You're wrong, Moderator

Members only. No guests or bots allowed.
Locked
User avatar
GOODave
Posts: 26392
Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2006 6:21 pm

You're wrong, Moderator

Post by GOODave » Wed May 23, 2012 10:25 am

GOODave wrote:You didn't respond to the above.

Did you forget or can you not respond at all?

Just checking.
Vilepagan wrote:Dave, you have been warned repeatedly, and yet you continue. If there's a post you feel is inappropriate, report it to the mods. If you have a complaint about the mods, post it in "Board Business". Stop clotting up the forums with your "observations" of other posters, your "points of order" about how you think this forum/thread should be run, your demands for responses from others, and other such nonsense. Last chance.
While I recognize the potential manipulation of throwing the whole garbage can of my "sins" into your one mod-post, hoping something will stick, you are wrong about me having been "warned repeatedly" about asking you (or anyone) to respond intelligently to a post. If you believe I have been warned at all (or repeatedly) then I will stand corrected if you will forward such warning to me via PM.

I posed a legitimate response to your earlier post which you either did not see or ignored. In either case, I am not aware of a rule that proscribes my reminding you that I posted it or asked you to respond to it.

IF you don't want to be confronted with your errors, that is one thing. But to try to put on the "tough guy moderator" face and threaten me into submission based on inaccurate information is quite another.

User avatar
GOODave
Posts: 26392
Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2006 6:21 pm

Re: You're wrong, Moderator

Post by GOODave » Wed May 23, 2012 1:19 pm

Yeah, see, it is quite disingenuous for you to stipulate that complaints about you be placed in "board business" and, then, ignore them even more than you ignored the original post.

:roll:

User avatar
Vilepagan
Posts: 12525
Joined: Wed Jan 13, 2010 8:07 am

Re: You're wrong, Moderator

Post by Vilepagan » Wed May 23, 2012 2:03 pm

GOODave wrote:Yeah, see, it is quite disingenuous for you to stipulate that complaints about you be placed in "board business" and, then, ignore them even more than you ignored the original post.

:roll:
One of the reasons (but not the only reason) that "Board Business" was created was so that complaints like yours here wouldn't be clotting up every thread where a mod does something you don't like. However, the mere presence of a complaint here in this forum does not lend it any special credence or validity, and I'm free to ignore any post I wish to ignore without offering any explanations to you. One last point. When your posts are ignored, that's not an invitation to spam the boards with duplicate posts in an attempt to browbeat someone into a response. A simple request for a response might be a better way to deal with those frustrating times when someone is ignoring you.
There is no fire like passion, there is no shark like hatred, there is no snare like folly, there is no torrent like greed. - The Dhammapada

RPW
Posts: 6001
Joined: Wed Aug 26, 2009 1:11 pm

Re: You're wrong, Moderator

Post by RPW » Wed May 23, 2012 2:06 pm

I am going to take a stab in the dark with this response...


Dave,
I don't think the MODS work here 24/7/365 monitoring threads. Given that idea, a 3 hour window to respond to another pain in the ass crybaby session you are delivering (again) is expecting a bit to much.

Lower your standards...
I am The Voice of Reason

User avatar
GOODave
Posts: 26392
Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2006 6:21 pm

Re: You're wrong, Moderator

Post by GOODave » Wed May 23, 2012 4:33 pm

RPW wrote:I am going to take a stab in the dark with this response...


Dave,
I don't think the MODS work here 24/7/365 monitoring threads. Given that idea, a 3 hour window to respond to another pain in the ass crybaby session you are delivering (again) is expecting a bit to much.

Lower your standards...
I'm here, RPW... How much lower can my standards go?

:lol:

User avatar
GOODave
Posts: 26392
Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2006 6:21 pm

Re: You're wrong, Moderator

Post by GOODave » Wed May 23, 2012 4:41 pm

Vilepagan wrote:
One of the reasons (but not the only reason) that "Board Business" was created was so that complaints like yours here wouldn't be clotting up every thread where a mod does something you don't like. However, the mere presence of a complaint here in this forum does not lend it any special credence or validity, and I'm free to ignore any post I wish to ignore without offering any explanations to you. One last point. When your posts are ignored, that's not an invitation to spam the boards with duplicate posts in an attempt to browbeat someone into a response. A simple request for a response might be a better way to deal with those frustrating times when someone is ignoring you.
Heh, heh, heh... And, yet, here you are, aren't you.

And it's not "a mod" as if you have no identity. You made an inaccurate claim about me and threw the whole garbage pail into your complaint in an effort to manipulate opinion. When I asked you to prove the inaccurate accusation, you disappear.

Trouble is you do not ignore me: if you ignored me, you wouldn't get your knickers in a pinch over some falsely perceived slight. Fact is, I would love it if you would ignore me... Save me some time having to flush you out of the bushes like this. Don't be embarassed, though: Paul and Wabash can't pull it off either. :wink:

User avatar
GOODave
Posts: 26392
Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2006 6:21 pm

Re: You're wrong, Moderator

Post by GOODave » Wed May 30, 2012 2:55 pm

I'm trying to figure out why Vilepagan (or whomever) locked the 2nd "wing nut" thread.

