So why then are you complaining DC? Sounds to me like your letting your personal feelings cloud your modatorial judgment. I havent even been giving a warning and you are talking to that...friend of yours, HST, about banning me without further caution! What the hell. Thats not fair, period.
Maybe you should ban HST, hes the only one whos made a personal insult around here. Or maybe Caribj, after his five recent add hominum attacks.
Please consider this a formal warning, then. You are openly defying a moderator, who is just trying to do his job and help you be more credible. Such defiance is a rules violation in and of itself.
Formal warning acknowledged with motion to dismiss.
Said moderator is actually out to get me, and he admitted this openly. Check your email and read it for yourself. This goes to show that my defiance of said moderator was within reasonable boundaries of self-defense.
It is dismissed with prejudice (meaning that it cannot be re-filed).
As administrator I have no choice but to trust the moderators and back up their decisions even when I disagree with them. If a moderator ever made a decision so egregious that it jeopardized the site's mission, I would remove the moderator but the decision would stand unless and until other moderators agreed to change it.
Joined: 27 Nov 2004 {Posts: 1466 } Location: Hudson Valley, NY
Posted: Tue 19 Jun 2007 03:53 Post subject:
DevilChild wrote:
Formal warning acknowledged with motion to dismiss.
Said moderator is actually out to get me, and he admitted this openly. Check your email and read it for yourself. This goes to show that my defiance of said moderator was within reasonable boundaries of self-defense.
Is my motion sustained or overruled?
You have brought this all on yourself Zack. I have tried to be lenient with you and have even offered good advice to you. Yet you still are immature and disrespectful. You have a lot to learn about life. So if I were you, I would take the advice that I have given to you.
It's your show Zack, don't try to make yourself out to be a victim here because you are not.
It is dismissed with prejudice (meaning that it cannot be re-filed).
As administrator I have no choice but to trust the moderators and back up their decisions even when I disagree with them. If a moderator ever made a decision so egregious that it jeopardized the site's mission, I would remove the moderator but the decision would stand unless and until other moderators agreed to change it.
Okay. Well at least i learned some terminology then.
Formal warning acknowledged with motion to dismiss.
Said moderator is actually out to get me, and he admitted this openly. Check your email and read it for yourself. This goes to show that my defiance of said moderator was within reasonable boundaries of self-defense.
Is my motion sustained or overruled?
You have brought this all on yourself Zack. I have tried to be lenient with you and have even offered good advice to you. Yet you still are immature and disrespectful. You have a lot to learn about life. So if I were you, I would take the advice that I have given to you.
It's your show Zack, don't try to make yourself out to be a victim here because you are not.
Joined: 27 Nov 2004 {Posts: 1466 } Location: Hudson Valley, NY
Posted: Tue 19 Jun 2007 13:08 Post subject:
I did not evade your "accusations", Zack. If I am in fact, out to get you, it will be in the complete context of the ODR Rules, which you do not have a problem violating frequently. Just think of it as in a cop who has it in for a certain person. The cop cannot invent laws, but if the cop catches that person speeding even if it's 1 mph over the limit, he can issue a ticket, totally within the boundries of the law.
DevilChild wrote:
This goes to show that my defiance of said moderator was within reasonable boundaries of self-defense.
This, in and of itself, is against the Rules, Zack.
Let's take a look, why don't we:
Quote:
3. Be Polite. — If you antagonize another member so that discussion becomes ad hominem, a moderator will warn you. A second infraction within seven days of the first will suspend your posting privilege. (See also items C.2 and C.3, below.) Living up to this may seem difficult, but the following suggestions may help. They are not hard and fast rules, but they seem to work for most people. They may help you avoid antagonizing other members.
a. If you disagree with something that another member has written, focus your comments on the content of other’s post, not on their person. Do not attribute motives to them. Do not try to ridicule them. Address yourself only to what they have written. List members are generally mature enough to refute (or just ignore) unacceptable ideas. But anyone can become enraged when attacked personally. Again, this is just advice; the rule is to not antagonize others.
You are guilty of violating both those rules, Zack.
Quote:
C. What Behavior Will Cause Your Posting Privilege to be Suspended.
1. Attack the Existence of the Discussion Group Itself. — Some people feel that the OneDropRule discussion group has no redeeming social value. They sign up and join the group merely to express their belief that the group should not exist. Such behavior will trigger immediate suspension without warning.
2. Lust for Conflict. — Some people enjoy angry confrontation. They express themselves in ways that enrage others. Do this and your posting privilege will be suspended. That you did not mean to anger anyone will not be accepted as an excuse. Everyone is assumed to be an adult. Anyone who deliberately antagonizes other members will have their posting privilege suspended. Anyone who accidentally antagonizes other members through no fault of their own will have their posting privilege suspended.
