A humble proposal.

Discussion in 'Support Questions' started by Anonymous, Oct 21, 2010.

  1. sue Administrator

    Re: A humble proposal.

    Aren't you one brave little soul.

    If it wasn't clear already there is nothing wrong with expressing opinions, but please do so without systematically bawling out people.

    I am not one to deny, i never make demeaning comments --but i exceptionally cuss out users, only when they fit the absolute retard affixed with insolent harshness category. Even when doing so i most of the times restrain myself and am humble enough to apologize whenever i crossed the line.

    Your argument is stale and is founded upon personal bias, case in point: you currently aren't banned or domelocked, are you?
  2. Anonymous Member

    Re: A humble proposal.

    Although i think the b& is harsh,it's not one small ad hom that gets you banned its lots of it over a period of time.
    Still i /r/ Sueyou consider a temp ban.
  3. sue Administrator

    Re: A humble proposal.

    Someone agreed with his idea after which he lashed out.

    I concede this, skeptic1337 was not banned merely because of this post, but because of a long track record of railing onto others. We have tried a number of times to explain that to him, unfortunately that never caught on, after each reconciliation his angry posts kept resurfacing.

    I mean every word when saying skeptic1337 is intelligent and witted, sometimes he has a touch of brilliance --if i could reach for the stars id had wished he'd express himself without rif raf like the above.

    /me sob's
  4. Re: A humble proposal.

    So its not because he agreed with someone who you didn't agree with?
  5. Anonymous Member

    Re: A humble proposal.

    Fair enough Sue
  6. sue Administrator

    Re: A humble proposal.

    How did you even come to such a conclusion?
  7. Re: A humble proposal.

    I couldn't understand what you meant by this:

  8. sue Administrator

    Re: A humble proposal.

    • Skeptic1337 makes a proposal
    • Someone agreed with him.
    • Skeptic1337 derides the person agreeing with him.
    • sue bans skeptic1337
    You're welcome.
  9. Re: A humble proposal.

    [*]Skeptic1337 makes a proposal

    [*]Someone agreed with him.

    [*]Skeptic1337 derides the person agreeing with him.

    [*]sue bans skeptic1337
    You're welcome.[/QUOTE]

    I'm not trying to appear condescending but i think his argument stands.

    It is worrisome that the exact problematic which he is trying to express is playing out here.

    As it stands his argument is not only valid but prophetic.
  10. Anonymous Member

    Re: A humble proposal.

    I don't think Skeptic1337 was deriding/making a personal attack on the poster that was agreeing with him. Apart from "Other than that you make great lists!", they were speaking hypothetically, using the "generic you".

    Also, I think many of your own posts in this thread are more derisive/angry than Skeptic1337's, but I don't think they warrant a ban.
  11. sue Administrator

    Re: A humble proposal.

    You mixed up a couple of things there, taking things out of their context --i am not sure whether you are maladroit or forging this into a circular discussion.
  12. Re: A humble proposal.

    Ok.. lets stick to the points and further ourselves from pre-judgmental thinking. It would help the situation a lot.

    Maybe you can supply the quotes on your viewpoint.
  13. sue Administrator

    Re: A humble proposal.

    I am sorry to slightly disagree with "making great lists" being the sole derision at miranda's address. I sincerely think the following classifies:

    "Doesn't matter how subtle you try to be doing that kind of thing even all these exes will smell your "leadarrfag" taint and eventually cause a ruckus. I'm sure a well mannered ruckus but a ruckus none the less. You really don't want a ruckus on your hands now do you."

    I have already fessed up to not being under the impression I never make derisive posts, but that skeptic1337 systematic cynism is something that differentiates him from me. I am not sure what to do with your opinion, as in: it's fine for you to disagree with his ban, even-tho I am not seeing what you expect me to do with that knowledge.

    Dare i ask you go back one page and just read the thread?
  14. Re: A humble proposal.

    I just quoted it and you said it was out of context. I don't understand. Before you insult me again. Think about me being a separate individual to you with a different perspective and set of experiences.
  15. sue Administrator

    Re: A humble proposal.

