TheAnvil 0 #26 January 3, 2005 I hope it's temporary. John is one of my favorite denizens of S.C. and I enjoy bantering with him immensely. Don't agree with his banning at all. Vinny the Anvil Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL JACKASS POWER!!!!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TomAiello 25 #27 January 3, 2005 QuoteQuoteI understand that some want it to be permanent.Kallend's ban is not permanent. QuoteThey are holding peoples history's against them. Only a select group. And everyone in that group has been notified.-- Tom Aiello [email protected] SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Ron 7 #28 January 3, 2005 QuoteI understand that some want it to be permanent. That was not my statement. In fact you know I didn't want Johns ban permanent. QuoteIn Reply To -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- They are holding peoples history's against them. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Only a select group. And everyone in that group has been notified. Now, why only hold a select groups history against them?"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites TomAiello 25 #29 January 3, 2005 QuoteNow, why only hold a select groups history against them? Generally, because they are the ones who's history stands out. Also, because they have been notified that this is the case.-- Tom Aiello [email protected] SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Ron 7 #30 January 3, 2005 QuoteGenerally, because they are the ones who's history stands out That is a valid reason...But your evidence is based on opinion. We have talked about that before. And opinion (even if widely held) is not always correct. QuoteAlso, because they have been notified that this is the case. Thats nice, but a warning shot across the bow does not equal empirical data. Not trying to argue, just pointing out a shortcoming. As always, greenies are free to do as they please in regards to the judgment and/or punishment they deem correct. EOM"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Mirage63 0 #31 January 3, 2005 Quote Thats nice, but a warning shot across the bow does not equal empirical data. Not trying to argue, just pointing out a shortcoming. Okay Ron I warning you........ wait a minute I'm not a greenie.... never mind Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 2,464 #32 January 3, 2005 >Now, why only hold a select groups history against them? Because there are posters here whose contributions are intended primarily to cause discord and vituperative argument. If one posts only "republicans are stupid" in 37 different threads they are not really contributing to this forum, even if their posts are legally within the rules. Such a history will be held against them. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Ron 7 #33 January 3, 2005 Quote>Now, why only hold a select groups history against them? Because there are posters here whose contributions are intended primarily to cause discord and vituperative argument. If one posts only "republicans are stupid" in 37 different threads they are not really contributing to this forum, even if their posts are legally within the rules. Such a history will be held against them. Agreed, but the only way you have to record that now is your opinion. And no matter how one might like to think almost everyone carries an agenda. That can lead to abuse."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites jerryzflies 0 #34 January 4, 2005 QuoteQuote>Now, why only hold a select groups history against them? Because there are posters here whose contributions are intended primarily to cause discord and vituperative argument. If one posts only "republicans are stupid" in 37 different threads they are not really contributing to this forum, even if their posts are legally within the rules. Such a history will be held against them. Agreed, but the only way you have to record that now is your opinion. And no matter how one might like to think almost everyone carries an agenda. That can lead to abuse. Everyone who grows up in Illinois learns the story of Abe Lincoln's question "if we call a tail a leg, how many legs does a dog have", to which the correct answer is that regardless of what you call it, a tail is not a leg even if the President of the USA says it is. To think otherwise is to fall victim of a logical fallacy. As Winsor pointed out, sarcasm is NOT a personal attack regardless of the color of anyone's username who thinks otherwise. Personal attacks are not allowed in Congress or UK's Parliament, but you only have to listen to CSPAN to hear plenty of sarcasm. Ditto for the Presidential debates. Sarcasm has been a legitimate debating tactic since the time of the Greeks and Romans. Shakespeare uses sarcasm in Marc Antony's speech (Julius Caesar) and Portia's speech (Merchant of Venice) and in several other places. When there's no offense, prior history is totally irrelevant.If you can't fix it with a hammer, the problem's electrical. