Reputation Comments, positive and negative
- Thread starter Stickler
- Start date
I wanted to pos rep Lib-tarded, but I can't. Remind me, before I neg you again
I just remembered, we're not allowed to let this one move to page 2.
Oh... yea... I remembered something else... a question for the masses.
Remember when the Beatles sang that song and said "the love you take is equal to the love you give"?
Is that true?
Oh... yea... I remembered something else... a question for the masses.
Remember when the Beatles sang that song and said "the love you take is equal to the love you give"?
Is that true?
LogGrad98
Well-Known Member
Contributor
20-21 Award Winner
2022 Award Winner
2023 Award Winner
2024 Award Winner
Attempting to continue a discussion from a locked thread isn't the brightest move you've ever made. Unless of course the goal is to get this thread locked as well.
We prohibit spammers. Trout is a long-timer member of the forum and not a spammer. If another long-time member behaved similarly they would likely be granted the same latitude. This is that "judgment call" thing again. And guess what, it's our judgment that matters.
That's incorrect. Two moderators said they would support an exception to the duplicate accounts rule for users that may have their speech restrained for commercial reasons. That is a) not enough to actually grant that exception and no such exception presently exists and b) not an exception for Trout because no such username exists.
That's kind of the definition of lying. You have to know what you are saying is false to be lying, otherwise you're just mistaken. If I take an exam and get all the answers wrong I'm not lying, I'm just a moron.
Even Trout knows he's full of crap.
In any event if your indict of moderating practice is to say that the moderators speak disparagingly of Trout this isn't the most compelling case I've ever seen.
In related news, Trout was just suspended. Obviously there is a huge bias here.
Then I'm not sure what you meant when asserting that Trout was the "libtard" version of Sloanfeld. Otherwise why draw the comparison with only that one distinction.
I repeat: if you would like unmoderated discussion the door is open and there are alternatives. We really don't care what your opinion is of the moderation here and you will get no results by complaining.
We prohibit spammers. Trout is a long-timer member of the forum and not a spammer. If another long-time member behaved similarly they would likely be granted the same latitude. This is that "judgment call" thing again. And guess what, it's our judgment that matters.
That's incorrect. Two moderators said they would support an exception to the duplicate accounts rule for users that may have their speech restrained for commercial reasons. That is a) not enough to actually grant that exception and no such exception presently exists and b) not an exception for Trout because no such username exists.
That's kind of the definition of lying. You have to know what you are saying is false to be lying, otherwise you're just mistaken. If I take an exam and get all the answers wrong I'm not lying, I'm just a moron.
Even Trout knows he's full of crap.
In any event if your indict of moderating practice is to say that the moderators speak disparagingly of Trout this isn't the most compelling case I've ever seen.
In related news, Trout was just suspended. Obviously there is a huge bias here.
Then I'm not sure what you meant when asserting that Trout was the "libtard" version of Sloanfeld. Otherwise why draw the comparison with only that one distinction.
I repeat: if you would like unmoderated discussion the door is open and there are alternatives. We really don't care what your opinion is of the moderation here and you will get no results by complaining.
Archie Moses
Well-Known Member
Kicky the thread was locked, yet YOU continued the discussion by having the last words in a closed thread. Just saying.
Yes, you have discovered my secret Machiavellian plan.
Actually the post Millsapa responded to was submitted before the thread was locked. Just saying.
As for the other post which you're irrelevantly referencing, I had written the post during the locking process. I didn't even know it was locked until after I had hit submit. Moderators don't get any kind of error message, it just goes straight through. There was no intentional OT message on my part.
But seriously Archie, your opinions on moderation are given just as much thought as Millsapa's: none. This game is old. I'm old. And I'm tired of arguing about moderation with those who don't actually see what's going on behind the curtain and act as if they know everything anyway. Maybe you should resurrect jazzhacks and take all the malcontents with you.
prodigy
Well-Known Member
I even knew that even though I was only a moderator in a different forum for a short time.
