Page 11 of 16 [ 243 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 ... 16  Next

B19
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Jan 2013
Gender: Female
Posts: 9,993
Location: New Zealand

14 Jan 2017, 4:03 pm

In fact, Adamantium is American too, and so of course is the Mod-in-Chief Alex.



Jacoby
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 10 Dec 2007
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 14,284
Location: Permanently banned by power tripping mods lol this forum is trash

14 Jan 2017, 4:24 pm

I thought Adamantium was from the UK, my mistake.



nurseangela
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Nov 2014
Gender: Female
Posts: 8,017
Location: Kansas

14 Jan 2017, 4:34 pm

Adamantium wrote:
nurseangela wrote:
smudge wrote:
nurseangela wrote:
That's another thing - when the "idiot" term was said by this person, did she get a warning or was she just "talked" to? I saw how you were explaining the situation. Anyone else would have probably been issued a citation. This is what I see as "preferencial" treatment and the thing is there is no way to know who gets what because it is not made public.


Do you mean me?


No, not you. You know what really bothered me? She finally figured out that she had said the wrong thing and didn't even apologize after she knew she was wrong for saying it, but that is a whole other topic.


While the word chosen for the illustration, "idiot" was the same as the one in the incident you are thinking of, the example was generic and not meant to be a comment on that specific issue.


Mr. A., you are not who I thought you were at all. You are making excuses for certain people. In this circumstance, she finally figured out she was wrong and still nothing happened. If I had said that word, I would have gotten another warning. And how come you just dismissed my question on your "Deplorable" thread? Do I not have a right to be answered?

You know what really bothers me, I have never been treated worse in my whole life than I have on this forum - by anyone, just because I am a Trump supporter. Kraichgauer is supposed to be such a Christian, but his mouth should be washed out with soap repeatedly. You're a Christian and that's why your "Deplorable" thread bothered me (and other Conservatives here) because by making that thread you were showing it was OK for anyone here who is on the Left to say whatever they wanted and nothing was going to happen to them - and it hasn't.

Now, I have some Ass (let's just get it out in the open of who it is - PECUSER) who is a regular member here sending hate PM's to me calling me a "Crazy b***h" which is harassment. But you know what? I'm not turning it in (or even reading them) because nothing ever happens to these people. The last time I turned in hateful PM's - I GOT BANNED - for having to take the matter into my own hands. So yes, I do believe the moderators need a time frame on how long they are in their positions because right now the job is not being done correctly by the ones who are filling the positions. (IMO)


_________________
Me grumpy?
I'm happiness challenged.

Your neurodiverse (Aspie) score: 83 of 200
Your neurotypical (non-autistic) score: 153 of 200 You are very likely neurotypical
Darn, I flunked.


pcuser
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Dec 2014
Age: 73
Gender: Male
Posts: 913

14 Jan 2017, 4:40 pm

Fascinating...



pcuser
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Dec 2014
Age: 73
Gender: Male
Posts: 913

14 Jan 2017, 4:44 pm

alex wrote:
I think part of the problem is due to initially inadvertent offensiveness. I've noticed conservative members make statements that are incredibly offensive to a group of people but when others try to explain why those statements are offensive, the conservative members will just repeat their previous statements without stopping to try to understand things from the other point of view.

Specifically, I've witnessed a lot of offensive statements about transgender people. It's clear that the posters don't even realize how offensive they're being. So other members attack what those posters are saying.

It's ok to attack a belief. If someone believes gay people shouldn't get married, you can attack that belief. If your belief is due to your religion, then be prepared to have your religion attacked as well.

There are plenty of conservative posters who make well-reasoned logical arguments that are based on facts. But there are a larger number of people I've seen who just post arguments that are full of holes (and really aren't even valid arguments). Their citations (if they even post them) are usually from illegitimate or fake news sites that seem to exist solely to push a certain point of view.

Generally when liberals post faulty arguments that aren't based on facts, it's about gun control or something else that doesn't actually contain bigotry against another group of people. So they don't foment as much of a negative environment, even if what they're saying is wrong. There's a difference between attacking someone's beliefs (such as their religion or politics) and attacking a person for who they are (such as their sexual orientation or gender identity).

You said it far better than I could have. Thanks...



nurseangela
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Nov 2014
Gender: Female
Posts: 8,017
Location: Kansas

14 Jan 2017, 4:53 pm

pcuser wrote:
Fascinating...


I bet it is fascinating for you because all you are is a bully. But you know what? It's not going to work with me because I will never read your PM's so you are just wasting your time. You are no better than filth on the bottom of my shoes that I'm going to walk all over tonight.


_________________
Me grumpy?
I'm happiness challenged.

Your neurodiverse (Aspie) score: 83 of 200
Your neurotypical (non-autistic) score: 153 of 200 You are very likely neurotypical
Darn, I flunked.


nurseangela
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Nov 2014
Gender: Female
Posts: 8,017
Location: Kansas

14 Jan 2017, 4:55 pm

pcuser wrote:
alex wrote:
I think part of the problem is due to initially inadvertent offensiveness. I've noticed conservative members make statements that are incredibly offensive to a group of people but when others try to explain why those statements are offensive, the conservative members will just repeat their previous statements without stopping to try to understand things from the other point of view.

