Author Topic: Sir Les, Defend Yourself!  (Read 4082 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Osensitive1

  • Guest
Re: Sir Les, Defend Yourself!
« Reply #15 on: December 26, 2010, 01:41:57 PM »
I know the same rules don't apply to you as to everyone else, because you're paying the bill.
We all know that.


Isn't this site moderated?
No. Although you need to stay within the TOS. And not piss me off.
Wish I could find the one where you were all curt, saying something along the lines of how you don't pay to be messed with, and other people's fights are their own and if it spans into the real world then don't expect any help. That was a good one.


If people contact me in confidence, I owe it to them to keep my mouth shut unless they think it's OK not to.
Stand up guy.

richard

  • Guest
Re: Sir Les, Defend Yourself!
« Reply #16 on: December 26, 2010, 01:49:29 PM »
Well, i have to say. That yes maybe something sir_les points out is TRUE, for once.
He who pays the bills makes the rules. We all (i'm assuming now) live in sociaty? there are rules. And i'm also assuming we all live by the "rules" So The real question it seems like to me is where to draw the line on whats distasteful and whats not?

I personally think everything i've said on this website while some might find it the wrong thing to say, Its legal to do so. I never made any threatening action against anyones kids or anything like that

I persoanlly believe, (and what I thought this website allowed) was any language could be said that was legal, and not against the hosting companys TOS. So, If anything i've ever said is against these i will make a full apology.

If not, theres no way in hell I will

Offline odeon

  • Witchlet of the Aspie Elite
  • Webmaster
  • Postwhore Beyond Teh Stupid
  • *****
  • Posts: 96613
  • Karma: 4039
  • Gender: Male
  • Replacement Despot
Re: Sir Les, Defend Yourself!
« Reply #17 on: December 26, 2010, 05:55:02 PM »
I know the same rules don't apply to you as to everyone else, because you're paying the bill.
We all know that.

Tell me what rules those are, please.

Quote
Isn't this site moderated?
No. Although you need to stay within the TOS. And not piss me off.
Wish I could find the one where you were all curt, saying something along the lines of how you don't pay to be messed with, and other people's fights are their own and if it spans into the real world then don't expect any help. That was a good one.

You might want to locate it, instead of trying to paraphrase me or lift things out of context. ::)

Quote
If people contact me in confidence, I owe it to them to keep my mouth shut unless they think it's OK not to.
Stand up guy.

Do I detect a hint of sarcasm here? If you have something to say, then just say it.
To me it looks like you're saying that banning bombs didn't stop bombs going off therefore there is no point to gun control because it's a mental health issue. 

Offline odeon

  • Witchlet of the Aspie Elite
  • Webmaster
  • Postwhore Beyond Teh Stupid
  • *****
  • Posts: 96613
  • Karma: 4039
  • Gender: Male
  • Replacement Despot
Re: Sir Les, Defend Yourself!
« Reply #18 on: December 26, 2010, 06:01:26 PM »
Well, i have to say. That yes maybe something sir_les points out is TRUE, for once.
He who pays the bills makes the rules. We all (i'm assuming now) live in sociaty? there are rules. And i'm also assuming we all live by the "rules" So The real question it seems like to me is where to draw the line on whats distasteful and whats not?

I personally think everything i've said on this website while some might find it the wrong thing to say, Its legal to do so. I never made any threatening action against anyones kids or anything like that

I persoanlly believe, (and what I thought this website allowed) was any language could be said that was legal, and not against the hosting companys TOS. So, If anything i've ever said is against these i will make a full apology.

If not, theres no way in hell I will

There's the stuff that is about the TOS, Richard, yes. Break against something in there and you will be stopped because there is no point in allowing any single member to risk the board.

But then there's also the stuff that is not regulated in a TOS of any kind but will nevertheless turn people against you. Insulting family members who aren't here is one of those.
To me it looks like you're saying that banning bombs didn't stop bombs going off therefore there is no point to gun control because it's a mental health issue. 

Osensitive1

  • Guest
Re: Sir Les, Defend Yourself!
« Reply #19 on: December 26, 2010, 06:16:19 PM »
Tell me what rules those are, please.
The rules of engagement. Maybe a poor choice of wording, rules. More meaning this is your site and enforcement of any kind has always been observed as coming from you, so it makes sense that nothing would really apply to you the same as the membership.
You might want to locate it, instead of trying to paraphrase me or lift things out of context. ::)
Yes. Rightly so. Will see if I can drum it up. It's one of the reasons I've stayed here.
Do I detect a hint of sarcasm here? If you have something to say, then just say it.
No. You've got me all wrong. I do think you're a stand up guy.
« Last Edit: December 26, 2010, 06:17:55 PM by Osensitive1 »

richard

  • Guest
Re: Sir Les, Defend Yourself!
« Reply #20 on: December 26, 2010, 06:36:39 PM »
But then there's also the stuff that is not regulated in a TOS of any kind but will nevertheless turn people against you. Insulting family members who aren't here is one of those.
Wich means you pay the bills and I or whoever can say whatever the fuck they want?

sir les. go fishing! (we need a good fishing emoticon)  :M

Online "couldbecousin"

  • Invincible Heisenweeble of the Aspie Elite
  • Elder
  • Postwhore Beyond Teh Stupid
  • *****
  • Posts: 53110
  • Karma: 2659
  • Gender: Female
  • You're goddamn right.
Re: Sir Les, Defend Yourself!
« Reply #21 on: December 26, 2010, 06:47:17 PM »
But then there's also the stuff that is not regulated in a TOS of any kind but will nevertheless turn people against you. Insulting family members who aren't here is one of those.
Wich means you pay the bills and I or whoever can say whatever the fuck they want?

sir les. go fishing! (we need a good fishing emoticon)  :M

We have one!    :fish:
"There's a time for every star." :star: 8) :star:

 Nikka Costa, "Everybody Got Their Something."

