Why do we have an ‘ignore’ button?
Further proof of dissatisfaction in the troops! Lets go for 20 pages this time!
Look,
I enjoy reading DB
[quote=“TomHill”]If banning Screaming Jesus isn’t what WE want then can’t we do something about it? There is a lot more of us than there are of them?
Tom, rabble rouser, Hill.[/quote]
YEAAA!!!
An ignore button does not fix the original problem though, does it?
Rules are rules.
[quote=“Big Fluffy Matthew”]Sigh, here we go again, a bunch of we-would-be-better-moderators-than-you saying they can’t see why someone was suspended. Of course you can’t see what he did wroung, the offending posts have been removed, if they’re bad enough to get him suspended they’re bad enough to be removed 
And look how silly you looked when mod lang came out and said what he did wrong, “Oh yeah, he wasn’t banned for nothing after all like you said” 
Screaming Jesus has not been banned yet, no vote has taken place yet.
And posting feedback in the open forum is not the best way to show us you know how forumosa works better than the moderators.[/quote]
Whose site is it? Everybodies? Or does it belong to GooseEgg?
Personally I think you do a very good job, but I don’t think you have to defend the rules. And complaining is a healthy way to get things changed… sometimes.
while I agree some of the banning decisions can be mystifying, we HAVE to believe the admins take a suspension/banning very seriously as a last resort based on info they have and we don’t.
I believe that in itself is part of “the rules” here. Not all info can be made public.
Folks,
There have been several discussions in the past, and one quite recently, regarding SJ’s posts and racist posts in general.
None of the moderators have defended SJ’s right to post controversial statements more than I have.
None of the mods have argued more strenuously than I have that racist statements must be also hateful in order for them to be prohibited. I have argued this point with the administration and with other mods.
However, yesterday SJ posted a statement suggesting that funds be raised to pay inventors to develop a plague to be used in black Africa. He followed it up with something along the lines of this helping to achieve some particular end.
I took offense at that suggestion, and applied the Rule against such statements when I proposed the ban. The relevant Rule states:
I don’t know how many times I have argued with other mods and with the administration that for this Rule to apply, the statement must be hateful. IMO, suggesting that a good way to deal with black Africa would be to develop and release a plague there is an example of hateful, racist bigotry.
The mods will begin debating whether or not to ban SJ, and then we will vote.
If SJ is banned, he will be free to register again under a new name… and I hope he does (if he is banned), because I too enjoy many of his posts.
But, even while I would permit hateful racist bigotry on my site (if I had a site) so that the same could be rebutted, this is not my site and we have fairly explicit Rules. One of those Rules applies directly to a post SJ made yesterday.
I trust you will all understand why I have proposed the ban.
Screaming Jesus’ Prayer
Our Moderators who art in the Star Chamber,
Hallowed be thy name.Thy Kingdom come.
Thy will be done in Forumosa as it is in the Chamber.
Give us this day our daily tit-bits,
And forgive us our stuff ups,
As we forgive those who stuff us around,
Help us not to stuff up again,
Deliver us from that one almighty stuff up.
Ahmen.
That’s the whole idea, Fox… 
Now we know. Good on ya Tiger. We know how not to stuff up next time.
You are golden; and trully deserving of your place there in the trinity or however many of You are You.
That is a very funny signature you have by the way.
cheers TM.
Tigerman -
Thanks for the explanation.
It was said over and over one day long ago by several of the Grateful Dead’s roadies while they (the roadies) were enjoying a particularly good trip.
[quote=“Tigerman”]Folks,
There have been several discussions in the past, and one quite recently, regardin SJ’s posts and racist posts in general.
None of the moderators have defended SJ’s right to post controversial statements more than I have.
None of the mods have argued more strenuously than I have that racist statements must be also hateful in order for them to be prohibited. I have argued this point with the administration and with other mods.
However, yesterday SJ posted a statement suggesting that funds be raised to pay inventors to develop a plague to be used in black Africa. He followed it up with something along the lines of this helping to achieve some particular end.
I took offense at that suggestion, and applied the Rule against such statements when I proposed the ban. The relevant Rule states:
I don’t know how many times I have argued with other mods and with the administration that for this Rule to apply, the statement must be hateful. IMO, suggesting that a good way to deal with black Africa would be to develop and release a plague there is an example of hateful, racist bigotry.
The mods will begin debating whether or not to ban SJ, and then we will vote.
If SJ is banned, he will be free to register again under a new name… and I hope he does (if he is banned), because I too enjoy many of his posts.
But, even while I would permit hateful racist bigotry on my site (if I had a site) so that the same could be rebutted, this is not my site and we have fairly explicit Rules. One of those Rules applies directly to a post SJ made yesterday.
I trust you will all understand why I have proposed the ban.[/quote]
TM, well done. Not for necessarily suggesting the ban, but for having the decency to explain what happened.
It is a shame that the other mods who responded to this did not do the same. It is a fair question to ask why somebody is suspended prior to the final decision, and answers like those of DB are next to useless.
Most people know there are rules, but as posts get removed / moved to areas us poor standard members cannot see then it is almost impossible to understand the reasoning applied.
All i can say, is i wish all other moderators acquire the same sense of openess to the very people that make this site what it is.
I would be happy to tell you what happened. But the mods had a vote and decided not to reveal details. Not my choice, but I will respect the wishes of the other mods.
Why not this concern for ac_dropout ? Can’t be inconsistancy surely ? 
Thank you.
But, let’s be clear… not all the mods agree with me on this issue. Some have expressed legitimate reasons for keeping these issues private.
AFAIK, we do not have a policy against providing an explanation, but, neither do we have a policy that requires us to provide an explanation.
who? 
Tigerman for president! :bravo:
Did we? I thought our vote was regarding whether or not to have a sticky thread with notices regarding bans and that was voted down.
I could be wrong, but I didn’t think we decided that individual mods could not discuss an offense… I’m not talking about discussing the actual debate in the private forum… just the offense… and many people did already see the offense.
:s
uh oh. Bitch fight.