Legacy Posters stirring trouble

[Marilyn. 340]

you so silly.

I know.. me sowwy

[mox 298]

I don't think VJ is in any danger of crumbling. If anything, I can see Ewok shutting down OT. It wouldn't be a big loss to the site.

Fair enough, "crumble" is probably a strong word. I'll go with "diminished."

As much as I think it would benefit VJ by dropping OT, it won't happen. The ad words imprints are too valuable. A consistent TOS would be fantastic though.

[The_Dude 1,142]

Without OT, VJ would get significantly fewer hits and would slip down google search results pages... I'm just saying.

[Darnell 8,478]

Your reposes here thus far prove you have an issue with those of us with differing views. Proves that unless you and cleo deem something worthy of discussion then it's [insert label]

Label: Racist, bigoted, ignorant, stupid, fabricated, hate, xenophobic, whining, bitching, crying, etc etc etc. I have honestly lost county of the 50+ labels I have been insulted with over the years from you and your mates.

As I asked earlier, show me how man times I have enter a thread you or your mates are in and just off-the-bat insulted them for their views. For me to list the examples, Ewok would need to duplicate VJ's server space. And that is just me, now add in Shooter and so forth.

Wow. Booyah! - did you miss a 'not' or 'have not' in the above wording?

If not, IMO, ya just shot yerself in the foot.

[Heracles 417]

Wow. Booyah! - did you miss a 'not' or 'have not' in the above wording?

If not, IMO, ya just shot yerself in the foot.

that was worded poorly hey..

[Fandango 1,439]

OT won't ever be closed down...but it's gonna die a quiet death

[Heracles 417]

Your question, which basically amounts to "if you don't like it, then go somewhere else" is a logical fallacy that assumes a black and white condition. What's wrong with people seeing an issue and trying to make change? That's certainly a better option than just leaving, don't you think?

It's nice that you play by VJ's rules...I play by VJ's rules too, and yet I was suspended not for playing against the rules, but because a moderator didn't like what I had to say. (some clever induhvidual might step in to say I was technically suspended for re-opening a closed thread, but that would be a very narrow interpretation of the event.) The problem here is that when personal feelings creep into it, the entire site suffers. I don't want to see VJ crumble, and I don't think you do either. And hey, it's fine if you disagree with *anyone*, the ranters, the mods, Ewok, me, whoever. But you're being disingenuous when you invite those of us who think there are BIG problems to just leave.

I could say the same thing who support the moderators no matter what. These Pollyanna rose-colored retina wearing folk who just want us to all get along, and don't mind if it takes some jack boots and tazers to do it. So it's all a matter of perspective. "Love it or leave it" might have a catchy ring to it, but it's a fallacy and I wish we could move past it.

If I dislike the management or operation of VJ as much as certain poster do, then yes I would leave. This is a private forum, not exactly something anyone is forced to use.

That's not the issue anyway. The issue is why should I or anyone be suspended for something a handful of the same group of posters deem offensive? Yet the same posters not be suspended, let alone complain for being suspended, for comments they deem not offensive - like personal insults; which are apaprently simply name calling to them. AKA double standards.

I have been on here for five year now and the reality is that the majority of posters [instigators] who get personal and offensive are those with liberal views. What ends up happening though is that the rest usually get suspended because they get more aggressive with their replies.

Here is a little scenario of how things were. Thread about anything:

Person A: tenth post of - ha ha stupid dumbazz hillbilly

person B: finally responds to insult with: who are you calling fool, you [insert country of origin], insert background etc whatever really, at that point, it's going to be offensive and ugly

Person A: wha wha wha mods!

Person C: wha wha wha mods!

Person D: wha wha wha mods!

Person B is reported and suspended.

Person C and D are typical person A's buddy or share opinions on everything, therefore, are either involved or turn a blind eye. Person C & D also claim to be outraged and disgusted by person B. In reality person B is simply stating an opinion the others disagree with. Yet person B is then forced to respond to these insults and ends up being suspended.

Under the old VJ moderation only person B was punished, person A and his bugs lived another day to wash, rinse, repeat. Fast forward to 2010, new objective moderation. Person C has since left, due to being caught out for other similar tactic. Person A and D that are left, now complain it's not fair, as they are caught out and suspended from the get-go, for their antagonizing, posts designed to insult and bait other posters.

