New topic
PrintableAnxiety said: it's not my site. not at all. ben chose me and a few others to maintain it in his absence. and if we're maintaining it in a way he doesn't like, he tells us about it and we change accordingly or, if we disagree with his direction, we quite being moderators. and believe me - we hear from ben if we're doing something wrong. so: if you have a problem with your drug-prince thread getting locked, which it seems likely that you do, perhaps you should air your grievances directly to ben, if you haven't already. No, it's not THAT big of a deal. I think Ben would just be annoyed by the matter anyway. I just think it would be cool if threads could stick around as long as they're civil to a reasonable degree and people enjoy posting on them. I think my thread at least engaged discussion about a new subject, instead of being the same subject over and over. I see nothing wrong with a little healthy variety. "You need people like me so you can point your fuckin' fingers and say, "That's the bad guy." "
Al Pacino- Scarface | |
- E-mail - orgNote -  Report post to moderator |
EvilWhiteMale said: I see nothing wrong with a little healthy variety. seriously - have you ever thought about starting your own site or your own blog? do you already have one? i'm not trying to be condescending about suggesting this, to you or anyone else. i had a blog for two or three years, and before that i had my own site. it's a good feeling to be your own editor, your own publisher, your own moderator, and if people come along for the ride, cool. if they have a problem with your content, screw 'em. it makes the stakes a whole lot less significant when you get stuff locked or deleted from a site like this, because you'll always have somewhere that you can post thoughts that is under your control. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Anxiety said: seriously - have you ever thought about starting your own site or your own blog? do you already have one? i'm not trying to be condescending about suggesting this, to you or anyone else. i had a blog for two or three years, and before that i had my own site. it's a good feeling to be your own editor, your own publisher, your own moderator, and if people come along for the ride, cool. if they have a problem with your content, screw 'em. it makes the stakes a whole lot less significant when you get stuff locked or deleted from a site like this, because you'll always have somewhere that you can post thoughts that is under your control. Yeah, but I'd rather discuss these issues with people I already know around here. I'd like to discuss certain issues without having to create a blog or a new site. But seriously, maybe you can tell me why a thread about Prince experimenting with drugs is bad, but a thread comparing Bush to Hitler is cool and the gang. I feel the Bush thread is much more offensive and disgusting. I'm not suggesting locking that thread either, but the logic is what I find interesting. "You need people like me so you can point your fuckin' fingers and say, "That's the bad guy." "
Al Pacino- Scarface | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
EvilWhiteMale said: Yeah, but I'd rather discuss these issues with people I already know around here. I'd like to discuss certain issues without having to create a blog or a new site. But seriously, maybe you can tell me why a thread about Prince experimenting with drugs is bad, but a thread comparing Bush to Hitler is cool and the gang. I feel the Bush thread is much more offensive and disgusting. I'm not suggesting locking that thread either, but the logic is what I find interesting. why can't those people from the org also visit your site? i mean, just speaking for myself, the org isn't the only site i visit regularly. like you said - what's wrong with a little variety? 
as for the logic question you want me to answer, my first impulse is to cop out: i didn't lock your thread, i didn't see the "bush = hitler" thread, i don't have mod privileges in the P&R forum anyway, so i couldn'ta locked it if i wanted to, so i don't feel really qualified to justify the actions that i did not, or in certain cases, could not make. i'd have to talk to the mod who locked your thread and get their rationale for locking it, and i'd have to talk to the mods in the P&R about why they consider the bush thread appropriate to stay up. what do *I* think about the value/potential volatility of the threads? honestly? i thought the prince on drugs thread was silly, and i think that the US is so ridiculously polarized anymore, nothing that's said by one party about the other is in the least surprising or shocking to me. what might a lot of other people thought of those threads? i dunno. sometimes we have to represent the feelings of other people who use this site. sometimes i try to put certain threads into perspective for those people, if i think there's something to be learned from the situation. sometimes it seems like no great harm to just lock a thread if it bothers someone so much, even if i personally don't really give a toss about it one way or another. but. i didn't make the decisions regarding the threads you're discussing here. i do know that the other mods on this site are intelligent, well-meaning people, and i trust their decisions as much as i hope they trust mine. that said, i stand behind their decisions and have faith that they're able to justify their decisions when called upon to do so. how's that?  | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Anxiety said: why can't those people from the org also visit your site? i mean, just speaking for myself, the org isn't the only site i visit regularly. like you said - what's wrong with a little variety?
