TrivialPursuit said:

IanRG said:

djThunderfunk said:

I said the same thing a couple pages back. No regular poster in P&R should be eligible to be a MOD.

.

I don't know.

.

Mods should know how people here can act at their worst. Posters in P&R have experience with how the favoured friends of the former mod were allowed to act and how destructive that was. There are a number of people who posted there that could be good mods, just none of the alts and protected.

Yeah, mods are mods for a reason. They are capable of rising above the nonsense and just moderating. We can't censor someone simply because of their volunteer job. We also can't paint future and other current mods with the same brush that OFFS paint themselves.

But with P&R staying closed for now, I'd say there is plenty of time for folks to just settle their asses down, and for any new mods to settle into their roles as such. Find new common ground, and accept new dynamics as time goes on.

jjhunsecker said:

PennyPurple said:

That would also include every.single.current.mod.

That’s EXACTLY why Ty “Sarah Jane “ is gone... he was temperamentally and intellectually unfit for the position. You can not moderate a site based strictly on who you like or agree with, or who shares your personal opinions or obsessions

I'm so confused with the real names. I need a score card. haha But yeah, I've never seen a moderator on this site act quite like that one did. It wasn't about moderation anymore. It was about personal agenda and propaganda. And God knows we had enough of that dogma from Prince himself in the last 20 years. haha (I say that part in love.)

A moderator should be able, like any reasonable human being, to have a conversation, contribute to it, and leave it there. Hell, we all should. All the Brandon stuff (I still don't get why that's a slur, doesn't make a bit of sense to me), all the ......just all the bullshit from every side... it's not productive. It doesn't lend to a great conversation or resolution. What is it solving? What viable solutions does any of that political dogma offer? None. Then you get a moderator in on it, snipping people who are literally not bowing to their position; it's not free speech or thought anymore. It's Big Brother.

TrivialPursuit said:

IanRG said:

.

I don't know.

.

Mods should know how people here can act at their worst. Posters in P&R have experience with how the favoured friends of the former mod were allowed to act and how destructive that was. There are a number of people who posted there that could be good mods, just none of the alts and protected.

Yeah, mods are mods for a reason. They are capable of rising above the nonsense and just moderating. We can't censor someone simply because of their volunteer job. We also can't paint future and other current mods with the same brush that OFFS paint themselves.

But with P&R staying closed for now, I'd say there is plenty of time for folks to just settle their asses down, and for any new mods to settle into their roles as such. Find new common ground, and accept new dynamics as time goes on.

" />

Also the ignorant Chomsky bashing.

djThunderfunk said:

Anybody that has animosity with other people is not fit for the job. That would include EVERY regular in P&R.

Exactly. But the problem is, a lot of the regulars on P&R can't recognise their own jungian shadow issues. Which in English means, they often accuse others of what they're guilty of themselves. It comes off unintentionally hilarious sometimes as well. But it's deep-seated hypocrisy at the end of the day.

Anybody who regularly posted there does not pass the test of 'cool-headed, impartial, unprejudiced'. Not in 10 years or a million.

Remember that the people who became mods before, did so precisely because they had no beef, animosity, prior issues with other orgers.

fortuneandserendipity said:

djThunderfunk said:

Anybody that has animosity with other people is not fit for the job. That would include EVERY regular in P&R.

Exactly. But the problem is, a lot of the regulars on P&R can't recognise their own jungian shadow issues. Which in English means, they often accuse others of what they're guilty of themselves. It comes off unintentionally hilarious sometimes as well. But it's deep-seated hypocrisy at the end of the day.

Anybody who regularly posted there does not pass the test of 'cool-headed, impartial, unprejudiced'. Not in 10 years or a million.

Remember that the people who became mods before, did so precisely because they had no beef, animosity, prior issues with other orgers.

I doubt anyone is impartial or unprejudiced on every topic that was posted there, given the broad range of subjects. But some were relatively cool-headed.

I'm a mod on a sports forum, for the tennis section, and believe it or not the GOAT argument between the Federer fans/haters and the Nadal fans/haters for a few years was way worse than anything I saw on P&R. Then, of course, as a mod, I'd get the PMs calling other posters, and myself, all sorts of even worse stuff. Water off a duck's back to me, some of it was pretty funny, despite the ferocity of it.

RichardS said:

fortuneandserendipity said:

Exactly. But the problem is, a lot of the regulars on P&R can't recognise their own jungian shadow issues. Which in English means, they often accuse others of what they're guilty of themselves. It comes off unintentionally hilarious sometimes as well. But it's deep-seated hypocrisy at the end of the day.

Anybody who regularly posted there does not pass the test of 'cool-headed, impartial, unprejudiced'. Not in 10 years or a million.

Remember that the people who became mods before, did so precisely because they had no beef, animosity, prior issues with other orgers.