VP asked what it was about, Red answered, then the thread was locked.

Are moderators, now, also censors in this community where, allegedly, everyone's entitled to an opinion, no matter how wrong it may be?

Did VP (or whomever) simply not understand, so locked it? Or did he (or whomever) understand, disagree, ans, THEN locked it.

Seems rather drunk with power to me.

Red
Posts: 17717
Joined: Wed Nov 28, 2007 4:33 pm

Re: You're wrong, Moderator

Post by Red » Wed May 30, 2012 3:16 pm

I looked up the rules and I don't read anywhere where liberals can discuss "Wingnuts" and get away with it while a conservative brings up a "WINGNUT", the thread gets locked. How does that happen?
Liberalism is like an out-of-control 5 year old at McDonalds. All the talking to and admonishment won't make a difference. They have no concept of right or wrong, they are nothing more than narcissists.

User avatar
GOODave
Posts: 26392
Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2006 6:21 pm

Re: You're wrong, Moderator

Post by GOODave » Wed May 30, 2012 4:04 pm

Red wrote:I looked up the rules and I don't read anywhere where liberals can discuss "Wingnuts" and get away with it while a conservative brings up a "WINGNUT", the thread gets locked. How does that happen?
I'm not sure. I don't want to raise the old "double standard" thing again because they now swing automatically into disdain mode.

Let's wait to see if any one posts a well thought-out response to my inquiry. But, please, this time, don't hold your breath.

Red
Posts: 17717
Joined: Wed Nov 28, 2007 4:33 pm

Re: You're wrong, Moderator

Post by Red » Wed May 30, 2012 4:08 pm

It's quite simple, if this board wants nastiness eliminated, lets start with the posters that shovel it out on a daily basis. They know who they are.
Liberalism is like an out-of-control 5 year old at McDonalds. All the talking to and admonishment won't make a difference. They have no concept of right or wrong, they are nothing more than narcissists.

User avatar
John Q. Public
Site Admin
Posts: 19527
Joined: Mon Oct 02, 2006 5:56 am
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 2 times

Re: You're wrong, Moderator

Post by John Q. Public » Wed May 30, 2012 6:10 pm

No need to worry about it being locked. I deleted it.

1. It didn't seem to have a subject.
2. At best it was a reply to some post and not something that warranted its own thread.

It was a junk post and I treated it accordingly.
Don't look at me, I just work here.

User avatar
SoMelo
Posts: 12322
Joined: Thu Jul 31, 2008 6:51 pm

Re: You're wrong, Moderator

Post by SoMelo » Wed May 30, 2012 6:28 pm

John Q. Public wrote:No need to worry about it being locked. I deleted it.

1. It didn't seem to have a subject.
2. At best it was a reply to some post and not something that warranted its own thread.

It was a junk post and I treated it accordingly.
I'd give you a "all hail JQP" But you suspended all of the emoticons!

User avatar
John Q. Public
Site Admin
Posts: 19527
Joined: Mon Oct 02, 2006 5:56 am
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 2 times

Re: You're wrong, Moderator

Post by John Q. Public » Wed May 30, 2012 9:12 pm

SoMelo wrote: I'd give you a "all hail JQP" But you suspended all of the emoticons!
Yeah, yeah, yeah. They're back on but only for as long as they're used properly. ](*,)
Don't look at me, I just work here.

User avatar
Vilepagan
Posts: 12525
Joined: Wed Jan 13, 2010 8:07 am

Re: You're wrong, Moderator

Post by Vilepagan » Thu May 31, 2012 2:41 am

Red wrote:I looked up the rules and I don't read anywhere where liberals can discuss "Wingnuts" and get away with it while a conservative brings up a "WINGNUT", the thread gets locked. How does that happen?
It happens when you post a thread that has no discernible subject and then the moderator asks you to explain the subject and you give a meaningless answer. As JQP wrote, it was a "junk" thread. I closed it, and he deleted it for that reason.

My advice if you don't want this to happen in the future is to strive for coherence in your posts, and your responses to moderator inquiries.
There is no fire like passion, there is no shark like hatred, there is no snare like folly, there is no torrent like greed. - The Dhammapada

User avatar
GOODave
Posts: 26392
Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2006 6:21 pm

Re: You're wrong, Moderator

Post by GOODave » Thu May 31, 2012 4:26 am

John Q. Public wrote:No need to worry about it being locked. I deleted it.

1. It didn't seem to have a subject.
2. At best it was a reply to some post and not something that warranted its own thread.

It was a junk post and I treated it accordingly.
So it was a matter of:

Image

then, right?

User avatar
Vilepagan
Posts: 12525
Joined: Wed Jan 13, 2010 8:07 am

Re: You're wrong, Moderator

Post by Vilepagan » Thu May 31, 2012 4:49 am

GOODave wrote:So it was a matter of:....then, right?
Perhaps you could tell me what "reality" was contained in the deleted thread.

