I'm Not Perfect

[pabloh20 1]

Am i the only one seeing Murray Walker banging his bishop screaming "LOOK AT THAT!!"?

Errrrrrrr..............yes, you are!! Well, unless Murray is doing it in front of the mirror!!

[Max Mosley 2]

You guys make me laugh so much. And yeah, don't worry, I pay regular homage to my bishop. He is, after all, God's representative on earth. (Oh btw, I read a book a while ago saying that William Blake, the famous poet, thought that an orgasm was a religious experience. I can kind of see what he meant.)

[goferrarigo 0]

did u watch NK Storm in A1?

I was under the belief A1 stopped airing in India as no one watches it

[Autumnpuma 0]

Am i the only one seeing Murray Walker banging his bishop screaming "LOOK AT THAT!!"?

Btw Steve, your snowman has good taste in beer. Be careful of the yellow snow.....

[dribbler 6]

Btw Steve, your snowman has good taste in beer. Be careful of the yellow snow.....

Thanks Mike! Check out Ben's snowing thread.

"Watch out where the huskies go and don't you eat that yellow snow". You gotta love Zappa!

[Autumnpuma 0]

Thanks Mike! Check out Ben's snowing thread.

"Watch out where the huskies go and don't you eat that yellow snow". You gotta love Zappa!

[cavallino 2]

One question, who is our Norwegian friend????

The instigator in chief, the example I chose to show rather starkly the clueless inconsistency of the mods, unfortunately a lto lf people interpreted it as a personal crusade.

In answer to the second question: Yes, I am prepared to see the forum destroyed if it would be necessary to ensure freedom of speech. If it stands in the way of free speech, then it is not a forum in any meaningful sense.

The question is can we have a meaningful internet forum without any moderation - I haven't seen any, but I am welcome to opinions/ suggestions/ examples.

In answer to the last question: Yes, we have the right to stop violent action, because we legitimately distinguish between that which causes physical injury and that which only causes phsycological injury or harm.

Fair point, so you would say that inciting others to violence is still culpable?

I hear what you are saying, Cav, but the course you are on now will result in more rules or, at the very least, the current rules being implemented with more regularity.

I would argue that it would result in greater freedom on the forum, as the moderators will have to think twice before taking rash decisions, will have to be accountable. Instead of a few members having the privilege of saying waht they want, everyone would have that. Waht might be a casualty is the tendency of some members to air their real life frustrations on the forum, letting off steam by abusing or trying to provoke other members. If that part is implemented I don't particularly mind. The current ban policy is insipid and counterproductive. It leads to grudges and personal vendettas. It is a punishment policy, we don't need a punishment policy. The aim is not to punish people, the idea so often pushed by Brude that a ban amounts to a 'few days in the cooler' is both insulting and pointless - people don't get reformed by a short ban. And when those bans are handed out at random and with no consistency, they simply make people angry. Bans are unnecessary except in the most exterme of cases, and should never be handed out by a single person. If the moderators by their own admission are incapable of being consistent and largely mistake free in their conduct, that means that they are going to ban people incorrectly. That is completely unacceptable. Banning a person, silencing an opinion isn't a decision to be made in jest, by a single person, on whims or depending on what side of the bed the moderator got out of bed that morning. That is a travesty of justice, if you are goign to have extreme punishments, you have to make damn sure that they are justified.

The moderators also need to reevaluate their policy (if there is one) on closing threads, I don't think any threads really need to be closed. It doens't accomplish anything, and it makes it possible for someone to derail a thread so that it acn be conveneiently closed if someone doesn't want a topic to be discussed. Let us take a hypothetical case, not that anything like that would happen on our wonderful forum. A person makes a thread criticising the mods, the mod waits until he sees something that he imagines might in the future lead to inappropriate content being posted in the thread. So he closes the thread, rather conveniently stopping a discussion about his own conduct. So the current policy or lack thereof leaves the system open to such abuse.

[cavallino 2]

Fairness would not be served either because you will have increased the input of the moderators who are capable of making mistakes. Increase their involvment and you have increased the chances of mistakes happening.

Limiting the powers, especially individual powers of the moderators will serve free speech and fairness. So will a simple change or removal of moderators. It's really easy, this isn't rocket science. This isn't a real life justice system with all the endless complications, it is absolutely incredible that two people who I assumed were eminently rational have made such a royal mess of everything. Moderation isn't that hard, all you need is the will to learn and a bit of introspection and a clear idea of the purpose of moderation. The job of the moderators is not to hand out bans and lock threads. Their job is to minimise their work, their job is to be invisible as far as possible, to always choose the option that causes the least damage.

Consider: if you had deflected Ctrl300's comments like Quiet One did (with dignity and humor) you would not have been banned.

