A comment on the Cesario modding

[StusBlues]

Geez, guys, get a grip.

[Frylock]

@Sapo

Now I am beginning to think that you are being deliberately obtuse. Yes, my point was that this was dealt with in a chickenshit manner. Then I explained in full detail why and how I think it should have gone. This is not about who has more hair on his chest. It is about TPTB not having had the nerve to do what needed to be done about Cesario and having bagged him for an invented offense. If you need more details, then please reread my previous posts. There is no point in repeating myself.

Now I know you are being deliberately obtuse. Yes, you can find counterexamples of him posting on threads without bringing up his, er, condition. Woo-hoo! It wasn’t on every single thread. He shouldn’t have been banned. Congratulations. You won. He did it enough that he pissed off a lot of people. I think that was enough to ban him. TPTB seem to agree.

It is when you insist on being icky time after time. Being icky is a separate issue, though. An interesting one that I hadn’t seen invoked before.

You said it’s “not about who has more hair on his chest” but then insisted on continuing to frame the issue in terms of "chickenshit"edness and “nerve.” And you call me obtuse!

You cited a rule that says people shouldn’t post only about a single topic, I showed that Cesario hadn’t broken that rule, and your reply is to say he should have been banned because a lot of his posts were on a particular topic. Which is not what the rule says. Which is it? Do you want him banned because he broke a rule, or because people don’t like his posts? (It’s okay, you don’t have to respond; I’m just being obtuse.)

I’m also just being obtuse when I insist I don’t see anything about ickiness in the rules.

[Shalmanese]

@Fenris

Of course he does–he just makes up a definition for “consensual” that no other non-deviant finds acceptable. He wants to boink 3 year old kids and he believes there is a magical test that can be administered to a three year old kid to make it “consentual”

Again incorrect. He explicitly said that he didn’t believe there would be any meaningful test that could be applied to a 3 year old and that alone was sufficient reason that he would never engage in intercourse with a 3 year old, as much as he desired it.

@Carmady

One of the the things I found distressing was how people ignored Cesario’s very real infractions.

He explicitly said that he would have sex with a 6 year old if they “started it.”

No weasel words about a “consent test” or “changing the law.” In fact when I called him on it, he eventually admitted that he didn’t care about the law.

Do you have a cite for this? I don’t remember seeing this among any of Cesario’s posts. But if this was indeed the case, it only further justifies my point. There were plenty of factual things to vilify Cesario for without having to resort to blatantly made up misrepresentations.

[Shalmanese]

Oops, apologies. It seems like I was factually wrong on this one.

Meatros: You think that there exists a possibility for a 5 month old to be able to give that sort of consent?
Cesario: I’m not prepared to discount the possibility entirely. And even if no 5 month old could do so, that’s no reason to prevent them from taking the test and trying to prove the presumption wrong.

[elbows]

Pssst, CarnalK

Here’s a hint…

It seems like I was factually wrong on this one.

Shalmanese, my esteem grows!

[Sapo]

@Frylock

You said it’s “not about who has more hair on his chest” but then insisted on continuing to frame the issue in terms of "chickenshit"edness and “nerve.” And you call me obtuse!

Yes, I did say the did it in a chickenshit manner (the word kinda loses all meaning after you say it so many times). You are trying to make it sound like it is all about having to meet my macho standards or whatever. Not the case. They are chickenshit in the absolute, not relative to my overwhelming keyboard hawkishness.

You cited a rule that says people shouldn’t post only about a single topic, I showed that Cesario hadn’t broken that rule, and your reply is to say he should have been banned because a lot of his posts were on a particular topic. Which is not what the rule says. Which is it? Do you want him banned because he broke a rule, or because people don’t like his posts? (It’s okay, you don’t have to respond; I’m just being obtuse.)

I am glad we agree on the matter of your obtuseness. If you think that all a person needs to do to skirt the rule of “don’t be a one trick pony” is post once on something else, then I guess I am glad it is not you modding this board.

I’m also just being obtuse when I insist I don’t see anything about ickiness in the rules.