    You wrongly attributed quotes from miranda to skeptic1337 and vice versa, sorry if pointing that out is insulting to you, that was not the intent. I question this has anything to do with perspective or opinions --please read the thread.
  16. Anonymous Member

    Re: A humble proposal.

    I don't think that was a personal criticism of Miranda. I think he was making a valid point about one of the potential downsides to "moderating things because you don't like the tone or the thought".

    I'd like you to reconsider his ban.
  17. theLastAnon Member

    Re: A humble proposal.

    I think the word that is causing you confusion here is "proposal" - specifically how it was used by sue.

    This appear to be the tipping point. Does that help clarify it?
  18. sue Administrator

    Re: A humble proposal.

    And i think differently --what you condensed into a reasonable and simple explanation was brought very differently. It was far more ambiguous than what you are presenting now, why had it to be loaded with spiteful comments?
    Are you aware this is the fourth time he has been banned or domelocked?

    Thank you for offering an alternative explanation and correcting me where i might have not been as clear as i should have been.
  19. Re: A humble proposal.

    Ok. Can you point those attributions out?
  20. Miranda Member

    Re: A humble proposal.

    In Skeptic's defense, my agreement with his point was something of an attempt to finesse the argument; I think I missed the sarcasm in his initial post. And I don't think the ban has as much to do with this conversation as with similar episodes in the past.
  21. theLastAnon Member

    Re: A humble proposal.

    Watch this space and I'll have it for you in a minute. Edit: Nevermind. [STRIKE]Fuck it. I don't have the energy.[/STRIKE]

    I think my earlier post clears it up anyway.
  22. Anonymous Member

    Re: A humble proposal.

    Log off and go to bed.
  23. Re: A humble proposal.

    oh maybe sue, you didn't read the post as i intended. I started with Mirandas words as a background. I guess in respect the use of proposal was unwarranted because it was Miranda who made the proposal and no skeptic.
  24. sue Administrator

    Re: A humble proposal.

    I agree, the way you formatted the post indeed didn't help figuring out whom you were assigning quotes to. Now we're back at miss-communication and keeping things where possible --short and simple, just as a couple of pages ago.

    I think the thread is officially dead.
  25. Re: A humble proposal.

    it was alive once?

    i think a good rest of a few weeks will clear things up.
  26. bAnon Member

    Re: A humble proposal.

    A seal walks into a club.....

    thank you, thank you, remember to tip your waitresses......
  27. sue Administrator

    Re: A humble proposal.

    No idea what that is supposed to mean.
    Lol'd, talk about hitting downtown.
  28. Re: A humble proposal.

    Op was trolling for this ending.

    By agreeing that skeptic did not present a proposition, you acknowledge starting the confusion in the conversation and also on improperly banning someone.

    In doing so you showed that mods, even the best of them, can make mistakes in determining outcomes, because they have individual perspectives.

    Which is desired outcome of OP.

    However, OP cleverly bought in a caveat.

    Because (s)he knew the futility of such an approach.
  29. Anonymous Member

    Re: A humble proposal.

    Well? How'd we do?
  30. Anonymous Member

    Re: A humble proposal.

    What did the fish say when it hit the wall?

  31. Anonymous Member

    Re: A humble proposal.

    I don't think it was intended to be ambiguous or loaded with spiteful comments.

    No, I haven't kept track. He's still one of the better posters on here, and I'd like to see him kept around.
  32. Anonymous Member

    Re: A humble proposal.

    $10 says Skepticleet isn't as worked up about his banning as other people in the thread.

    3/10. Pretty much what I expected.