as for the logic question you want me to answer, my first impulse is to cop out: i didn't lock your thread, i didn't see the "bush = hitler" thread, i don't have mod privileges in the P&R forum anyway, so i couldn'ta locked it if i wanted to, so i don't feel really qualified to justify the actions that i did not, or in certain cases, could not make. i'd have to talk to the mod who locked your thread and get their rationale for locking it, and i'd have to talk to the mods in the P&R about why they consider the bush thread appropriate to stay up. what do *I* think about the value/potential volatility of the threads? honestly? i thought the prince on drugs thread was silly, and i think that the US is so ridiculously polarized anymore, nothing that's said by one party about the other is in the least surprising or shocking to me. what might a lot of other people thought of those threads? i dunno. sometimes we have to represent the feelings of other people who use this site. sometimes i try to put certain threads into perspective for those people, if i think there's something to be learned from the situation. sometimes it seems like no great harm to just lock a thread if it bothers someone so much, even if i personally don't really give a toss about it one way or another. but. i didn't make the decisions regarding the threads you're discussing here. i do know that the other mods on this site are intelligent, well-meaning people, and i trust their decisions as much as i hope they trust mine. that said, i stand behind their decisions and have faith that they're able to justify their decisions when called upon to do so. how's that? I think Dansa hated my thread for her own reasons so she locked it, and the P&R mods hate Bush so threads like that are allowed. I don't believe people were any more offended by my thread than they were the Bush thread. I think it's really just a matter of what threads the mods like. You may think my thread was silly, but a lot of people got into it, and they weren't all pissed off about it either. "You need people like me so you can point your fuckin' fingers and say, "That's the bad guy." "
Al Pacino- Scarface | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
EvilWhiteMale said: I think Dansa hated my thread for her own reasons so she locked it, and the P&R mods hate Bush so threads like that are allowed. I don't believe people were any more offended by my thread than they were the Bush thread. I think it's really just a matter of what threads the mods like. You may think my thread was silly, but a lot of people got into it, and they weren't all pissed off about it either. well, okay. i think a *LOT* of threads are silly. hell, i think most of *MY* threads are silly. but dansa had her own take on it, and she's been around longer than i have, so i have to trust and believe she made a sound choice. simple as that. if by chance she didn't, then that's between you and her and ben to hash out. and it's not always a matter of what threads the mods like. there've been some threads that didn't bother me one way or the other, but some users were terribly upset and demanded i locked or deleted what they considered to be extremely harmful content. well, what do i do? | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Anxiety said: well, okay. i think a *LOT* of threads are silly. hell, i think most of *MY* threads are silly. but dansa had her own take on it, and she's been around longer than i have, so i have to trust and believe she made a sound choice. simple as that. if by chance she didn't, then that's between you and her and ben to hash out. and it's not always a matter of what threads the mods like. there've been some threads that didn't bother me one way or the other, but some users were terribly upset and demanded i locked or deleted what they considered to be extremely harmful content. well, what do i do? So if I say I'm highly offended by the Bush/Hitler thread, I can get it shut down? Well I'm not like that. I hate protests like that and I wish some people would get thicker skin already. If they don't like a thread, they should ignore it, not file complaints. They just get off on censoring people. And figure this ratio. If 20 people like a thread and 5 hate it, the thread gets shut down because of the MINORITY? I think that's fuckin bananas. "You need people like me so you can point your fuckin' fingers and say, "That's the bad guy." "
Al Pacino- Scarface | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