You are. It is. Look it up. Zotti even linked to it at some point, I think.

[Carmady]

@Shalmanese

Do you have a cite for this? I don’t remember seeing this among any of Cesario’s posts. But if this was indeed the case, it only further justifies my point. There were plenty of factual things to vilify Cesario for without having to resort to blatantly made up misrepresentations.

Nothing about consent tests or law changing in this post. Just a statement that if a 6 year old starts something, it is a “rare opportunity” for him.

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=11564485&postcount=55

And then when called on it:

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=12090709#post12090709

[Frylock]

@Sapo

If you think that all a person needs to do to skirt the rule of “don’t be a one trick pony” is post once on something else,

(Bolding mine).

Charitably, I conclude you can’t be serious.

[Sapo]

@Frylock

(Bolding mine).

Charitably, I conclude you can’t be serious.

Are you? You can dance around this all you want but the fact remains that he did it enough times that the mob asked for his burning and TPTB had no choice but to ban him, even if then didn’t have the nerve to own up to it. See, now you can squirm out of this one with the thing about “nerves” and my testosterone. Am I not merciful?.

[Frylock]

@Sapo

Are you? You can dance around this all you want

Dance around what now? I’m just straightforwardly (albeit with some sarcastic indirection) pointing out that you seem more focussed on what other people think you think of their character than with the actual quasi-legal issues.

but the fact remains that he did it enough times that the mob asked for his burning and TPTB had no choice but to ban him,

Had no choice or else what now?

even if then didn’t have the nerve to own up to it. See, now you can squirm out of this one with the thing about “nerves” and my testosterone. Am I not merciful?.

Yeahbut, you used that word “squirm” with all those connotations it carries…! ;)

[Guinastasia]

@Fenris

Of course he does–he just makes up a definition for “consensual” that no other non-deviant finds acceptable. He wants to boink 3 year old kids and he believes there is a magical test that can be administered to a three year old kid to make it “consentual”–news flash: there is no three year old. NONE. Ever in the history of the human race. Not even if Einstein and Madame Curie had a super-genius baby. Not one three-year-old ever could give informed consent to have sex with a 40(?) year old pervert. Since he believes that there are three year olds he can boink (if only the bigoted horrible law would get out of the way), he’s advocating non-consesual sex.

That and he seemed to think there are kids who actually wanted to have sex with adults.

@brownie55

I disagree.

They should have banned him for hijacking every thread that mentioned children long ago. They were appearing fair, but really, who needs fairness to that?

Or for threads related to flirting and such – he used to like to talk about how kids were attracted to him and how their parents felt it was “cute.”

[Cat_Whisperer]

@tubadiva

that is the situation in one cogent paragraph.
<snip>

I win!

[Zoe]

Carmady: Nothing about consent tests or law changing in this post. Just a statement that if a 6 year old starts something, it is a “rare opportunity” for him.

Carmady, if you follow the link that Shalmanese provided, you will find that it is all about consent tests – even with a five-month-old.

[Sapo]

@Frylock

Dance around what now? I’m just straightforwardly (albeit with some sarcastic indirection) pointing out that you seem more focussed on what other people think you think of their character than with the actual quasi-legal issues.

I love clockworks. Thank you for switching back to the testosterone issue even before my opening. Do you remember that you were trying to argue that Cesario wasn’t a one-trick pony?

[Sister_Vigilante]

Jesus Christ can we stop with the Cesario issue? I didn’t even know who he was until the drama started.

Let. It. Go.

[CarnalK]

I think it’s both cathartic and educational to have these kinds of discussions after a major board issue. If you don’t like it, maybe you should just not click the thread rather than tell everyone else to drop it.

[Irishman]

elbows said:

You have accused me of calling for a banning, when I clearly did not.

You have accused me of calling the mods dumb, when I clearly did not.

If you want to say you think I implied those things, feel free. But to accuse me of having said things I specifically did not say is called lying.

You owe me an apology. (And everyone with two braincells can see it, so man up.)

