,etc).
i'm usually too lazy to engage in anything like this. i've done it with scrap when he had already started doing the same to me.
Silencing the dissenting voice was something you said you considered bullying in your previous post, a point you tried to wedge home with this comment:
see how this works, btw--i just made any one of you that asks me to grow some skin into a bully,
this is an argumentation technique, really, and my intention was just to expose it, but yes, i can see your point.
All I did was show that perhaps your behaviour could also be considered bullying or a way of silencing the dissenting voice using the standards you were applying to that of others.
as i point out below, there is a difference between the arguments confined to certain threads, and pranks done to people who didn't want them.
i'll admit freely that i have engaged in tactics that could be seen as bullying, by staying on the case of some members with whom i already have an argument. i'll also admit that i am not perfect, that some of my replies were designed to hurt, but i maintain that i don't pick just anyone, and certainly not a member i haven't engaged in an argument with. see the difference?
there is a hell of a lot of difference between arguing in a thread (including the plussing, the remarks and whatnot), and repeatedly changing the profile of someone who hasn't done anything at all, except asking the prankster to not do it again, don't you think? in my book, the latter is bullying while the former is debating.
But that wasn't the only thing you were arguing in your previous post was it and you know perfectly well that wasn't the point I was replying to. You said "free speech isn't--or shouldn't be, at least--about bullying or about some group mentality where it's ok to tell the dissenting voice to grow some skin, stop being such a grumpy old man, or whatever, because you belong to a group that's loud enough."
And that's what I was replying to with my examples of your behaviour that could be considered bullying using your own standards because I think that's where the hypocrisy lies- you say its bullying to tell someone to stop being a grumpy old man or to grow some skin if you happen to belong to what some see as the loudest group on this issue (although really which side is the loudest group is debatable), but its simple debate/free speech when you call people names or use the other tactics I mentioned for disagreeing on other issues when you belong to the loudest group. Either both are covered by free speech or we introduce play nice rules that cover all of it, you can't apply it selectively.
read again, PI. if you don't see the difference between arguing with people already participating in the argument (and yes, sometimes with not-so-nice comments and tactics), and repeatedly pulling pranks on people who asked to stay out of them (including calling them all kinds of things if the dare protest), there is no point having this discussion at all.
My issue with the no prank list has always been that its questionable whether we ought to start introducing rules (whether we come right out and be honest about this or not that's what they are) to protect people from certain kinds of behaviour on a no holds barred place like Intensity. I just think that perhaps people ought to look at how their own behaviour could come across before they go applying standards to what's bullying and what isn't.
i agree with you in that there's no way we can introduce actual rules. that would be moderation and quickly change this site into something i don't want to be a part of. however, i maintain that there is a difference between what i've done when arguing, and the no-holds-barred pranks i was talking about. i also maintain that if someone repeatedly asks to NOT be the target of more pranks, that should be respected. not because the prankster has to, but because it's the decent thing to do.
(and rather than throwing more vague accusations about my past behaviour, including those plusses designed to bully the opposition into silence, point them out when they occur.)
i'm not perfect, and i'm sure i've been guilty of being unnecessarily cruel, mean, etc, in the past, but does that mean that i am not allowed to comment on the pranks i think are cruel, mean, etc?
-
from several of the comments above, then, are people suggesting that I2 is only for the young, now?
as a card-carrying "grumpy old woman", i take great exception to that sort of shite.
-
Ya gonna lick up that cream?
which one?
ALL of it.
well i am an assfairy. might as well. *slurpslurp*
-
read again, PI. if you don't see the difference between arguing with people already participating in the argument (and yes, sometimes with not-so-nice comments and tactics), and repeatedly pulling pranks on people who asked to stay out of them (including calling them all kinds of things if the dare protest), there is no point having this discussion at all.
I think you're the one that needs to read again Odeon- I never said that there wasn't a difference between the two- both of my last posts on this thread were addressing your claims that its bullying to make comments to people for complaining about the pranks, but that its just 'debating' if you make the same kind of comments to people that disagree with someone on any other issue. Its a blatant double standard and it was the crux of your argument previously.
(and rather than throwing more vague accusations about my past behaviour, including those plusses designed to bully the opposition into silence, point them out when they occur.)
I don't point them out because I know that there are no rules about what is acceptable behaviour (and I disagree that they were vague in anyway I said exactly what I meant)- you were the one that started setting out examples for what you consider to be bullying- I was simply pointing out that if we apply the standards used to come up with those examples to other behaviour, including your own, then there's probably a lot of bullying going on. I'm not saying that I agree there is bullying going on, just pointing out the double standards at work.
i'm not perfect, and i'm sure i've been guilty of being unnecessarily cruel, mean, etc, in the past, but does that mean that i am not allowed to comment on the pranks i think are cruel, mean, etc?
No, it doesn't- but it also doesn't mean that I (or anyone else for that matter) are not allowed to point out that what you consider to be bullying behaviour is something you do yourself.
i agree with you in that there's no way we can introduce actual rules. that would be moderation and quickly change this site into something i don't want to be a part of. however, i maintain that there is a difference between what i've done when arguing, and the no-holds-barred pranks i was talking about. i also maintain that if someone repeatedly asks to NOT be the target of more pranks, that should be respected. not because the prankster has to, but because it's the decent thing to do.
But the fact remains unless we make it a rule that admins cannot prank people there's very little point to having an anti-prank list in the first place.
Because the only way to enforce it is by making those who disagree about the nature of the pranks (and have admin access to carry them out in the first place) feel completely disapproved of by the more vocal members which by its very nature could be considered a form of bullying too.
Is the main issue that the pranks are a form of bullying or is that people don't like having their avatar,etc messed with? Because its quite easy to start using emotive terms like bullying to force an issue home, when really what people object to is just the fact they don't like having their avatar changed (and I'm not saying that isn't a valid opinion/concern).
-
from several of the comments above, then, are people suggesting that I2 is only for the young, now?
as a card-carrying "grumpy old woman", i take great exception to that sort of shite.
Who said it was only for the young or not for grumpy old codgers of either sex? Lets not start playing the age card shite here.
-
But the fact remains unless we make it a rule that admins cannot prank people there's very little point to having an anti-prank list in the first place.