EvilWhiteMale said: Anxiety said: well, okay. i think a *LOT* of threads are silly. hell, i think most of *MY* threads are silly. but dansa had her own take on it, and she's been around longer than i have, so i have to trust and believe she made a sound choice. simple as that. if by chance she didn't, then that's between you and her and ben to hash out. and it's not always a matter of what threads the mods like. there've been some threads that didn't bother me one way or the other, but some users were terribly upset and demanded i locked or deleted what they considered to be extremely harmful content. well, what do i do? So if I say I'm highly offended by the Bush/Hitler thread, I can get it shut down? Well I'm not like that. I hate protests like that and I wish some people would get thicker skin already. If they don't like a thread, they should ignore it, not file complaints. They just get off on censoring people. And figure this ratio. If 20 people like a thread and 5 hate it, the thread gets shut down because of the MINORITY? I think that's fuckin bananas. there you go again, espousing the virtues of democracy.  | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Anxiety said: EvilWhiteMale said: So if I say I'm highly offended by the Bush/Hitler thread, I can get it shut down? Well I'm not like that. I hate protests like that and I wish some people would get thicker skin already. If they don't like a thread, they should ignore it, not file complaints. They just get off on censoring people. And figure this ratio. If 20 people like a thread and 5 hate it, the thread gets shut down because of the MINORITY? I think that's fuckin bananas. there you go again, espousing the virtues of democracy. exactly. mods don't close threads outta mere spite. that's fuckin childish (see? just like i stated in my rant--it's that kinna shit that puts me off) and besides, you'd have to see beyond your own nerves and look at everybody else's in order to make such an assumption in the first place. fuck, i do it everyday when i'm here. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
EWM
 | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
EvilWhiteMale said: But seriously, maybe you can tell me why a thread about Prince experimenting with drugs is bad, but a thread comparing Bush to Hitler is cool and the gang. I feel the Bush thread is much more offensive and disgusting. I'm not suggesting locking that thread either, but the logic is what I find interesting.
It's not the topic that's at fault, it's the fact that people can't discuss it civilly. The thread was locked shortly after I made a comment about the fact that some people find it morally wrong to abuse drugs, and Prince seems to be one of them. I thought it was an important factor to bring into the argument. Shortly after I commented, somebody else had a freak-out about it. It wasn't the first on the thread, frankly... There was already something of an insult-war going on, and the individual who spewed the knee-jerk reaction in my direction must have assumed that I was a part of the melee; it's the only thing I can figure. I think the mods see little point in leaving thread that mainly consists of one side of an issue insulting the other. A lot of reasonable people would agree that such things are a waste of time and space. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Heiress said: It's not the topic that's at fault, it's the fact that people can't discuss it civilly. The thread was locked shortly after I made a comment about the fact that some people find it morally wrong to abuse drugs, and Prince seems to be one of them. I thought it was an important factor to bring into the argument. Shortly after I commented, somebody else had a freak-out about it. It wasn't the first on the thread, frankly... There was already something of an insult-war going on, and the individual who spewed the knee-jerk reaction in my direction must have assumed that I was a part of the melee; it's the only thing I can figure. I think the mods see little point in leaving thread that mainly consists of one side of an issue insulting the other. A lot of reasonable people would agree that such things are a waste of time and space. Yeah, but I don't think it was like that. Sure, some people started fucking it up, but overall it was quite civil and people had some interesting things to say that were on-topic. But fuck it, back to threads about Prince's hair and what he'd be like in bed.  "You need people like me so you can point your fuckin' fingers and say, "That's the bad guy." "
Al Pacino- Scarface | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
well --- i certainly do NOT wanna come on TOO strongly !!! 
