or Connect
DenimBlog.com › Welcome to the DenimBlog Community! › General Topics › Chat › So this one time at banned camp...
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

So this one time at banned camp... - Page 11  

post #251 of 274
However, I should add that I have re-read the rules and it does clearly state in there "don't call women a cunt"

That's there, in the rules.

If Dave said "you must type with one finger while standing upside down on your head" then that would be a rule and it would be fair to ban everyone caught in disobeyance of that rule

WHAT I WANT TO KNOW IS HAS THIS JUST BE CHANGED? WAS IT ADDED IN AFTER NAVS BAN WAS ISSUED OR HAS IT ALWAYS BEEN THERE

If it has always been there, then I have to say that as much as I love you NAV, you must stop whingeing like this. You broke a clear cut rule that is obviosly something Dave takes very seriously. I'm glad to see that Dave does have that level of respect for women as not enough men do these days. It's great to see.
post #252 of 274
Quote:
Originally Posted by denimobsessed View Post
That was uncalled for imo.

I admit this drivell ridden thread is far to long and boring for me to read through it all, but every now and then I take a look because the original reason NAV posted this (to ask opinions on whether or not PMs should be private) was interesting, valid and personally relevant to me (and everyone else on here).
DO, that is a good point, but the ability of the moderators to read private messages was only one of the reasons NAV made his original post.

Quote:
From what I have read I do feel that NAV is getting a hard time. Still, as a moderator I would expect MUCH better from you. I haven't read the whole thread as I mentioned but the pieces I have read do NOT involve NAV being personally low, or mean and nasty to another member.

I found myself cringeing for poor NAV when I read your post. It was harsher and more hurtful than was warranted imo.
I think the key point here is from "what you have read." As you may know, this is an ongoing drama and enough is enough. I could possibly be more understanding if the ban against NAV was permanent, but it was only three days. Not to mention, this is the guy who was banned for calling someone a "cunt" and I'm sure he can handle the criticism. Anyone who can't stand the heat needs to stay out of the kitchen.

Quote:
How ridiculous to compare it to speeding on a highway also! The reason only some get a ticket on the Highway is because the police cannot possible be photographing everyone's license plates at once. If the police could view each passing car one by one, they would. Dave IS able to look at individual sides of a sitution that are occurring simultaneously. This is a computer internet based forum, not a highway and unlike moving cars that will change their speed in another mile, ALL the data is stored here and Dave is free to go BACK IN TIME and review all angles of every unfolding drama. If he is going to ban ANYONE then he has a DUTY to look at all involved and to ban EQUALLY everyone who has displayed the same or similar level of unnacceptable behaviour in that situation. He cannot simply ban some and call it like a speeding ticket as to do so would just PROVE NAV to be in the right that people like him are being deliberately and unfairly targetted. Consistancy in this scenario is essential. Admittedly it is Dave's forum and so physically he can do what he wants but morally and ethically- erm NO!
DO, I think it's ridiculous that you think that Dave, one person, should be made to look through, read, and evaluate every post made on this forum and equally ridiculous he should be expected to please everyone. The moderators, including myself, do the best we can insofar as reading and evaluating all posts (reported or otherwise), and we also do our best to make thoughtful, fair decisions at all times.

While neither your nor NAV may agree with all of them, the fact remains that unacceptable behavior (a relative term) is unacceptable behavior and people do get banned for it. NAV was hardly targeted. He is not the only one who has been banned on this forum and he certainly won't be the last. He himself knows he displayed unacceptable behavior, as does everyone else and he was banned (TEMPORARILY) for it. NAV's only concern should be his own behavior.
post #253 of 274
Quote:
Originally Posted by denimobsessed View Post
However, I should add that I have re-read the rules and it does clearly state in there "don't call women a cunt"

That's there, in the rules.

If Dave said "you must type with one finger while standing upside down on your head" then that would be a rule and it would be fair to ban everyone caught in disobeyance of that rule

WHAT I WANT TO KNOW IS HAS THIS JUST BE CHANGED? WAS IT ADDED IN AFTER NAVS BAN WAS ISSUED OR HAS IT ALWAYS BEEN THERE

If it has always been there, then I have to say that as much as I love you NAV, you must stop whingeing like this. You broke a clear cut rule that is obviosly something Dave takes very seriously. I'm glad to see that Dave does have that level of respect for women as not enough men do these days. It's great to see.
DO, I am not 100% sure on this one. I am pretty sure that was added after the whole incident.