I doubt anyone is impartial or unprejudiced on every topic that was posted there, given the broad range of subjects. But some were relatively cool-headed.

I'm a mod on a sports forum, for the tennis section, and believe it or not the GOAT argument between the Federer fans/haters and the Nadal fans/haters for a few years was way worse than anything I saw on P&R. Then, of course, as a mod, I'd get the PMs calling other posters, and myself, all sorts of even worse stuff. Water off a duck's back to me, some of it was pretty funny, despite the ferocity of it.

Yes, half true, because the ones who were relatively cool-headed were not the regular posters. If they banned OFFS for not being impartial, who was a regular poster, then that same rule should also apply to anyone else wanting to become a mod. Your reputation precedes you.

I guess when it comes to Federer/Nadal they're missing the elephant in the room. Djokovic will go down as the greatest. Which would make both parties wrong. He'll win more slams overall, come the end of his career and furthermore, probably more ATP titles than anyone else - some way off yet. All because he gave up gluten . In tennis everything is relative of course. If Federer, Djokovic, Nadal didn't exist I'm fairly sure Andy Murray would have cleaned up and gone down as GOAT.

fortuneandserendipity said:

RichardS said:

I doubt anyone is impartial or unprejudiced on every topic that was posted there, given the broad range of subjects. But some were relatively cool-headed.

I'm a mod on a sports forum, for the tennis section, and believe it or not the GOAT argument between the Federer fans/haters and the Nadal fans/haters for a few years was way worse than anything I saw on P&R. Then, of course, as a mod, I'd get the PMs calling other posters, and myself, all sorts of even worse stuff. Water off a duck's back to me, some of it was pretty funny, despite the ferocity of it.

Yes, half true, because the ones who were relatively cool-headed were not the regular posters. If they banned OFFS for not being impartial, who was a regular poster, then that same rule should also apply to anyone else wanting to become a mod. Your reputation precedes you.

I guess when it comes to Federer/Nadal they're missing the elephant in the room. Djokovic will go down as the greatest. Which would make both parties wrong. He'll win more slams overall, come the end of his career and furthermore, probably more ATP titles than anyone else - some way off yet. All because he gave up gluten . In tennis everything is relative of course. If Federer, Djokovic, Nadal didn't exist I'm fairly sure Andy Murray would have cleaned up and gone down as GOAT.

Yeah, this was before Djoko took over. Way back when, there were even some rabid Sampras fans who hated Federer with a vengeance when he started to overtake Sampras.

The rugby section was even worse with the various supporters of the home nations.

We had an issue with Nadal being accused of being on steroids. This was after someone had accused another track & field athlete of doping and the police had contacted the owner of the forum with a warning. So I was constantly taking down 'Nadal is doping' posts and then getting accused of censoring free speech etc.

This is one of my favourite messages that a banned poster sent all the admins (think he somehow got a new ID) -

"You are all fagots, because you have banned new members from registering on this wonderful forum, the admin's mother is a whore, and the admin's father fucks with blacks, suck dick, freaks!"

I replied with "Hi mate, please note that 'faggots' has 2 g's". Then I banned him again

[Edited 12/29/21 14:37pm]

RichardS said:

fortuneandserendipity said:

Exactly. But the problem is, a lot of the regulars on P&R can't recognise their own jungian shadow issues. Which in English means, they often accuse others of what they're guilty of themselves. It comes off unintentionally hilarious sometimes as well. But it's deep-seated hypocrisy at the end of the day.

Anybody who regularly posted there does not pass the test of 'cool-headed, impartial, unprejudiced'. Not in 10 years or a million.

Remember that the people who became mods before, did so precisely because they had no beef, animosity, prior issues with other orgers.

I doubt anyone is impartial or unprejudiced on every topic that was posted there, given the broad range of subjects. But some were relatively cool-headed.

I'm a mod on a sports forum, for the tennis section, and believe it or not the GOAT argument between the Federer fans/haters and the Nadal fans/haters for a few years was way worse than anything I saw on P&R. Then, of course, as a mod, I'd get the PMs calling other posters, and myself, all sorts of even worse stuff. Water off a duck's back to me, some of it was pretty funny, despite the ferocity of it.

.

And that is the point - It is the issue and the environment that makes the argument and how it is presented.

.

In regard to the issue: I dare say that on other tennis topics those that get involved with the Federer vs Nadal GOAT battle are (mostly) reasonable to each other.

.

In regard to the environment: I also dare say that you as a participant are different to you as mod.

.

There is a huge difference between standing up for your beliefs in a debate as a participant and being responsible for overseeing and preventing the debate from going off the rails. If a different mod took over the GOAT forum and made it about, say Andy Murray instead and banned people that disagreed with them whilst allowing pro-Murray posters, both real and fake, to do what they wanted (with a cyclical burning of the fakes to appease the ever reducing number of Federer and Nadel fans), then why would you assume that a Federer or Nadel fan could never be a Mod?