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Tf15 0 #35 January 4, 2005 Quote>Now, why only hold a select groups history against them? Because there are posters here whose contributions are intended primarily to cause discord and vituperative argument. If one posts only "republicans are stupid" in 37 different threads they are not really contributing to this forum, even if their posts are legally within the rules. Such a history will be held against them. That's like getting a ticket for driving at 25mph in a 30mph zone, and being told that youre getting your license suspended because last week you were warned for pushing the limit by driving at 29mph in that 30mph zone. If a post is "legally within the rules" then it's within the rules - period. Three times is enemy action Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Ron 7 #36 January 4, 2005 QuoteAs Winsor pointed out, sarcasm is NOT a personal attack regardless of the color of anyone's username who thinks otherwise Sarcasm IS a personal attack in this PC world if the subject feels put down. Now I thought Johns comment was stupid, but I was not hurt by it. I even asked that he not be banned for it. But hell, I was banned by billVon for calling someone a "Lawyer". QuoteWhen there's no offense, prior history is totally irrelevant. I agree. My issue is that they are going on personal feelings, not facts. Without a data base of what they got banned for, and who did it. There is no way to see if there is a bias, or fairness in the moderation. I'd venture to say that I am the only person ever banned for saying "You should be a lawyer"."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites turtlespeed 212 #37 January 4, 2005 You really are a layerish there ron!I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites storm1977 0 #38 January 4, 2005 QuoteQuoteI understand that some want it to be permanent. I'm not sure if it's toes, or piggies that are the offended party. For the record I sent a PM to a MOD. I asked him not to ban John. The reply was basicly that they have a list of folks that have been pushing the edge so long that they are close to being kicked out of SC forever. John was on that list, and they are sick of the hidden attacks. They are holding peoples history's against them. Funny thing is they as of yet do not have a way to track a ban after it has expired, so they are going on feeling, not fact. A way to track the reason for a ban, and who banned them would be a great step in checking to see if a MOD is showing a bias. I have been told this has been discussed. Also, John is not the first person to get hit with this, I think Peaceful J was. I too was recently "let go" ----------------------------------------------------- Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites jerryzflies 0 #39 January 4, 2005 QuoteQuoteAs Winsor pointed out, sarcasm is NOT a personal attack regardless of the color of anyone's username who thinks otherwise Sarcasm IS a personal attack in this PC world if the subject feels put down. Now I thought Johns comment was stupid, but I was not hurt by it. You were not hurt by it, therefore it was not a personal attack, QED.If you can't fix it with a hammer, the problem's electrical. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Ron 7 #40 January 4, 2005 QuoteYou were not hurt by it, therefore it was not a personal attack, QED. In THIS case yes...And I PM'd a mod that I didn't want John banned. But to say it NEVER is, is incorrect."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 2,464 #41 January 4, 2005 >If a post is "legally within the rules" then it's within the rules - period. You are literally correct. However, we reserve the right to delete, edit, or move posts at our discretion. We may caution or ban users who are (in our judgement) rude, excessively profane, or disruptive. Just because you follow the rule against personal attacks is no guarantee that you will be allowed to post, especially if you spend most of your posts attacking others or posting flamebait. If you don't understand this, read the rules and the several clarifications that have been posted. They cover this in more detail. If you don't like the rules, rec.skydiving is a better choice for you. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites jcd11235 0 #42 January 4, 2005 QuoteIf you don't understand this, read the rules and the several clarifications that have been posted. I'm not trying to stir up trouble, but is there somewhere where all the clarifications that have been posted can be found in a single place? I respect the mods, and the job they do, even if I do not always agree with their decisions. I have been given warnings for personal attacksthat, while they may not have been intended that way, could easily be interpreted as such, so the warning was wholly justified. On the other hand, I do not understand Kallend's offense that resulted in his temporary banning, although I admittedly do not have all the facts, and am not trying to pass judgement.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Tf15 0 #43 January 4, 2005 Quote>If a post is "legally within the rules" then it's within the rules - period. You are literally correct. However, we reserve the right to delete, edit, or move posts at our discretion. We may caution or ban users who are (in our judgement) rude, excessively profane, or disruptive. Just because you follow the rule against personal attacks is no guarantee that you will be allowed to post, especially if you spend most of your posts attacking others or posting flamebait. If you don't understand this, read the rules and the several clarifications that have been posted. They cover this in more detail. If you don't like the rules, rec.skydiving is a better choice for you. "Good fences make good neighbors", Robert Frost "Good rules make for less argument", me It should be apparent to everyone that there's significant misunderstanding of the rules here. Is this the fault of the readers, or are the rules themselves to blame? Three times is enemy action Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 2,464 #44 January 4, 2005 >but is there somewhere where all the clarifications that have been >posted can be found in a single place? Done. The significant ones are now sticky at the top of the forum. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites jcd11235 0 #45 January 4, 2005 QuoteDone. The significant ones are now sticky at the top of the forum. Thanks. I even took the time to read them! Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 Next Page 2 of 2 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
