Should we bring back a moderator team?

[Res Ipsa]

He was banned from the board? Seriously?

As someone who has been participating on this board (as well as the old one) for well over a decade, I would be completely shocked and more than a little troubled to find out that A-Mike really was banned from this board.

I sincerely hope he wasn't.

Just from experience, the only reason for a ban would be if he were a poster that had been banned in the past posting under a new identity or an attempt or threat to interfere with the board's operation. Or perhaps using sock puppets to vote. ***Shrugs***

[canpakes]

Are you kidding me? Res, is this some kind of stupid skit you play with yourself?
…
Stop with your rule BS. You hide behind these rules like it matters. You are a submissive conciliatory passive clown and you would be just as passive as a moderator too.

That sounds bigoted, Cultellus.

Anyhow, you can’t escape the facts, which I’ll occasionally keep posting despite your best efforts to get them buried under more of your BS -


1. You showed up and started spamming multiple threads with no mention or focus on bigotry, or hatred, or anything else other than - as you put it - trying to ‘destroy the board’.

2. Your ‘after the fact’ rationalization for your behavior was to latch on to this excuse about what other folks may have done months earlier, and out of context of any example.

3. Your ‘solution’ is a prop designed to allow you to spam and engage in trolling behavior because you know that your solution is worthless, and it’s claimed results beyond the scope of individual participants other than the alleged troll.

You solution was already tested when I asked you to stop spamming and trolling, because - as you assert - my wish for and statement to you to do so would be entirely sufficient to make you stop spamming and engaging in trolling behavior. (insert simultaneous wink and eye roll, lol).

That your ‘solution’ is ineffective - and that you know it - is obvious and proven. It’s only a cover for you to continue to try to muck things up for your own amusement.

[canpakes]

Did you interpret his behavior today as problematic in any way?

Look Cakes, we get along pretty well around here so please don't do that. Not to me. Don't try to offer up a possible defense or excuse if he was really banned from this board. I have seen hundreds and hundreds of examples of "problematic behavior in any way" - so don't go there with me. Don't!

If we have moderators and rules, and behavior follows that violates some or all, then some folks might be banned. I could post the same question about anyone, but you specifically mentioned Atlanticmike.

[Shulem]

5, 4, 3, 2, 1, Dr. Shades!

[Shulem]

5, 4, 3, 2, 1, Dr. Shades!

Shulem, I like you man. I do not know much about you, but I like the passion you have for those stupid ass papyrus things or facsimile things. I like that you can be a bit disruptive and that you can do so with real content. I like that you laugh.

I nominate you for moderator of the lesser worlds. I voted for a moderator out of respect for Shades and his need for some personal care at the moment. I like your style.

I just ask that if someone quotes a post that was not moderated that you do not then moderate/edit/ban the quoted post and leave the original one to slide through because it was your buddy.

Well, thank you for your kind words but I must conclude that I am not moderator material. But that's not to say I don't have good things to suggests from time to time.

No, it won't be me. Someone else will do it.

[canpakes]

The cabal is very quiet.

Who deleted the posts?

Who banned Atlanticmike?

Atlanticmike self-banned.

1. You showed up and started spamming multiple threads with no mention or focus on bigotry, or hatred, or anything else other than - as you put it - trying to ‘destroy the board’.

2. Your ‘after the fact’ rationalization for your behavior was to latch on to this excuse about what other folks may have done months earlier, and out of context of any example.

3. Your ‘solution’ is a prop designed to allow you to spam and engage in trolling behavior because you know that your solution is worthless, and it’s claimed results beyond the scope of individual participants other than the alleged troll.

You solution was already tested when I asked you to stop spamming and trolling, because - as you assert - my wish for and statement to you to do so would be entirely sufficient to make you stop spamming and engaging in trolling behavior. (insert simultaneous wink and eye roll, lol).

That your ‘solution’ is ineffective - and that you know it - is obvious and proven. It’s only a cover for you to continue to try to muck things up for your own amusement.

[Shulem]

Well maybe pizza and beer or something someday.