Because the only way to enforce it is by making those who disagree about the nature of the pranks (and have admin access to carry them out in the first place) feel completely disapproved of by the more vocal members which by its very nature could be considered a form of bullying too.
i think respecting an anti-prank list must be a voluntary thing. i don't see what the problem is with respecting the wishes of those members that don't want their nicks or avatars (etc) changed, however, i really don't, but i also know it can't be enforced.
i think Dunc introduced this line of thought, btw, when he suggested the anti-prank list. this was in the caretaker's forum so most people haven't read it. (and no, i don't think he wanted a moderated intensity, either.)
as for the rest of your post, i think i've addressed your points, some more than once. i don't agree with your double standards accusations--in fact, i take exception to it--but i don't see how i can make you see my views. i've already tried, and failed, apparently.
however:
from several of the comments above, then, are people suggesting that I2 is only for the young, now?
as a card-carrying "grumpy old woman", i take great exception to that sort of shite.
Who said it was only for the young or not for grumpy old codgers of either sex? Lets not start playing the age card shite here.
it's a matter of perception.
-
i think it's totally moo to even talk about this crap unless you want to bring in rules. since it's all up to the would-be pranksters what they decide to do and whose objections to pranking they respect, why argue about it at all? why not just let people make up their own minds whether to prank and whether to grow some skin?
i don't wish to prank people who object to it, but if Pea does, i don't have a problem with it. there are no rules against it so judging Pea for what he does is just that, judging. and that's just a futile exercise. that's just IMO.
i think the anti-prank list and pro-prank list have purpose if people want them. i agree with Pea that it takes out the element of surprise, though, but that's up to people to decide if they want to be surprised or not. it doesn't mean you won't get pranked if you don't put your name on the pro list. :P
-
But the fact remains unless we make it a rule that admins cannot prank people there's very little point to having an anti-prank list in the first place.
Because the only way to enforce it is by making those who disagree about the nature of the pranks (and have admin access to carry them out in the first place) feel completely disapproved of by the more vocal members which by its very nature could be considered a form of bullying too.
Is the main issue that the pranks are a form of bullying or is that people don't like having their avatar,etc messed with? Because its quite easy to start using emotive terms like bullying to force an issue home, when really what people object to is just the fact they don't like having their avatar changed (and I'm not saying that isn't a valid opinion/concern).
How is it not bullying for an administrator to abuse his abilities as administrator to repeatedly prank someone who has asked him to stop to the point that there are several people who are intimidated into not speaking out against it for fear of painting a big red target on their backs, but bullying for someone to speak out against an administrator abusing his admin status in that way, and if they do, dismissing their concerns with comments like, "grow some skin" or "leave Intensity if you can't handle it," Purposeful Insanity?
Because it seems to me that we are setting up a system where we are setting the administrator and his personal wishes above the rights of the members of the community that he is supposed to be serving.
-
But the fact remains unless we make it a rule that admins cannot prank people there's very little point to having an anti-prank list in the first place.
Because the only way to enforce it is by making those who disagree about the nature of the pranks (and have admin access to carry them out in the first place) feel completely disapproved of by the more vocal members which by its very nature could be considered a form of bullying too.
Is the main issue that the pranks are a form of bullying or is that people don't like having their avatar,etc messed with? Because its quite easy to start using emotive terms like bullying to force an issue home, when really what people object to is just the fact they don't like having their avatar changed (and I'm not saying that isn't a valid opinion/concern).
How is it not bullying for an administrator to abuse his abilities as administrator to repeatedly prank someone who has asked him to stop to the point that there are several people who are intimidated into not speaking out against it for fear of painting a big red target on their backs, but bullying for someone to speak out against an administrator abusing his admin status in that way, and if they do, dismissing their concerns with comments like, "grow some skin" or "leave Intensity if you can't handle it," Purposeful Insanity?
Because it seems to me that we are setting up a system where we are setting the administrator and his personal wishes above the rights of the members of the community that he is supposed to be serving.
Perhaps both are a form of bullying in some cases- especially when you consider that the admin in question was voted in (with a pretty high number of votes) after being clear that he was going to prank people. The point is do we start saying what forms of bullying are acceptable or not?
-
Seeing as I haven't deleted people's accounts or prohibited their rights to voice their opinion, you're just posting more lengthy bullshit regarding my "dictatorship", Empress.
And I was honest about pranking people throughout the election. Now, praise my sincerity.
-
as for the rest of your post, i think i've addressed your points, some more than once. i don't agree with your double standards accusations--in fact, i take exception to it--but i don't see how i can make you see my views. i've already tried, and failed, apparently.
So you don't agree that its a double standard to say that its bullying to call people names for saying they don't like the pranks, but its debating if you call people names if they disagree on any other issue?
however:
from several of the comments above, then, are people suggesting that I2 is only for the young, now?
as a card-carrying "grumpy old woman", i take great exception to that sort of shite.
Who said it was only for the young or not for grumpy old codgers of either sex? Lets not start playing the age card shite here.
it's a matter of perception.
[/quote]
Funny how the matter of perception argument only applies in some cases.
-
Seeing as I haven't deleted people's accounts or prohibited their rights to voice their opinion, you're just posting more lengthy bullshit regarding my "dictatorship", Empress.
And I was honest about pranking people throughout the election. Now, praise my sincerity.
::praises the King::
your Kingship is very sincere and awesome. :clap: :clap: :clap:
*bowcurtsies*
-
By the time it's next week, Callaway, I'll be absent and then you'll wonder why the fuck you have been whining over so much drama in the first place.
-
Seeing as I haven't deleted people's accounts or prohibited their rights to voice their opinion, you're just posting more lengthy bullshit regarding my "dictatorship", Empress.
And I was honest about pranking people throughout the election. Now, praise my sincerity.
You have prohibited their rights to voice their opinions by repeatedly pranking people who have asked you to stop, Peaguy.
And you never said that you were going to refuse to respect the rights of people who asked you to stop pranking them while you were running for administrator.
Pranking someone once for a joke is one thing, but continuing to abuse your abilities as administrator to prank them repeatedly after they have asked you to stop or even gone to the lengths to put their names on a "don't prank me" list is another. One is high spirited fun while the other one is bullying, IMO.
-
The more you complain, the more I'll do it. :P
-
The more you complain, the more I'll do it. :P
That's exactly my point, Peaguy.
That has the effect of making people afraid to speak out against an administrator doing it, doesn't it?
-
The more you complain, the more I'll do it. :P
That's exactly my point, Peaguy.
That has the effect of making people afraid to speak out against an administrator doing it, doesn't it?
Now you're being a drama queen.