BUT --- the locking of threads ... just because there is another thread ... that is similar ... is to me ruining the org ... i was just having a discussion about a subject ... and people were responding ... civil- ly ... and it got locked and "referred " to another "topic" ... that had SO MANY REPLIES it took 7 minutes to download on my lil computer here on my DSL line ... what the _____ .... if u have an "oscar thread" ... and its about someone's outfit ... and there is another thread that is the "official Prince at the oscar thread" ... and your thread is gettin to 10 replies in 10 minutes ... and all of a sudden some mod refers you to the "official oscar thread" ... that has 300 replies from 3 days ago .... i mean .... how deflating to online chat /discussion is that !!!??? 
just my .02 ... i realize that sometimes ---- some threads need to be moderated ... rather u have a__holes ... etc ... but ... i think the mods are just goin outta control ....  | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
 | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
MisterMan38 said: well --- i certainly do NOT wanna come on TOO strongly !!!
BUT --- the locking of threads ... just because there is another thread ... that is similar ... is to me ruining the org ... i was just having a discussion about a subject ... and people were responding ... civil- ly ... and it got locked and "referred " to another "topic" ... that had SO MANY REPLIES it took 7 minutes to download on my lil computer here on my DSL line ... what the _____ .... if u have an "oscar thread" ... and its about someone's outfit ... and there is another thread that is the "official Prince at the oscar thread" ... and your thread is gettin to 10 replies in 10 minutes ... and all of a sudden some mod refers you to the "official oscar thread" ... that has 300 replies from 3 days ago .... i mean .... how deflating to online chat /discussion is that !!!???
just my .02 ... i realize that sometimes ---- some threads need to be moderated ... rather u have a__holes ... etc ... but ... i think the mods are just goin outta control .... i do think we (as in, all of us, users, mods, regulars, visitors, whoever wants to chat about it) should have a civil and (hopefully) productive thread about the use of 'catch-all' stickies on this site. do they work? to what point should we lock threads that may appear 'redundant' to the sticky threads? does this idea keep the forums clean? do we want a little chaos? i think some dialoging would do a world of good...as long as we're all nice. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
to what point should we lock threads that may appear 'redundant' to the sticky threads? does this idea keep the forums clean? do we want a little chaos?
 - in general i agree ANX with ya ... there is a need for mods ... and if i were to call Evil white male a BUSH LOVIN ASSHOLE ... i would cross the line .... (obviously kidding !!! )
but alittle chaos is ok ... and the locking of new threads that may fall under another heading ... is just "deflating" to discussions ... (see above example about the OSCAR analogy ... etc ... today - i was having a nice conversation ... about the MJ deal ... and precisely about the "giving alcohol " to a 13 yr old "accusation" ... and it is a specific topic that "yes" can go under the heading of MJ trial ... but who wants to post on a post with 275 replies from days ago ... ???  | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
-Moderation surrounding the sticky threads is causing some problems, methinks. They are great for announcements, or for 'event' threas that are updated on an ongoing basis for a while, but they suck for discussion. Presumably, if the discussion was made sticky, it's because lots of people were interested. So you end up with 4 million posts on one impossible thread, and people trying to dig out the aspects they care about. . .it's a mess. It's not working.
-Dansa: great rant, and that video should be required viewing before activating an org account. 
-All of the mods should change their sigs to "The Org is NOT a democracy!". Maybe if people kept reading it, it would someday sink in. -Discussion is still good. While we minions do not have power, we have opinions, and since we make the site what it is, I believe that Ben cares what the minions think. I see nothing wrong with politely asking a moderator (in private) why they did something, or with having threads to discuss site/moderation policy. Mods:   | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
tackam said: -Moderation surrounding the sticky threads is causing some problems, methinks. They are great for announcements, or for 'event' threas that are updated on an ongoing basis for a while, but they suck for discussion. Presumably, if the discussion was made sticky, it's because lots of people were interested. So you end up with 4 million posts on one impossible thread, and people trying to dig out the aspects they care about. . .it's a mess. It's not working.
-Dansa: great rant, and that video should be required viewing before activating an org account.