I do know for a fact, however, that disrespecting others was NEVER allowed (whether using the word "cunt" or not), so NAV clearly broke a rule either way.
post #254 of 274
Actually...

It has been a rule for most (if not all) of the time I have been on here (almost 2.5 years) not to say the c-word. The rule was NOT added after the incident. If you go to http://www.honestforum.com/rules-inf...nestforum.html, you will see that the last edit was 3/21/07. This edit was to add a few lines to the last rule.
post #255 of 274
Quote:
Originally Posted by designerdesire View Post
DO, I am not 100% sure on this one. I am pretty sure that was added after the whole incident.

I do know for a fact, however, that disrespecting others was NEVER allowed (whether using the word "cunt" or not), so NAV clearly broke a rule either way.

Well yes that's true but it's much much easier to stick to the rules when they're clearly defined.
post #256 of 274
Quote:
Originally Posted by lauriebell View Post
Actually...

It has been a rule for most (if not all) of the time I have been on here (almost 2.5 years) not to say the c-word. The rule was NOT added after the incident. If you go to http://www.honestforum.com/rules-inf...nestforum.html, you will see that the last edit was 3/21/07. This edit was to add a few lines to the last rule.

Thanks Laurie...

in that case NAV, shut up! Count yourself lucky that you weren't banned for good.

Perhaps PMs ARE considered a grey area and that's why you only copped 3 days and not permanent, eh?
post #257 of 274
Quote:
Originally Posted by designerdesire View Post

DO, I think it's ridiculous that you think that Dave, one person, should be made to look through, read, and evaluate every post made on this forum and equally ridiculous he should be expected to please everyone. The moderators, including myself, do the best we can insofar as reading and evaluating all posts (reported or otherwise), and we also do our best to make thoughtful, fair decisions at all times.

.

I wasn't suggesting that. You shouldn't have to read through everything but say the person you want to ban says "well I'm not that bad as I acted under severe provocation because they did this this and this to me" or else other incidents are reported to you by other members. Then, I think all should be weighed up and punished according to what they have done and not given leeway for who or how popular they are.

Also, you need to at least APPEAR to be ABLE to have time and inclination to place bans fairly with blanket rulings. You need to at least appear and advertise that bans will be imposed if rules are broken. This should at least BE SEEN to apply fairly and equally to anyone and you should never ever promote the speeding ticket thing. If you do, this provides and environment where you could, or could be seen to only impose punishments, or impose more severe punishments upon less popular members or members that you specifically don't like. It could also become presumed that people you do like will get discounts on punishments or get out of jail free cards.

It's true that in no situation can any group of or single person/s in authority monitor every aspect of drama within a large group such as we have here. So there is some truth to your speeding ticket scenario. You just can't admit or promote this. That's why Paris Hilton probably copped a jail term. The judge was HARSHER on her because he didn't want to be seen to go soft on her due to her celebrity status. This is what I'm getting at. You need to go to lengths to show that you WILL be fair.

Think of this. Although things have settled down, I was in a falling out situation with Barbie_Az. She had I love ........ in her signature. I believed LaurieBell unfairly gave me a warning after I believed I had been the victim of trolling from a group that included Frostee (Barbie) Soon after I see that LaurieBell's name is added to the I love list in Frostee's signature. I doubted very much Frostee had been given a warning as why would she 'love' someone who gave her a warning? Given that I felt that Laurie had been very very unfair in kicking me when I was already upset and warning me when I felt that I was the victim... you see how it looked to me? Maybe it was all fair, maybe I handled things wrong as I'm still learning and maybe LaurieBell did actually give everyone an equal warning, I don't know. BUT in that situation I feel she should have been MORE HARSH with the people she is actively friends with as that is just how things are done. It is all about appearances and in this environment you shouldn't be seen to give immunity to the people that you like. It's not right.
post #258 of 274
Thread Starter 
you refute a position, and then attribute that position to me. strawman fallacy, according to my philosophy 101 textbook.

seriously though, what is your POINT designerdesire? i think if you can answer that, you'd realize that you don't really have one. it's generally what happens when someone knee-jerkedly lashes out at someone emotionally.

if you're genuinely trying to help instead of just trying to control me, i'd like to hear more about why you think my reasons (#1 and #2 in my original post, ALONG with private messages being our own business and nobody else's as brought up by others) are invalid and less of how you're so fuming mad that you're ready to blow your top off.
post #259 of 274
Quote:
Originally Posted by denimobsessed View Post
I wasn't suggesting that. You shouldn't have to read through everything but say the person you want to ban says "well I'm not that bad as I acted under severe provocation because they did this this and this to me" or else other incidents are reported to you by other members. Then, I think all should be weighed up and punished according to what they have done and not given leeway for who or how popular they are.
Absolutely agreed. Bannings are not issued as the result of a popularity contest.