You bore me. Post something that is worth my attention next time. :yawn:
-
I'll be absent and then you'll wonder why the fuck you have been whining over so much drama in the first place.
the naysayers will miss you, King Oberon, even if they don't admit it. we your loyal serviettes of ass will tell tall tales of your Kingship in your absence, we will whisper your name at campfires and nail posters of your hole-y-ness to trees surrounding your Kingdom. :moon:
-
The more you complain, the more I'll do it. :P
That's exactly my point, Peaguy.
That has the effect of making people afraid to speak out against an administrator doing it, doesn't it?
Now you're being a drama queen.
You bore me. Post something that is worth my attention next time. :yawn:
Thanks for the silly dance, Peaguy.
I was afraid that it was going to be a striptease.
:laugh:
-
The more you complain, the more I'll do it. :P
That's exactly my point, Peaguy.
That has the effect of making people afraid to speak out against an administrator doing it, doesn't it?
Now you're being a drama queen.
You bore me. Post something that is worth my attention next time. :yawn:
Thanks for the silly dance, Peaguy.
I was afraid that it was going to be a striptease.
:laugh:
It's a good thing that I'm respecting your rights as an individual, then.
-
I'm not saying that you're in some clique (although I find it interesting that you would ask me that since you were also using the 'groups' argument), what I am saying is that you are usually in the group that shouts the loudest when it comes to WC discussions and that uses practically every tactic to show just how much you dislike the opinions of those who disagree (and by this I'm not just talking about arguing your own point of view- I'm talking about writing off people's arguments completely because of who they are, I'm talking about those of you that decide they're going to smite someone they disagree with every hour on the hour just to show just how much people dislike their point of view,etc).
i'm usually too lazy to engage in anything like this. i've done it with scrap when he had already started doing the same to me.
I'd count emoticon yawns, and complaints of shit stirring,
without any explanation within this.
-
Ya gonna lick up that cream?
which one?
ALL of it.
well i am an assfairy. might as well. *slurpslurp*
You know how to make me happy.
-
How is it not bullying for an administrator to abuse his abilities as administrator to repeatedly prank someone who has asked him to stop to the point that there are several people who are intimidated into not speaking out against it for fear of painting a big red target on their backs, but bullying for someone to speak out against an administrator abusing his admin status in that way, and if they do, dismissing their concerns with comments like, "grow some skin" or "leave Intensity if you can't handle it," Purposeful Insanity?
The anti prank list is JUST such a target though.
I'll tell you what, I like speaking out, and love
having a target. Anyone who wants me to
speak out against someone for a prank, just
PM me, and I'll tie the poor prankster up in
so much vebiage, that they'll not have time to
prank. >:D
-
You have prohibited their rights to voice their opinions by repeatedly pranking people who have asked you to stop, Peaguy.
I don't see why they can't say things.
And you never said that you were going to refuse to respect the rights of people who asked you to stop pranking them while you were running for administrator.
'Twas clear as daylight. He was the only candidate,
who seemed to make NO indication that he'd temper
his pranks, IIRC (though hadron may have said something
similar - I seem to remember him qualifying his answer).
Pranking someone once for a joke is one thing, but continuing to abuse your abilities as administrator to prank them repeatedly after they have asked you to stop or even gone to the lengths to put their names on a "don't prank me" list is another. One is high spirited fun while the other one is bullying, IMO.
Perhaps. But there are many ways of bullying.
Some could easily argue that a person in a position
of authority, making some statements that Odeon
makes, is a form of bullying - which is why I make sure
to pin him down that 'tis only his opinion. Some could
say that someone in such a position, making an anti-prank
list, is doing just that - again, why we hammer out that it
actually has no authority; if I had posted such a list, no one
would have worried at all.
-
I was afraid that it was going to be a striptease.
:laugh:
I was HOPING. 8)
-
You have prohibited their rights to voice their opinions by repeatedly pranking people who have asked you to stop, Peaguy.
I don't see why they can't say things.
Some people might feel that way, but others would be intimidated because they would be afraid of only being bulllied worse for speaking out.
It's the same reason that kids often don't tell a teacher when they are being bullied in school, because it often only makes the bullying worse.
It never occurred to me to tell a teacher or the bus driver when it was happening to me or my brothers, because I was certain that it would only make it worse.
My school district had elementary school childen riding buses with high school students who were bullies.
Can you imagine what it felt like for little children, first, second, third and fourth graders to be bullied by high school students, who were all teenagers?
Both my brothers had speech impediments and of course I stuck out like a sore thumb because of my ASD type issues, so we all received special attention from the big bullies.
Pranking someone once for a joke is one thing, but continuing to abuse your abilities as administrator to prank them repeatedly after they have asked you to stop or even gone to the lengths to put their names on a "don't prank me" list is another. One is high spirited fun while the other one is bullying, IMO.
Perhaps. But there are many ways of bullying.
Some could easily argue that a person in a position
of authority, making some statements that Odeon
makes, is a form of bullying - which is why I make sure
to pin him down that 'tis only his opinion. Some could
say that someone in such a position, making an anti-prank
list, is doing just that - again, why we hammer out that it
actually has no authority; if I had posted such a list, no one
would have worried at all.
I think that the same thing happened when I made the polls to see if the rest of the WC wanted more options than just the one for WC entry.
From my point of view, I was just doing something that any other World Council member could do, but I can see that some others saw it differently.
When you made extra impeachment polls for all the administrators, nobody even batted an eyelash, as far as I could see.
I was afraid that it was going to be a striptease.
:laugh:
I was HOPING. 8)
:o
I didn't know you had special feelings for Peaguy, Calandale.
:laugh:
-
It never occurred to me to tell a teacher or the bus driver when it was happening to me or my brothers, because I was certain that it would only make it worse.
Same here. I'd just take it, until I finally exploded.
I think that the same thing happened when I made the polls to see if the rest of the WC wanted more options than just the one for WC entry.
From my point of view, I was just doing something that any other World Council member could do, but I can see that some others saw it differently.
PRECISELY. I would have complained about certain aspects
anyhow (certainly the menu one, as that seems so counter-
intuitive, but also aspect of subversion of a prior poll, to some
extent), but your position made it look like you were invalidating
the poll that I put up. It's the primary problem with being in a position
of power - NOT intimidating when you are exercising rights everyone
else has. Pretty much what I harped on MrMark and QM about, at WP.
When you made extra impeachment polls for all the administrators, nobody even batted an eyelash, as far as I could see.