3. Compulsion to Retaliate. — Some people cannot resist retaliating when they have been insulted. Do this and your posting privilege will be suspended. “He started it,” or “It was self defense,” will not accepted as excuses. Everyone is assumed capable of self-control. Anyone who deliberately retaliates insult for insult will have their posting privilege suspended. Anyone who cannot help themselves and accidentally retaliates insult for insult will have their posting privilege suspended.
DevilChild wrote:
This goes to show that my defiance of said moderator was within reasonable boundaries of self-defense.
It looks to me, Zack, that what you just stated is in complete violation of Rule C3. You also frequently violate Rule C2.
So as you can see, Zack, I am not out to get you as you assert. You do this to yourself.
I dont really care about being suspended, I do care about you cheating and getting away with it. However, you see, DC, you have a knack for suspending me for things which I am no longer doing. WHich I find rather suspicious, as youve done it twice allready.
You threaten me for some vague and obscure reason, yet you have no real grounds to go on, other than just not liking my attitude. I havent really violated the rules, at least in ways that you can catch me for. See, and then, I have a change of heart for some reason and decide to start playing nice. Such as my last posts, they were quite polite and very proffessional. But, at this moment, you realize, that if I dont continue being antagonistic, I wont screw up and you cant get rid of me....Hmmm what to do what to do? AH! So you just ban me now before any time passes which would absolve me of prior warnings.
See, you are smart enough to do that DC. Did you really think I didnt see your behavior for what it was? Haha. You are out to get me and theres nothing I could ever do about it. No matter what you will find a way to suspend me, you know it, and so do I. Please dont act like I am stupid, I am a mod too and I know how power works. Especially unchecked such as on this site. All you have to do is say that I am being antagonistic. We all know that because of the nature of my ideas, so long as I keep thinking the antagonistic things I do, this will be impossible to avoid. Therefore, any time you feel like it you allways have grounds to suspend me. bah!
Heres a quote where you admit that you are out to get me.
DC Chapmen wrote:
Quote:
Let me say this Zack. I have been very lenient with problem posters. I do not like to suspend people. You are an exception. I am not the only moderator who feels this way. That's all I will say on that.
Please note DC, that I was just going to leave because I realized what a quack so many people here really are. However, I decided it would be more satisfying to punish you all first. However, you are a cheater and you cut my plan short before the big finali. So funny, because I only postponned it because I had a change of heart when I saw Frank blast that HST and Andrew Waters. I felt like maybe I should stick around and be polite, after all, they got what they deserved. SO the irony of it all, is that you are suspending me for my "bad" behavior even though I actually had stopped commiting it and was now acting totally in bounds. See, I was going to play by the rules, at least for a while, but obviously thats not good enough for you is it. Hhehe so funny, I could have just gone ahead with my little plan and exited but No, i had to give things another chance. How foolish of me.
I did not evade your "accusations", Zack. If I am in fact, out to get you,
Yes you did, stop bsing me.
Quote:
This, in and of itself, is against the Rules, Zack.
The hell it is and you know it.
Quote:
You are guilty of violating both those rules, Zack.
Yes I am, but youre not capable of figuring out where and how because I am far too slick, hence the reason you didnt put any examples. You only think I am being this way, but you cannot prove it, at all. Unlike Frank. Hes the only one I cannot fool.
Quote:
2. Lust for Conflict.
Yup.
Quote:
3. Compulsion to Retaliate.
Definately.
Quote:
It looks to me, Zack, that what you just stated is in complete violation of Rule C3. You also frequently violate Rule C2.
Unless you mean that letter I sent Frank, I never stated anything of the sort. I knew that letter was a bad idea. Curses. I only sent it ironically because I was threw acting like that, after my misguided change of heart.
Quote:
So as you can see, Zack, I am not out to get you as you assert. You do this to yourself.
Actually both things are true. You really are out to get me, and I really did bring it on myself by not being extra kind and polite as soon as I got in hot water. See I could have avoided your wrath by backing off for a week and then going at it again. But Im far too short-termed to bother with that. Please, I know how to troll if I feel like it.
Quote:
Think before you send any PM's laced with hatred or profanity. Any such PM's I will post right here in this forum for all the public to read.
I didnt break the FUCKING rules you cheater! I can say what I want in pm, and you know that damn well. Bullshit. Just because HST is your boyfriend isnt my fault his feeligns got hurt. Hahhaa.