Osensitive1

  • Guest
Re: Sir Les, Defend Yourself!
« Reply #22 on: December 26, 2010, 07:35:24 PM »
You might want to locate it, instead of trying to paraphrase me or lift things out of context. ::)
Yes. Rightly so. Will see if I can drum it up. It's one of the reasons I've stayed here.

Couldn't locate it. My apologies. Although you did repeat the first point on the previous page in this thread. So not really out of context.
Quote
I am *not* paying for the privilege of having some internet tough guy insult my family. It's not going to happen. Not then, not now, not ever. Think it's unfair? Too bad, mate.
Have seen your kids attacked at least a couple of time since being here, and you always take the same stance. Won't bother discussing the other point since I can't find the post.

richard

  • Guest
Re: Sir Les, Defend Yourself!
« Reply #23 on: December 26, 2010, 09:38:58 PM »
But then there's also the stuff that is not regulated in a TOS of any kind but will nevertheless turn people against you. Insulting family members who aren't here is one of those.
Wich means you pay the bills and I or whoever can say whatever the fuck they want?

sir les. go fishing! (we need a good fishing emoticon)  :M

We have one!    :fish:
Thats good

Offline odeon

  • Witchlet of the Aspie Elite
  • Webmaster
  • Postwhore Beyond Teh Stupid
  • *****
  • Posts: 96613
  • Karma: 4039
  • Gender: Male
  • Replacement Despot
Re: Sir Les, Defend Yourself!
« Reply #24 on: December 27, 2010, 02:11:10 AM »
Tell me what rules those are, please.
The rules of engagement. Maybe a poor choice of wording, rules. More meaning this is your site and enforcement of any kind has always been observed as coming from you, so it makes sense that nothing would really apply to you the same as the membership.
You might want to locate it, instead of trying to paraphrase me or lift things out of context. ::)
Yes. Rightly so. Will see if I can drum it up. It's one of the reasons I've stayed here.
Do I detect a hint of sarcasm here? If you have something to say, then just say it.
No. You've got me all wrong. I do think you're a stand up guy.


Then I apologise. I thought you were implying things. My bad. :-[
To me it looks like you're saying that banning bombs didn't stop bombs going off therefore there is no point to gun control because it's a mental health issue. 

Online Al Swearengen

  • Pussycat of the Aspie Elite
  • Elder
  • Almighty Postwhore
  • *****
  • Posts: 16693
  • Karma: 2091
  • Friendly bastard
Re: Sir Les, Defend Yourself!
« Reply #25 on: December 27, 2010, 03:14:57 AM »
IMO, both sometimes post readable stuff.

Richard is braindead and his spelling and syntax is hopeless. That said, his twin retard Duke, has a reasonable grasp of the English language and its intricacies. I am not above the odd mistake in grammar or spelling or syntax but ...well you "shurely have scene Ricktards posts".

No really interesting or unique, is it? The same could be said about any number of other members here.

Not really. I think that these two are similar and share many similar qualities to their retarded twin cousins, General Razorbeard and Sol. I rate them more highly than the latter, but the similarities are there. The Narcissism, inability to give a shit about others and so on. Differences too of course. I personally think if I had to rate them I would rate Duke above Richard then above Razorbeard and slightly above Sol.

Trying to infer these guys (or any of them) are like the rest of us...........  :O_o:

There is an echo in here. :laugh:

Yup they have got to be related somewhere along the line.

He also said that he'd do it until Richard was sinbinned, adding that if he was, he would come back under a different name and keep on spamming the board.

Yup sounds like a his heart was in the right place and it could not be aimed at a nicer bloke..

The only reason he chose this course of action Odeon....is because the guy is a hopeless fucking retard. :D

There is an ignore button.

Yes you know what I am going to say here. (The other point of course is when you log on you are not pre-warned with this knowledge that all the dick and boob shots are not contained and any thread you enter with Richard having ever posted is liable to get a small dick in your face as it were. THEN after you cop this, you can put it on ignore ,if you think that other members ought to dick-tate your actions)

I know what you'll say--the ignore button can be used on Duke, too. Problem is, when you reply to someone, the ignore mod doesn't work. In Richard's case it's no problem because his avatar isn't visible when you quote. In Duke's, however, his spam can still make posting very difficult, especially to someone with a slow connection or old hardware.

See the difference?

Oh hell Odeon, there was always this "difference". Is it one to "hang your hat on"? Really?
This was not about the exact same two people acting same manner deserving the exact same treatment.
This was about the retard twins who act similarly (not without any difference) and with whom one is censored/punished/infracted/whatever and the other isn't.
In fact Richard when I initially responded to you was cheering on Duke's punishment and conversing with you about how his blabberising, and here is me thinking, "Fuck me, that dumb bastard has a lot of nerve passing judgment on Duke after his latest fun and games. What a retard. Why the fuck is Odeon meekly agreeing with him and not saying Richard "Shut the fuck up. You are about half a step from having your balls in a sling here yourself, I would not try for the moral high ground"? Then I realised.

He is not sinbinned.