The only one that was iffy, was the third one for you. And that was because
pea had failed TWICE to make one which seemed a coherent poll. The others
were jokes, but properly formed.
:o
I didn't know you had special feelings for Peaguy, Calandale.
:laugh:
I love watching him pwn himself.
-
I disagree that no-one would have worried at all if the anti-prank list had been made by an non-staff member. The same issues would have been brought up because even if its clear such a request from a member is not going to be enforced the issues about it being a target list, it giving people a false sense of security, etc would still have been there.
I do agree that when an admin makes some kind of blunt statement that could be interpreted as some kind of declaration or carries out an action, such as the posting of 'improved' polls it does seem to be official in some way (even though the staff member in question didn't mean it that way). I think the solution may be that such things are clearly labeled as 'unofficial' just so that people can distinguish between actions carried out as an ordinary member and the more official actions/statements a staff member sometimes has to make.
-
:agreed:
-
I disagree that no-one would have worried at all if the anti-prank list had been made by an non-staff member. The same issues would have been brought up because even if its clear such a request from a member is not going to be enforced the issues about it being a target list, it giving people a false sense of security, etc would still have been there.
I do agree that when an admin makes some kind of blunt statement that could be interpreted as some kind of declaration or carries out an action, such as the posting of 'improved' polls it does seem to be official in some way (even though the staff member in question didn't mean it that way). I think the solution may be that such things are clearly labeled as 'unofficial' just so that people can distinguish between actions carried out as an ordinary member and the more official actions/statements a staff member sometimes has to make.
It might be easier to just label something when it actually is official, rather than the other way around, since it almost never happens.
Don't people sometimes say So-and-so as Admin, or Webmonkey or Big Stick Waving Guy to denote "official" actions?
-
Sensible, so long as everyone is ABSOLUTELY
clear about this. And nothing without some
sort of official imprimatur is to be taken as law.
-
Yeah it probably would be easier- but I think it will take a lot of time for people to get that ingrained in their thinking, since official announcements are so rare. I think its just human nature for people to assume, often incorrectly, that those in power are trying to assert their authority and since a fair few of us almost automatically think 'fuck authority' it can irritate people even if there's no real reason to be irritated. :laugh:
-
........ free speech isn't--or shouldn't be, at least--about bullying or about some group mentality where it's ok to tell the dissenting voice to grow some skin, stop being such a grumpy old man, or whatever, because you belong to a group that's loud enough.
I'd listen to your own advice on this one.
-
The thing that gets me about your point of view on this Odeon is that you think its all fair free speech when you call someone a little boy or a cunt or write off someone's real views as them just shit stirring, but its a problem to tell someone to stop being such a grumpy old man or to tell them that Intensity isn't the place for sensitive types. Its all fair free speech if someone has the piss taken out of them constantly because of their difficulties in communication (btw- I'm thinking of both Flo and Calandale here), but its wrong to take the piss out of people that don't see the funny side to the pranks. Its hypocritical imo.
The real issue is that Intensity is not, and never has been the place for those who need protecting from any kind of ridicule, and introducing quasi-rules is not really addressing this issue.
Why do you get to be the one that decides when free speech suddenly becomes bullying? In a lot of the discussions that take place in the WC you belong to the group that's the loudest, with the constant no other comment " :plus:'s" that add nothing to the debate but make it clear to anyone that dares to argue with the status quo that you don't like their opinion, and the various takes on the dismissive 'nobby no mates is whining again' comments. That seems just as much, if not more so, an attempt to silence those who disagree than the pranks do. Why is that not bullying then?
QFT :agreed:
-
............... I'm talking about writing off people's arguments completely because of who they are, I'm talking about those of you that decide they're going to smite someone they disagree with every hour on the hour just to show just how much people dislike their point of view,etc). Silencing the dissenting voice was something you said you considered bullying in your previous post,
QFT :agreed:
odeon is a fucking hypocritical ass in this regard
-
............... I'm talking about writing off people's arguments completely because of who they are, I'm talking about those of you that decide they're going to smite someone they disagree with every hour on the hour just to show just how much people dislike their point of view,etc). Silencing the dissenting voice was something you said you considered bullying in your previous post,
QFT :agreed:
odeon is a fucking hypocritical ass in this regard
I think that you actually did this to a much greater extent than anyone else, Scrapheap.
I noticed several people's karmas going down a lot while you were online and I know that it wasn't me smiting them.
-
............... I'm talking about writing off people's arguments completely because of who they are, I'm talking about those of you that decide they're going to smite someone they disagree with every hour on the hour just to show just how much people dislike their point of view,etc). Silencing the dissenting voice was something you said you considered bullying in your previous post,
QFT :agreed:
odeon is a fucking hypocritical ass in this regard
I think that you actually did this to a much greater extent than anyone else, Scrapheap.
I noticed several people's karmas going down a lot while you were online and I know that it wasn't me smiting them.
This wasn't in reference to karma smiting (something I didn't start and wasn't the only one engaged in)
It was about how odeon and Lucifer ganged up on anyone the decided they didn't like and instead of trying to engage them in debate, simply took cheap shots at them, condescended, belittled them and smote their karma while plussing eachother.
It was clear bullying behavior and even McJ was getting sick of their shit. (he pm'ed me about it)
If you want to accuse people of driving members out of here, why don't you accuse odeon and Lucifer of this??
-
Was the GOOD point of Hadron as an admin.
Kept that crap from happening.
-
Was the GOOD point of Hadron as an admin.
Kept that crap from happening.
Well if they admined you in my place, then my legacy would be continued.
-
Was the GOOD point of Hadron as an admin.
Kept that crap from happening.
Well if they admined you in my place, then my legacy would be continued.
I don't know. I'm not sure that I would have been as scary.
-
Was the GOOD point of Hadron as an admin.
Kept that crap from happening.
Well if they admined you in my place, then my legacy would be continued.
I don't know. I'm not sure that I would have been as scary.
I can suggest a load of pranks, i missed Lucifer off my list. Pity.
-
To paraphrase Dr Gregory House: "Everybody Pranks."
What the fuck is this House, anyhow? Is it number 7 to the horror movie series or summat?
House 7, you better watch out.