-All of the mods should change their sigs to "The Org is NOT a democracy!". Maybe if people kept reading it, it would someday sink in. -Discussion is still good. While we minions do not have power, we have opinions, and since we make the site what it is, I believe that Ben cares what the minions think. I see nothing wrong with politely asking a moderator (in private) why they did something, or with having threads to discuss site/moderation policy. Mods: Some bulletin board systems have a built in feature that break long threads up into several pages (as its done on NPGMC for example). While I generally cant stand that, for really really long threads, it does come in handy. I sympathize with those on dial up, trying to load really long threads on here. It sucks for me too, and Im on cable. But sometimes it seems people simply start another thread just to have their comment at the forefront, even if there is already a discussion going on about the same thing. While it can be frustrating loading one long sticky thread, it can also be frustrating flipping through 15 threads about the same thing to see what everyone has to say about it, or trying to decide which one is worth posting on. Maybe we can start a "Part 2" thread, and replace that as the sticky, once it gets beyond a certain number of posts? Maybe we can leave like 3 or 4 threads running, then start locking up the excessive ones beyond that? Or we can just leave them all up and let the form be overloaded with one topic, and everyone just be understanding that its a popular topic at the moment. What would you all like? | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
tackam said: -Moderation surrounding the sticky threads is causing some problems, methinks. They are great for announcements, or for 'event' threas that are updated on an ongoing basis for a while, but they suck for discussion. Presumably, if the discussion was made sticky, it's because lots of people were interested. So you end up with 4 million posts on one impossible thread, and people trying to dig out the aspects they care about. . .it's a mess. It's not working.
-Dansa: great rant, and that video should be required viewing before activating an org account.
-All of the mods should change their sigs to "The Org is NOT a democracy!". Maybe if people kept reading it, it would someday sink in. -Discussion is still good. While we minions do not have power, we have opinions, and since we make the site what it is, I believe that Ben cares what the minions think. I see nothing wrong with politely asking a moderator (in private) why they did something, or with having threads to discuss site/moderation policy. Mods: It's all good. Saturation with threads about Prince's hair and what kind of food he eats are all we really need. In think my next thread about Prince should be about who his favorite Power Puff Girl may be. That will surely be allowed to stay. "You need people like me so you can point your fuckin' fingers and say, "That's the bad guy." "
Al Pacino- Scarface | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
i really hope prince puts out a new album or something soon. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Anxiety said: i really hope prince puts out a new album or something soon.
seriously. seems like some folks 'round here need some Liquid Prince® or somethin... | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Maybe we can start a "Part 2" thread, and replace that as the sticky, once it gets beyond a certain number of posts? Maybe we can leave like 3 or 4 threads running, then start locking up the excessive ones beyond that? Or we can just leave them all up and let the form be overloaded with one topic, and everyone just be understanding that its a popular topic at the moment. What would you all like?
for some topics --- i think it is important to allow discussions to go on .... for example - with the oscars .... if one person discusses Prince's attire .... vs .... another thread ... which discusses Beyonce's ... etc ... they are really 2 different topics ... now if NO ONE discusses Beyonce's ... for ... say an hr ... etc ... then kill it ... ok ... done .... with my MJ thread .... i was discussing one particular aspect ... the deal with the accusation of MJ giving alcohol to a 13 yr old boy ... for example ... and saying that is why i thought he was guilty ... and we were having 5 or 6 responses in just ... say ... 10-15 minutes ... and POW WHAM LOCK ... and a referral to ----- the MJ thread ... that had somethin like 275 responces .... (which as i stated above - took like 5 minutes to download - and i too have cable modem at work) now mind u ... i really do NOT care about MJ that much ... but ... that particular "snippet " of the trial ... was on my mind ... and was curious what others thought ... ok ... i am venting ...i guess ... it just came to a head... cause i have seen other nice discussions ... just go ... SNIP !!! again ... i really do not even know who the mod was ... and i dont have a beef with any particular MOD ... i just have seen this happen a couple times ... | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Handclapsfingasnapz said: Anxiety said: i really hope prince puts out a new album or something soon.