Specifically, I've witnessed a lot of offensive statements about transgender people. It's clear that the posters don't even realize how offensive they're being. So other members attack what those posters are saying.

It's ok to attack a belief. If someone believes gay people shouldn't get married, you can attack that belief. If your belief is due to your religion, then be prepared to have your religion attacked as well.

There are plenty of conservative posters who make well-reasoned logical arguments that are based on facts. But there are a larger number of people I've seen who just post arguments that are full of holes (and really aren't even valid arguments). Their citations (if they even post them) are usually from illegitimate or fake news sites that seem to exist solely to push a certain point of view.

Generally when liberals post faulty arguments that aren't based on facts, it's about gun control or something else that doesn't actually contain bigotry against another group of people. So they don't foment as much of a negative environment, even if what they're saying is wrong. There's a difference between attacking someone's beliefs (such as their religion or politics) and attacking a person for who they are (such as their sexual orientation or gender identity).

You said it far better than I could have. Thanks...


I also don't see where it says here that it is ok to harass another member by sending them PM's calling them a "Crazy b***h". Do I need to get my glasses on? Is it somewhere in microscopic print and I'm just missing it?

I take that back - you called me an "Evil b***h". And I sure the hell know that I'm not EVIL! : - P


_________________
Me grumpy?
I'm happiness challenged.

Your neurodiverse (Aspie) score: 83 of 200
Your neurotypical (non-autistic) score: 153 of 200 You are very likely neurotypical
Darn, I flunked.


Last edited by nurseangela on 14 Jan 2017, 5:03 pm, edited 2 times in total.

League_Girl
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Feb 2010
Gender: Female
Posts: 27,205
Location: Pacific Northwest

14 Jan 2017, 5:00 pm

Dox47 wrote:
Darmok wrote:
WikiLeaks has just released some hacked video of one of the formal complaints made against Dox's behavior here on WP, and you have to admit, it's pretty damning.


Funny story: Some years ago we had a moderator go rogue and run off to a troll site with a copy of the mod logs, and wouldn't you know it but I was in some of the files. That got messy.



I know what site you are referring to and I also saw the log being posted and I was surprised at how paranoid three of the mods were so that explained why I had problems here. It made me glad all of them were demodded. We don't want anyone here who is going to be modding other members on other sites and then read into things here they post that are not even there or wanting to punish them for stuff they do elsewhere. Those people should not be mods.


_________________
Son: Diagnosed w/anxiety and ADHD. Also academic delayed.

Daughter: NT, no diagnoses.


League_Girl
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Feb 2010
Gender: Female
Posts: 27,205
Location: Pacific Northwest

14 Jan 2017, 5:12 pm

DW a Mom (NT) was a moderator but then stepped down because she got busy with life and her kids needed her more.


_________________
Son: Diagnosed w/anxiety and ADHD. Also academic delayed.

Daughter: NT, no diagnoses.


JohnPowell
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Feb 2016
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,806
Location: Palestine

14 Jan 2017, 5:17 pm

I think we should have some conservative mods.


_________________
"No one believes more firmly than Comrade Napoleon that all animals are equal. He would be only too happy to let you make your decisions for yourselves. But sometimes you might make the wrong decisions, comrades, and then where should we be?"


pcuser
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Dec 2014
Age: 73
Gender: Male
Posts: 913

14 Jan 2017, 6:42 pm

nurseangela wrote:
pcuser wrote:
alex wrote:
I think part of the problem is due to initially inadvertent offensiveness. I've noticed conservative members make statements that are incredibly offensive to a group of people but when others try to explain why those statements are offensive, the conservative members will just repeat their previous statements without stopping to try to understand things from the other point of view.

Specifically, I've witnessed a lot of offensive statements about transgender people. It's clear that the posters don't even realize how offensive they're being. So other members attack what those posters are saying.

It's ok to attack a belief. If someone believes gay people shouldn't get married, you can attack that belief. If your belief is due to your religion, then be prepared to have your religion attacked as well.

There are plenty of conservative posters who make well-reasoned logical arguments that are based on facts. But there are a larger number of people I've seen who just post arguments that are full of holes (and really aren't even valid arguments). Their citations (if they even post them) are usually from illegitimate or fake news sites that seem to exist solely to push a certain point of view.

Generally when liberals post faulty arguments that aren't based on facts, it's about gun control or something else that doesn't actually contain bigotry against another group of people. So they don't foment as much of a negative environment, even if what they're saying is wrong. There's a difference between attacking someone's beliefs (such as their religion or politics) and attacking a person for who they are (such as their sexual orientation or gender identity).

You said it far better than I could have. Thanks...


I also don't see where it says here that it is ok to harass another member by sending them PM's calling them a "Crazy b***h". Do I need to get my glasses on? Is it somewhere in microscopic print and I'm just missing it?

I take that back - you called me an "Evil b***h". And I sure the hell know that I'm not EVIL! : - P

Really...