Ah OK my mistake I was sure I saw that on his profile. It may have been General Razorbeard or one of the others. Having said that he was blabberised and so he was punished/infracted/disciplined by Admin. As far as I know there is four punishments by Admin. Warning, blabberising, sinbinning and banning. So in the scheme of things he was punished by Admin and Ricktard had not been for what I consider just as culpable.
Again not a difference to hang one's hat on as a sealing argument against.

???

Who are you talking about? Me? I did NOT try to talk him into staying. If you think I'm wrong, then provide the links that prove me wrong. Or have the guts to admit that you were wrong. I'm pretty sure none of the admins did anything to make him stay.

And again, nobody is blabberized or sinbinned because of some petty accusation made in anger.

Oh indeed you did. He specifically asked to be deleted as he was railing against you and the site in general.

I want my screename deleted in a weeks time after i Log off of here today. Thanks.

I'm going to quote this, just so you know and lock my topic.

I did not systamaticlly put 15 people on my ignore list, thats too much of a hassle. i ignore people right under there screename. I like callaway, but the evidence doesnt lie. I supose there could be a glitch, but that would have to be a majore one

So, in closing if i'm wrong i'll eat my words but something fishy is going on here.

I thought you were leaving?

I still am, unless someone changes my mind. much like congress, i want my record in the statement

and i want this topic locked. dont unlock it again please callaway. since its only going to turn into a fight, or others want to derail it good fucking bye, I made my point and wouldnt do so lightly

Pretty blatant huh? In fact he never actually admitted that he in fact did not want to go and that he was actually wrong about the ignore thing or that the issue was resolved. That much so that he now weeks later revisits this with a callout on Callaway.

You humoured the retard because you did not want him deleted.

I still haven't seen the attack on Queen Victoria's daughter. I also haven't seen the post reported by anyone, QV included. If she thinks it is a problem, then an admin should be notified because as I've explained on numerous occasions before, we don't normally moderate anything here but we will investigate and possibly act if a member thinks there is a problem.

We don't always, however. Oh and we also don't let the rest of the membership know about those decisions.


http://www.intensitysquared.com/index.php/topic,16033.msg687368.html#msg687368

I hope your daughter dies of a siezure in the bathtub!  :evillaugh:

The cock avatar thing was just as easy to ignore the second time as the first, though.

So yup in both instances we have it in our faces and then have to scramble to find the right way to screen this or his avatar. Sorry Odeon, but fuck that. Why ought he dictate the way we can view the board? I actually prefer spam. Besides it is always hindsight stuff. Hit in the face with Richard cock and then know to act and of course prior to this no warning. This is all good fun of course for Richard because by his own admission, he doesn't give a shit.


See above.

And as I said when my daughter was attacked and I was accused of the same shit, only it was about Phlexor (I think): if he thought it was a problem, he should have let me know. I think he said it wasn't.

Vodzy attacking my daughter out of the blue, however, pissed me off sufficiently to act. I said then and I repeat it now, I am *not* paying for the privilege of having some internet tough guy insult my family. It's not going to happen. Not then, not now, not ever. Think it's unfair? Too bad, mate. And it really isn't unfair either, because as I've said before, you only have to let me or another admin know.

We do not automatically moderate anything, however.

You know I don't give that much of a fuck about whether Duke is blabberised or sinbinned or banned or whatever. I also don't much care what does or doesn't happen to Ricktard. Sure as hell will call out bullshit if i see it or if it looks like such to me. I don't do subtle that well and I don't ignore the Elephant in the lounge room and pretend it is not there.

This why and what I called

That is the truth and whether Duke deserves a bit of sinbinning is neither here nor there. It just pisses me off having Richard be a dick to no lesser degree and cheer on Duke's sinbinning and/or blabbering whilst everyone has to pander to his unchecked douchebaggery.

I think that is more than honest and I know you like Duke a lot less than Sticky Ricky. I join the dots well enough to see what I consider similar actions getting different treatment, to form an educated guess as to why. I was calling the inconsistency I saw. Nothing big or dramatic. You wanted to put it to callout? I am happy to thrash this out. At the same token, I don't care. You can do or say what you want. Your site.
Ricky can be what he is and be left unchecked by his actions. I am not going to cry into my computer keyboard about it.
But if you want my opinion I will discuss it freely without toning it down or playing it up.

The irony here is that you got the whole thing wrong.

So let me ask you this:

Do you think it's enough for a member to be an "ugly, childish, whiny, arrogant, opinionated, attention whore" to be blabberized or sinbinned? I already know that Richard, for some reason, got under your skin but is it really something to punish him for?

No you got it wrong Odeon.

In trying to ask the question, and making the assumption, you are again trying to dictate the terms of how I will address things, and placing a context or subtext that doesn't exist.

Now did I say that being ugly, childish, whiny, arrogant, opinionated, attention whore was reason enough to punish someone? Really?

No serious Odeon. Give it a shot. Tell me where I have alluded to this. No vague assertions but something concrete. I have actually addressed points that have had to do with his actions and not his general personality.