-
I'm not saying that you're in some clique (although I find it interesting that you would ask me that since you were also using the 'groups' argument), what I am saying is that you are usually in the group that shouts the loudest when it comes to WC discussions and that uses practically every tactic to show just how much you dislike the opinions of those who disagree (and by this I'm not just talking about arguing your own point of view- I'm talking about writing off people's arguments completely because of who they are, I'm talking about those of you that decide they're going to smite someone they disagree with every hour on the hour just to show just how much people dislike their point of view,etc).
i'm usually too lazy to engage in anything like this. i've done it with scrap when he had already started doing the same to me.
I'd count emoticon yawns, and complaints of shit stirring,
without any explanation within this.
i think i did explain about the shit-stirring, though, didn't i? for your benefit, i'll do it again: i think you're guilty of arguing on and on about a subject (the fiat ruling is an example), for no other purpose than provocation, in other words, shit-stirring. if me holding that opinion makes me into a bully, all of a sudden, then so be it.
but why would you count the yawns? they are a short form of "this bores me" and serve a purpose, imo, just as the laugh emoticons, the LMAOs, boobs, pirates, and so on.
-
I promised not to prank - with the possible exception of
the werd confusulator. For that, I'd have asked specific
permission from the members. I wanted to test how one
thing worked on SMF.
-
Perhaps. But there are many ways of bullying.
Some could easily argue that a person in a position
of authority, making some statements that Odeon
makes, is a form of bullying - which is why I make sure
to pin him down that 'tis only his opinion. Some could
say that someone in such a position, making an anti-prank
list, is doing just that - again, why we hammer out that it
actually has no authority; if I had posted such a list, no one
would have worried at all.
i state my opinions, just as you state yours, just as everyone else state theirs. why is it so hard to ignore the webmaster title in discussions? or is it just a convenient excuse when the arguments themselves fail?
-
i think i did explain about the shit-stirring, though, didn't i? for your benefit, i'll do it again: i think you're guilty of arguing on and on about a subject (the fiat ruling is an example), for no other purpose than provocation, in other words, shit-stirring. if me holding that opinion makes me into a bully, all of a sudden, then so be it.
Oh, I know what you MEAN by it. I don't see that it's the case.
There's always a reason underlying my point of view.
but why would you count the yawns? they are a short form of "this bores me" and serve a purpose, imo, just as the laugh emoticons, the LMAOs, boobs, pirates, and so on.
the short form is no better than the longer.
If that's all that you have to add, why bother?
It's merely saying that this whole discussion is
simply not worth your time. Bullying? not really.
But it does show a fundamental disregard for the
effort that the poster put into expressing what
they see as important. And, when it comes to
matters of site, seems wholly inappropriate. Hell,
I don't put yawns in the midst of all the random
sex talk, which is boring to me.
-
You have prohibited their rights to voice their opinions by repeatedly pranking people who have asked you to stop, Peaguy.
I don't see why they can't say things.
i've had members tell me this also. theory of mind really is a bitch.
-
i state my opinions, just as you state yours, just as everyone else state theirs. why is it so hard to ignore the webmaster title in discussions? or is it just a convenient excuse when the arguments themselves fail?
I think Callaway came up with a fair way to
handle this - if something IS effected by
that position, it be very clearly noted as
such.
-
I do agree that when an admin makes some kind of blunt statement that could be interpreted as some kind of declaration or carries out an action, such as the posting of 'improved' polls it does seem to be official in some way (even though the staff member in question didn't mean it that way). I think the solution may be that such things are clearly labeled as 'unofficial' just so that people can distinguish between actions carried out as an ordinary member and the more official actions/statements a staff member sometimes has to make.
i think this is an excellent suggestion.
-
........ free speech isn't--or shouldn't be, at least--about bullying or about some group mentality where it's ok to tell the dissenting voice to grow some skin, stop being such a grumpy old man, or whatever, because you belong to a group that's loud enough.
I'd listen to your own advice on this one.
i'm trying to do just that.
-
............... I'm talking about writing off people's arguments completely because of who they are, I'm talking about those of you that decide they're going to smite someone they disagree with every hour on the hour just to show just how much people dislike their point of view,etc). Silencing the dissenting voice was something you said you considered bullying in your previous post,
QFT :agreed:
odeon is a fucking hypocritical ass in this regard
as i already stated on this board, i'm too lazy to ghey anyone systematically. most of the time, i couldn't even be bothered to do it to you on more than a few occasions, even though you set hourly gheying into practise for weeks on end, and i wasn't your only target. that either makes you into a hypocrite or a self-proclaimed bully.
-
This wasn't in reference to karma smiting (something I didn't start and wasn't the only one engaged in)
most members yay or ghey others, occasionally. you did it every hour, on me, lucifer, and probably many others.
It was about how odeon and Lucifer ganged up on anyone the decided they didn't like and instead of trying to engage them in debate, simply took cheap shots at them, condescended, belittled them and smote their karma while plussing eachother.
examples? i disagree, you know. i went after you only after certain, er, disagreements. hell, i even voted for you because i felt you deserved a chance. i was wrong, btw.
It was clear bullying behavior and even McJ was getting sick of their shit. (he pm'ed me about it)
this is becoming a trend, referring to the guy who isn't here. but if McJ had that opinion, does it make it right? is he your god or something?
If you want to accuse people of driving members out of here, why don't you accuse odeon and Lucifer of this??
because maybe she doesn't see it that way? but i'll let her answer this one.
-
i think i did explain about the shit-stirring, though, didn't i? for your benefit, i'll do it again: i think you're guilty of arguing on and on about a subject (the fiat ruling is an example), for no other purpose than provocation, in other words, shit-stirring. if me holding that opinion makes me into a bully, all of a sudden, then so be it.
Oh, I know what you MEAN by it. I don't see that it's the case.
There's always a reason underlying my point of view.
and sometimes that reason is provocation, and it's always calculated, isn't it? i seem to remember that you said it yourself.
but why would you count the yawns? they are a short form of "this bores me" and serve a purpose, imo, just as the laugh emoticons, the LMAOs, boobs, pirates, and so on.
the short form is no better than the longer.
If that's all that you have to add, why bother?
It's merely saying that this whole discussion is
simply not worth your time. Bullying? not really.
But it does show a fundamental disregard for the
effort that the poster put into expressing what
they see as important. And, when it comes to
matters of site, seems wholly inappropriate. Hell,
I don't put yawns in the midst of all the random
sex talk, which is boring to me.
i disagree. yes, :yawn: means "boring, but it does serve a purpose. it could mean "get on with it already, ffs", or simply "this is wasting EVERYONE's time", but it does serve a purpose. emoticons are very useful, especially when talking to people on the spectrum.
it's not necessarily showing a "fundamental disregard", it's a device, sometimes just as provoking as your "shit-stirring".