I tried that before with another person. I was still banned. Not the other person that time, oddly enough.

YOUR reaction caused the ban and you are overlooking that by pointing to an 'unfair' moderator.

Which part of my reaction warrants a ban? Refusal to accept the closure of a thread contrary to the rules of the forum? And you are the one pretending to be pro free speech here? Please, that is enough wit the hypocrisy, you will talk of free speech, but you will go to any length to defend everything that Bruce does. You can't have it both ways, this is pure sycophancy.

Personally, I'd like a completely open forum. There will be d!ckheads, but the better quality of person will be highlighted when looked at beside the d!ckhead. Of course, we have the niggling little detail of reality to deal with. In reality, this forum is the best I've seen for expressing the notion of 'free speech'.

Well it was.

Just read the many controversial issues we are debating lately, which inspire high passions, yet we all act within reasonable patterns (with isolate exceptions)

You are fortunate, you haven't seen much. Brude has a history of locking threads for no reason, he has sometimes been forced by the weight of public opinion to reopen them. I remember he locked a thread once sorely because it ventured on the topic of abortion. There is a long history here which newer/ less ergular posters won't know, I am not talking of one or two piffling little isolated instances.

(Ecap made it quite clear, it turned into a thread of personal attacks more than anything else and so it seemed to most of us).

Where? I have seen far stronger personal attacks, look at the sexuality thread for example. Taht is a very lame reason, if a reason at all. Or are the mods exempt from personal criticism, not a word of waht I said can be termed abuse.

PD recognized his errors and backed up on them

No he didn't, he didn't say that he screwed up on the ctrl300 issue, he didn't say he was wrong to ban me or to close my threads. A vaguely worded unspecific apology written after silencing you chief critic isn't 'recognizing your errors'. It is a prime example of despotic behaviour.

Your latest posts seem to try to get you banned just to make some point,

No, my latest posts are made wihtout any concern if they can get me banned.

Sometimes swallowing some pride and accepting to live with other persons POV (like PD, not Ctrl300) is a sign of greatness, not weakness.

Backing down because of threats and intimidation isn't greatness, it is cowardice.

[Autumnpuma 0]

I would argue that it would result in greater freedom on the forum, as the moderators will have to think twice before taking rash decisions, will have to be accountable. Instead of a few members having the privilege of saying waht they want, everyone would have that. Waht might be a casualty is the tendency of some members to air their real life frustrations on the forum, letting off steam by abusing or trying to provoke other members. If that part is implemented I don't particularly mind. The current ban policy is insipid and counterproductive. It leads to grudges and personal vendettas. It is a punishment policy, we don't need a punishment policy. The aim is not to punish people, the idea so often pushed by Brude that a ban amounts to a 'few days in the cooler' is both insulting and pointless - people don't get reformed by a short ban. And when those bans are handed out at random and with no consistency, they simply make people angry. Bans are unnecessary except in the most exterme of cases, and should never be handed out by a single person. If the moderators by their own admission are incapable of being consistent and largely mistake free in their conduct, that means that they are going to ban people incorrectly. That is completely unacceptable. Banning a person, silencing an opinion isn't a decision to be made in jest, by a single person, on whims or depending on what side of the bed the moderator got out of bed that morning. That is a travesty of justice, if you are goign to have extreme punishments, you have to make damn sure that they are justified.

The moderators also need to reevaluate their policy (if there is one) on closing threads, I don't think any threads really need to be closed. It doens't accomplish anything, and it makes it possible for someone to derail a thread so that it acn be conveneiently closed if someone doesn't want a topic to be discussed. Let us take a hypothetical case, not that anything like that would happen on our wonderful forum. A person makes a thread criticising the mods, the mod waits until he sees something that he imagines might in the future lead to inappropriate content being posted in the thread. So he closes the thread, rather conveniently stopping a discussion about his own conduct. So the current policy or lack thereof leaves the system open to such abuse.

Good points. I would be willing to sign on to this, but I feel it would still increase the chances of mistakes and, ultimately, limit the already large amounts of free speech we have here.

Limiting the powers, especially individual powers of the moderators will serve free speech and fairness. So will a simple change or removal of moderators. It's really easy, this isn't rocket science. This isn't a real life justice system with all the endless complications, it is absolutely incredible that two people who I assumed were eminently rational have made such a royal mess of everything. Moderation isn't that hard, all you need is the will to learn and a bit of introspection and a clear idea of the purpose of moderation. The job of the moderators is not to hand out bans and lock threads. Their job is to minimise their work, their job is to be invisible as far as possible, to always choose the option that causes the least damage.