This is not what you are stating here. So show me and we can discuss this ....or YOU can "provide the links that prove me wrong. Or have the guts to admit that you were wrong." (Oh dear God that sounds so melodramatic doesn't it? Who inserts such phrases into debates?)
« Last Edit: December 27, 2010, 03:23:16 AM by Sir_Les_Patterson »
I don't want to hear it. Save your complaints to Odeon. Yes, we had decided to drop hostilities. No, I didnt expect that Odeon would do other than start shit again like he always does
You're not going to stick to "a handful people", are you? That would be stupid.
Damned if I won't respond.
So it's on again & you can lay the blame squarely at his feet. Little passive-aggressive bitch

Offline odeon

  • Witchlet of the Aspie Elite
  • Webmaster
  • Postwhore Beyond Teh Stupid
  • *****
  • Posts: 96613
  • Karma: 4039
  • Gender: Male
  • Replacement Despot
Re: Sir Les, Defend Yourself!
« Reply #26 on: December 27, 2010, 07:02:58 AM »
IMO, both sometimes post readable stuff.

Richard is braindead and his spelling and syntax is hopeless. That said, his twin retard Duke, has a reasonable grasp of the English language and its intricacies. I am not above the odd mistake in grammar or spelling or syntax but ...well you "shurely have scene Ricktards posts".

I already know what you think. We'll just have to disagree.


Quote
No really interesting or unique, is it? The same could be said about any number of other members here.

Not really. I think that these two are similar and share many similar qualities to their retarded twin cousins, General Razorbeard and Sol. I rate them more highly than the latter, but the similarities are there. The Narcissism, inability to give a shit about others and so on. Differences too of course. I personally think if I had to rate them I would rate Duke above Richard then above Razorbeard and slightly above Sol.

Trying to infer these guys (or any of them) are like the rest of us...........  :O_o:

I didn't say "the rest of us", now did I? I said "any number of other members here"

I maintain that quite a few others have held these same high standards you now hold as fairly unique to Richard, Duke, and maybe one or two others. In *my* opinion, just as Richard, in *your* opinion, is braindead (btw, that's a fine assumption to boost your argument with; what is this, a playground?).

Quote
There is an echo in here. :laugh:

Yup they have got to be related somewhere along the line.

He also said that he'd do it until Richard was sinbinned, adding that if he was, he would come back under a different name and keep on spamming the board.

Yup sounds like a his heart was in the right place and it could not be aimed at a nicer bloke..

The only reason he chose this course of action Odeon....is because the guy is a hopeless fucking retard. :D

There is an ignore button.

Yes you know what I am going to say here. (The other point of course is when you log on you are not pre-warned with this knowledge that all the dick and boob shots are not contained and any thread you enter with Richard having ever posted is liable to get a small dick in your face as it were. THEN after you cop this, you can put it on ignore ,if you think that other members ought to dick-tate your actions)

Or boobs, or nekkid pics, or just about anything a member might choose to post outside the fora more suited for the adult content. The difference is that blocking avatars by ignoring that member (pun intended) is trivial while blocking misplaced nudes is not.

Nudes, big fucking peters avatars, etc, are a nuisance but they can be blocked. Flooding cannot. Do you wish to take action against every occurrence of adult content outside their dedicated fora? Should we sinbin or blabberize the fuckers responsible? What are you saying?

Quote
I know what you'll say--the ignore button can be used on Duke, too. Problem is, when you reply to someone, the ignore mod doesn't work. In Richard's case it's no problem because his avatar isn't visible when you quote. In Duke's, however, his spam can still make posting very difficult, especially to someone with a slow connection or old hardware.

See the difference?

Oh hell Odeon, there was always this "difference". Is it one to "hang your hat on"? Really?
This was not about the exact same two people acting same manner deserving the exact same treatment.
This was about the retard twins who act similarly (not without any difference) and with whom one is censored/punished/infracted/whatever and the other isn't.

Are you trying to tell me that you don't see the difference? That one behaviour, while a nuisance, doesn't actually stop anyone from using the board, but another makes it bloody hard?

Quote
In fact Richard when I initially responded to you was cheering on Duke's punishment and conversing with you about how his blabberising, and here is me thinking, "Fuck me, that dumb bastard has a lot of nerve passing judgment on Duke after his latest fun and games. What a retard. Why the fuck is Odeon meekly agreeing with him and not saying Richard "Shut the fuck up. You are about half a step from having your balls in a sling here yourself, I would not try for the moral high ground"? Then I realised.

Because again, Richard did not make the board unreadable, he was just being a nuisance. Nobody is sinbinned or blabberized because s/he is aiming for a moral high ground, real or perceived.

Quote
He is not sinbinned.

Ah OK my mistake I was sure I saw that on his profile. It may have been General Razorbeard or one of the others. Having said that he was blabberised and so he was punished/infracted/disciplined by Admin. As far as I know there is four punishments by Admin. Warning, blabberising, sinbinning and banning. So in the scheme of things he was punished by Admin and Ricktard had not been for what I consider just as culpable.

I already know you consider it to be so. I don't, and I think there is an important difference.

Quote
Again not a difference to hang one's hat on as a sealing argument against.

Really? Are you trying to dictate what arguments I may or may not use here? Man, get used to being disappointed.

Quote
???

Who are you talking about? Me? I did NOT try to talk him into staying. If you think I'm wrong, then provide the links that prove me wrong. Or have the guts to admit that you were wrong. I'm pretty sure none of the admins did anything to make him stay.

And again, nobody is blabberized or sinbinned because of some petty accusation made in anger.

Oh indeed you did. He specifically asked to be deleted as he was railing against you and the site in general.

I did not try to make him stay. Show me the post where I tried. I was perfectly fine with deleting him after the mandatory waiting period of one week. He changed his mind before the time was up, just as I thought he would. And just as you and pretty much everybody else thought.