    One thing I would point out regarding Skeptic's comments is that most acts of moderation are going to be subjective by definition. Sure when someone posts gore or porn or advocates bombing orgs you can objectively say, that's against the rules you agreed to follow, your post is deleted and / or you are banned. But other violations of community guidelines, like flaming or personal attacks are, by definition, subjective. The goal of the moderator should be to use his or her best judgment to apply the agreed upon community guidelines and act accordingly. The key to make that work is transparency. The person handing out the punishment needs to make it clear what is being punished and why; and the person being punished needs to be made aware of that information. From time to time you're going to have instances where people disagree on whether something violates guidelines. Then the community has to be mature enough to decide what it wants the rules to be and the mods should adapt accordingly.

    Ultimately what I think it comes down to is are you willing to live with some rules in exchange for making this place more sane and more welcoming to newcomers? I would say getting that new blood is vital and we should take every effort to facilitate that. Because right now Chanology has grown stagnant and insular. It's lost that dynamic, emergent quality that made things fun and made it impossible for Scientology to mount any kind of meaningful counter attack. And what are we left with now? An endless circle jerk of bad jokes and yelling at buildings. For the past year and a half or so anything that has happened has been the result of exes or Marty Rathburn making a stink. Maybe Chanology helped to make that possible but beyond that, it's become irrelevant. You think the monthly "raids" do jack shit? You think David Miscavige is shaking with fear and rage because you call him short? Get over yourselves. You're boring and impotent and you only have yourselves to blame. You've so desperately clung to an idealistic image of the Chans and Chanology that never really existed and now you've allowed yourselves to be held hostage by that past that never was.

    This is why we need new blood and this is why we need to work on improving this community. We need to move forward from the past and forge a new identity for Chanology. I don't know what it is yet, but I know that what exists now is little more than a rotting corpse. That's all I got.

    Tl;dr, don't fear change.
  33. Anonymous Member

    Re: A humble proposal.

    Also, get rid of forced Anon posting on certain accounts.

  34. Re: A humble proposal.

    Very good insight over all.

    I'd include that mods should clarify before assuming when an area appears grey.

    I disagree on the chans. We were born from the chans. It would be like disrespecting your parents. We can't use the word anonymous and just disrespect the heritage. It would not only be wrong, it would invite certain danger of which we could only blame ourselves.

    Do not forget
  35. Anonymous Member

    Re: A humble proposal.

    The problem is that Chanology as a whole doesn't really seem to "get" that culture. Drop the word anonymous. Your use of it is one big ongoing act of disrespect and it's preventing you from finding your own identity.
  36. Re: A humble proposal.

    How can you find what you already have?
  37. Anonymous Member

    Re: A humble proposal.

    Where are my keys, i could swear they were here.
  38. Anonymous Member

    Re: A humble proposal.

    Do you accept that chanology in its early days was a social movement? Like, say Yippies or Dadaism or the French Revolution? Not comparing their ends but the basic "emergent dynamic" of creative, destructive, and transformative energy?

    If you think there is any validity that there is an analogy to other historical movements, which do you think it most resembles in terms of dynamics? Is chanology in a state where purges are occuring because people have betrayed the ideals of the revolution? Do heads need to roll? Do we need a chanology version of the cultural revolution where "a hundred flowers blossom and a hundred schools of thought contend" in an attempt to maintain or reignite the energy of the original revolutionary moment? Is Robespierre emerging from among us? Are we in the month of Thermidor? Have the radicals been co-opted by the bourgoisie like happened in the American revolution? Does it resemble artistic movements of the past? Is it Mannerist? Neo-classical?

    Does chanology already have a sacred past that is to be contrasted with a profane present?

    The way to ignite creative energy is to allow destructive energy.

    Or else try to build something lasting on what was achieved in the destructive phase that has already past.

    Has Chanology become too destructive or has it not destroyed enough?

    Does it need to be more creative or more moderate? I am not sure it can do both.

  39. Re: A humble proposal.

    They are where you left them all along.
  40. Anonymous Member

    Re: A humble proposal.

    Trimmed down your post but responding to all of it.

    I'll let this one for an educated anon, eventho compelled to answer: Hip-Hop.

Share This Page

Customize Theme Colors


Choose a color via Color picker or click the predefined style names!

Primary Color :

Secondary Color :
Predefined Skins