Edited August 23, 2010 by Heracles

[Kathryn41 3,205]

Posts containing direct personal attacks and posts quoting same have been removed. I realize that the issue is 'legacy posters' but I still feel there is a way to discuss this issue without attacking the posters and ask that you do so.

Mox, your comment was rather disingenuous - I suspended you and it was for the TOS violation of re-starting a thread closed by Administration - not just once, but twice. Nothing narrow in that interpretation at all. Very little 'interpretation' even required - it is listed as a TOS violation and you broke it.

Edited August 23, 2010 by Kathryn41

[mox 298]

That's not the issue anyway. The issue is why should I or anyone be suspended for something a handful of the same group of posters deem offensive? Yet the same posters not be suspended, let alone complain for being suspended, for comments they deem not offensive - like personal insults; which are apaprently simply name calling to them. AKA double standards.

Well, until the entire moderating team agrees to enforce the TOS equally, and until they stop wielding power just because they don't like what somebody says or the way it's said, you're going to have to get used to this.

I have been on here for five year now and the reality is that the majority of posters [instigators] who get personal and offensive are those with liberal views. What ends up happening though is that the rest usually get suspended because they get more aggressive with their replies.

It's true I haven't hung out in OT for an age, but it has been my experience that the polar extremes on both sides are the biggest problem. If you're calling this a liberal problem, then imho you're not seeing the problem for what it really is.

Mox, your comment was rather disingenuous - I suspended you and it was for the TOS violation of re-starting a thread closed by Administration - not just once, but twice. Nothing narrow in that interpretation at all. Very little 'interpretation' even required - it is listed as a TOS violation and you broke it.

The technical reason for the suspension was just the last link in the chain. The actual reason for the suspension is because William33 didn't like what I had to say and escalated an otherwise on-topic and happy thread into a rancorous and unhappy thread. It was the intervention of moderation staff that pushed a normal situation into a suspension situation. This is what I'm talking about when I talk of true moderation, and not just push-button moderation. A real moderator doesn't take a happy thread and turn it into a sad thread. A real moderator doesn't jump into a thread looking for a fight, like William33 did. The suspension was just a by-product of the real problem, which was moderator abuse. And as I said in my re-opened thread, I was really disappointed that you became a part of that.

[Kathryn41 3,205]

Mox, I am somewhat in awe of how you can turn around an action you chose to make in direct violation of a TOS and try to justify that choice by saying someone else is to blame. We are each of us responsible for our choices and our actions. No one forced you to post what you did. No one forced you to re-open a thread closed by Administration. No one forced you to re-open a second time the same thread that was closed by administration along with the first thread you re-opened. Mox, do you honestly have so little control over your choices and actions that whatever happens to you in consequence of your actions is not your fault?

Edited August 23, 2010 by Kathryn41

[Heracles 417]

Here is an example of the posters who regularly ###### and whine; furthermore, mock the idea of any cunning strategy:

Offend their beliefs every opportunity you get. Force moderation to come up with new rules and then use them against them.

[^_^ 5,021]

If Islam is going to be attacked and mocked and Muslims made to feel unwelcome, then the same treatment is fair for adherents of other faiths.

Unless moderation says it's a problem, in which case it will do so for all faiths.

[mox 298]

If Islam is going to be attacked and mocked and Muslims made to feel unwelcome, then the same treatment is fair for adherents of other faiths.

Unless moderation says it's a problem, in which case it will do so for all faiths.

Subscribed. Belief in an invisible sky man is, imho, delusional no matter what you want to call yourself. Therefore, I propose a new rule: if you are going to attack someone's religion, you must disclose your own so I can expose it for the woo that it is.

[^_^ 5,021]

Belief in an invisible sky man is, imho, delusional...

They're going to report you for that, you know.

[The_Dude 1,142]

If Islam is going to be attacked and mocked and Muslims made to feel unwelcome, then the same treatment is fair for adherents of other faiths.

Unless moderation says it's a problem, in which case it will do so for all faiths.

AJ, you are discounting one of the tenants of VJ OT. You can get away with just about any sort of racism, as long as it is directed towards brown people. Someone makes a racist post in OT, post deleted. But when I call them ignorant, I get a 48 hour suspension. See the pattern there.

Subscribed. Belief in an invisible sky man is, imho, delusional no matter what you want to call yourself. Therefore, I propose a new rule: if you are going to attack someone's religion, you must disclose your own so I can expose it for the woo that it is.

I am pastafarian, mock at your leisure.