seriously. seems like some folks 'round here need some Liquid Prince® or somethin... No, I would just like to bring something new to the table and not get shut down, cuz some people are too "sensitive." "You need people like me so you can point your fuckin' fingers and say, "That's the bad guy." "
Al Pacino- Scarface | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
I give this thread a...
 | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
So ignore it. "You need people like me so you can point your fuckin' fingers and say, "That's the bad guy." "
Al Pacino- Scarface | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
EvilWhiteMale said: Heavenly said: Haven't been banned, but my threads were locked several times. mostly because of people who can't be nice and post some nasty things against others. Don't forget that the meds don't see everything here, sometimes they only see what is reported to them. And even when they do see, they see it in a different eye than yours. Taste changed from one person to another. There are things that bothr you that don't bother them and the other way around. But THEY were that ones that have been chosen, meaning Ben was counting in THEIRS. I just feel that there are many complaints about the moderator's work, and it's mostly done in public, instead of asking them in person. That complaint could just be a misunderstanding, and instead of posting to the world that the meds suck, we should first check and make sure that they really do. And even then, try and see it in their eye, and see if it's just a matter of different taste. For example, telling the world that Dansa hates you just because she didn't reply to a message, really lacks tact. Hey, whatever. I am how I am and that's all she wrote. All I know is that sometimes I create threads that really take off, but soon after, bye bye. A lot of people liked the drug thread, but it wasn't sunshine and lollipops for Prince, so.... Meanwhile threads that slander our president are more than welcome around here. Why don't you create a site named www.pro-BUSH.org? you can moderate it yourself and it won't matter if you say shit about prince cuz the people who use your site will most likely agree with you that Mr. Bush is the supreme individual that is so full of sunshine and lollipops.If someone mentions that he was on coke or pot youcan delete their posts or accounts immediately! To Sir, with Love | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
PEJ said: EvilWhiteMale said: Hey, whatever. I am how I am and that's all she wrote. All I know is that sometimes I create threads that really take off, but soon after, bye bye. A lot of people liked the drug thread, but it wasn't sunshine and lollipops for Prince, so.... Meanwhile threads that slander our president are more than welcome around here. Why don't you create a site named www.pro-BUSH.org? you can moderate it yourself and it won't matter if you say shit about prince cuz the people who use your site will most likely agree with you that Mr. Bush is the supreme individual that is so full of sunshine and lollipops.If someone mentions that he was on coke or pot youcan delete their posts or accounts immediately! pej....pej... pej...SHAAAAADAAAAAP!!!! thank u | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
For what its worth i reported your thread about "I bet she doesnt have any trouble with constipation"
You didnt have any warnings that it wasnt suitable for work and i opened it at work. It wasnt personal you could have gave some warning though. Fuck the funk - it's time to ditch the worn-out Vegas horns fills, pick up the geee-tar and finally ROCK THE MUTHA-FUCKER!! He hinted at this on Chaos, now it's time to step up and fully DELIVER!!
KrystleEyes 22/03/05 | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
muirdo said: For what its worth i reported your thread about "I bet she doesnt have any trouble with constipation"
You didnt have any warnings that it wasnt suitable for work and i opened it at work. It wasnt personal you could have gave some warning though. I believe I did have a warning on it. Check it again. And instead of running to the mods, you could have discussed the matter with me directly. "You need people like me so you can point your fuckin' fingers and say, "That's the bad guy." "
Al Pacino- Scarface | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
EvilWhiteMale said: muirdo said: For what its worth i reported your thread about "I bet she doesnt have any trouble with constipation"
You didnt have any warnings that it wasnt suitable for work and i opened it at work. It wasnt personal you could have gave some warning though. I believe I did have a warning on it. Check it again. And instead of running to the mods, you could have discussed the matter with me directly. no way.....no way!!! are you serious? people get all up in emotions (you do too)....imagine how that would turn out if someone misread or misunderstood a comment that was made... the mod options there so an impartial third party can review and act/react. Space for sale... | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