Quote:
Also, you need to at least APPEAR to be ABLE to have time and inclination to place bans fairly with blanket rulings.
We have both the time and the inclination to impose bans as fairly as possible. What we do not necessarily have time to do is read through and evaluate every thread and post from every angle at all times. We ARE human beings.

Quote:
You need to at least appear and advertise that bans will be imposed if rules are broken.
We do this.

Quote:
This should at least BE SEEN to apply fairly and equally to anyone and you should never ever promote the speeding ticket thing. If you do, this provides and environment where you could, or could be seen to only impose punishments, or impose more severe punishments upon less popular members or members that you specifically don't like. It could also become presumed that people you do like will get discounts on punishments or get out of jail free cards.
How we are seen is relative. I don't necessarily "promote" the speeding ticket idea, it's just the way things are. Popular members HAVE been banned before. You are fairly new, but I will point out that Casey is one of the most popular members on this board and she has been banned. Another incredibly popular member, Dweckl_the_White was also banned permanently. In fact, NAV is quite popular himself. In short, we don't ban people based on how popular they are.

Quote:
It's true that in no situation can any group of or single person/s in authority monitor every aspect of drama within a large group such as we have here. So there is some truth to your speeding ticket scenario. You just can't admit or promote this. That's why Paris Hilton probably copped a jail term. The judge was HARSHER on her because he didn't want to be seen to go soft on her due to her celebrity status. This is what I'm getting at. You need to go to lengths to show that you WILL be fair.
We never do anything we believe to be unfair. I feel like this goes without saying. If people want to over-analyze and judge our actions, that is their prerogative but NOT our problem.

Quote:
BUT in that situation I feel she should have been MORE HARSH with the people she is actively friends with as that is just how things are done. It is all about appearances and in this environment you shouldn't be seen to give immunity to the people that you like. It's not right.
Now you are just promoting discrimination in reverse. If we can't ban people because they are unpopular, it doesn't follow we should treat popular people "MORE HARSH[LY]" because they are popular. If everyone got equal warning, then that's fair: end of story.
post #260 of 274
Thread Starter 
D.O., keep it simple and don't agree to strawman arguments. just stick to my original points.

again, designerdesire, what exactly is your point (other than you're mad and without putting words in my mouth)? i got banned, wanted an explanation for how such an unfair ban was imposed on me (is that so wrong lol?), got a half-ass explanation, and that was the end of it. the thread is only continuing because people are asking questions and tangent.
post #261 of 274
Quote:
Originally Posted by not_a_virus.exe View Post
D.O., keep it simple and don't agree to strawman arguments. just stick to my original points.

again, designerdesire, what exactly is your point (other than you're mad and without putting words in my mouth)? i got banned, wanted an explanation for how such an unfair ban was imposed on me (is that so wrong lol?), got a half-ass explanation, and that was the end of it. the thread is only continuing because people are asking questions and tangent.
Okay, clearly you need the explanation to be spoon fed to you. I don't really know which straw man argument you were referring to (given that there weren't any) and you don't really have any points so it'll be hard to stick to those.

But, here goes:

You want an explanation of why you were banned, yes?

1. You broke the rules by disrespecting someone else, specifically by calling them a cunt, among other things.

2. The ban is not unfair. You broke the rules.

3. It's not wrong to want an explanation, but annoying that by page 11 you STILL don't get it.

And, just to say it ONCE more, other people's bans (or lack thereof) don't concern you.
post #262 of 274
Thread Starter 
DD, your whole spiel that at least most of the mods and admin(s) work hard and try to be as fair as possible (which I agree with) so therefore the mods and admins should never be questions and should be given carte blanche is quite ridiculous once you realize this is what you're essentially saying (I'm reading your stuff quickly because you need to slow down).

In fact, for a healthy community, there should be checks and balances that involves the community members.
post #263 of 274
You questioned.
You got an answer.