Limiting the powers of moderators will indeed serve free speech. I'm for that. I am not for removal of the current moderators. As for the rest, I accept that it's your definition of a forum moderator, but perhaps not the only definition.

I tried that before with another person. I was still banned. Not the other person that time, oddly enough.

Really? You were banned for responding to a Ctrl300 type post with humour and deflection? Please link the thread.

Which part of my reaction warrants a ban? Refusal to accept the closure of a thread contrary to the rules of the forum? And you are the one pretending to be pro free speech here? Please, that is enough wit the hypocrisy, you will talk of free speech, but you will go to any length to defend everything that Bruce does. You can't have it both ways, this is pure sycophancy.

What you see as 'sycophancy' and 'hypocrisy' is in reality me stating my desire for true free speech, but at the same time recognizing, pragmatically, that it doesn't exist, and urging you to deal with the situation in a way that wont impact the rest of us with harsher rules.

[pumpdoc 2]

Cav, you are full of myopic bull, the fact that this thread remains open disproves your rant.................

[Quiet One 15]

Good points. I would be willing to sign on to this, but I feel it would still increase the chances of mistakes and, ultimately, limit the already large amounts of free speech we have here.

Limiting the powers of moderators will indeed serve free speech. I'm for that. I am not for removal of the current moderators. As for the rest, I accept that it's your definition of a forum moderator, but perhaps not the only definition.

Really? You were banned for responding to a Ctrl300 type post with humour and deflection? Please link the thread.

What you see as 'sycophancy' and 'hypocrisy' is in reality me stating my desire for true free speech, but at the same time recognizing, pragmatically, that it doesn't exist, and urging you to deal with the situation in a way that wont impact the rest of us with harsher rules.

Thank you for expressing exactly what I feel about all this!

[Bambino 0]

Waaaaah! waaaaaaaah! waaaaaaaah! (plop, squelch) waaaaa! waaaaaaa!

[cavallino 2]

Limiting the powers of moderators will indeed serve free speech. I'm for that. I am not for removal of the current moderators.

I don't think one can happen without the other.

As for the rest, I accept that it's your definition of a forum moderator, but perhaps not the only definition.

Point me to a better one, or to one applicable on this forum.

Really? You were banned for responding to a Ctrl300 type post with humour and deflection? Please link the thread.

No another member, whether you find it humorous is entirely upto you, I merely responded on the same terms, which obviously should be my right

What you see as 'sycophancy' and 'hypocrisy' is in reality me stating my desire for true free speech, but at the same time recognizing, pragmatically, that it doesn't exist, and urging you to deal with the situation in a way that wont impact the rest of us with harsher rules.

So you are quite prepared to accept curbs on that free speech imposed on someone else, as long as it does not affect you, since you believe that seeking fairness will curb your own speech? You are urging me to deal with the situation in a way that does not affect you, since you aer quite willing to accept a scenario where you have rights that other members don't, and as long as you have them, you don't care if other do.

Cav, you are full of myopic bull, the fact that this thread remains open disproves your rant.................

And the fact that you and your friend closed similar threads earlier and banned me for it proves what then? What made you suddenly change your policy? Or is this an admission that you were wrong to ban me and close the earlier thread?

[jaq 0]

Canadian extremists are the worst kind.

excuse me!!! What grounds support your statement that there's a problem with canadians. I'd say that american extremists are far worse than canadians.

[Bambino 0]

Waaaaaaaa! waaaaaaaaaaa! (almost hysterical) WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA! (more plopping, squelching) WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!

[pumpdoc 2]

Waaaaaaaa! waaaaaaaaaaa! (almost hysterical) WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA! (more plopping, squelching) WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!

[Autumnpuma 0]

So you are quite prepared to accept curbs on that free speech imposed on someone else, as long as it does not affect you, since you believe that seeking fairness will curb your own speech? You are urging me to deal with the situation in a way that does not affect you, since you aer quite willing to accept a scenario where you have rights that other members don't, and as long as you have them, you don't care if other do.

Hmm...I'm convinced you simply like to argue. That's the only reason for this twisting of my words. Other forum members got what I was driving at, but you haven't. Or wont. Ah well, suit yourself.

[cavallino 2]

Hmm...I'm convinced you simply like to argue. That's the only reason for this twisting of my words. Other forum members got what I was driving at, but you haven't. Or wont. Ah well, suit yourself.

Eh? Where did I twist your words? I will list out my reasoning step by step, tell me where you disagree.

1) My 'right to free speech' has been impinged upon - my thread was closed and I was banned merely for criticizing the mods.

2) You feel that my efforts to correct that will, in your words 'impact the rest of us with harsher rules.'

3) So you are quite prepared to accept curbs on my free speech as long as you can have yours.