Quote
I want my screename deleted in a weeks time after i Log off of here today. Thanks.

I'm going to quote this, just so you know and lock my topic.

I did not systamaticlly put 15 people on my ignore list, thats too much of a hassle. i ignore people right under there screename. I like callaway, but the evidence doesnt lie. I supose there could be a glitch, but that would have to be a majore one

So, in closing if i'm wrong i'll eat my words but something fishy is going on here.

I thought you were leaving?

I still am, unless someone changes my mind. much like congress, i want my record in the statement

and i want this topic locked. dont unlock it again please callaway. since its only going to turn into a fight, or others want to derail it good fucking bye, I made my point and wouldnt do so lightly

Pretty blatant huh? In fact he never actually admitted that he in fact did not want to go and that he was actually wrong about the ignore thing or that the issue was resolved. That much so that he now weeks later revisits this with a callout on Callaway.

He changed his mind and told us so, but afaik, he didn't post it. Which one of the above quotes proves that I tried to make him stay, in your opinion?

Quote
You humoured the retard because you did not want him deleted.

???

Wrong. I ignored the whole thing, fully prepared to delete him, but he changed his mind before the week was up.

Quote
I still haven't seen the attack on Queen Victoria's daughter. I also haven't seen the post reported by anyone, QV included. If she thinks it is a problem, then an admin should be notified because as I've explained on numerous occasions before, we don't normally moderate anything here but we will investigate and possibly act if a member thinks there is a problem.

We don't always, however. Oh and we also don't let the rest of the membership know about those decisions.


http://www.intensitysquared.com/index.php/topic,16033.msg687368.html#msg687368

I hope your daughter dies of a siezure in the bathtub!  :evillaugh:

The cock avatar thing was just as easy to ignore the second time as the first, though.

So yup in both instances we have it in our faces and then have to scramble to find the right way to screen this or his avatar. Sorry Odeon, but fuck that. Why ought he dictate the way we can view the board? I actually prefer spam. Besides it is always hindsight stuff. Hit in the face with Richard cock and then know to act and of course prior to this no warning. This is all good fun of course for Richard because by his own admission, he doesn't give a shit.

What would you suggest we do with the other members posting an occasional nude outside the sex fora? Should we start moderating the board? Should we just ignore those because you don't consider the posters to be braindead or retarded? Why are they allowed to dictate the way we can view the board?

If you want some credibility here, speak out against every such occurrence, against every nude, against every image posted by any member, placed outside where you would expect to find it.

See, this is where your logic fails. You are advocating a solution where you treat members differently depending on what you think of them. I'm not sure if this is a conscious strategy on your part or not, but I think it's pretty blatant.

There's been a lot of nudes posted in the wrong fora, some of which were far more in your face than Richard's avatar, but just as in Richard's case, I didn't do anything except avoiding the thread or ignoring the poster. They didn't stop anyone from viewing the thread, they only made it a nuisance.


Quote
See above.

And as I said when my daughter was attacked and I was accused of the same shit, only it was about Phlexor (I think): if he thought it was a problem, he should have let me know. I think he said it wasn't.

Vodzy attacking my daughter out of the blue, however, pissed me off sufficiently to act. I said then and I repeat it now, I am *not* paying for the privilege of having some internet tough guy insult my family. It's not going to happen. Not then, not now, not ever. Think it's unfair? Too bad, mate. And it really isn't unfair either, because as I've said before, you only have to let me or another admin know.

We do not automatically moderate anything, however.

You know I don't give that much of a fuck about whether Duke is blabberised or sinbinned or banned or whatever. I also don't much care what does or doesn't happen to Ricktard. Sure as hell will call out bullshit if i see it or if it looks like such to me. I don't do subtle that well and I don't ignore the Elephant in the lounge room and pretend it is not there.

This why and what I called

Pretty much like me, then. Which is why I called you out.

Quote
That is the truth and whether Duke deserves a bit of sinbinning is neither here nor there. It just pisses me off having Richard be a dick to no lesser degree and cheer on Duke's sinbinning and/or blabbering whilst everyone has to pander to his unchecked douchebaggery.

I think that is more than honest and I know you like Duke a lot less than Sticky Ricky. I join the dots well enough to see what I consider similar actions getting different treatment, to form an educated guess as to why. I was calling the inconsistency I saw. Nothing big or dramatic. You wanted to put it to callout? I am happy to thrash this out. At the same token, I don't care. You can do or say what you want. Your site.
Ricky can be what he is and be left unchecked by his actions. I am not going to cry into my computer keyboard about it.
But if you want my opinion I will discuss it freely without toning it down or playing it up.

The irony here is that you got the whole thing wrong.

So let me ask you this:

Do you think it's enough for a member to be an "ugly, childish, whiny, arrogant, opinionated, attention whore" to be blabberized or sinbinned? I already know that Richard, for some reason, got under your skin but is it really something to punish him for?

No you got it wrong Odeon.

In trying to ask the question, and making the assumption, you are again trying to dictate the terms of how I will address things, and placing a context or subtext that doesn't exist.

That same argument can be used about you. Aren't you saying that I'm being inconsistent with my actions because I happen to like Richard? That just isn't the case, no matter how you want to make it so by repeating it.

Quote
Now did I say that being ugly, childish, whiny, arrogant, opinionated, attention whore was reason enough to punish someone? Really?

No serious Odeon. Give it a shot. Tell me where I have alluded to this. No vague assertions but something concrete. I have actually addressed points that have had to do with his actions and not his general personality.

