|
Post by quinn on Jul 12, 2013 5:06:58 GMT -5
He follows a concept, like you. He wants to make people behave better. Just look at the result. It only got worse. Following a concept ends in disaster. Only got worse is not true. It was fine - the usual bickering and whatever. What got worse is that you and Enigma flooded Peter with reported posts, I assume to make your point about the moderated section. Don't get me wrong - I like the outcome (except for the extra gray hairs that Peter got). I just prefer honest accounts, not ones brushed over to paint a particular picture.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jul 12, 2013 5:09:15 GMT -5
NOLaughter should be the mod. Thank you CPQ. Yes. I would give the office the respect it is due and take it as seriously as it would warrant! Now what we seem to have in this thread ... This is a wonderful opportunity for you to give us a test drive as yourself as moderator. How would you deal with the conversations in this thread? Thank you in advance!
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jul 12, 2013 5:14:11 GMT -5
He follows a concept, like you. He wants to make people behave better. Just look at the result. It only got worse. Following a concept ends in disaster. Only got worse is not true. It was fine - the usual bickering and whatever. What got worse is that you and Enigma flooded Peter with reported posts, I assume to make your point about the moderated section. Don't get me wrong - I like the outcome (except for the extra gray hairs that Peter got). I just prefer honest accounts, not ones brushed over to paint a particular picture. Enigma declared to everyone his intention to bring violations of the rules to the moderator at the time the split was announced, and the fact is, that the group that called for moderation is the source of most of the ad hominem attacks ... it's just that they seem not to be conscious of it.
|
|
|
Post by ???????? ???????????? on Jul 12, 2013 5:14:52 GMT -5
How would you deal with the conversations in this thread? Ban everyone.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Jul 12, 2013 5:22:49 GMT -5
He follows a concept, like you. He wants to make people behave better. Just look at the result. It only got worse. Following a concept ends in disaster. Only got worse is not true. It was fine - the usual bickering and whatever. What got worse is that you and Enigma flooded Peter with reported posts, I assume to make your point about the moderated section. Don't get me wrong - I like the outcome (except for the extra gray hairs that Peter got). I just prefer honest accounts, not ones brushed over to paint a particular picture. What did get better then? The abuse certainly got worse. Take a close look.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Jul 12, 2013 5:25:31 GMT -5
Only got worse is not true. It was fine - the usual bickering and whatever. What got worse is that you and Enigma flooded Peter with reported posts, I assume to make your point about the moderated section. Don't get me wrong - I like the outcome (except for the extra gray hairs that Peter got). I just prefer honest accounts, not ones brushed over to paint a particular picture. Enigma declared to everyone his intention to bring violations of the rules to the moderator at the time the split was announced, and the fact is, that the group that called for moderation is the source of most of the ad hominem attacks ... it's just that they seem not to be conscious of it. That's right. Abuse actually got worse. So, I'm rather surprised that Peter was so shocked to suddenly have to deal with 10 reported posts in total which amounted only to that much because he was away for several (!) days. The guy certainly knows how to exaggerate for effect.
|
|
|
Post by quinn on Jul 12, 2013 5:46:36 GMT -5
Only got worse is not true. It was fine - the usual bickering and whatever. What got worse is that you and Enigma flooded Peter with reported posts, I assume to make your point about the moderated section. Don't get me wrong - I like the outcome (except for the extra gray hairs that Peter got). I just prefer honest accounts, not ones brushed over to paint a particular picture. What did get better then? The abuse certainly got worse. Take a close look. It seemed to me to be the same old same old. I didn't say it was better, just not worse. Andrew was more direct than usual, but Verbed, Silver and Tzu were doing the same thing they've always done. The only thing that was radically different was you and Enigma reporting every little infraction. Listen, I shake my head when people say, "You should be kinder - here, let me be nasty to you to show you that." I really don't get it. So if this is the way you want to highlight the absurdity of that, fine. I'm just saying be honest. It didn't get worse when the forum split. That spin just supports your portrayal of Top.
|
|
|
Post by quinn on Jul 12, 2013 5:49:46 GMT -5
Only got worse is not true. It was fine - the usual bickering and whatever. What got worse is that you and Enigma flooded Peter with reported posts, I assume to make your point about the moderated section. Don't get me wrong - I like the outcome (except for the extra gray hairs that Peter got). I just prefer honest accounts, not ones brushed over to paint a particular picture. Enigma declared to everyone his intention to bring violations of the rules to the moderator at the time the split was announced, and the fact is, that the group that called for moderation is the source of most of the ad hominem attacks ... it's just that they seem not to be conscious of it. I don't disagree with anything you're saying there. All I'm saying is it didn't get worse. Calling it 'worse after the split' ties behavior going downhill to the split. It's the same behavior that was there before the split.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jul 12, 2013 5:52:19 GMT -5
Enigma declared to everyone his intention to bring violations of the rules to the moderator at the time the split was announced, and the fact is, that the group that called for moderation is the source of most of the ad hominem attacks ... it's just that they seem not to be conscious of it. I don't disagree with anything you're saying there. All I'm saying is it didn't get worse. Calling it 'worse after the split' ties behavior going downhill to the split. It's the same behavior that was there before the split. Right, what changed was the stated intention to moderate, which explains E&R's reports. I'm rather surprised at the surprise.
