I can't help but to inquire, who's first?
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Glenn Beck to Jesus: Drop Dead
- Thread starter OPTIONAL777
- Start date
I can't help but to inquire, who's first?
Quote from Ivanovich:
You make many assumptions, and we all know what they say about those who assume. You sure prove the idiom well, that's for sure.
Your assumptions:
1. I was the one who banned Tdog. This is incorrect. I don't even know who did it. I merely posed the question because it was brought up by a user and I tried to be helpful and figure out the answer. I even apologized for the site - despite not having any personal involvement.
2. I allow trolls to operate freely. Also incorrect. Anyone in this thread can tell you I do my absolute best within the allowance of the forum's software to keep those who break the ToU repeatedly out of the forum. Unfortunately, if you had been following any one of about a dozen threads in the feedback section, you'd understand how limited I can act.
The rest of your commentary is based on supporting your original rude and asinine commentary, which I previously addressed and find no need to repeat. However, feel free to continue to proudly place yourself over all the idiot moderators (including myself) of this site. I think everyone watching knows who has the high ground.
Have a happy day.
I don't know what you are reading, but I never said you banned TDog or that you are loose on trolls especially since I know about your history with T28 etc.
As for all of my suggestions, all you need is the PM system and the ban button, there is no need for extra special forum software.
And when did I say you are an idiot? You are just rambling on about because I offered some criticism of a flawed moderation policy. Shoot the messenger, always works.
Quote from hermit:
I don't know what you are reading, but I never said you banned TDog or that you are loose on trolls especially since I know about your history with T28 etc.
As for all of my suggestions, all you need is the PM system and the ban button, there is no need for extra special forum software.
And when did I say you are an idiot? You are just rambling on about because I offered some criticism of a flawed moderation policy. Shoot the messenger, always works.
If you are (now) pretending that you weren't criticizing me, then why did you feel the need to offer me your blessed "coaching" on how "good moderation policy" works?
And what of this statement?
Quote from hermit:
Ofcourse, since all this is totally out of line with your seat of the pants moderating where regular members get banned for no reason while serial trolls operate freely, all this is not going to make sense.
I shoot the messenger when he's the author too.
Quote from Ivanovich:
If you are (now) pretending that you weren't criticizing me, then why did you feel the need to offer me your blessed "coaching" on how "good moderation policy" works?
And what of this statement?
I shoot the messenger when he's the author too.
Because you were rambling about how I should be perfect to point out anything. What is wrong with you, you bring politics into everything. Are you seriously suggesting that ET doesn't have a flawed moderation policy, where the guidelines I mentioned followed which are the most basic at any forum? If there wasn't any protocol followed as is obvious in TDog's case, how can you say that it wasn't seat of the pants moderation.
Quote from hermit:
Because you were rambling about how I should be perfect to point out anything. What is wrong with you, you bring politics into everything. Are you seriously suggesting that ET doesn't have a flawed moderation policy, where the guidelines I mentioned followed which are the most basic at any forum? If there wasn't any protocol followed as is obvious in TDog's case, how can you say that it wasn't seat of the pants moderation.
ET does have a flawed moderation policy, but it's more of a software limitation than a policy. My issue with you is that I came here and made an apology for something I didn't do, yet was professional enough to speak for whoever did. You immediately jumped my case and attacked me over it, accusing me, personally, of being a flawed moderator. The word "you" is what tipped me off to it.
That's my issue. If you have a problem with my moderation, fine. Point out where it is or just simply tell me you don't want to. But if you attack me, personally, for issues I had nothing to do with, expect a response.
That is what is "wrong with me".
Even now, you won't admit that you probably should have been pointing out that the policy (and not me) was at fault for this. And that just proves my original point that one of us takes blame in a straight forward manner, for mistakes both ours and others, and one of us doesn't even take blame for our own mistakes.
So you were accused of being a flawed moderator, and became defensive?
Why is that?
Do you think of yourself as a flawless moderator?
Why is that?
Do you think of yourself as a flawless moderator?
Quote from Ivanovich:
ET does have a flawed moderation policy, but it's more of a software limitation than a policy. My issue with you is that I came here and made an apology for something I didn't do, yet was professional enough to speak for whoever did. You immediately jumped my case and attacked me over it, accusing me, personally, of being a flawed moderator. The word "you" is what tipped me off to it.
That's my issue. If you have a problem with my moderation, fine. Point out where it is or just simply tell me you don't want to. But if you attack me, personally, for issues I had nothing to do with, expect a response.
That is what is "wrong with me".
Quote from OPTIONAL777:
So you were accused of being a flawed moderator, and became defensive?
Why is that?
Do you think of yourself as a flawless moderator?
Once again (because I know that you don't absorb much before you turn on the flame thrower), if I am being accused as a "flawed moderator" I don't have a problem with it. Point where you disagree and I'll accept it. But accuse me of being flawed because of an action I had nothing to do with, and I become defensive. Yes.
Is it clear now or should I put this all into a pop-up book to make it even easier to understand?
Quote from Ivanovich:
ET does have a flawed moderation policy, but it's more of a software limitation than a policy. My issue with you is that I came here and made an apology for something I didn't do, yet was professional enough to speak for whoever did. You immediately jumped my case and attacked me over it, accusing me, personally, of being a flawed moderator. The word "you" is what tipped me off to it.
That's my issue. If you have a problem with my moderation, fine. Point out where it is or just simply tell me you don't want to. But if you attack me, personally, for issues I had nothing to do with, expect a response.
That is what is "wrong with me".
I made a point against the flawed moderation policy which you yourself admit was correct. I don't know why you would equate this to your worth as a moderator, it's not your fault that you weren't trained as a moderator or were handed guidelines which only leads to reactionary seat of the pants moderation.
Any critcism will look as attacks/abuse if you give it a political slant, which was obvious when you agreed with Piker about the whole liberal nonsense.
"because I know that you don't absorb much"
That is a personal attack, right?
So you are not a flawed moderator, you are flawless, right?
Consequently if someone accused you of being a flawed moderator, it disturbed you, right?
I mean, if you did have flaws as a moderator...you would just admit it, right? You wouldn't become defensive about something you actually are, right?
Ohhh, of course make a pop up book, no doubt it would become a best seller...
That is a personal attack, right?
So you are not a flawed moderator, you are flawless, right?
Consequently if someone accused you of being a flawed moderator, it disturbed you, right?
I mean, if you did have flaws as a moderator...you would just admit it, right? You wouldn't become defensive about something you actually are, right?
Ohhh, of course make a pop up book, no doubt it would become a best seller...
Quote from Ivanovich:
Once again (because I know that you don't absorb much before you turn on the flame thrower), if I am being accused as a "flawed moderator" I don't have a problem with it. Point where you disagree and I'll accept it. But accuse me of being flawed because of an action I had nothing to do with, and I become defensive. Yes.
Is it clear now or should I put this all into a pop-up book to make it even easier to understand?