-
This wasn't in reference to karma smiting (something I didn't start and wasn't the only one engaged in)
most members yay or ghey others, occasionally. you did it every hour, on me, lucifer, and probably many others.
How do you know 'twas he? I tended to hit you guys
pretty often, wading through your sex chat. Probably
I'd do the same to Milla and Myself, for our silliness, when
it spams up the WC.
It was clear bullying behavior and even McJ was getting sick of their shit. (he pm'ed me about it)
this is becoming a trend, referring to the guy who isn't here. but if McJ had that opinion, does it make it right? is he your god or something?
.
Scrap ain't the only person he PM'd about it.
Then he started fighting. Very soon after he
left. One can make whatever assumptions
they like out of this. I've made mine.
Does it make it right? Who cares. This was
just one further little bit of evidence that
some antics on the other side were driving
people away, since that seems to be the worry
about those who don't like the pranks.
-
and sometimes that reason is provocation,
Not that I know of.
and it's always calculated, isn't it? i seem to remember that you said it yourself.
Not always. Indeed, usually 'tis passion which causes my problems.
If I calculated better, I'd probably have more chance of success.
i disagree. yes, :yawn: means "boring, but it does serve a purpose. it could mean "get on with it already, ffs", or simply "this is wasting EVERYONE's time", but it does serve a purpose. emoticons are very useful, especially when talking to people on the spectrum.
it's not necessarily showing a "fundamental disregard", it's a device, sometimes just as provoking as your "shit-stirring".
Generally, I've taken it as pretty close to STFU.
Maybe I'm ready you wrong, but that's what
my interpretation of the above seems to be.
And, I'd say that that's both disrespectful, and
bordering on bullying. Not that I would whine about
it, if people left their own whining at the door too.
But, y'all are the ones bringing bullying into this.
-
I think the reason that people keep mentioning Mcjagger is that a lot of us do still view this site as his baby and he worked very hard (along with other people don't get me wrong) to get this place off the ground. He might only be one member who happened to have a problem with the shouting down of any opposition behaviour of certain people (yes I'd discussed it with him too), but if we're going to get our knickers in a knot because one or two members threaten to leave if the pranks don't stop and see that as reason to stop them, then surely we have to consider the behaviour that made another member get sick and tired of the place?
I know I joked about this on the away/back thread but I still think its a valid point- teejay announces he's taking an indefinite break from the place and not one person out of all those claiming the pranks are driving people away bothered to ask him why. Why is that do you think?
-
This wasn't in reference to karma smiting (something I didn't start and wasn't the only one engaged in)
most members yay or ghey others, occasionally. you did it every hour, on me, lucifer, and probably many others.
How do you know 'twas he? I tended to hit you guys
pretty often, wading through your sex chat. Probably
I'd do the same to Milla and Myself, for our silliness, when
it spams up the WC.
i didn't know. i made assumptions based on the list of members that were logged on at the time.
It was clear bullying behavior and even McJ was getting sick of their shit. (he pm'ed me about it)
this is becoming a trend, referring to the guy who isn't here. but if McJ had that opinion, does it make it right? is he your god or something?
.
Scrap ain't the only person he PM'd about it.
Then he started fighting. Very soon after he
left. One can make whatever assumptions
they like out of this. I've made mine.
i've made mine, too. the only person who knows is mcj, so we probably won't know the truth unless he comes back, and maybe not then, either.
Does it make it right? Who cares. This was
just one further little bit of evidence that
some antics on the other side were driving
people away, since that seems to be the worry
about those who don't like the pranks.
i don't see that particular thing as proof of anything, just yet. i would like to know, however.
-
I know I joked about this on the away/back thread but I still think its a valid point- teejay announces he's taking an indefinite break from the place and not one person out of all those claiming the pranks are driving people away bothered to ask him why. Why is that do you think?
i don't know. do you?
-
I know I joked about this on the away/back thread but I still think its a valid point- teejay announces he's taking an indefinite break from the place and not one person out of all those claiming the pranks are driving people away bothered to ask him why. Why is that do you think?
i don't know. do you?
I don't- but when certain people say they're going to leave if the pranks don't stop some people seem to get in a panic and start wondering what we're going to do about it, but others leave and people don't see it as a problem. Perhaps someone who said the pranks were making people leave has an answer to that one... can you offer your own opinion as one of those people?
-
And, even when people give something as a reason
for leaving, one doesn't know that that's the only
one, nor even the most important. We really shouldn't
be pandering to those without the fortitude to want
to stay with us, as we are. We ought to be considering
merely what is fair and right.
-
I don't- but when certain people say they're going to leave if the pranks don't stop some people seem to get in a panic and start wondering what we're going to do about it, but others leave and people don't see it as a problem. Perhaps someone who said the pranks were making people leave has an answer to that one... can you offer your own opinion as one of those people?
my only guess (based on what he posted about before he left) is that teejay's sometimes rather racist views worked against him, so he tended to get harsher replies than others. i know i called him on the opinions he posted on the actual problems board, and my theory is that if he really doesn't see my views, or those of others', as anywhere near valid, he might see them as simply attacking him. and maybe that was too much to handle, in the end.
but i haven't had that impression of him earlier, at all. he's been prepared to defend his opinions, seemingly without that sort of reaction.
but as i said, i don't know. i don't think the pranks had anything to do with him leaving, though.
-
Sorry I didn't mean why did he leave, I meant why did no-one bother to ask him why?
-
oh. oops...
i meant to ask him and then forgot. as simple as that, for me. as for others, i can't say.
-
Sorry I didn't mean why did he leave, I meant why did no-one bother to ask him why?
I did ask Teejay why, actually.
I don't think that it is appropriate to share what he said to me privately.
-
Sorry I didn't mean why did he leave, I meant why did no-one bother to ask him why?
I did ask Teejay why, actually.
I don't think that it is appropriate to share what he said to me privately.
Lets guess, nothing to do with the pranks?
-
I was afraid that it was going to be a striptease.
:laugh:
I was HOPING. 8)
me too. :-\ :'(
-
I was afraid that it was going to be a striptease.
:laugh:
I was HOPING. 8)
me too. :-\ :'(
Well, I'd settle for one by you. :eyebrows:
-
I was afraid that it was going to be a striptease.