Ron 7 #28 January 3, 2005 QuoteI understand that some want it to be permanent. That was not my statement. In fact you know I didn't want Johns ban permanent. QuoteIn Reply To -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- They are holding peoples history's against them. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Only a select group. And everyone in that group has been notified. Now, why only hold a select groups history against them?"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TomAiello 25 #29 January 3, 2005 QuoteNow, why only hold a select groups history against them? Generally, because they are the ones who's history stands out. Also, because they have been notified that this is the case.-- Tom Aiello [email protected] SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 7 #30 January 3, 2005 QuoteGenerally, because they are the ones who's history stands out That is a valid reason...But your evidence is based on opinion. We have talked about that before. And opinion (even if widely held) is not always correct. QuoteAlso, because they have been notified that this is the case. Thats nice, but a warning shot across the bow does not equal empirical data. Not trying to argue, just pointing out a shortcoming. As always, greenies are free to do as they please in regards to the judgment and/or punishment they deem correct. EOM"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mirage63 0 #31 January 3, 2005 Quote Thats nice, but a warning shot across the bow does not equal empirical data. Not trying to argue, just pointing out a shortcoming. Okay Ron I warning you........ wait a minute I'm not a greenie.... never mind Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,464 #32 January 3, 2005 >Now, why only hold a select groups history against them? Because there are posters here whose contributions are intended primarily to cause discord and vituperative argument. If one posts only "republicans are stupid" in 37 different threads they are not really contributing to this forum, even if their posts are legally within the rules. Such a history will be held against them. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 7 #33 January 3, 2005 Quote>Now, why only hold a select groups history against them? Because there are posters here whose contributions are intended primarily to cause discord and vituperative argument. If one posts only "republicans are stupid" in 37 different threads they are not really contributing to this forum, even if their posts are legally within the rules. Such a history will be held against them. Agreed, but the only way you have to record that now is your opinion. And no matter how one might like to think almost everyone carries an agenda. That can lead to abuse."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jerryzflies 0 #34 January 4, 2005 QuoteQuote>Now, why only hold a select groups history against them? Because there are posters here whose contributions are intended primarily to cause discord and vituperative argument. If one posts only "republicans are stupid" in 37 different threads they are not really contributing to this forum, even if their posts are legally within the rules. Such a history will be held against them. Agreed, but the only way you have to record that now is your opinion. And no matter how one might like to think almost everyone carries an agenda. That can lead to abuse. Everyone who grows up in Illinois learns the story of Abe Lincoln's question "if we call a tail a leg, how many legs does a dog have", to which the correct answer is that regardless of what you call it, a tail is not a leg even if the President of the USA says it is. To think otherwise is to fall victim of a logical fallacy. As Winsor pointed out, sarcasm is NOT a personal attack regardless of the color of anyone's username who thinks otherwise. Personal attacks are not allowed in Congress or UK's Parliament, but you only have to listen to CSPAN to hear plenty of sarcasm. Ditto for the Presidential debates. Sarcasm has been a legitimate debating tactic since the time of the Greeks and Romans. Shakespeare uses sarcasm in Marc Antony's speech (Julius Caesar) and Portia's speech (Merchant of Venice) and in several other places. When there's no offense, prior history is totally irrelevant.If you can't fix it with a hammer, the problem's electrical. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Tf15 0 #35 January 4, 2005 Quote>Now, why only hold a select groups history against them? Because there are posters here whose contributions are intended primarily to cause discord and vituperative argument. If one posts only "republicans are stupid" in 37 different threads they are not really contributing to this forum, even if their posts are legally within the rules. Such a history will be held against them. That's like getting a ticket for driving at 25mph in a 30mph zone, and being told that youre getting your license suspended because last week you were warned for pushing the limit by driving at 29mph in that 30mph zone. If a post is "legally within the rules" then it's within the rules - period. Three times is enemy action Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 7 #36 January 4, 2005 QuoteAs Winsor pointed out, sarcasm is NOT a personal attack regardless of the color of anyone's username who thinks otherwise Sarcasm IS a personal attack in this PC world if the subject feels put down. Now I thought Johns comment was stupid, but I was not hurt by it. I even asked that he not be banned for it. But hell, I was banned by billVon for calling someone a "Lawyer". QuoteWhen there's no offense, prior history is totally irrelevant. I agree. My issue is that they are going on personal feelings, not facts. Without a data base of what they got banned for, and who did it. There is no way to see if there is a bias, or fairness in the moderation. I'd venture to say that I am the only person ever banned for saying "You should be a lawyer"."