We do have carte blanche.

HF is not a democracy, first off. And, it's actually for a healthy government. The government has checks WITHIN ITSELF. Ordinary citizens do not possess any power of check or balance, the branches within the government do. The mods check and balance one another.

You cannot impeach Dave.
You are not part of our "government."
We listen to, respect, and act on what members say (when they aren't calling one another cunts). This does not mean you possess any kind of right to "check" or "balance" us.
post #264 of 274
Quote:
Originally Posted by designerdesire View Post


Now you are just promoting discrimination in reverse. If we can't ban people because they are unpopular, it doesn't follow we should treat popular people "MORE HARSH[LY]" because they are popular. If everyone got equal warning, then that's fair: end of story.


Yes, I didn't explain this adequately at all, did I?

I didn't really mean you should be MORE harsh on people who are popular or liked by you personally.

What I did mean was that you should go to great pains to ensure you don't go EASY on people who you like.

I'm not sure that in the Laurie situation that I mentioned everyone got a warning. I have NO IDEA who got a warning, for all I know I was the only one. Given that Lauried suddenly appeared in the I LOVE list of the main agitator against me in that situation, I think it's highly likely they were all sitting around having a good bitch about me over the PM system and that Laurie only issued the warning to me as a way of further antagonising (and trolling) me and for the sole purpose of impressing her friends! If this is true it's a GROSS abuse of her power. I am NOT accusing Laurie of this at all. It's only being given here as a POSSIBLE scenario and an example on how people will see things if pains aren't taken to ensure you are seen to never go easy on those you like.


^^^ YES IT DOES concern NAV about other people's bans or lack thereof. How else can he guage if his own ban was fair or not. You can say "it's in the rules" but that is unfair and entrapment in some cases. If those rules are not regularly fairly and blanket enforced and the standard of the forum is that they are regularly breached and that these breaches are overlooked, then I must say that it would be most unethical to suddenly impose a ban on just one of many people who breach these rules.
post #265 of 274
Quote:
Originally Posted by denimobsessed View Post
Yes, I didn't explain this adequately at all, did I?

I didn't really mean you should be MORE harsh on people who are popular or liked by you personally.

What I did mean was that you should go to great pains to ensure you don't go EASY on people who you like.
Agreed.

Quote:
I'm not sure that in the Laurie situation that I mentioned everyone got a warning. I have NO IDEA who got a warning, for all I know I was the only one. Given that Lauried suddenly appeared in the I LOVE list of the main agitator against me in that situation, I think it's highly likely they were all sitting around having a good bitch about me over the PM system and that Laurie only issued the warning to me as a way of further antagonising (and trolling) me and for the sole purpose of impressing her friends! If this is true it's a GROSS abuse of her power. I am NOT accusing Laurie of this at all. It's only being given here as a POSSIBLE scenario and an example on how people will see things if pains aren't taken to ensure you are seen to never go easy on those you like.
This does not concern me, but you and Laurie. I will say that Laurie is our head mod for a reason and that I doubt she engaged in this kind of unethical behavior and this may just be something you will have to let go.

Quote:
^^^ YES IT DOES concern NAV about other people's bans or lack thereof. How else can he guage if his own ban was fair or not. You can say "it's in the rules" but that is unfair and entrapment in some cases. If those rules are not regularly fairly and blanket enforced and the standard of the forum is that they are regularly breached and that these breaches are overlooked, then I must say that it would be most unethical to suddenly impose a ban on just one of many people who breach these rules.
While I see what you're trying to say, you need to realize that NAV broke the rules and got banned for it. His ban was fair beause he broke the rules. The mods came to that decision collectively and that was final. The issue of consistency is completely another matter. All I'm trying to say is that NAV knows why he was banned and that it was fair.
post #266 of 274
Quote:
Originally Posted by denimobsessed View Post

I'm not sure that in the Laurie situation that I mentioned everyone got a warning. I have NO IDEA who got a warning, for all I know I was the only one. Given that Lauried suddenly appeared in the I LOVE list of the main agitator against me in that situation, I think it's highly likely they were all sitting around having a good bitch about me over the PM system and that Laurie only issued the warning to me as a way of further antagonising (and trolling) me and for the sole purpose of impressing her friends! If this is true it's a GROSS abuse of her power. I am NOT accusing Laurie of this at all. It's only being given here as a POSSIBLE scenario and an example on how people will see things if pains aren't taken to ensure you are seen to never go easy on those you like.
No such thing has happened. I have not had bitchfests about you or others. No one can even SEE who gets warned or who gets infractions except the mods. So if I did it to "impress" people, then well, they would have to blindly trust that I did it because they would have no visible proof of it.