This is not what you are stating here. So show me and we can discuss this ....or YOU can "provide the links that prove me wrong. Or have the guts to admit that you were wrong." (Oh dear God that sounds so melodramatic doesn't it? Who inserts such phrases into debates?)


I think I did, but in spite of not providing links or any proof, I'm still waiting.

IMO, your calling Richard braindead, retard, etc, in your posts, in this context, the one where we discuss Duke's punishment and where you compare the two, would imply that being a retard, ugly, etc, is enough. I'm happy to be wrong here, but if that's the case then what ARE you saying? And besides, I asked a question (see your own quote, above).

What worries me is this:

Quote
It just pisses me off having Richard be a dick to no lesser degree and cheer on Duke's sinbinning and/or blabbering whilst everyone has to pander to his unchecked douchebaggery.

I get it. You don't like the guy and you are pissed because he is cheering when Duke gets punished for flooding the board. Yes, I didn't like it either, but no matter how much a dick he was when doing it, he wasn't flooding the board.
To me it looks like you're saying that banning bombs didn't stop bombs going off therefore there is no point to gun control because it's a mental health issue. 

Osensitive1

  • Guest
Re: Sir Les, Defend Yourself!
« Reply #27 on: December 27, 2010, 09:00:45 AM »
Then I apologise. I thought you were implying things. My bad. :-[
No problem. Sometimes I put things the wrong way. Sir Les' main complaint here seems to be some sort of inconsistency on your part, when I've yet to see it. You've always been pretty clear, in you will respond however you wish with people who direct their shit slinging at you personally, and when you directly ask a member to stop a behavior, they should do it. Your reactions are never anything vengeful or harmful even though you could. Of course, like that quote from the previous page, you do sometimes soften your statements by letting the membership know how administrators will not automatically moderate the same situations for others, but are always available to receive complaints. That might be the only thing I would snipe at because I think that type of member complaint isn't likely to happen, though there may be some who whish they had their own blabberizer button. I think Sir Les knows as well as I, richard would have faced consequences if he had made his statements to you, so no real inconsistency at all.
« Last Edit: December 27, 2010, 09:03:08 AM by Osensitive1 »

Online Al Swearengen

  • Pussycat of the Aspie Elite
  • Elder
  • Almighty Postwhore
  • *****
  • Posts: 16693
  • Karma: 2091
  • Friendly bastard
Re: Sir Les, Defend Yourself!
« Reply #28 on: December 27, 2010, 09:49:13 AM »
I already know what you think. We'll just have to disagree.

Yup, I am cool with agreeing to disagree


I didn't say "the rest of us", now did I? I said "any number of other members here"

I maintain that quite a few others have held these same high standards you now hold as fairly unique to Richard, Duke, and maybe one or two others. In *my* opinion, just as Richard, in *your* opinion, is braindead (btw, that's a fine assumption to boost your argument with; what is this, a playground?).

No you didn't. I just wanted to make sure I understood you more clearly. :)

Playground? Well I2 is fun.  :laugh:

Nah. I could have searched for a better description admittedly but I think as a shorthand descriptor it does OK.


Or boobs, or nekkid pics, or just about anything a member might choose to post outside the fora more suited for the adult content. The difference is that blocking avatars by ignoring that member (pun intended) is trivial while blocking misplaced nudes is not.

Nudes, big fucking peters avatars, etc, are a nuisance but they can be blocked. Flooding cannot. Do you wish to take action against every occurrence of adult content outside their dedicated fora? Should we sinbin or blabberize the fuckers responsible? What are you saying?

What I am saying is that the actions of Duke and Richard in my estimation are as close to the same thing and that the irritation factor of their behaviour and the impact on members is similar and of similar consequence.
It is also not in isolation of one incidence nor even in isolation to other crappy behaviour towards members about their kids or their parenting that he has toyed with or what not.

Jumping on people against every occurrence? Nah. I think I2 would be fine against the occasional occurrence and I don't actually remember anyone up in arms about that. Can you? (You have been here much longer than I. Maybe you can recall a time).

Are you trying to tell me that you don't see the difference? That one behaviour, while a nuisance, doesn't actually stop anyone from using the board, but another makes it bloody hard?

You of course remember when he initially changed his avatar that everyone was scrambling and did not know how to ignore or block or whatever and was caught flatfooted. People were speaking in terms of not risking exposure of Richard's cock on their computer and how to minimise the impact and did not know how to effectively block/ignore/whatever whilst no ruining their experience of the board. Others rallied as to how to get him to stop and pleading with him to stop, saying that ignoring was not a solution, others telling how to block the avatar alone and others saying that was no good....

As far as an argument for him not stopping people as to making it bloody hard I think the difference between the two is marginal at best. I have no idea whether anyone did stop using the board on the basis of this or whether others held off and got the solution from others that fitted them or whether they logged off and checked back t a later stage in hope that Ricktard decided to change it back.

As I say the difference is that bloody marginal as to basically in my view be akin to the same.


Because again, Richard did not make the board unreadable, he was just being a nuisance.

Please see above

Nobody is sinbinned or blabberized because s/he is aiming for a moral high ground, real or perceived.

Nope. I know this. I would be permanently blabberised because I am a grumpy, arrogant, opinionated old man  :laugh:

However, again I don't think he JUST took a moral high ground on this and I think I have explained this well enough


I already know you consider it to be so. I don't, and I think there is an important difference.

Again agree to disagree on this point

Really? Are you trying to dictate what arguments I may or may not use here? Man, get used to being disappointed.