Also, you seem to be trying to get a rise out of the mods, or somehow make the posters here angry by accusing the mods of "censorship". Why?
There is no fire like passion, there is no shark like hatred, there is no snare like folly, there is no torrent like greed. - The Dhammapada

User avatar
GOODave
Posts: 26392
Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2006 6:21 pm

Re: You're wrong, Moderator

Post by GOODave » Thu May 31, 2012 12:37 pm

Vilepagan wrote:
Perhaps you could tell me what "reality" was contained in the deleted thread.

Also, you seem to be trying to get a rise out of the mods, or somehow make the posters here angry by accusing the mods of "censorship". Why?
You cannot speak intelligently to my intent, so please stop trying.

As to why I object to such censorship, I object to most censorship in here specifically because the rules you often claim you're upholding don't say anything about a thread has to make sense to you (or any moderator or administrator) before it's allowed to stand and live or die on it's own merits (or lack thereof).

That sign is one I found on photobucket and elected not to alter it JUST to post it here so whereas JQP's action was censorship (thus, setting himself up as the sole arbiter of what does or does not make sense), it might nit necessarily have anything to do with "reality," per se (other than your "reality" that a moderator should lock a thread he doesn't like or understand and JQP's "reality" that an administrator should delete that same thread for that same reason or reasons). That being said, however, since the thread is now no longer available for reference, it could have been manifold reality, but we're powerless to confirm either way.

This is the forum set up to air such grievances (as you've told me and I've told you repeatedly) so I believe I am well within the rules to post such a disagreement here unless you want to, now, reinvent or reinterpret a rule so that I can break it retroactively.

User avatar
Vilepagan
Posts: 12525
Joined: Wed Jan 13, 2010 8:07 am

Re: You're wrong, Moderator

Post by Vilepagan » Mon Jun 04, 2012 4:48 am

GOODave wrote:That being said, however, since the thread is now no longer available for reference, it could have been manifold reality, but we're powerless to confirm either way.
I wouldn't want you to feel "powerless". Here's the thread:

Title: Wingnut makes $191,000 per year

Postby Red » Wed May 30, 2012 4:58 pm


OP: Good money for an amateur who has no clue how to run a country.

I asked Red: Can you give me a hint what this thread is about?

Red responded:"The Amateur"!

So, you can now tell us what "reality" was denied to you by the closing and deletion of this thread, or why it was not deserving of deletion.

(btw, since you insist on defending Red, perhaps you'd be kind enough to tell me what the heck this thread was supposed to be about...I'm genuinely curious)
There is no fire like passion, there is no shark like hatred, there is no snare like folly, there is no torrent like greed. - The Dhammapada

Red
Posts: 17717
Joined: Wed Nov 28, 2007 4:33 pm

Re: You're wrong, Moderator

Post by Red » Mon Jun 04, 2012 5:38 am

Vilepagan wrote:
I wouldn't want you to feel "powerless". Here's the thread:

Title: Wingnut makes $191,000 per year

Postby Red » Wed May 30, 2012 4:58 pm


OP: Good money for an amateur who has no clue how to run a country.

I asked Red: Can you give me a hint what this thread is about?

Red responded:"The Amateur"!

So, you can now tell us what "reality" was denied to you by the closing and deletion of this thread, or why it was not deserving of deletion.

(btw, since you insist on defending Red, perhaps you'd be kind enough to tell me what the heck this thread was supposed to be about...I'm genuinely curious)
Okay, I will fess up....You have a leftwinged troll on this site that insist on using the term "wingnut", so I looked up Obama's salary and I read where that "wingnut" makes $191,000 per year. Since there is a book that was recently released titled "The Amateur" about Obama, I really didn't think it would be to terribly difficult to figure out and not worthy to be locked out.
Liberalism is like an out-of-control 5 year old at McDonalds. All the talking to and admonishment won't make a difference. They have no concept of right or wrong, they are nothing more than narcissists.

User avatar
GOODave
Posts: 26392
Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2006 6:21 pm

Re: You're wrong, Moderator

Post by GOODave » Mon Jun 04, 2012 5:47 am

Vilepagan wrote:
I wouldn't want you to feel "powerless". Here's the thread:

Title: Wingnut makes $191,000 per year

Postby Red » Wed May 30, 2012 4:58 pm


OP: Good money for an amateur who has no clue how to run a country.

I asked Red: Can you give me a hint what this thread is about?

Red responded:"The Amateur"!

So, you can now tell us what "reality" was denied to you by the closing and deletion of this thread, or why it was not deserving of deletion.

(btw, since you insist on defending Red, perhaps you'd be kind enough to tell me what the heck this thread was supposed to be about...I'm genuinely curious)
Red's explanation should be sufficient, but regardless, I was aware of what the thread was about when he posted it. I don't particularly gravitate towards a discussion about the president's salary, but it is nevertheless a reality worthy of discussion. What other job in the United States starts an inexperienced "intern" off at close to $200K?

I hope that answers your questions.

Locked