Admins abilities

[Nomaken]

Some admins have been altering peoples settings.  Some harmless, but it could be used against some members.  I suggested that people should have an option they select in their profile that tells admins whether they are allowed to mess around with members settings, because some cute changes could be fun, but an invasion of privacy to some people.  But Mcjagger believes that admins should not be "limited" from changing peoples settings if they want.  So do you think that peoples settings should be protected from change by default or no?  And this has nothing to do with changes that are made that are necessary, like somebody has a link to a kiddie porn site in their sig, just changes that are superlative like avatar, sig, karma, ect.

[McGiver]

what the fuck is with all this discussion lately about limiting what others can do.  worry about your fucking self.

how dare you try to limit what i can do.  how would you like it if your avatar really pissed me off and i made a new rule.  how about if i just start making exceptions to what you can say, or how you can say it.
do you hate freedom?

why do you write with correct grammar?
because you can!

why do you excercise your right to speak freely here?
because you can!

Why do you challenge the actions of the administrators?
because you can!

Why do dogs lick their balls?
because they can!

from tim to time: why do adminstrators change users settings in a non harmful way?
because we can?

why are you trying to limit my abilities?


*i kept using myself as an example, because i cannot speak for the other administrators, jusyt like i do not think you have a right to speak for me or insinuate your will over me.  (which leads to the generic response). 
but i am not talking about simply exerting will over another, people are always exerting their will.  what i am talking about is consciously and willfully having a desire to take away what another has the ability to do. limiting abilities.
your a sheep.

[Lucifer]

whilst i agree with the idea of not limiting another's abilities, mcj, can you not see that that is exactly what is happening in what nomaken describes?   by farting about with member's settings, you're limiting their ability to choose, and to maintain, their own settings.

and "non-harmful" is a subjective opinion - how do you know members won't find it difficult to deal with their avatar changing, etc., etc.?  i certainly would - my avatar is, in part, an expression of me, and i wouldn't want anyone else to choose one for me which i didn't agree to.

anyway, what's with all this "if I made a new rule"?  i thought intensity2 wasn't a dictatorship?  hmmm?

[McGiver]

your big words are harming my ego.  should we limit you to a vocabulary of a 12 year old?

[McGiver]

whilst i agree with the idea of not limiting another's abilities, mcj, can you not see that that is exactly what is happening in what nomaken describes?? ?by farting about with member's settings, you're limiting their ability to choose, and to maintain, their own settings.

and "non-harmful" is a subjective opinion - how do you know members won't find it difficult to deal with their avatar changing, etc., etc.?? i certainly would - my avatar is, in part, an expression of me, and i wouldn't want anyone else to choose one for me which i didn't agree to.

anyway, what's with all this "if I made a new rule"?? i thought intensity2 wasn't a dictatorship?? hmmm?

*i kept using myself as an example, because i cannot speak for the other administrators, jusyt like i do not think you have a right to speak for me or insinuate your will over me.  (which leads to the generic response). 
but i am not talking about simply exerting will over another, people are always exerting their will.  what i am talking about is consciously and willfully having a desire to take away what another has the ability to do. limiting abilities.
your a sheep.

why would you ask questions that were already answered.
you didn't really read, did you?

[Lucifer]

mcj, what the fuck are you on about?

and why am i suddenly a sheep?  have you been infected by Happeh Virus, or something?

as for my vocabulary - sorry if it makes me difficult to understand.  and, in answer to your post inthe peanut gallery (which i can't answer there), yes, i do speak like that in real life, but only when i get the chance, which is rare - i'm used to having to reframe my language with most people, especially when i'm in schools, and my uni students are always asking me to explain words and concepts, etc.

unless i concentrate, i just speak how i think.

[McGiver]

good.

i act by who i am. tough shit for me and my insecurities over how smart you are.  and tough shit to you that i can change your signature and you cant change mine.

we all have choices to make. i am glad that you choose to talk down to me, it makes me feel more comfortable.
will my choices extend the same courtesy to you?  will i or will i not change your avatar?  have I?

[Peter]

Let the admins do whatever they want, then hold them accountable for it and vote them out if they're being a tosser.

[Lucifer]

good.

i act by who i am. tough shit for me and my insecurities over how smart you are.  and tough shit to you that i can change your signature and you cant change mine.

we all have choices to make. i am glad that you choose to talk down to me, it makes me feel more comfortable.
will my choices extend the same courtesy to you?  will i or will i not change your avatar?  have I?

as i recall, intensity1 was about not having to curb our language so as not to upset people.  does that not apply to me, too?

i'm sorry you feel i'm talking down to you, as that isn't my intent.  but i'd like to know why you're so pissed off about all this - the reaction doesn't seem to fit with the situation, to my mind.

as for changing my avatar: why would you want to?

and peter - if it's going to be so upsetting for mcj, i agree.

[purposefulinsanity]

I'm not going to vote on this one- everytime I express an opinion on the running of the site I get bitched at for it so I'm not going to bother anymore.

[Pyraxis]

Huh? I thought the purpose of this site, in part, was bitching. Why take it seriously?

[ozymandias]

Haven't I read in several forums how a (not to be named) admin. on a (not to be named) forum was screwing around with people's settings/posts/sigs, etc.?  I don't get why this discussion is taking place here?   Maybe I'm taking this too serious and literally?

McJagger are you having a bad day and feeling peevish?  Where the littlest thing sets you off??  I have those days, more times than I can count!

[purposefulinsanity]

Huh? I thought the purpose of this site, in part, was bitching. Why take it seriously?

Yes it is and I don't generally take the bitching seriously- but last time I discussed admin privilages I was accused of trying to take over control of the site- so I'm not getting involved with that subject again.

[Pyraxis]

I think members' setting shouldn't be protected, because screwing around with them stirs up trouble and leads to people talking about it, and stirring up trouble here is a good thing.

Our primary method of enforcement on other issues is to publically out the dicks as dicks, so why shouldn't that apply here also?

[ozymandias]

I think members' setting shouldn't be protected, because screwing around with them stirs up trouble and leads to people talking about it, and stirring up trouble here is a good thing.

Our primary method of enforcement on other issues is to publically out the dicks as dicks, so why shouldn't that apply here also?

Interesting perspective, I never even thought about that, but, it makes a fairly decent amount of sense!  BUT, do you want the kind of ENDLESS controversy that a (never to be named) admin. on a (never to be named) certain forum has generated.

But you bring up a damn good point, either that or the wine I just drank has my brain in a weird place!