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 212 #37 January 4, 2005 You really are a layerish there ron!I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
storm1977 0 #38 January 4, 2005 QuoteQuoteI understand that some want it to be permanent. I'm not sure if it's toes, or piggies that are the offended party. For the record I sent a PM to a MOD. I asked him not to ban John. The reply was basicly that they have a list of folks that have been pushing the edge so long that they are close to being kicked out of SC forever. John was on that list, and they are sick of the hidden attacks. They are holding peoples history's against them. Funny thing is they as of yet do not have a way to track a ban after it has expired, so they are going on feeling, not fact. A way to track the reason for a ban, and who banned them would be a great step in checking to see if a MOD is showing a bias. I have been told this has been discussed. Also, John is not the first person to get hit with this, I think Peaceful J was. I too was recently "let go" ----------------------------------------------------- Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jerryzflies 0 #39 January 4, 2005 QuoteQuoteAs Winsor pointed out, sarcasm is NOT a personal attack regardless of the color of anyone's username who thinks otherwise Sarcasm IS a personal attack in this PC world if the subject feels put down. Now I thought Johns comment was stupid, but I was not hurt by it. You were not hurt by it, therefore it was not a personal attack, QED.If you can't fix it with a hammer, the problem's electrical. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 7 #40 January 4, 2005 QuoteYou were not hurt by it, therefore it was not a personal attack, QED. In THIS case yes...And I PM'd a mod that I didn't want John banned. But to say it NEVER is, is incorrect."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,464 #41 January 4, 2005 >If a post is "legally within the rules" then it's within the rules - period. You are literally correct. However, we reserve the right to delete, edit, or move posts at our discretion. We may caution or ban users who are (in our judgement) rude, excessively profane, or disruptive. Just because you follow the rule against personal attacks is no guarantee that you will be allowed to post, especially if you spend most of your posts attacking others or posting flamebait. If you don't understand this, read the rules and the several clarifications that have been posted. They cover this in more detail. If you don't like the rules, rec.skydiving is a better choice for you. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #42 January 4, 2005 QuoteIf you don't understand this, read the rules and the several clarifications that have been posted. I'm not trying to stir up trouble, but is there somewhere where all the clarifications that have been posted can be found in a single place? I respect the mods, and the job they do, even if I do not always agree with their decisions. I have been given warnings for personal attacksthat, while they may not have been intended that way, could easily be interpreted as such, so the warning was wholly justified. On the other hand, I do not understand Kallend's offense that resulted in his temporary banning, although I admittedly do not have all the facts, and am not trying to pass judgement.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Tf15 0 #43 January 4, 2005 Quote>If a post is "legally within the rules" then it's within the rules - period. You are literally correct. However, we reserve the right to delete, edit, or move posts at our discretion. We may caution or ban users who are (in our judgement) rude, excessively profane, or disruptive. Just because you follow the rule against personal attacks is no guarantee that you will be allowed to post, especially if you spend most of your posts attacking others or posting flamebait. If you don't understand this, read the rules and the several clarifications that have been posted. They cover this in more detail. If you don't like the rules, rec.skydiving is a better choice for you. "Good fences make good neighbors", Robert Frost "Good rules make for less argument", me It should be apparent to everyone that there's significant misunderstanding of the rules here. Is this the fault of the readers, or are the rules themselves to blame? Three times is enemy action Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,464 #44 January 4, 2005 >but is there somewhere where all the clarifications that have been >posted can be found in a single place? Done. The significant ones are now sticky at the top of the forum. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #45 January 4, 2005 QuoteDone. The significant ones are now sticky at the top of the forum. Thanks. I even took the time to read them! Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