.

I cannot speak for anyone else but if I look at three people that I have the most disagreements with (without naming names): The person with different views on religion: Outside of this we have agreed on many other issues and I only recall one discussion outside of religion where we had significant disagreement. The person with views more right wing than me who also posts on other forums here: When he posts outside of politics, he is always respectful and does not play the games he did in P&R. The person with views more left wing than mine, we just had a pleasant and informative exchange on OrgNotes. I dare say that this would be a common experience with many regular or irregular P&R posters - The death of P&R means that issue and the enviroment are gone and how people post outside of this last thread and that dead forum is and always has been different. This does not mean that we (participants, mods, PM&M early period fans and latter period fans, MJ vs Prince opponents etc etc) cannot do better by seeking to take this opportunity to make the place nicer.

fortuneandserendipity said:

djThunderfunk said:

Anybody that has animosity with other people is not fit for the job. That would include EVERY regular in P&R.

Exactly. But the problem is, a lot of the regulars on P&R can't recognise their own jungian shadow issues. Which in English means, they often accuse others of what they're guilty of themselves. It comes off unintentionally hilarious sometimes as well. But it's deep-seated hypocrisy at the end of the day.

Anybody who regularly posted there does not pass the test of 'cool-headed, impartial, unprejudiced'. Not in 10 years or a million.

Remember that the people who became mods before, did so precisely because they had no beef, animosity, prior issues with other orgers.

It's not up to you, now is it?

IanRG said:

TrivialPursuit said:

I believe anything is possible, but not all things are definite.

I will say that more than a couple of people OrgNoted me before OF4S was ousted on his racist ass expressing the senitment that, at the very least, TruthBomb and OF4S were the same person. There's evidence to support it, but there's also evidence to dismiss it.

So, I'm not 100% on it. Would I be surprised if it were true? Nope.

.

At the very least OF4$ said to me that he knew people that had concurrent alts and used new identities to come back after being "permanently" banned with the full knowledge (and sometimes permission) of the mods - Funny how none of these were the people that disagreed with his views and opinions and how at least one of those who disagreed with him was permanently banned for having an alt when she did not.

.

As I said above, one of these friends of OF4$ had burned through 3 alts, each of which was permanently banned before his final alt started targeted people inside the Org and out in the real world.

Dang, this sounds like some sci-fi movie where some bot becomes self conscious, then goes rogue and causes all kinds of chaos.

JoeyC said:

Dang, this sounds like some sci-fi movie where some bot becomes self conscious, then goes rogue and causes all kinds of chaos.

well, it is fiction...

OnlyNDaUsa said:

IanRG said:

As I said above, one of these friends of OF4$ had burned through 3 alts, each of which was permanently banned before his final alt started targeted people inside the Org and out in the real world.

Gheezus, what is wrong with people?! Is that really happening? The friends I've made on here I talk to regularly outside of the Org, and the Org factors nothing into our conversations 99% of the time.

How fragile does one have to be to target people outside of a website because they're butthurt over something?

OnlyNDaUsa said:

JoeyC said:

Dang, this sounds like some sci-fi movie where some bot becomes self conscious, then goes rogue and causes all kinds of chaos.

well, it is fiction...

.

What I said, as ever, is the absolute and complete truth - One of the burned through alts was Duccichuka (which I think I misspelled).

IanRG said:

TrivialPursuit said:

IanRG said:

As I said above, one of these friends of OF4$ had burned through 3 alts, each of which was permanently banned before his final alt started targeted people inside the Org and out in the real world.

Gheezus, what is wrong with people?! Is that really happening? The friends I've made on here I talk to regularly outside of the Org, and the Org factors nothing into our conversations 99% of the time.

How fragile does one have to be to target people outside of a website because they're butthurt over something?

Yes, it really happens and has happened. Ask Only, he's the one who has been thru 3 alts, and threatens people outside the org and their jobs, and they keep letting him back after perma bans.

TrivialPursuit said:

IanRG said:

As I said above, one of these friends of OF4$ had burned through 3 alts, each of which was permanently banned before his final alt started targeted people inside the Org and out in the real world.

Gheezus, what is wrong with people?! Is that really happening? The friends I've made on here I talk to regularly outside of the Org, and the Org factors nothing into our conversations 99% of the time.

How fragile does one have to be to target people outside of a website because they're butthurt over something?

right? it's amazing innit. a dash of fragility, a touch of insanity, overblown ego and boom! creepy stalker

TrivialPursuit said:

IanRG said:

As I said above, one of these friends of OF4$ had burned through 3 alts, each of which was permanently banned before his final alt started targeted people inside the Org and out in the real world.