Since you can’t seem to let this go, and won’t take it to the Pit where it belongs, and are continuing this hijack, let’s look again at what happened. Your post in the other thread:

elbows said:

It’s a freaking free for all because the mods are busy policing language while the jerks dance around the ever expanding, hair splitting rules. So instead we all get subjected to this crap going on and on, seemingly endlessly, only to have it finally end exactly as the community asked from the jump. We have all watched helplessly as it has unfolded before our very eyes three times in the last month or so.

We need better moderation and we needed it, like yesterday.

I say use the hammer, quit dragging everything out like this. It’s painful to watch.

CarnalK’s actual comment:

On a not unrelated note, elbows over in the Argent Towers thread is calling for his banning and asks (paraphrased) “Have you dumb staff not learned anything from recent incidents”. Who agrees that Argent’s idiocy should mean a banning?

I wish to point out a word you seem to have overlooked. See that little parenthetical “(paraphrased)”? That is a word that means “This is what I think you are saying, not your actual words.”

So CarnalK did not put words in your mouth. He did not say you used the word “stupid”. That is, however, a fair assessment of the attitude you displayed in that post. “Why can’t the moderators seem to learn? Why do they keep repeating the same mistakes?” (By the way, I am using quotes instead of the quote feature because I am paraphrasing - er, using my own words to state your accusations.)

Now, you claim you did not call for Argent Towers to be banned, but that is precisely how I read the line:

I say use the hammer, quit dragging everything out like this. It’s painful to watch.

Now maybe you meant that in a more generic sense of dealing with situations, and didn’t actually mean you think Argent Towers deserves to be banned in this case, but that is not at all clear from the words you posted. So, if people don’t understand what you meant, the problem is in you not stating clearly what you meant.

CarnalK does not owe you an apology.

[elbows]

Since you can’t seem to let this go

We’ve already let it go, it’s you who’s continuing the hijack.

elbows over in the Argent Towers thread is calling for his banning

I did not call for a banning. The ‘paraphrased’ came after this accusation.

If you want to say you think I implied those things, feel free. But to accuse me of having said things I specifically did not say is called lying.

What’s unclear about this? I didn’t use the words dumb or banning and should not be accused of using them, even if you feel that’s what I meant. You’re more than welcome to say you think that’s what I meant. When you say it’s what I said, it’s a lie.

Now maybe you meant that in a more generic sense of dealing with situations, and didn’t actually mean you think Argent Towers deserves to be banned in this case

It’s an imperfect medium for communication, sometimes people don’t make themselves as clear as they believe they are being. Sometimes it’s easy to read into a thing something the author never intended. Shit happens. While this is cause to seek clarity or an explanation it is not a reason to put words they did not say into their mouth.

I recognize I could have been clearer, or, better yet, chose a different thread to post about what I was addressing, but they seemed closely related in my mind, at the time.

For myself, when such misreadings of another’s intention is cleared up, I am willing to take them at their word that they didn’t mean what I was inferring. Clearly not everyone feels this way, I fail to see what I can do to change that.

And just so you know, yesterday I received a PM from CarnalK all but admitting that perhaps I hadn’t actually used the words he attributed to me, and acknowledging that my intent may not have been as he ascribed. It’s not a public retraction but likely as much as I’ll get so, it will have to do.

[Jack_Batty]

nevermind

[CarnalK]

@elbows

And just so you know, yesterday I received a PM from CarnalK all but admitting that perhaps I hadn’t actually used the words he attributed to me, and acknowledging that my intent may not have been as he ascribed. It’s not a public retraction but likely as much as I’ll get so, it will have to do.

That is a mischaracterization of the PM, which is not a surprise I guess. What I said was that I had later noticed you retracted your banning call, and I apologized for missing it in that big thread. I, like Irishman, pointed out that you had completely missed or don’t understand what “paraphrased” means. You also mentioned that probably everyone reading this thread could easily tell that I was lying about you, a notion which I am rather happy to see Irishman has disabused you of.