namepeace said:

break

it

dooown

teller said:

Surfs up

Handclapsfingasnapz said:

Teller didn't offer an apology--he basically just offered to speak after he figured out what people were accusing him of.

I predict what he has to say will all be about "testing a site" and the right his guests have to "freedom of speech".

Alright...I'm still reading some of this stuff--the impressions some of you have taken from my site, etc. It's intersting which things have pissed people off while other things have gone unnoticed. Reality isn't quite what it seems. The "Uptown" link was very helpful; I'm assuming this is what people are looking at since I took the site down...I'm going to try to set a few things straight, no tap-dancing.

I can't promise I'll have the full statement ready this evening, but I'm working on it...

namepeace said:

agreed...

teller said:

read marrk's post

teller said:

...And why did you take the site down?

BinaryJustin said:

Perhaps the site could be restored with the forums locked, so that people could examine it as a whole and come to their own conclusions, instead of being limited to selective excerpts?

matt said:

matt said:

as much as i hate to admit it , i think that's a very good idea for those who are still upset about about the quaidbowl site

matt said:

Maybe...Ben? Dansa?

Handclapsfingasnapz said:

C has been deactivated at least five times for flaming. On the other hand, Teller hasn't violated any policies of the .org. Whatever he did at Quaidbowl is of no consequence because our rules don't extend to other sites.

I agree--give the man a chance to speak. Let's hear what he has to say.

matt said:

I thought C acted pretty damn moderately seeing the shit that was written at that site (inc shit about him personally).

He hardly flamed at all, no more than your precious melissa who called as all children, thick headed and the like.

Unbelievable.

bkw said:

Dont forget she called us idiots as well.Of course that's been allowed to stay up, while posts by others are being edited.

If a few people from here wanna get together on another site and chat privately, more power to them.

It was just a letdown to see such an ignorant side of some of these people.

I guess I had a better picture of them in my head before seeing those remarks.

How do we distinguish between "Im just saying that to push buttons and promote free speech, I don't really mean that" and "This is how I really feel about people like you"?
[This message was edited Wed Feb 4 16:50:19 PST 2004 by Tom]

MrTation said:

There's one person moderating the site, give her a break. Even Jesus Christ probabbly couldnt pluck and prune this site to everyone's liking.

bkw said:

YOU TALK ALL THAT SHIT. POST ALL OF YOUR INFO AND SAY I HAVE SHIT FOR BRAINS . YOU MIGHT WANT TO DUNK YOUR HEAD IN THE TOILET BOWL AND CLEAN IT OUT. shithead edit ... You need to go to the library and find a book on 'How to increase your testicular fortitude'. In other words get some bigger nuts and let em hang next time your feel manly. --CtheUncanny

The forum rules clearly state, "Personal/racial/ethnic/gender-based insults, slurs, or derisive comments will not be tolerated." We've been through this multiple times with him... he flames, we warn him, he keeps flaming, he gets deactivated, he refuses to take responsibility, he later changes his mind and promises to change his ways, we let him back, he flames, we warn him...

If you have an argument as to why C should nonetheless be allowed to post, let's hear it. If all you have to offer are personal attacks, please don't bother.

Tom said:

That wasnt my point.Im aware that Handclaps is doing the best she can in a difficult situation.

matt said:

that's just being picky...SO much more gets said that is let go...C reacted to being called shit for brains...what you quoted there is hardly a flame...telling someone to get some bigger nuts...you're being selective matt...and there is NOTHING we can do about it... that's why you shouldn't be allowed to moderate here... there are squillions of posts you can throw the site rules at... don't disagree with matt... [Flame deleted. --Matt]
[This message was edited Wed Feb 4 17:32:07 PST 2004 by matt]

teller said:

Lemme guess. Litmus test?

matt said:

This I'll get to when I have a chance.

2the9s said:

Doesn't this beat SFarrels test on the org of the purple and black days?

ElephantitisOfTheNuts said:

You really need to recuse yourself Matt.

Tom said:

Yes, I like what you say here.