Gheezus, what is wrong with people?! Is that really happening? The friends I've made on here I talk to regularly outside of the Org, and the Org factors nothing into our conversations 99% of the time.

How fragile does one have to be to target people outside of a website because they're butthurt over something?

I dunno anything about that. But I have been wondering: how fragile does one have to be to to consider a gif, meme or emoji a threat of violence and complain that it amounts to threat of violence?

djThunderfunk said:

I dunno anything about that. But I have been wondering: how fragile does one have to be to to consider a gif, meme or emoji a threat of violence and complain that it amounts to threat of violence?

I'd agree with that, too.

XxAxX said:

TrivialPursuit said:

How fragile does one have to be to target people outside of a website because they're butthurt over something?

right? it's amazing innit. a dash of fragility, a touch of insanity, overblown ego and boom! creepy stalker

I mean, we've all gotten up in our feelings on here or whatever. But to search someone out elsewhere and threaten or stalk them?

I suppose that says more about that person than it does the target of their ire.

TrivialPursuit said:

XxAxX said:

right? it's amazing innit. a dash of fragility, a touch of insanity, overblown ego and boom! creepy stalker

I mean, we've all gotten up in our feelings on here or whatever. But to search someone out elsewhere and threaten or stalk them?

I suppose that says more about that person than it does the target of their ire.

I would agree, but considering the source, I have doubts any of that every happened.

TrivialPursuit said:

djThunderfunk said:

I dunno anything about that. But I have been wondering: how fragile does one have to be to to consider a gif, meme or emoji a threat of violence and complain that it amounts to threat of violence?

I'd agree with that, too.

.

Because cyberbullying does not exist?

.

Most of the violence in social media and online forums occurs this way.

.

The question should be why has this site has chased away so many people by its unwelcoming inner circles and preferential acceptance of things like this. Most emojis, gifs and memes are fine. However, how do you think a visitor would view a discussion where one person deliberately posted with emojis to provoke a second person and followed this with a post that stated that this was the very reason the emojis were included. Then when a third person said we can be better than this in a thread about why a violent forum was shutdown only to be virtually slapped to seek to shut him up?

djThunderfunk said:

TrivialPursuit said:

I mean, we've all gotten up in our feelings on here or whatever. But to search someone out elsewhere and threaten or stalk them?

I suppose that says more about that person than it does the target of their ire.

I would agree, but considering the source, I have doubts any of that every happened.

.

It was spoken about in the forum at the time. If the mods keep records of bans, it will be there. You doubts are both unfounded and irrelevant.

IanRG said:

PennyPurple said:

TrivialPursuit said:

Gheezus, what is wrong with people?! Is that really happening? The friends I've made on here I talk to regularly outside of the Org, and the Org factors nothing into our conversations 99% of the time.

How fragile does one have to be to target people outside of a website because they're butthurt over something?

Yes, it really happens and has happened. Ask Only, he's the one who has been thru 3 alts, and threatens people outside the org and their jobs, and they keep letting him back after perma bans.

.

Note how the favoured and protected are now seeking to deny what we all saw they were allowed to get away with. It took such a lot for them to be perma-banned and it did not stick due their alts. Duccichuka did not even try to hide his return via his last alt and openly discussed it with OF4$. OF4$ told me when Ducci's final alt was perma-banned that this return was not approved, it was just accepted by the mods along with all his previous. Only's multiple alts were also openly admitted to.

.

Yet at the same time much smaller infractions and, even false accusations, led to real permanent bans for others.

IanRG said:

TrivialPursuit said:

I'd agree with that, too.

.

Because cyberbullying does not exist?

.

Most of the violence in social media and online forums occurs this way.

.

The question should be why has this site has chased away so many people by its unwelcoming inner circles and preferential acceptance of things like this. Most emojis, gifs and memes are fine. However, how do you think a visitor would view a discussion where one person deliberately posted with emojis to provoke a second person and followed this with a post that stated that this was the very reason the emojis were included. Then when a third person said we can be better than this in a thread about why a violent forum was shutdown only to be virtually slapped to seek to shut him up?

Where has anyone said cyberbullying does not exist?

What I AM saying is, a gif is NOT cyberbullying. The gif in question depicted violence, but was not itself violent. A gif depicting a slap is NOT a "virtual slap".

And I don't believe you believe any of that BS either. You're just trying to be a victim.

IanRG said:

djThunderfunk said:

I would agree, but considering the source, I have doubts any of that every happened.

.

It was spoken about in the forum at the time. If the mods keep records of bans, it will be there. You doubts are both unfounded and irrelevant.

Oh, you provided proof of outside of the org harassment to the mods? So you can share it here too, then?

[Edited 12/30/21 16:39pm]