Baron has NO clue
- Thread starter bundlemaker
- Start date
- Status
I didn't think I ever "uncut" the moderators a little slack. Maybe you should reread my first post. And just so there is no misunderstanding, let me spell it out. The ones to blame for causing the disruption are the detractors in this case, and certainly not Baron who is just trying to keep the lid on things here.
The point I make is that this is just like a sporting event where the person who instigates isn't always the one who is punished, so the detractors in this case seem to have achieved their goal while dodging responsibility for their actions. Ultimately I'm sure they will get what's coming to them. But it's the thread destroying mosquitoes who had the last laugh. But is ET a better place for this or would ET be better off without them? What do they add to the ET community?
Again with the ungrounded assessments. You obviously have no idea about what I speak of. I do.
Do you think it possible, just possible; that it might be more productive to inquire as to what something is or means rather than make a fool of oneself in the eyes of any observer familiar with that branch of behavioral psychology which happens to be my expertise?
Jack wasn't just spouting shit willy nilly.
Baron
ET Founder
Perhaps you should read what I wrote more carefully, because I said an "abnormal" number of complaints. I don't just ban somebody the second I get a single complaint about them. Even if I receive many complaints over a short period of time from various users, I still won't ban that user without looking into it myself. If it seems those complaints are justified, then the user gets banned. More specifically, if I see that the user has violated our member agreement by being disruptive or abusive, then the user gets banned. Keep in mind that I'm not banning users just for complaints or differences of opinion that have been submitted by other users. I ban people because their conduct (as verified by myself) violates the rules of membership here.
Now, do I give a high degree of attention to people that complain? Yes, and here's why. It's been my experience over the last 6 years that people do not just complain for no reason, especially when it's done through email or private messages, considering the time it takes to construct a thorough complaint. If somebody takes the time to send me several paragraphs about a user being annoying, I pay attention, but may not do anything about it right away. But more importantly, if I start getting many long-winded complaints over the course of several days/weeks from many people about the same user over and over, there's about a 99.9% chance that this user is being annoying, not only to the people that complained, but to a lot of other people, many of which may have just left the site forever instead of registering any formal complaint. Now, if I also start getting complaints about that same user from my moderators, then its time to do something about it, which was the case in this situation.
I have no desire whatsoever to just ban people wrecklessly. It's not in anyone's interest for me to do that. What I do have a desire to do is provide the best site possible for the majority of our members, even if it that means banning or hurting the feelings of a few rule-breakers along the way.
Back when I banned Hitman (who also had very popular threads) last year, many people thought ET was finished, but the reality is that ET is way bigger than any single user. The site has only grown since that time, despite the fact that some people's feelings were hurt because they weren't allowed to say absolutely anything they wanted.
I realize that some people simply want a lawless environment where nobody gets banned and where there are no rules whatsoever, but it's just never gonna happen here, so get over it.
You and me both, Nitro.
But, I gotta say that Mr. Hershey stayed in his own threads (which I completely ignored). I dunno about the SEC, and I dunno what went on in the threads, and I dunno about what threats may or may not have been issued behind the scenes (or by whom), but it seems to me that if the stuff I didn't like stayed in one place that I didn't go, I wouldn't mind.
So, it does indeed appear to me (a very uninformed user) that the ban was a bad idea.
Edit: Just read Baron's first post in this thread, and I've changed my mind.
bwahahahahahah.
Pfffffffffbwahahahahahahahaha.
Man, do you just foam at the mouth, or does this actually require you to think about what you are saying?
It takes THREE COUNT THEM PAGES to describe a stochastic oscillator. But we don't understand this guys style? BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHH. Too funny - I can't stop laughing this is so halarious.
1 is 2 and 2 is 1. I am going to start a thread on this! Maybe it will reach a thousand pages....WOOOOOOOOW MON, let me have some more of that weed mon.
Well,
The semi-stable modules of a cobohordism ring are one to one and onto the p-adic number fields.
It goes without saying then that the dark side of the moon, which is dark (and there was this really great album with music made from it) where there is no light, and therefore one cannot see.
But let me not digress. Once you have piecewise taken the infinite loop space to prove the Reimann Hypotheses, it then becomes obvious that the brain functions of mature cockroach approach a stable chaotic regime. The problem with cockroaches not achieving conciousness though is still an unsolved problem, as proved here on ET every day.
nitro (if you ask me to explain what I just said I will insult you because I am better than you.)
- Status