My point was not that everyone has done what he did. My point was that everyone has done something equally as bad. (If you can define what he did as “bad”.) I know that I have. In all reality, unless a poster has 5 or less posts, he or she has probably committed the same type of crime. (IE: hijacking a thread, making a stupid remark, etc.) Human nature being what it is, it is impossible for us to be perfect. It even includes the moderators and administrators here and when they are wrong, as I believe they are in this case, they should admit it. Why should a poster that has been banned for what Kyomara was banned for have to do the “leg work”?
Is there something you object to about that in a forum labeled:
See the connection now?
Some of us readers and posters, and apparently mods DO mind it being there. Got it ? It’s never been a secret.
I’m not arbitrating anything, merely pointing out that there’s little evidence that most of the people complaining have ever had much interaction with GQ at all. Would you prefer that the forum be shaped by the opinions of people that don’t use it ? :rolleyes:
So, it turns out that Shayna reads a lot. Have any of the other posters bothered to explain how they might be connected to GQ ? It is not immediately obvious that they are. Every time there’s a banning, a host of people crawl out of the woodwork to complain about it. Over the course of a few days they all decide that the moderators are wrong yet again, and then they head back to whatever fora they normally frequent. Can you think of a valid reason that, for example, the lawyers in GD, should suddenly take charge of the etiquette in, for instance, cafe society ? I can’t, yet you seem to be trying to imply that that’s a fine way to handle any discussions of banning. :rolleyes:
Shayna, How many times does this sort of crap have to happen before the mods are justified in making an example out of some poor twit ? If you examine the thread now, you’ll see that even the banning did not prevent more potshots. Since sufficient time has obviously passed, do you favor banning all those posters ? It’d certainly be the fair thing to do, but at this point it lacks much deterrent value.
What you are saying is getting through fine. I just don’t buy into it.
manhattan was being a jerk just for saying he’d ban someone if they kept talking politics in GQ? Please.
And can we please not go through the ‘Members are not allowed to be jerks, but mods can be’ thing again?
Come on, people. He said it would happen and then it happened. Worst case scenario: Kyomara has to ask for posting privileges again. How about a little gratitude? We wouldn’t even BE here if these people weren’t working so hard to give us this place. And, lest we forget, TubaDiva paid out of her own pocket to provide the temp board for us. I mean, really.
Ok, I previewed and refreshed the screen, etc, and didn’t see this post, so if it’s a double post, sorry…
It hasn’t been a bannable offense AFAIK before. And the issue is not with having the rule in place but the speed with which it was carried out: not giving the poster the benefit of the doubt that possibly slow boards, poor connection, a ringing phone that carried him away from the workstation, etc could have caused the 7 minutes between the official warning and the user’s post.
Again, and here’s where you seem slow on the uptake - posting does not equal using. I’ll try it again since you haven’t picked it up yet. Posting does not equal using. Judging by post count - and post count alone - to different fora, you claim others have more right to an opinion about a specific forum than another. I’m saying that’s bullshit.
Reading GQ is interaction with GQ, but there’s no record of who is looking at what pages when. So stop making pointless claims about who uses which fora based solely on post count. Especially since one of the first thing we tell newbies around here, “It’s not quantity, it’s quality.” And on top of which you are missing 3 months worth of data! Every day 10 times a day, these people may have been contributing to GQ, then BOOM, hacked, everything goes down, backups are gone, all those posts lost. You don’t know what these people have been posting at since Dec 7, so stop basing claims on incomplete data.
**
I didn’t realize anyone owed you an explanation of their posting habits. Since when does any member of this board have to justify themselves to any other member of this board? Nobody here owes anybody else here an explanation of how they are connected to any fora. As a member of these boards, anyone’s informed opinion on any subject are valid in any forum regardless of post count. This is the main point of my argument. And since you seem really slow to get a point, here it is again: As a member of these boards, anyone’s informed opinion on any subject are valid in any forum regardless of post count.
I don’t care how many posts you have in what forum. As a member of this board, you have a valid reason to voice your informed opinion on how this board is run.
**
This is pretty much going to be the same as what I wrote above. Most of my posts are in MPSIMS, but I don’t have an elitist attitude about the place. Just because a person who frequents GD has an opinion about a banning that took place because of an incident in MPSIMS, I don’t think his opinion is less valid. He can read there. He may know what’s going on, but didn’t have anything to say at the time. Maybe he checked out the relevent threads later and formed an opinion. Still a valid opinion IMO.