Hell no. Use whatever arguments you like. In fact you could say "My board, my rules, my decisions. Piss off Les"
Does you a lot of credit that you don't.
That said is my opinion is that the argument is not a strong one on that particular point and thus "not one to hang your hat on as a sealer argument"

I did not try to make him stay. Show me the post where I tried. I was perfectly fine with deleting him after the mandatory waiting period of one week. He changed his mind before the time was up, just as I thought he would. And just as you and pretty much everybody else thought.

Of course we had not seen him change his mind. We saw him continuing to post like he had not petulantly demanded deletion and over pretty "moral grounds". Listed below is "I still am, unless someone changes my mind. much like congress, i want my record in the statement". So again adding two and two together. He is (was) going to leave because of his moral stance on Admin abuse and his concerns for private personal information with incompetent admin/pranking admin/untrustworthy admin/lying admin/unstable board (or what the fuck else he was on about). He is to leave UNLESS someone changes his mind. He obviously did not get the answers to change his opinion on board security or Callaway for that matter (He would not do a callout on that). Admin did not delete him as he requested and he continued merrily on his way.

I had seen you also reply the following

If he doesn't change his mind, we will delete his account. He asked us to do it.

I really wish you wouldn't, but I know I know. You have to, right?

As long as we agree to deleting accounts when people ask us to, yes.  

I did not systamaticlly put 15 people on my ignore list, thats too much of a hassle. i ignore people right under there screename. I like callaway, but the evidence doesnt lie. I supose there could be a glitch, but that would have to be a majore one

So, in closing if i'm wrong i'll eat my words but something fishy is going on here.

Richard, that would be an idiotic prank. There are far funnier ways to prank a member if one really wants to abuse the admin powers.

The real point here, though, is that WE DIDN'T DO IT.

So the above says to me that you are replying to rage that it is unfortunate that you have to delete him. (Am I right in assuming the "yes" at the end of this sentence is in response to both you "wishing you would not" and "you having to"? That is certainly my reading). Days later after the deletion request is in you are pandering to the guy again by stating you did not do anything.

Hell he wants gone, calls Admin liars, asks for the unprovable as much as he is doing in the latest callout thread against Callaway and yes I call this explaining yourself again as pandering to him to induce him to stay. It is what he wants.

But maybe because I doesn't see what is exchanged privately and I don't know other's mindsets, it is possible that Richard was having a lend of you and wanted attention and had no real problem but wanted to upset the apple cart a little.  Maybe he figured on the time between the request for deletion, and the actual deletion happening, that he was fixing to save face on board by not admitting his, "Fix/explain this or I will leave" moral stance was unresolved. Maybe he wanted to back down without looking publicly like he had backed down from the "or I will leave bit". Maybe his "unless someone changes my mind", again, was not a requirement in actuality. Maybe your "yes" in the question to Rage was not in respect to it being a shame but just in relation to the deletion itself. Maybe your "We didn't do it" proclamation was not as my reading inferred a last ditch effort to make him see reason and stay but rather an exasperated vent.  

Just did not stack up that way in my reading especially in respect to the conviction of his want to leave and your agreeing to delete him ...and then him simply seeming to be here and the issues obviously unresolved.


He changed his mind and told us so, but afaik, he didn't post it. Which one of the above quotes proves that I tried to make him stay, in your opinion?

Oh I see I need proof? No I don't. I need a decent reason to see a favouritism or a discrepancy of treatment. As of when or why do I need specific proof over this. You are trying to dictate the terms again.

???

Wrong. I ignored the whole thing, fully prepared to delete him, but he changed his mind before the week was up.

OK. Did not look that way to me, but sure. Look to me like you were not just ignoring it.

wrong. i'm going to say this one time only, for the sake of me not having to explain myself over and over again.

I dont want to be around people that are biased twords one set of parts, unfair, close minded, have flock mentality, jelouse of what I have, dont know a good thing when they see it, (there kids are in the room or boss is looking over there shoulders)

I would like to be freinds with people that are open minded, fair, unbiased, know a good thing when they see it, arent jelouse of what i have, and dont run off a cliff with the rest of the lemars

So if i dont hit you back now you know.

I still don't understand your point. Maybe you wouldn't care if kids or the boss happen to see one part or the other, but some of us do. It has *nothing* to do with bias, envy, unfairness, etc, and all to do with common sense. It's fairly easy to stay clear of the more explicit threads when you know that someone could watch but a lot harder to avoid an avatar.

And that goes for both sets of private parts. There's a reason they are called private, you know.

If that makes me close-minded in your book, then so be it. I can live with that.

You also said you found it curious elsewhere.

I thought that and the protestation mentioned showed a little more than simply ignoring it. Again my reading and that is what it did and does look like, to me.

What would you suggest we do with the other members posting an occasional nude outside the sex fora? Should we start moderating the board? Should we just ignore those because you don't consider the posters to be braindead or retarded? Why are they allowed to dictate the way we can view the board?

If you want some credibility here, speak out against every such occurrence, against every nude, against every image posted by any member, placed outside where you would expect to find it.

See, this is where your logic fails. You are advocating a solution where you treat members differently depending on what you think of them. I'm not sure if this is a conscious strategy on your part or not, but I think it's pretty blatant.

There's been a lot of nudes posted in the wrong fora, some of which were far more in your face than Richard's avatar, but just as in Richard's case, I didn't do anything except avoiding the thread or ignoring the poster. They didn't stop anyone from viewing the thread, they only made it a nuisance.