Additionally, I had no idea I was on anyone's e-love list. I actually had to go check to see what you were talking about.

Furthermore, I have given warnings and infractions to people I like and people who are popular around here. It happens.

And honestly, this has NOTHING to do with me and the apparent residual issues surrounding warnings.
post #267 of 274
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by designerdesire View Post
You want an explanation of why you were banned, yes?
No (thus, strawman #1, assuming that much of your previous arguments rests on this assumption ). I perfectly understand WHY I was banned. I wanted an explanation for why I was banned unfairly. "Unfairly" because of reasons #1 and #2 in my original post (and I guess we can throw in that other reason of PMs should be kept private).

Quote:
Originally Posted by designerdesire View Post
1. You broke the rules by disrespecting someone else, specifically by calling them a cunt, among other things.
Strawman. And by the way, I only started using the term, "strawman," in this thread because shelley was being a troll. Unless you approve of shelley's behavior in this thread, I find you criticizing me spinning shelley's provoking into a logical debate extremely short-sighted. I never treated you as another "philosophical subject," so don't displace your anger on me, okay.

Quote:
Originally Posted by designerdesire View Post
2. The ban is not unfair. You broke the rules.
Strawman #2. I never said the ban was unfair because I didn't break any rules.

Quote:
Originally Posted by designerdesire View Post
3. It's not wrong to want an explanation, but annoying that by page 11 you STILL don't get it.
And what is it that I don't get?

Quote:
Originally Posted by designerdesire View Post
And, just to say it ONCE more, other people's bans (or lack thereof) don't concern you.
What is this, a dictatorship where I can't examine authority?
post #268 of 274
Quote:
Originally Posted by designerdesire View Post
You questioned.
You got an answer.

We do have carte blanche.

HF is not a democracy, first off. And, it's actually for a healthy government. The government has checks WITHIN ITSELF. Ordinary citizens do not possess any power of check or balance, the branches within the government do. The mods check and balance one another.

You cannot impeach Dave.
You are not part of our "government."
We listen to, respect, and act on what members say (when they aren't calling one another cunts). This does not mean you possess any kind of right to "check" or "balance" us.

Yikes! -1 for you!



"(when they aren't calling one another cunts)"

I have been meaning to revisit this point with you also. Perhaps NAV thought that the PM system exempted him from this rule because it wasn't done on a public forum but rather over a system that is private and away from the scrutiny of society. I say cunt all the time in PMs as if you look up Wikipedia you will see that us Australians call both ourselves and each other cunts all the time and it is meant in rather a friendly manner, even as a term of endearment. If I did that on the public forum I'd expect to be banned but via PM, why should I be? I have offended NO ONE.

Also THIS IS THE IMPORTANT BIT
Dave and other mods here have gone to GREAT PAINS to show that you have NO WAY of reading the PMS directly from the system with the new format of HF.

SO HOW ON EARTH CAN YOU BE SURE OF WHETHER SOMEONE IS GUILTY OF THIS? Ok I realise that in this instance NAV has actually admitted to committing the offense. I don't agree with you that he didn't do it for literary reasons. I can see his point. I did the SAME THING with the same word. I was nearly driven off the forum by angry members when I said an eBay seller who tried to scam me was a c*nt on an open forum. That was my first lesson that Americans dont take the word as mildly as we do in Australia. However, cunt isn't really a word I use in anger. I say it affectionately or not at all, however that night I sat (just like NAV) and thought, what word can I insert to show everyone in a visual way, just how angry I am and how strongly I feel. Just telling of my anger wasn't enough. I decided calmly to insert the word. It backfired just like it has for NAV but I totally digress...