Joined: 27 Nov 2004 {Posts: 1466 } Location: Hudson Valley, NY
Posted: Tue 19 Jun 2007 18:45 Post subject:
Quote:
I didnt break the FUCKING rules you cheater! I can say what I want in pm, and you know that damn well. Bullshit. Just because HST is your boyfriend isnt my fault his feeligns got hurt. Hahhaa.
You even violate the Rules when you are suspended, particularly defying the moderator, ad hominem attacks, etc.
Joined: 27 Nov 2004 {Posts: 1466 } Location: Hudson Valley, NY
Posted: Tue 19 Jun 2007 18:50 Post subject:
DevilChild wrote:
Quote:
I did not evade your "accusations", Zack. If I am in fact, out to get you,
Yes you did, stop bsing me.
Quote:
This, in and of itself, is against the Rules, Zack.
The hell it is and you know it.
Quote:
You are guilty of violating both those rules, Zack.
Yes I am, but youre not capable of figuring out where and how because I am far too slick, hence the reason you didnt put any examples. You only think I am being this way, but you cannot prove it, at all. Unlike Frank. Hes the only one I cannot fool.
Quote:
2. Lust for Conflict.
Yup.
Quote:
3. Compulsion to Retaliate.
Definately.
Quote:
It looks to me, Zack, that what you just stated is in complete violation of Rule C3. You also frequently violate Rule C2.
Unless you mean that letter I sent Frank, I never stated anything of the sort. I knew that letter was a bad idea. Curses. I only sent it ironically because I was threw acting like that, after my misguided change of heart.
Quote:
So as you can see, Zack, I am not out to get you as you assert. You do this to yourself.
Actually both things are true. You really are out to get me, and I really did bring it on myself by not being extra kind and polite as soon as I got in hot water. See I could have avoided your wrath by backing off for a week and then going at it again. But Im far too short-termed to bother with that. Please, I know how to troll if I feel like it.
Quote:
Think before you send any PM's laced with hatred or profanity. Any such PM's I will post right here in this forum for all the public to read.
I didnt break the FUCKING rules you cheater! I can say what I want in pm, and you know that damn well. Bullshit. Just because HST is your boyfriend isnt my fault his feeligns got hurt. Hahhaa.
Wow, this poster is extremely hostile and immature, particularly since he is suspended. You would think that he would tone it down, but yet he digs himself deeper in the hole.....
Last edited by DChapman on Tue 19 Jun 2007 18:55; edited 1 time in total
Joined: 02 Feb 2007 {Posts: 255 } Location: California
Posted: Tue 19 Jun 2007 19:03 Post subject:
DChapman--
Quote:
Wow, this poster is extremely hostile and immature, particularly since he is suspended. You would think that he would tone it down, but yet he digs himself deeper in the hole.....
You were right many weeks and you are right today. He's extremely immature, even for a 20 year old. Maybe OneDrop should set an age limit on membership.
Unless you mean that letter I sent Frank, I never stated anything of the sort. I knew that letter was a bad idea. Curses. I only sent it ironically because I was threw acting like that, after my misguided change of heart.
?? No PM that you sent me contained anything offensive. ?? And I have never shared anything you sent me with anyone. ?? You must have sent something meant for me to Dean by mistake.
Anyway, please stop ranting here or we will have to cut you off from here too. Instead, why not spend your time helping me consider rules changes.
First, we need clearer policies regarding "tone of voice," which as far as I can tell is what angered others about your messages. Their actual content was relatively innocuous (Blacks suffer discrimination, so White folks born into the Black community have an incentive to switch) but their tone made people falsely read racist sentiments into them. I would be grateful for your thoughts on what if anything I can do about this by tweaking the rules.
Second, some people think that "negative generalizations about groups" should be forbidden. This is impossible of course, since among other things Europeans really did conquer, colonize, enslave, and exploit everyone else and if we cannot say such things, historical discussion would end. At the other extreme, some think that even innaccurate or unsourced group generalizations are allowed as long as they do not target individuals. This is also in error, since every statement must be backed up upon request. We have stated the policy about providing sources for generalizations and refraining from ad hominem many times, but we just do not seem to get through to some people. How can we make it clear that mere offensiveness does not make a credibly sourced generalization illegal and that being offended does not make ad hominem retaliation legal? Again, I would be grateful for your thoughts on how we can better get this across, especially to Black activists.
You are studying business. Make believe that I am a director and you are a manager and I need your advice.
Last edited by fwsweet on Tue 19 Jun 2007 19:53; edited 1 time in total
'
FAQ
Search
Register
Log in