Actually, on second thought, your resume is perfect. Not being moderator material is better than being moderator material. I hereby resubmit your name in the name of all that is holy and good and for the good of the queen, especially the queen that is the kind of queen that Shulem likes, whatever that may be.

I like them young. Yes I do! I could tell you stories! I've been a very bad boy -- considering my track record. No worries though, always must be 18+, even if it's by only a few weeks. A man has to know his limitations (Clint Eastwood).

[Res Ipsa]

For the love of Mike, just stop making things up. There is no rule against criticizing anyone's post. We criticize each other's posts all the time here. You can say or do anything you want, within the requirements of the rules. What you can't do (not as a rule, but as a practical matter) is force someone else to post what you want them to.

It's really not that hard.

Are you kidding me? Res, is this some kind of stupid skit you play with yourself?

Atlanticmike quoted Doc Cam's posts from the Terrestrial forum. Those posts were removed and Atlanticmike was banned.

Stop with your rule B.S.. You hide behind these rules like it matters. You are a submissive conciliatory passive clown and you would be just as passive as a moderator too. I respect your strategy but I am not interested, virtual or not, in someone that is so crippled with excuses. Jesus for the rules and all you can and cannot do because of some rule nonsense, while bigotry and insults are flying and you are signing anonymous complaint forms and putting them in a suggestion box. Jesus Res. I do not give a crap. I believe you. What is not clear about this? I believe you can navigate rules and I believe you can moderate a board and still be a ridiculous passive tolerant POS. You are a great counselor, Res. And this ain't court.

No, it's how I communicate with people who (a) don't read and (b) tell lies about me.

Yes, the rules matter. I'm not arrogant enough to think they don't. This is Shades's forum. He set the rules. The forum works well if people play by the rules. And you have no idea how I would behave as a moderator. Others here do, but I doubt you'll listen to them because you seem to value your own mind reading abilities over other people's actual experience. Like any moderator, I got complaints. For the most part, they had to do with my being too active, not passive.

And you don't agree with me. Not even close. You sort of agree with some caricature you've created of me. But you don't agree with me.

You don't understand how moderating works. The report feature is not an anonymous suggestion box. The moderators and Shades get notice of every report, including who its from. I can't speak for anyone else, but I always took reports seriously. Unless Shades or EA had already responded, I went to the thread, reviewed both the reported post and the context, took any necessary action, and let the person who reported know how I had responded. I also notified anyone else whose posts had been affected by my action. If the situation involved issues that hadn't been addressed either in the hadith (the comments that were ongoing in the rules threads) or the moderator board (that's 15 years of lost information we no longer have), I'd let the reporting person know that I would consult EA and Shades). This was done in the moderator forum. And when the final decision was reached, we made sure it was documented somewhere so we could always refer to past practices. I took the job seriously and was unapologetically aggressive about it because my experience has shown that, when people see that their reports are taken seriously, they are less likely to resort to the kind of self-help that you keep trying to bully and shame people into engaging in.

No, this isn't court. If it we're, you'd have been locked up for contempt of court weeks ago.

But both courts and this forum have rules. The rules aren't just rules for rules sake. They exist for a purpose. The purpose here is to let everyone have their say while at the same time allowing people to have a conversation on a topic without personal attacks, derails, and the resulting pie fights. What you keep trying to force on other people is a never ending escalation of the nastiness you claim to abhor. Recall what Jesus said about an "eye for an eye?" As a practical matter, an eye for an eye leads to everyone becoming blind. The response you advocate is at the basis of every gang war ever. It doesn't move us towards the board's purpose -- it moves us in the opposite direction.

Once moderation resumes, you get to decide whether to conform to the rules. Totally on you. Whether Doc conforms is totally on Doc. And so on. The moderators will have the necessary tools and the responsibility to enforce the rules. The consequences of rule breaking will fall on whoever chooses to break the rules, and not on anyone else.

[Res Ipsa]

Who deleted posts and banned Atlanticmike?

How do you know Atlantic Mike was banned?

[Res Ipsa]

The cabal is very quiet.

Who deleted the posts?

Who banned Atlanticmike?

How do you know Atlantic Mike was banned?