If you want to base the validity in having an opinion in how the board is run on post count, then you can shut the fuck up, because as far as general board usage goes, Shayna and I both have been here longer and have a higher post count. But you know what? It doesn’t work that way, does it, Spanky? You still have the right to your opinion and you’re voicing the hell out of it here. You didn’t get the point last time, so here’s the proverbial tracing paper and crayon: Since it doesn’t work that way for the board in general, it doesn’t work that way for an individual forum.
**
Again, I don’t think the rule is the issue, but the speed with which it was enforced, with no benefit of the doubt given - in light of the close times between posts - for a simple chance for miscommunication.
Squink, are you doing what manny presumed Kyomara did and willfully ignoring my posts?
Do the math, dear. I have been a member of SD for 27 months (give or take a few days). In that time I have posted in excess of 100 posts in GQ (99 of which are still accessible in the archives, any number of which may have likely been lost not only in the last 3 months, but in prior software upgrades that required pruning of old threads). Even if you only work with the 99 posts, that amounts to an average of 3.66666 posts per month, or almost once a week. Again, it’s not as much as some, but it hardly qualifies me as a mere lurker.
In short, knock it off with the accusations that I know nothing of how that forum operates. Got it now? Thanks!
I challenge you to show where I’m a regular participant in any mod-bashing that’s gone on on this board. In fact, find me one thread, please. Hell, I’ll save you some time. I searched the BBQ Pit for the word “banned” and the username Shayna for any date and gee, whadda ya know, this thread is the only relevant hit that came up. Then I searched the Pit for the word “moderator” and username Shayna and lo and behold, 3 whole threads came up including this one. Neither of the other two included any moderator bashing at all. And then, just to be sure, since I could be mis-remembering and the search function could be missing something, I scrolled through all 4 pages of the 91 threads I’ve participated in in the Pit - ever. I couldn’t find one single thread where I bashed a moderator. Go figure. Generally speaking, I support the moderators and administrators here, as I do not envy them the job they have to do one bit. However, in this case, I felt compelled to respond, which is perfectly within my rights to do. But I guess you’ll say that since I obviously don’t participate in mod bashing threads, that I’m not qualified to comment on their actions ever, right?
I absolutely, positively advocate the banning of anyone who clearly, willfully ignored manny’s directive, and that includes obfusciatrist, whose reply appeared nearly 17 hours after the warning. Not doing so is a blantant miscarriage of “justice”.
*****Relatively new poster obviously simulposts within 7 minutes and gets banned. (Not to mention that I agree with JonScribe, that Kyomara wasn’t making a political statement to further hijack that thread, but merely putting his reply in perspective – he has no great love for the guy, but refuses to bash him for something so ridiculous. How is that a violation of even any known rules?)
*****Long-time member posts 17 hours after the warning and still has posting priviledges.
Do you see anything wrong with this picture? I sure do.
I was watching that thread, and I was the one that appealed for mercy for Kyomara because I reloaded the thread and saw his message and Manny’s at the same time. I can’t speak for the moderators and adminstrators, but I get the feeling that it will take only an e-mail of “sorry, didn’t see the warning” to regain his/her posting privileges. I don’t think his/her banning is a “get out and stay out,” it’s more like a Catholic excommunication: “Repent for your error and rejoin the fold.”
As to the subject of my message and some of the posts I have seen in this thread (in no particular order):
squink- a “Fuck you and the horse you rode in on” for being such an anal mother-fucker to try to account for who has a voice in this matter based on number of posts in the last 6 months (minus the last 3 months) in GQ. You (#3 post count for that time) don’t own GQ, and DDG (#1) doesn’t own GQ. Manny (#2) does manage GQ, and for all intents and purposes is, at least, a co-owner.
cheezit (and others, he’s just the last to post this sentiment)- a minor F U for not realizing that a banning might be the only way to get someone’s attention for this kind of infraction. Banning isn’t permanent. Tuba giveth and Tuba taketh away. There doesn’t seem to be a suspension (i.e. “You fucked up, but all you have to do is apologize”) that might take the place of a banning (i.e. “Get the fuck out and don’t come back”). Banning is the only tool, and context is the only way to tell the how permanent it might be.
White Lightning and {b]Truth Seeker**- just a comment- are y’all a bit dense? obfusciatrist made a pretty neutral comment of “he’s done good, he’s done bad”- nothing particularly political, just a statement of fact that only extremist partisans on both sides of the aisle would disagree with. It’s a bit different from
oh… and
Shayna- another big “Fuck you and the horse you rode in on,” even though it was in response to squink little flawed statistical analysis of GQ posts, for claiming some great authority for being here x amount of time longer, having y more posts, and posting z% more per day than someone else. That shit may play in some of the softer forums like IMHO and MPSIMS, but I don’t give any credence to that at all. I’ve seen some smart posts by pure newbies (maybe they had lurked for a long time), and I have seen pure, unadulterated bullshit posted by 1000+ post-count bad-asses.
As to the rest of you, one of the above comments may apply to you, but I am too damn lazy to go through and re-read the whole thread to check. Listen to your own conscience.
Excuse me, but I think you’ve been severely whooshed, as that was my point, entirely. His numbers and the use of them were STOOPID and IRRELEVANT. And IF he wants to play the freaking numbers game, then he can, as Crunch Frog stated above, shut the fuck up, because I have him beat by a landslide. I have no great authority for being here and never claimed such. But I sure as fuck am not a ZERO poster in GQ with no right to voice my opinion, therefore, which is what I did say. Get it now, numbnuts?
Whether or not you think obfusciatrist’s post was ‘particularly political,’ (not to mention whether or not his politics are in agreement with yours, but I won’t make that accusation) manhattan specifically said to stick to the facts, which he patently did not do.
I think y’all need to do a little more reading comprehension and a little less calling people ‘dense’ from now on. Especially considering how badly you just got reamed by Shayna.
:(sorry! ( roots frantically around in her purse, pulls out two ibuprofen) ummm, I don’t have aspirin, will these do? How about this… (runs and gets a cool cloth) for the forehead…
Things have been moving that way for a while. It’s probably a result of the post Sept. 11 touchiness everyone suffered from. Maybe if you hung out in GQ a bit more you’d have noticed that. Wildest Bill didn’t help matters either.
As I stated earlier in this very thread, Tuba’s comment came some time before the banning took place. TXLonghorn can probably verify that for all you doubters out there. All this chat about the 7 minute timeframe ignores the time that passed between the post and the banning. Is Tuba now supposed to wait around all evening to see if someone sends her an e-mail explaining what happened ? As it turns out, a simple email in the morning could have fixed the problem. Apparently it hasn’t arrived. Is that because of injured dignity, or evil intent ? That question’s been discussed endlessly before. Do you really think you can prove it one way or another this time ? If not, kindly go suck some of the tadpoles out of your ass. It’s pretty damn full of itself.
Again, posting in a pit thread does not equal use of GQ. It does not make sense, it is not fair, to have the rules governing GQ set by people who do not frequent that forum. Maybe you’re a fan of occupation by foreign troops, I am not.
As far as the numbers go, I’d have gone without the table, but I doubted anyone would have been willing to admit that there was such a large apparent range in the interest posters to this thread had in GQ. In fact it looks seems there may be even a faction that shows up just for these banning discussions.
You can be all egalitarian if you want, but posting rates in forums do matter. Just look at how mad Shayna got over hers. Obviously it means something to her. Your attempt to paint my figures some sort of measure of “right to post” is ridiculous. Had I wanted to judge people by post count I could have looked it up in their profiles. Of course it’s well known that only arrogant long timers could even attempt to pull that off. I guess your accusation did serve the purpose of obscuring the fact that lots of the people with apparently minimal interest in GQ were mobbing about crying foul here. Way to go asshole. Or is it possible that you don’t know the difference between a post count and a posting rate ?
The measure I took of posts in GQ over the last 6 months is not a post count. Rather it is a forum specific derivative of that; a measure of posting rate in a specific forum. As such it can tell us who’s been active where, but more importantly when it’s calculated for a group of posters it can tell us how much the group varies in its interest in a forum. For example, a 50 fold difference in posting rate indicates that some people are much more engaged in the board than others. As Shayna pointed out, the argument does not necessarily hold for any particular individual, but it is true on the average.
You might argue that reading rate swamps posting rate but I can return on that with the argument that passive reading is irrelevant because it has little effect on the evolution of a board, only actual posters can act as individual agents of change. Readers can affect the board only collectively; by coming in to read what they like, or leaving when a forum is boring.