:laugh:
I was HOPING. 8)
me too. :-\ :'(
Well, I'd settle for one by you. :eyebrows:
same here. :eyebrows:
Can you imagine what it felt like for little children, first, second, third and fourth graders to be bullied by high school students, who were all teenagers?
i was bullied at school. but it made me stronger. and you know what i did when i felt threatened? i fought back. i don't like to hurt people but if someone threatens me i don't have any problem hitting back. my bully's big sister came with her friends and threatened me, might as well have been a teenager group. to me all the older kids were the same, big and scary. it's hazy but i remember i had a pen and i stabbed her in the hand with it, she was shocked and i ran away. one time i slammed a door on her little sister's foot, because she was trying to get inside my home and sticking her foot between the door. later we became friends. if i could choose to go back in time to stop the bullying i wouldn't. it taught me some lessons without creating any bad trauma. just like some avatar changes are not very harmful. there are worse things in life, believe me. and i know you've been through worse things.
i get constant avatar changes and name changes are annoying and irritating and stressful but i wouldn't compare it to bullying. you can always leave a message board or get used to the avatar changes, but we all had to go to school.
I do agree that when an admin makes some kind of blunt statement that could be interpreted as some kind of declaration or carries out an action, such as the posting of 'improved' polls it does seem to be official in some way (even though the staff member in question didn't mean it that way). I think the solution may be that such things are clearly labeled as 'unofficial' just so that people can distinguish between actions carried out as an ordinary member and the more official actions/statements a staff member sometimes has to make.
i hope nothing i say is taken like that. i think the responsibility lies on the receiver to not assume anything until proven otherwise. cuz if i have to put an unofficial disclaimer into every post just because i'm an admin i'd rather not be an admin. i think it's unfair to assume that an admin is using their position, and i don't see how it could be use that way anyway. there are no rules and admins are caretaker admins, that means they don't get to decide anything.
Yeah it probably would be easier- but I think it will take a lot of time for people to get that ingrained in their thinking, since official announcements are so rare. I think its just human nature for people to assume, often incorrectly, that those in power are trying to assert their authority and since a fair few of us almost automatically think 'fuck authority' it can irritate people even if there's no real reason to be irritated. :laugh:
assuming is unfair. if it's ingrained in their thinking they ought to change it. should a person start limping instead of fixing their leg just cuz it takes time and effort for the leg to heal? no. this needs to be fixed. people need to stop assuming. it's not logical. god, what kinds of aspies are we if we let this shit go on?
-
I'm not talking about general comments Milla, just the ones that look like 'proclamations' or site decisions in some way. I agree we need to stop viewing the admins as being in a position of authority, I think people sometimes do that because before the WC was set up they kind of were- they were elected to serve the community and did make a fair few decisions just between the staff.
god, what kinds of aspies are we if we let this shit go on?
Ones that are set in their ways?? :laugh:
-
ha ha. :P even aspies set in their ways must realize to use logic. and i mean real logic. the vulcan logic is crap. i was just watching Star Trek last night and Tuvok was again illogical. Seven was more logical. we could learn some from the Borg. :P
i'd rather that it be expected of admins to put an official disclaimer when they are being all official cuz otherwise it sucks. rarely if ever has an admin said something official and usually then they have said it was official. Dunc said "as big stick waving guy" well that should be expected when someone with some authority or perceived authority attempts to be all official and stuff. that's more logical.
-
Or we could just take the staff off their pedestals and treat them like any other member unless they need to start officially waving the big stick around for any reason. I think its about time. :laugh:
-
that's what i was saying. :P
-
that's what i was saying. :P
Just as long as we can all still worship you now you're a staff member. :-*
-
always. :green: ;)
-
I was afraid that it was going to be a striptease.
:laugh:
I was HOPING. 8)
me too. :-\ :'(
Well, I'd settle for one by you. :eyebrows:
same here. :eyebrows:
We could make it a duet. :laugh:
there are no rules
There certainly ARE. Otherwise, the WC
would be meaningless.
and admins are caretaker admins, that means they don't get to decide anything.
Pretty much should be the case with all of the staff,
so long as the site's not in extreme danger, IMO.
assuming is unfair. if it's ingrained in their thinking they ought to change it. should a person start limping instead of fixing their leg just cuz it takes time and effort for the leg to heal? no. this needs to be fixed. people need to stop assuming. it's not logical. god, what kinds of aspies are we if we let this shit go on?
Assuming things is necessary. Aspies are pretty good
at NOT doing so, but otherwise, one would have to
test if fire is painful, every chance they got. It's perfectly
reasonable to make assumptions.
-
I'm not talking about general comments Milla, just the ones that look like 'proclamations' or site decisions in some way. I agree we need to stop viewing the admins as being in a position of authority, I think people sometimes do that because before the WC was set up they kind of were- they were elected to serve the community and did make a fair few decisions just between the staff.
More than that. They still do make these kinds
of decisions, 'twould seem. Thus, the 'threat'
if you would, that misusing the werd confusulator
would result in someone being de-admined. Or
that leaving a backdoor makes someone forever
ineligible to serve again. I don't think that these
were simply members' opinions.
-
ha ha. :P even aspies set in their ways must realize to use logic. and i mean real logic.
There are MANY flavors of logic. Personally,
I'm fairly convinced that 'classical' logic is
insufficient for handling the world.
i'd rather that it be expected of admins to put an official disclaimer when they are being all official cuz otherwise it sucks. rarely if ever has an admin said something official and usually then they have said it was official. Dunc said "as big stick waving guy" well that should be expected when someone with some authority or perceived authority attempts to be all official and stuff. that's more logical.
I agree. Worse though, making decisions of
what is wrong, ex post facto, greatly disturbs
me. Dunc's position on scrap as a future admin
candidate seems particularly unreasonable to me.
-
Or we could just take the staff off their pedestals and treat them like any other member unless they need to start officially waving the big stick around for any reason. I think its about time. :laugh:
But, we CAN'T. As things stand, they are
effectively immune to some pranks, which
the rest of us are not, for example.
-
I'm not going to get into the whole thing about site security or what has happened in the past when an admin tried to take the site down or did other things that took a lot of work to fix again. I don't think its unreasonable, as someone who has to fix all that crap, to say that someone who can't be trusted not to do something like that can't be given the keys to the site.
-
The decisions that I'm alluding to all seem
in a gray area, to this member.
-
The decisions that I'm alluding to all seem
in a gray area, to this member.