In past times, since I have been here, there has been some really dodgy things on the org. I do think there is sometimes unfair moderation depending on whether the moderator is a)friends with the accused or b)holds a similar opinion.

At the end of the day, people do have all rights to say what ever they want. People can attack all they want on other sites about people here. But the people here have a right to defend themselves just as equally.

I am not condoning racist or hateful attacks. If it were done here, then moderators could have done something with the power that they have in their role.

I personally don't think that rebellious chats without the teachers looking (how I see it), can produce anything but destruction. I may be wrong, but I think it is purely done on their behalf for laughs. And everyone's sense of humour is different. To me, there seems to be more than humour going on for them. Cruelty, recklessness, rebellion, aggression and anarchy. To name a few. Not my bag for the most part while I use my 'puter. But trying not to be too judgemental, I think everyone is capable of behaving in such ways, myself included - question is... WHY? Why did this all happen?!


[This message was edited Wed Feb 4 17:53:59 PST 2004 by Therapy]

Well, good luck finding moderators who want to consider what goes on outside the Org on top of the gazillions of posts they're expected to read here.

The Org isn't a religious or professional order. If a racist comes to the Org, the only thing that can be expected is that he/she not make racist comments here. The same goes for comments about other Orgers. Matt and Handclaps can't go around checking if people behaved according to the Org's rules outside the Org. Maybe there are some very serious instances where they'd ban someone for extra-Org activities, but complaining about an Orger or the Org somewhere else, secretly or publicly, shouldn't be one of them. If someone truly gets the whole Org offended, he/she will not fare well and will probably end up leaving or being banned. If he/she turns out to be on his/her best behavior, then those of you who still can't forget and forgive can ignore his/her threads.

I think that's pretty reasonable... and far less complicated than getting into the business of considering what goes on outside this site.

Aerogram said:

Aero, no one is suggesting that the mods visit other sites in order to help them make assessments about people's behavior or status here. What is at issue is whether or not teller should be given the luxury to answer for things that he did elsewhere that directly impacted many on this site, that directly, for instance, led to theC losing his temper again and then his account. Especially when the track record of the mods here is to stifle people from telling their own side of things when shit goes down here. Mod decisions should be based on the spirit of making this a better site, not the letter of forum rules.

It seems absolutely ludicrous to me for C to be punished twice: first by being viciously attacked the way he was, and then again for responding to it the way that he saw fit, a way that did not in any way offend the community at large here, except maybe for those idiots who cosigned it over there. That's blame the victim mentality. If that's not an abuse of the spirit of Org rules (and they are guidlines subject to moderator interpretation after all) then I don't know what is.

As for you Matt:

matt said:

First of all, why you are posting private correspondences from org members is beyond me. But since you did, let's see what we have here. If what I see is accurate, it looks like C is accusing you of saying that he has "shit for brains." Is this true or not? It seems that way to me. If not, your posting this has only further clouded the issue.

Secondly, C should be allowed to post again because these are extraordinary circumstances, and you of all people should understand that. Did you see the things that were said about him over there? Oh right... we've been through that... It's getting tired as shit to see people who are allowed to stir shit up get off scott free and the people who respond punished. But that's the legacy of Ian I guess.

The bottom line is you should be trying to make this a better place and you are not. Most people here see that.

It just seems incredibly disingenuous to say on the one hand that moderators have absolute rights only to say in your next breathe that your hands are tied by the letter of the law...

Please bring C back.



First of many edits no doubt...
[This message was edited Wed Feb 4 18:56:04 PST 2004 by 2the9s]

Aerogram said:

Things go wrong when its so easy to link between the two sites. It sorta changes the meaning of "here" and "there." It's a blur.

2the9s said:

No, I haven't posted any private correspondence, and as a general rule, I would not do so. Those were flames posted by C (and not directed at me) on this thread:

http://www.prince.org/msg/100/79127

My apologies if that wasn't clear.

matt said:

Oh. heh. Right. Sorry.

Where's my kiss Lleena?

matt said:

But if the person who this is directed at is no longer a member of this site, is that still a flame?

It certainly wasn't when Ian was here.