The other members who got what you wer driving at can perhaps step in and clarify

[AutoRacer5 0]

Anybody need popcorn? This is entertaining to look at.

[pumpdoc 2]

Anybody need popcorn? This is entertaining to look at.

Like a train wreck, oops, they have a lot of those in India..................

[rumblestrip 0]

Ok, I usually avoid these dramafests, but I wondered what was still fueling this thread, so I looked. Then I saw this:

1) My 'right to free speech' has been impinged upon - my thread was closed and I was banned merely for criticizing the mods.e:

Sorry man, but this is an Internet forum, and as such, there is no free speech. I don't mean to sound harsh, but this is a privately owned forum to which you have been granted access by its owners. Those same owners (or their representatives - i.e. the mods) can also choose to deny access for any reason they see fit. It's just the way it is.

If I invite you into my living room, you do not have the right to do anything you like. If you do something or say something that bothers me, I'll ask you to leave. It's the same thing.

[Bambino 0]

Like a train wreck, oops, they have a lot of those in India..................

Hee hee. Oops i mean, waaaaaaaaaa! (plop, squelch) waaaaaaa!

[goferrarigo 0]

Hee hee. Oops i mean, waaaaaaaaaa! (plop, squelch) waaaaaaa!

Is that all you post???? just waaa???

[Autumnpuma 0]

Eh? Where did I twist your words? I will list out my reasoning step by step, tell me where you disagree.

1) My 'right to free speech' has been impinged upon - my thread was closed and I was banned merely for criticizing the mods.

Your first thread was descending into a free-for-all, mean-spirited argument that was going nowhere fast. Ecap closed it on these grounds only after the posters started to fling hostility. You started another thread and Bruce closed it, probably thinking it would also descend into hostility. Your recent ban was probably because instead of accepting the mod's decision on it, you started into Bruce. Seeing the forum's reaction to this, Bruce has decided to let the current thread remain open. I think the first thread should have been left open, but I accept Ecap's reason for closing it. I'm a guest here and Bruce and Ecap are the mods, so I abide by what I observe are the rules, both written and unwritten.

You were banned the first time for swearing at another member. I argued that regardless of how that member treated you, it was your own swearing that caused your ban. Concerning yourself with whether or not the other member got banned is a deflection from your actions. If the other member was not banned, and you were, then I disagree with that decision, but had you addressed that member with the wit and humour of Quiet One, you would not have been banned. That is a point I cannot get away from.....it is all about personal accountability. First change you, then change the world.

I've had a thread locked by Bruce too, you know. Maybe you don't know.....because I accepted the mod's decision on it and carried on, even though I saw nothing wrong with that thread. That's what I feel you should do: move on.

2) You feel that my efforts to correct that will, in your words 'impact the rest of us with harsher rules.'

Many official forum rules go unenforced here and that is for the good. With your complaining about this issue, you will not get a freer forum, you will get an enforcement of the rules previously unenforced. This is my concern, and my opinion. I don't think any mod can be objective, so you must expect mistakes or misinterpretations to happen every so often. Bruce is a guy, just like you, and if you get in his face, he's going to get right back into yours, forum rules or moderator position be damned. When this happens, I expect you to take it like a man and either leave or brush yourself off and carry on. A person in authority isn't any better than you or me...the unrealistic expectations to be perfect we put on those in charge (be it forum or nation) is wrongheaded.

3) So you are quite prepared to accept curbs on my free speech as long as you can have yours.

NO. As I have said, Bruce closed one of my threads as well and I just moved on. If that had happened to you, I imagine you would have made a royal fuss about it. I suppose that's the difference between your approach and mine. I chose to move on and not involve everyone in it and you chose to create a large issue.

I have not been banned, although I might have deserved such a ban at one point, because at the time Bruce PM'd me to 'cool me down'. I'm sure if that hadn't worked, and I'd carried on my tirade, I would have been banned. That was my 'warning' and I heeded it. Others get that same treatment but it remains private.

Bottom line is this: Be pragmatic. Free speech doesn't exist here, but we've got freer than most. If you don't like the moderation, PM the admin. If nothing is done, PM members or start a CIVIL thread asking if anyone objects to the current mods. If enough members are in agreement, the current moderating team might be changed. Prepare yourself for the possibility that Wes likes the job ecap and Bruce are doing. In that case you can either accept this or leave.

I risk repeating myself over and over here. What more can I say to make you see my point? I see yours but I don't agree it's the right way to handle this. I'm putting away my sword here, Cav. I'll not try to impede your Crusade, but I remain in support of the current mods. That's my vote.

[Bambino 0]

Is that all you post???? just waaa???

Waaaaaa!