I would personally pay you $10,000.00 of GFactor’s money for you to publish notes, majority opinions, dissents and so forth.
Frankly, rumor has it that Dex and FluidDruid swear like drunken sailors on leave in the ModPit.
And that GFactor tells dirty jokes.
Inquiring minds want to know!
In this particular case, it doesn’t seem like the poster considers his time to be a tremendous investment of time and effort, and/or that he has forged real bonds with other people here. Perhaps you didn’t see these posts:
Hardly the words of a heartbroken man. The main conclusion I formed after reading his good-bye/kiss my tuckus thread was that we need a new rule to penalize overuse of the acronym LOL.
No, not at all. Just an off-topic idle musing.
Thank you Marley for that post. After giving it a day mswas did bring it on him self. I’ll still miss his / her contributions minus the insults he laid on others.
No, but **GFactor **does like pterodactyl porn.
Shouldn’t that be ‘pterodactyl ptorn’?
Regardless of how much mswas earned this banning, I do think that magellan01 has a valid point. In that Debate about “Obvious Facts”, Czarcasm posts this (post69):
That was Czarcasm’s first post in that thread, it was way off topic, and it was a personal attack. I cannot characterize that in any other way than as taunting mswas.
Furthermore, Czarcasm as a moderator does know better, and as a moderator knowing mswas was on thin ice, better should be expected from him. This strikes me as a deliberate attack to get mswas to respond.
mswas responded with this:
Polite direct address to the comment made.
It was only after Czarcasm accuses mswas of “deliberate ignorance” that we get the exchange cited by megellan01.
Frankly, this all smells bad to me. If I had been reading the thread at the time, I definitely would have reported Czarcasm for his innappropriate attack.
Then there is this:
Marley23 said:
That’s just bullshit. You called out mswas by name, but buried **Czarcasm **in “everybody”, even though Czarcasm is arguably the worse offender for his taunting. That’s just not right.
How is “inferior understanding” more of an insult than “deliberate ignorance”?
Furthermore, if you want to dispell the notion that the board operates with some sort of “blue shield hypocrisy”, you should be especially cautious when moderating an exchange involving a moderator. Evenhandedness is especially called-for to avoid the appearance of bias, let alone actual bias. Here is an perfect example. Citing Czarcasm by name would have gone a long way to showing that moderators don’t get special treatment and have to obey the same rules, and that they will be called out when they violate the rules. Burying him in “everybody” looks like a coverup.
Note that none of the posts above were Czarcasm acting as a moderator - they were all personal posts as a regular poster, and deserve to be treated as such.
Is this the kind of fairness we can expect from the board administration?
Finally, I will comment that the topic of that thread was supposed to be about the obviousness of various things, not the truth. Despite how many times mswas stated as much, many people there were still intent upon arguing the truth. Czarcasm’s posts certainly were all about the truth rather than the obviousness. That is what mswas meant by the remarks about “comprehending what thread you are posting in”.
This is a rhetorical question, right?
The link points to a Pit thread. It was moved on the 3rd post.
A few of you still arguing in favor of mswas need to go back to read Jack Batty’s post 41 because you seem to have missed it.
mswas may have been one of the outstanding posters of the year, but it’s very clear to anyone with the sense of sight and the ability to read what happened.
He made a topic in here purposefully calling the mods out about the final warning when he already knew he was on thin ice and that the next one was his banning. He even had advice from many posters in said thread telling him to take a break, to stop, to walk away, to take a breather, that he was going to be banned. He refused to listen and kept on his kamakazie mission of suicide by mod, not only continuing to post in here his cross-bearing spiel but taking it into another thread in GD and then, on top of all of that, making yet another thread in here claiming the mods are double teaming him.
It’s very simple. He made up his mind already to be banned. He was already convinced he wasn’t going to be staying. So like post 41 said…if anyone still thinks mswas had anything other than “well, going to get banned anyway so GET BANNED FROM THE SDMB TODAY” on his “To Do” list, then you’re not the most insightful person in the world.
:rolleyes:
Czarcasm’s comments were marginally personal, which is why they were moderated along with mswas’s. But it’s a thread about knowledge- what’s obvious and what’s knowable. So comments about ignorance are personal but they’re not completely off topic.
I don’t agree. And I didn’t just single out mswas because his comments were ‘worse.’ I directed him to ATMB because he was making comments about modding (“You of course will not be warned because you are a mod, and as such can do whatever you want.”) before I entered the thread. He had a habit of making everything into an argument about moderating.
I was emphasizing “you feel smug and superior,” not "inferior understanding. But in any case, see above: comments from both posters were modded.
I want to be fair and evenhanded, but I was not responding to dispel charges of blue shield hypocrisy. mswas trotted out crap like that whenever he disagreed with a moderator warning - which was almost always, no matter how blatantly he insulted someone.
I think you’re reading too much into my mentioning of mswas’s name. I made it clear my note didn’t only apply to him.
It’d streamline things a lot to just ban anyone making whiny posts in support of people banned for longstanding, blatant violations of the rules. If they defend such behavior they don’t belong either. mswas should have been banned months ago. He contributed nothing of value to any thread he posted to.
I wonder why people really want an ‘interesting’ bully around? Is that what we want to shoot for here? Add to the ignorance as long as it isn’t boring?
That’s what some posters want. They post that they only come here for the Pit. It’s just human nature that some small percentage(5-10%?) of the posters are here for the thrill of trainwrecks.
In reflection I’ll say this, Irishman (and others): it would have been clearer if I’d said “mswas, if you have questions about the rules or moderating, take them to ATMB. Everyone else is also advised to make sure this argument does not become personal and don’t call people names.”
NineToTheSky, thanks for reposting the link to mswas’s previous apology and his explanation about his mood swings. People with mood disorders are rarely the best loved folks on the block. Few people have the patience to put up with the inevitable tantrums.
But that’s just for now. In a month or so, he may really regret what he has done. He has before.
Czarcasm, I didn’t realize that the “once banned, always banned” policy had been finally carved in stone here with absolutely no exceptions ever, ever. Few SDMB decisions are.
Since I am not advocating such an action in this particular case, I think any mod comments – directed at me about mswas having only the option of returning as a sock were unwarranted. When that was followed with unsolicited advice about where I could “hang out” with this particular ex-Doper, I began to wonder if twickster had returned to her old ways. I had rather that she not make this personal.
And then a month after that, when he starts melting down again? That’s a pretty thankless job you want to task the mods with, worthy of Sisyphus.
Me, I won’t miss him, at all. He had some nice insights on music and stuff, but in GD and the Pit? Not so much. He asked for this, he was often abusive, and he added nothing of value to the board that balanced out the abusiveness.
My definition of “rule” is that it has to be in the rules thread at the top of the forums. I always assume that any rule not placed up there is no longer in effect. If the rule isn’t in the designated place for rules, how could you expect anyone to know to follow it?
My explanation was supposed to mean something more along the lines of: if they would let us know that some of them often disagree in certain ways, then I think the comment “We all discussed it and agreed” would carry more weight. As it is, it is somewhat ambiguous.
When did I say this?
You know what they say: “you should have thought of that before.”
While mswas appeared to have mood swings and had trouble walking away from arguments (mostly with mods), this was not a one time thing at all. We try to recognize when someone is going through a rough period and we’ll try to advise them about it. But they have to work with us for that to help, and mswas’s response to his last warning was “I am not going to make a special effort not to step on over-sensitive people’s toes.” He had six warnings in five months last year and something like 15 altogether over the last five years. So it wasn’t like things started going bad recently and he wouldn’t make an effort to change what was happening. There’s not a lot we can do for posters in that situation.