|
|
|
Post by quinn on Jul 12, 2013 5:54:28 GMT -5
I don't disagree with anything you're saying there. All I'm saying is it didn't get worse. Calling it 'worse after the split' ties behavior going downhill to the split. It's the same behavior that was there before the split. Right, what changed was the stated intention to moderate, which explains E&R's reports. I'm rather surprised as the surprise. There was always a stated intention to moderate. Peter has always responded to reported posts.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jul 12, 2013 5:57:42 GMT -5
Only got worse is not true. It was fine - the usual bickering and whatever. What got worse is that you and Enigma flooded Peter with reported posts, I assume to make your point about the moderated section. Don't get me wrong - I like the outcome (except for the extra gray hairs that Peter got). I just prefer honest accounts, not ones brushed over to paint a particular picture. Enigma declared to everyone his intention to bring violations of the rules to the moderator at the time the split was announced, and the fact is, that the group that called for moderation is the source of most of the ad hominem attacks ... it's just that they seem not to be conscious of it. I'm been conscious of it, but attack comes in many forms and some of those forms that do escape under the moderator's radar are much more insidious and malevolent than telling someone straight that they are talking shit or that they are being an asshole. In my family, extended family and friends, communication by and large is extremely open, honest and direct and that's partly because we are willing to tell someone when they are being an asshole.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Jul 12, 2013 5:59:00 GMT -5
What did get better then? The abuse certainly got worse. Take a close look. It seemed to me to be the same old same old. I didn't say it was better, just not worse. Andrew was more direct than usual, but Verbed, Silver and Tzu were doing the same thing they've always done. The only thing that was radically different was you and Enigma reporting every little infraction. Listen, I shake my head when people say, "You should be kinder - here, let me be nasty to you to show you that." I really don't get it. So if this is the way you want to highlight the absurdity of that, fine. I'm just saying be honest. It didn't get worse when the forum split. That spin just supports your portrayal of Top. Well, you forgot to take the abuse in the unmoderated section into account. Just look at the facts and don't follow your emotional story. It really got worse. Not much worse, yes, but still worse. And it wasn't just 'every little infraction'. I could have reported the mocking as well but then Peter would have had at least 30 posts to deal with. And I was actually only reporting Andrews posts since I have Silver and Hetero blocked and only sometimes see their posts when someone quotes them. The point, from my perspective, was to show that the anti-bullies are bullying as well and very consistently which is the actual source of nastiness here since they only point the finger at others and also are the only ones who actually do name calling. But they know how to manipulate with emotions so the impression can be very different. Peter finally seems to get that point. And Peter isn't that innocent as well. If you look into his replies you will see an awful lot of mocking. So, it really got worse. Take a look at the facts first and then report back.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jul 12, 2013 5:59:11 GMT -5
Right, what changed was the stated intention to moderate, which explains E&R's reports. I'm rather surprised as the surprise. There was always a stated intention to moderate. Peter has always responded to reported posts. What then, was the point of splitting the board?
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jul 12, 2013 6:00:50 GMT -5
I don't disagree with anything you're saying there. All I'm saying is it didn't get worse. Calling it 'worse after the split' ties behavior going downhill to the split. It's the same behavior that was there before the split. Right, what changed was the stated intention to moderate, which explains E&R's reports. I'm rather surprised at the surprise. I wasn't surprised at the reports, more so the particular ones that were reported. As an example, Enigma reported me for 'foul language' for saying to Silence 'I don't give a sh/t where you are at'. I had to laugh at ''foul language''. It still does make me chuckle.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jul 12, 2013 6:00:51 GMT -5
Enigma declared to everyone his intention to bring violations of the rules to the moderator at the time the split was announced, and the fact is, that the group that called for moderation is the source of most of the ad hominem attacks ... it's just that they seem not to be conscious of it. I'm been conscious of it, but attack comes in many forms and some of those forms that do escape under the moderator's radar are much more insidious and malevolent than telling someone straight that they are talking nuts or that they are being an not a very nice person. In my family, extended family and friends, communication by and large is extremely open, honest and direct and that's partly because we are willing to tell someone when they are being an not a very nice person. I applaud you taking the suggestions of the profanity filter onboard there Andy.
|
|