One good poster has chosen to leave because of the unreasonable refusal to allow a change from using a real name to a fictitious one, because of threats sometimes tolerated in here against people with opinions.
Not caring about the people who come here, and applying an arbitrary judgment process to those who do, is one way of diminishing the value of this forum.
What are you talking about? I've enacted all name changes that people have requested, I believe without exception.
Just because there are judgment calls in the judgment process doesn't make it arbitrary.
Franklin argued openly that he wanted his name changed and said you mods refused. Then he started getting a mass of infractions.
I don't know anything more than those two observations. I sorta think he might have just hari kari'd himself to get his name outta here.
Whenever we make judgments it's possible there are some elements of the decision that either are not valid or that might appear to others to be not valid. I get tired of SirKicky bringing up the argument that a lie isn't a lie if somebody is such a moron that they just don't know it's a lie. If that were valid, I would use his analogy to say that a judgment isn't arbitrary if the judge doesn't think it's arbitrary. But both arguments are BS, and any good lawyer knows it, just like a lot judges can make arbitrary decisions based on what they want the outcome to be, and even try to back it up with thousands of pages of decision supportive materials while avoiding the truth of the facts.
I just never believed SirKicky's defense of his pal because I don't think his pal was/is such a moron.
But when it comes right down to it, maybe I'm wrong. That's why sometimes I listen to what other people say for a while and think it over. Wouldn't hurt mods to do the same.
He never PMed me about a name change. And I suspect he never PMed any of the other moderators either, because they would have referred him to me.
If I saw the thread where he said he wanted his name changed, I would have told him simply to send me a PM.
I don't think I ever saw a thread where he said that the mods had refused him a name change. If so, I would have called him on it.
To my knowledge, franklin never contacted any moderator with this request.
Frankly he looked like a guy that was trying to get banned given that he stepped up his behavior in response rather than toning it down. In any event your description of events is incorrect inasmuch as it implies that franklin received all of his infractions in a short period of time.
To be frank you didn't even know those two observations accurately.
I believe that he truly believes that Millsapa and/or you is a reincarnation of Hopper. I think all the moderators (and they can feel free to correct me, I'd only be mistaken not lying), to a person, believe he is wrong and several of us have told him as much. He has, however, been sanctioned for harrassing her on more than one occasion so I'm not certain what else you could be asking for.
We discuss a lot of things internally and have been known to reverse infractions or warnings from time to time (in fact franklin himself was the recipient of a reversed infraction). We give your complaints the weight they are due.
Wow. I don't think I had ever seen that clip before. The "Idiot!!" line made me literally LOL.
Blast from the past, from when SNL used to be awesome.
They were factual observations within what is available for guests/posters in this forum to see. I saw his comment in one of his posts prior to his two week absence around Memorial Day. The fact of his rapid accumulation of infractions within the last month of his membership here is a fact you have yourself and other moderators officially proven. Look at the "ban" thread in the Forum topic.
The fact that I never visited this Forum until Milsappa invited me to come here last December puts me in a position of just not knowing the whole history of this place. In fact, I don't have time to really keep up with current developments in my present situation. There are a lot of important things going on in my life, and as important as thinking is to me, I'm just not getting much time to come in here.
This is still the best forum I have seen. If my awe and appreciation isn't all visible to you when I come asking some of these questions, it's still there. Better information can serve us all if we just want it in our thinking. . . .
There's actually several skits where he interviews people. The name of the skit was "The Chris Farley Show" He did Scorcese, Michael Jordan, Bruce Willis and a couple others that escape me.
[video=vimeo;6137066]https://vimeo.com/6137066
Chris Farley was just awesome...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yDZ4bXnvZnw&feature=related
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3nhgfjrKi0o&feature=related
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ai9IEkYrZQk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m5CfU316M0g&playnext=1&list=PL5D6F67476F589445
Last edited: