Bullshit. The OP even said Czarcasm was too heavy handed. From here:
Hang on just a second, don’t try and claim you acted on my account. If I thought people were going to get warnings out of nowhere I wouldn’t have started the bloody thing in the first place.
I asked for debate to go to the ATMB thread because I knew what the thread would turn out like. Quoting myself from the other thread:
[Quote=bucketybuck]
I asked that people keep the debate to the ATMB thread for a very simple reason. This thread and others like it have shown that a small number of people will jump into the thread and repeatedly make the same arguments, just using different stupid analogies each time, until the well is well and truly poisoned.
Consider it like a polling booth. We did not need people hanging around outside it making snide remarks and trying to influence voters. No problem whatsoever though with people coming out of the booth and saying what way they voted and why.
[/quote]
I never wanted a comment free zone, just to stop people from trying to influence voting by shouting the loudest. Instead you warned two people for just giving their opinion once after voting, and another for something that was just a bit of a tangent.
There was no need at all, and I am not having this put on me.
[/quote] Czarcasm didn’t understand the OP’s intentions; The comment free zone was entirely Czarcasm’s own bullshit, and his alone. No one in that thread wanted Czarcasm to do what he did. You can not claim he acted on the OP’s behalf.
Or maybe they could have contacted him first, rather than just drop the ban hammer? In this case, it was THEIR poor judgement that lead to the call, they should be the ones with the white flag.
And it is precisely his NO DISCUSSION NO DIGRESSION EVAR 111ELEVENTY obsession with what constitutes “on-topic” - in a forum which is for the exchange of opinions - that is responsible for this entire debacle. Seriously, could somebody in the mod loop not just take him quietly aside and say, Look, mate, pull your bloody horns in?
The short version is, it doesn’t matter whether you agree with Czarcasm’s mod note or not, you still have to obey it. The decision to issue that note was questionable. Every other mod action has been fine. If anything, they’ve been a lot more lenient than they have to be given the amount of gratuitous abuse thrown at them.
Two points. Firstly, the mods aren’t obliged to issue warnings for breaking rules, although I can see why it would annoy you. Secondly, if you genuinely feel your warning was unjustified, attempting to resolve it privately with the staff when this fuss has died down would probably work better. I’m basing that last on how I would act if I were a mod, which I’m not, so it may not be worth much…
The other thing to remember is that warnings aren’t exactly a Three Strikes You’re Out rule. This doesn’t mean much; or at least it wouldn’t in normal circumstances.
It’s honestly not the warning itself I give a damn about, but the mistakes leading up to it and the ones made after. The admins have proven themselves, if not incapable, unwilling to provide any explanation for their arbitrarily (and wrongly) enforced rules.
With respect, I don’t believe you can both defend the hiding of it in this way, and then say that bringing it back again was a “good decision”. One of them, surely, was a poor choice, no?
An explanation is a defence - providing reasoning for a decision is a defence. If it’s merely a matter of non-neutral wording, i’d be happy to alter “defend” to “explain”.
As to whether the two aren’t contradictory; personally I agree. But i’d like to see what Marley has to say about which of the two was the poor decision.
You don’t care about the principal of the thing, it doesn’t mean anything to you, so it shouldn’t to anyone else either? Is that what you’re saying, Bosstone? And thanks ever so much for the condescending and haughty reminder of The Three Strikes rule.
Very helpful under these normal circumstances.
Honestly? No, I don’t really care about the principle of the thing. It’s a freaking message board. A warning here means less than…hell, just about anything.
It’s standing on “principle” that’s turning this molehill into a mountain. I’m not saying just walk away and let it lie, and I agree more with the side that says Czarcasm bunged this up, but acting as if your rights have been violated is just over the freaking top. Get some perspective.
It’s really no different though than you doing the same thing in reverse, but I think the difference is this - and a point you seem to be missing here: a lot of people take pride in this board, and for that reason are offended by this shameful behavior and attitudes of staff.
If these members didn’t give a damn about the board, they wouldn’t give a damn about this. Therefore, I think members giving a damn is a good thing, it’s a reflection of having pride in a message board, an online community they feel a part of.
I am surprised you don’t have a basic grasp of this concept, you’ve been here plenty long enough to understand.
Well, I was getting the impression that you don’t think what has happened is anything worth strong objection, the unfair warnings and the way this is being handled. And that is not to condone all protester’s conduct. But I think there’s legitimate and justifiable discontent concerning this whole thing.
I think it’s worth objection, yes. What’s been going on has not been objection but hysterics, and that only makes the mods dig their heels in harder. The last thing anyone wants to do is give in to a tantrum, even if the tantrum-thrower is ostensibly right.
I think there’s been reasonable objection - along with hysterics - and you seem to be one downplaying not just hysterics but any objection to this. Am I wrong then?