Your argument that the data being useless because it is “missing three months” is specious. Everyone lost posts in the outage. Those who posted more frequently lost more. When the values are divided by the time of measurement, the ratios of the different posters are preserved, even if you include an extra 3 months where nobody could post. I didn’t bother doing the division by 6, or 3 as you prefer, because it does not affect the relative magnitude of the individual posting rates. When some individuals are seen to post 50 times as often as others, there is on the average a large disparity in how engaged people are in the forum.
A few newbies like TXLonghorn really do get screwed because 90% of their posts have disappeared, but it’s still valid to make comparisons between average posters to determine how much interest in the forum varies. As I said, it varies a lot, and I prefer to put more weight on the opinions of people who actually care about a particular forum.
Obviously Shayna cares, she’s just wrong. TXLonghorn and several others also seem to care, but there’s clear evidence that not everyone involved in this discussion does.
Useless numbers -Feh
I will admit however that it was a damnably anal and annoying way to approach the problem. With a board this large, sometimes it’s hard to resist the temptation to employ odd methods in order to glean some extra information about who it is you are talking with. I guess that’s just not a very PC attitude.
Shayna and Crunchy Frog assert that they are readers of GQ regardless of your tables and figures. You assert that ‘passive reading is irrelevant because it has little effect on the evolution of a board, only actual posters can act as individual agents of change.’
Oh, and look. Here we are actually posting about standards of behavior in GQ, right now.
You also say that ‘it is not fair, to have the rules governing GQ set by people who do not frequent that forum,’ but there is no possible way that you can define ‘read’ out of ‘frequent.’ You can make up all the crap you like about ‘individual agents of change,’ but the fact is, anyone that goes to GQ and reads the posts there is as much a frequenter, and has as much of a right to a say in the way that forum is run, as someone who reads as well as posts there. Number of posts has no bearing on how much someone ‘cares’ about a forum.
No one gives a shit anyway. What is your point? That you get to be the one who picks and chooses what’s fair and what’s not? You don’t. That you’re a cooler person? No one believes you. Cut out the bull about who posts more where, since no one cares except you, and try to get on board with what people are talking about, because you are obscuring the real issue. And if you refuse to give up your little crusade, at least stop sticking up for TubaDiva and just focus on that crap, because you’re making the rest of us on her side look bad.
Some of us know absolutely everything and therefore find no reason to post questions in GQ. Of that group, many of us are avid readers of GQ, just so we can scoff at those of you who are not as intelligent.
I’m setting up the video camera behind my back right now. I hope you don’t mind that I surf in just my boxers on occasion.
Squink you asshole, this has nothing to do with anything happeneing here! I have been a poster here for 3 years so what does my lack of us of GQ in the past 6 months (already proved to only be 3 months) have to do with anything!?!?! I am in full understanding of how the board works! Just because I choose to spend the majority of my time in other forums certainly does not make my opinions any less valuable.
Furthermore if you could please work on your reading skills because if you re-read this thread you will notice that I can not be found to be “whining” anywhere in this thread. I merely made a joke pertinent to the situation. Something I will NOT be doing if you get your ass banned.
I think the OP was in the wrong place to begin, Did GB really wave at Stevie should of been in MPSIMS I think. A question like that is sure to bring out political answers. In fact it screams for sarcastic replies.
Regarding the Mod - I think he overreacted, but once he posted his warning of course he had to act on it regardless of the simulpost or what.
I was going to write a lenghty post about your absurd claims and conclusions. But then I realized that my petty post count renders my opinion completely irrelevant.
So, instead, I decided to thank you for saving me the time and effort :wally
I was going to pop in and reply to andros’ remark that someone should have emailed Tuba and manhattan by saying that I did so before this thread was started. On checking it looks like some of my email may have been eaten at my end (sorry about that). In it I agreed with what **Shayna ** says and added that I could well understand if Kyomara feels it is a bit much to be asked to apologise.
I was one of the many who changed my status from “member” when it was available. When I saw it was not allowed I 'fessed up and apologised. Had I not seen that it was not allowed and returned to find myself banned I wouldn’t have felt very much inclined to apologise: I would have felt the banning to be capricious and a demand for an apology unreasonable. IfKyomara did not see the warning, s/he is in the same position as all the others in that thread who posted inappropriately, but none of them were banned.
( roots frantically around in her purse, pulls out two ibuprofen) ummm, I don’t have aspirin, will these do? How about this… (runs and gets a cool cloth) for the forehead…