Adamantium
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Feb 2013
Age: 1024
Gender: Female
Posts: 5,863
Location: Erehwon

14 Jan 2017, 7:45 pm

nurseangela wrote:
Mr. A., you are not who I thought you were at all. You are making excuses for certain people. In this circumstance, she finally figured out she was wrong and still nothing happened. If I had said that word, I would have gotten another warning.


That is an unfair accusation. You don't know what warnings were given, or under consideration. Your imagined version of events is incorrect.

nurseangela wrote:
And how come you just dismissed my question on your "Deplorable" thread?


A personal attack is a hostile statement about a person. At the point when I joined this discussion, personal attacks were under discussion. I didn't mean to slight or dismiss you, but was focused on something else.

Your question was:
nurseangela wrote:
Since we are on this subject and you are bringing up these examples, wasn't your thread about "Trump Deplorables" out of line? You actually had a few Conservative members here (including myself) who were offended by the thread and it was left open. Why was that thread any different?


And you posted this in response to my discussion of personal attacks, with discussion and hypothetical examples of insinuation and indirect attack.

I freely admit that my deplorables post was strongly worded, but it was also not directed at an individual or group of individuals other than those promoting racism, misogyny and xenophobia.

Many conservative posters immediately jumped down my throat for it, though my words were far less strong than those some conservatives routinely deploy against the left without moderator interference.

My words were "We know that some Trump supporters are perfectly decent Americans who don't espouse these heinous views, but there are those others and I will be using this thread to look at what makes them so very deplorable."

I chose the Some/Others dichotomy carefully, matching the words used by Trump in his infamous speech enumerating the qualities of Mexicans "sent" to the United States. If it's OK for Trump to say that because of his some, how is it not OK for me to use the same language to decry that portion of his supporters that I truly deplore?

I explicitly stated that this was not a comment about all Trump supporters, but some ignored that. That doesn't make that topic a personal attack. That the hateful people I was talking about happen to support the same presidential candidate as you doesn't make the post about you and no such targeting was implied or indirectly stated, it was explicitly excluded.

I don't think any PPR regular wants a safe space where they are free from the danger of ever reading a political opinion they disagree with.

So to directly and unambiguously answer your question, the other mods looked at those complaints and concluded that the post did not meet the standards for offensive content and wasn't a personal attack. Had they found that it crossed the ppr guidelines or site rules it would have come down.


_________________
Don't believe the gender note under my avatar. A WP bug means I can't fix it.


Adamantium
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Feb 2013
Age: 1024
Gender: Female
Posts: 5,863
Location: Erehwon

14 Jan 2017, 7:49 pm

nurseangela wrote:
You are no better than filth on the bottom of my shoes that I'm going to walk all over tonight.


In passing, this is a really good example of a direct personal attack.


_________________
Don't believe the gender note under my avatar. A WP bug means I can't fix it.


Jacoby
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 10 Dec 2007
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 14,284
Location: Permanently banned by power tripping mods lol this forum is trash

14 Jan 2017, 8:04 pm

Adamantium wrote:
nurseangela wrote:
You are no better than filth on the bottom of my shoes that I'm going to walk all over tonight.


In passing, this is a really good example of a direct personal attack.


Kind of illustrates the issue, people get punished for responding to something while the initiator gets off scot free far too often. Angie said that some poster here created a sockpuppet account to said hateful messages to her, that would be a bannable offense would it not?



Adamantium
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Feb 2013
Age: 1024
Gender: Female
Posts: 5,863
Location: Erehwon

14 Jan 2017, 8:18 pm

Jacoby wrote:
Adamantium wrote:
nurseangela wrote:
You are no better than filth on the bottom of my shoes that I'm going to walk all over tonight.


In passing, this is a really good example of a direct personal attack.


Kind of illustrates the issue, people get punished for responding to something while the initiator gets off scot free far too often. Angie said that some poster here created a sockpuppet account to said hateful messages to her, that would be a bannable offense would it not?


You literally don't know what you are talking about. You don't know who gets warned or banned or when.

Yes, creating a sockpuppet to launch attacks would be a bannable offense. I can't answer the truth about what may or may not be in Angela's messages. Mods have no access to PMs unless they are reported, she says hasn't reported these.

Now might be a good time to remind people of site rule 3 which prohibits, among other things:
Quote:
discussion of locked topics, discussion of banned members and why they were banned


There are good reasons for that rule, even if they aren't immediately obvious, and they aren't about protecting mods.


_________________
Don't believe the gender note under my avatar. A WP bug means I can't fix it.


SaveFerris
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 3 Sep 2016
Gender: Male
Posts: 14,762
Location: UK

14 Jan 2017, 9:18 pm

Adamantium wrote:

Now might be a good time to remind people of site rule 3 which prohibits, among other things:
Quote:
discussion of locked topics, discussion of banned members and why they were banned


There are good reasons for that rule, even if they aren't immediately obvious, and they aren't about protecting mods.


Personally I think that rule should be ammended to include discussing warnings as well


_________________
R Tape loading error, 0:1

Hypocrisy is the greatest luxury. Raise the double standard