I didn't think you were alluding to any decisions- it looked to me like you just came right out and said what you meant.
The scrap thing seems a non-issue to me since he'd already said he had no intention of running for admin again. The way I see this whole situation is that he's been pushed and pushed until he completely hates a lot of the people here. I can't say I blame him, to a certain extent anyway, but the fact that he was pushed to it doesn't make him any less of a liability sorry to say.
-
The decisions that I'm alluding to all seem
in a gray area, to this member.
I didn't think you were alluding to any decisions- it looked to me like you just came right out and said what you meant.
The scrap thing seems a non-issue to me since he'd already said he had no intention of running for admin again. The way I see this whole situation is that he's been pushed and pushed until he completely hates a lot of the people here. I can't say I blame him, to a certain extent anyway, but the fact that he was pushed to it doesn't make him any less of a liability sorry to say.
He did a lot of pushing himself, PI. You make it sound like him becoming a liability was all someone else's fault, and that's just not the case.
-
Or we could just take the staff off their pedestals and treat them like any other member unless they need to start officially waving the big stick around for any reason. I think its about time. :laugh:
:agreed:
-
The decisions that I'm alluding to all seem
in a gray area, to this member.
I didn't think you were alluding to any decisions- it looked to me like you just came right out and said what you meant.
The scrap thing seems a non-issue to me since he'd already said he had no intention of running for admin again. The way I see this whole situation is that he's been pushed and pushed until he completely hates a lot of the people here. I can't say I blame him, to a certain extent anyway, but the fact that he was pushed to it doesn't make him any less of a liability sorry to say.
He left that opening quite some time ago.
Yeah, things weren't perfect then either,
but I don't buy that as an excuse.
Anyhow, his intentions are really unimportant
here. It's the actions that we must judge. He
could have simply not revealed the issue, when
he did.
He did a lot of pushing himself, PI. You make it sound like him becoming a liability was all someone else's fault, and that's just not the case.
These things tend to deteriorate.
Not everyone is capable of pulling back
and observing everything dispassionately.
-
The decisions that I'm alluding to all seem
in a gray area, to this member.
I didn't think you were alluding to any decisions- it looked to me like you just came right out and said what you meant.
The scrap thing seems a non-issue to me since he'd already said he had no intention of running for admin again. The way I see this whole situation is that he's been pushed and pushed until he completely hates a lot of the people here. I can't say I blame him, to a certain extent anyway, but the fact that he was pushed to it doesn't make him any less of a liability sorry to say.
He did a lot of pushing himself, PI. You make it sound like him becoming a liability was all someone else's fault, and that's just not the case.
That's not how I meant it to sound at all. I've argued with Scrapheap plenty of times myself. I think that the way he spoke to a lot of the people here got a lot of people angry. And he ended up stuck in a cycle where whenever he posted he was responding to angry responses to his previous posts. I think it must be a pretty shitty situation to find yourself in even if it was caused by your own actions.
-
The decisions that I'm alluding to all seem
in a gray area, to this member.
I didn't think you were alluding to any decisions- it looked to me like you just came right out and said what you meant.
The scrap thing seems a non-issue to me since he'd already said he had no intention of running for admin again. The way I see this whole situation is that he's been pushed and pushed until he completely hates a lot of the people here. I can't say I blame him, to a certain extent anyway, but the fact that he was pushed to it doesn't make him any less of a liability sorry to say.
He left that opening quite some time ago.
Yeah, things weren't perfect then either,
but I don't buy that as an excuse.
Anyhow, his intentions are really unimportant
here. It's the actions that we must judge. He
could have simply not revealed the issue, when
he did.
I don't buy that he did leave that opening sometime ago though. I can't be 100% sure so I didn't say anything because I don't like to make this accusations without proof, but when he posted with his sock puppet in the WC forum last week I asked Dunc why it wasn't marked as a sock puppet as the members voted all sock puppets should be. I am pretty certain (but like I said not 100%) that I saw Dunc move it into the sock puppet user group- something which I think Scrapheap himself was hinting at when he mentioned the settings for that account had been changed recently. So I think he probably set it back up himself when he had admin access at the weekend- but I can't be 100% sure.
-
I think that the way he spoke to a lot of the people here got a lot of people angry. And he ended up stuck in a cycle where whenever he posted he was responding to angry responses to his previous posts. I think it must be a pretty shitty situation to find yourself in even if it was caused by your own actions.
Pretty much where lit ended up. I don't like this kind of
situation, but I don't see any way around it, so long as
there are cliques AND bad feelings, without killing free
speech.
-
I think that the way he spoke to a lot of the people here got a lot of people angry. And he ended up stuck in a cycle where whenever he posted he was responding to angry responses to his previous posts. I think it must be a pretty shitty situation to find yourself in even if it was caused by your own actions.
Pretty much where lit ended up. I don't like this kind of
situation, but I don't see any way around it, so long as
there are cliques AND bad feelings, without killing free
speech.
I don't know a way round it either, when people's tempers get up its hard for them to back down or back off other people who've got more than enough on their plate. (Same goes for when its something that people feel strongly about). Its just human nature and there isn't a way round that, even if we did introduce play nice rules it wouldn't stop this completely.
-
Or we could just take the staff off their pedestals and treat them like any other member unless they need to start officially waving the big stick around for any reason. I think its about time. :laugh:
:agreed:
So do I.
I feel like I am just an ordinary member except I have extra access to ways I can help Intensity.
Does that sound sucky? It probably does but I hope you know what I mean.
-
I wanna be on a pedestal.
-
cum'ere, we can share one. :P
-
A piece of living sculpture?
-
everything is living.
-
So why have the word? I'd apply it,
not to the idea that all things have spirits,
but to the biological processes.
-
things seem to us more living than other things.
-
Really? I'd think things seem less living
than non-things.
-
do what you want with me, just leave the money on the nightstand.
-
is that with or without lube?
-
Really? I'd think things seem less living
than non-things.
you're trying to confuse me.
-
Really? I'd think things seem less living
than non-things.
you're trying to confuse me.
No. Just succeeding.
-
:laugh:
-
I hate the KKK, they took my baby away, away from me. :'(
:headbang2:That song is great!
-
All should be fair game to be pranked, privided that the pranks are reversable.
If you can't take a prank, then I2 ain't yer game!
-
I never understood why that was supposed to be intense.
-
being intense is crying about your karma like scrapheap
-
What are pranks
Sent from my A462C using Tapatalk
-
These days, something not done here. :P