Gee Odeon there is a lot in the above to respond to.  :-\

Now how about I attack it in no particular order?

Now I guess firstly whilst being accused I guess of faulty logic my accuser jumps into a slippery slope of showing my to have Richard avatar of him playing with himself as being the same as the occasional nude posted outside of where we would expect it.

OK let's start there and see whether perhaps not consciously I may be an avid closeted anti-porn advocate or whatever it is that you are trying to infer.

I post about 4 posts a day. Richard about 7 posts a day. All averages of course and some days are more or less. We are both active posters. Le's say that an active poster was to post a porn or self porn image or whatever outside the "designated area".
A one off. Meh
How about 10 such images (a days worth of posts?) that is a nusiance and a pain in the arse. Right?
Is that what we are talking about? That would meet your definitions if I read it right.

Is that what Richard did? No it wasn't. How many times was this image duplicated on the board? OK now compare this posting outside of designated areas to spamming porn images on the board.

My contention is that it was not once or twice or ten. Not twenty. Richard has over 11 000 posts. How many times was this image duplicated outside of the designated areas, Odeon? Was it in fact around about 10 000 times give or take?

Now let's have a look at the rest of your argument.

I have to according to your logic speak out about every occurrence of nudes outside the designated areas to have a credible argument? No I don't. That is rather bizarre and perhaps a little insulting to suggest so. If someone was to in the example of doing the 10 posts a day I might say something on a thread on the 5th or 6th or 10th time, "C'mon mate, can't you just post that in the sex forums?"
I think you are intentionally being obtuse and I don't think you believe that I or others would do more. Why was Richard's avatar viewed so strong and so negatively? 10 000+ images throughout the board.

Clear difference.

Were anyone else to do this you can beat your arse I would respond to this.

If Callaway were to decide that her or another vagina as an avatar was pretty good value I would be just as disagreeable and similarly would not respect her brushing it off (not saying she would because she is a respectful person and has a brain in her head.) Were Parts to say an avatar of someone's arsehole were fair game I would call that out too.

Now how about you take what you know of me (and you have known me a while) have a think and denounce that I would. Or perhaps drop the inference that the only reason I (and others if you like) had an issue was because it was Richard.

I still don't understand your point. Maybe you wouldn't care if kids or the boss happen to see one part or the other, but some of us do. It has *nothing* to do with bias, envy, unfairness, etc, and all to do with common sense. It's fairly easy to stay clear of the more explicit threads when you know that someone could watch but a lot harder to avoid an avatar.

And that goes for both sets of private parts. There's a reason they are called private, you know.

If that makes me close-minded in your book, then so be it. I can live with that.

Oh yeah I am guessing from this quote you know EXACTLY what I am talking about here

Pretty much like me, then. Which is why I called you out.

Fair call

That same argument can be used about you. Aren't you saying that I'm being inconsistent with my actions because I happen to like Richard? That just isn't the case, no matter how you want to make it so by repeating it.

Hell Odeon, it may or may not be. I am by my nature reactive. It is not to say that I am emotionally invested. I see and agree and post as such. I disagree and I post as such. I have no problem in backing myself up or explaining myself nor apologising if i consider myself wrong. I don't see a personal investment with any of this.

I don't "want to make it so". I "see" that this was/is how it looks like to me and I state it. No need to beat around the bush or subtle context here. Straight up and honest. Whether you may have me this way or not.


I think I did, but in spite of not providing links or any proof, I'm still waiting.

IMO, your calling Richard braindead, retard, etc, in your posts, in this context, the one where we discuss Duke's punishment and where you compare the two, would imply that being a retard, ugly, etc, is enough. I'm happy to be wrong here, but if that's the case then what ARE you saying? And besides, I asked a question (see your own quote, above).

What worries me is this:

Quote
It just pisses me off having Richard be a dick to no lesser degree and cheer on Duke's sinbinning and/or blabbering whilst everyone has to pander to his unchecked douchebaggery.

I get it. You don't like the guy and you are pissed because he is cheering when Duke gets punished for flooding the board. Yes, I didn't like it either, but no matter how much a dick he was when doing it, he wasn't flooding the board.

Yes the Douchebaggery in question was the issue not the being Richard. Personality grating, but no real issue. Behaviour? Different story.
The reason that I have not been on Duke's case lately, and let's not forget I have in the past, is simply that Duke has not been (OK until the spam episode that I missed completely) been more than he is personality wise. Richard has been being a douchebag. A completely unrepentant forum fucking douchebag. Effectively posting 10 000 images throughout the forum of himself wanking. But it is within the rules you say and no biggie and far different from Duke's spam project (that he responded to as a result of the non-censoring of Richard).

Now you can say I am unreasonable or over sensitive or picking on Richard or a good many other things, but as above I simply contest this.

I think that I have very valid reasons to assert what I have and think that my reasoning and my logic is sound and fine.
I don't want to hear it. Save your complaints to Odeon. Yes, we had decided to drop hostilities. No, I didnt expect that Odeon would do other than start shit again like he always does
You're not going to stick to "a handful people", are you? That would be stupid.
Damned if I won't respond.
So it's on again & you can lay the blame squarely at his feet. Little passive-aggressive bitch

richard

  • Guest
Re: Sir Les, Defend Yourself!
« Reply #29 on: December 27, 2010, 11:27:11 AM »
Would you like some lotion sir, for that rough dry itchy sensative skin?