...back to the point. The point was, how can you be sure of someones guilt if you can't read from the main system what the PM actually said?
Do you just take someone's word for it? There are some really crafty cunts on here. sorry... I'm naughty (just trying to lighten the mood ) I know Dave recently received a PM that was originally sent by me and was then forwarded onto him. He said the PM was most unnacceptable and was full of swearing. The thing is, I can't for the life of me think of any PM that I have sent like that. Sure, lots of my PMs to mates on here are full of cussing, but none of those people would report me. The only PM I have EVER sent on here to someone who I was in a dispute with was sent only 1 day before the complaint was made. The timing was spot on, only that person or one of her mates would have complained as they had just told me they intended to get me kicked off. DUH! It was them. The thing is that when I'm really against someone, and they're against me, I EXPECT they will try to get me punished for any wrong doing as a further way of being nasty and vindictive (I am NOT and never have been, stupid.) THerefore I don't ever say anything that could get me punished. I DID NOT send ANY PM to my memory that was in any way full of cussing or that could be obviously construed as against the rules. I BELIEVE THE PM WAS EITHER A TOTAL FAKE OR HEAVILY DOCTORED! How could you EVER know a FORWARDED PM WAS GENUINE???
post #269 of 274
Do you even know what a straw man argument is? How did I misrepresent your argument?

You wanted to know why you were banned. [b]Your personal ban was not unfair.[b/] What may be unfair is that you were the only one banned. Clearly, the moderators did not feel that anyone else's behavior warranted a ban. Your issue is about consistency, which is a separate issue.

Quote:
What is this, a dictatorship where I can't examine authority?
Examine all you'd like, I suppose, but that won't change anything. You received a punishment for your bad behavior and that's all I really care about.

In terms of your "points" about offensive language: you weren't banned on the basis of using offensive language in passing. You used it in a disgusting manner to insult another member in a base way. The problem wasn't so much with the word "cunt" itself, insomuchas the fact you used it directly against another member.
post #270 of 274
Quote:
Originally Posted by lauriebell View Post
No such thing has happened. I have not had bitchfests about you or others. No one can even SEE who gets warned or who gets infractions except the mods. So if I did it to "impress" people, then well, they would have to blindly trust that I did it because they would have no visible proof of it.

Additionally, I had no idea I was on anyone's e-love list. I actually had to go check to see what you were talking about.

Furthermore, I have given warnings and infractions to people I like and people who are popular around here. It happens.

And honestly, this has NOTHING to do with me and the apparent residual issues surrounding warnings.

Okay... I'm happy to accept that. I did say I was just using that to describe a point.

^^^DD Yeah, I'm fine to let it go, in fact I would have already but it was too good a point to back up what I was trying to say. If it was clear all bans/punishments were made equally then I would never have had this doubt at the time.
post #271 of 274
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by designerdesire View Post
We do have carte blanche.
You have intellectual and ethical carte blanche? lol good luck with that!

Quote:
Originally Posted by designerdesire View Post
HF is not a democracy, first off. And, it's actually for a healthy government. The government has checks WITHIN ITSELF. Ordinary citizens do not possess any power of check or balance, the branches within the government do. The mods check and balance one another.
1. Dave has the final say for EVERYTHING. Nobody, not even the mods and the other admins have any checks and balances over Dave. Dave could just make a decision without peer review of the other mods and admins.
2. Ordinary citizens may not have checks and balances nominally, but they effectively still do. The government has to appeal to enough of the population, so that's a form of checks and balances.

Quote:
Originally Posted by designerdesire View Post
You cannot impeach Dave.
You are not part of our "government."
We listen to, respect, and act on what members say (when they aren't calling one another cunts). This does not mean you possess any kind of right to "check" or "balance" us.
So do it then! Listen, respect, and act on what me and others are saying! All this "You cannot impeach Dave" and "You are not part of our 'government'" talk is overdramatic diva rhetoric with a dash of spin doctorship.
post #272 of 274
Quote:
1. Dave has the final say for EVERYTHING. Nobody, not even the mods and the other admins have any checks and balances over Dave. Dave could just make a decision without peer review of the other mods and admins.
Dave does have final say for everything, but he doesn't take advantage of that. Most, if not all, admin decisions are made collectively by the mods. He values our input just as we value his.

Quote:
2. Ordinary citizens may not have checks and balances nominally, but they effectively still do. The government has to appeal to enough of the population, so that's a form of checks and balances.
Checks and balances are completely irrelevant in the case of HF. Moderators and admins are not voted in, so they are not responsible for appealing to the population. Of course, we try to because we want our members to be happy - otherwise what's the point? - but it has nothing to do with members checking or balancing us. We will always do what we think is best for the forum regardless.

Quote:
So do it then! Listen, respect, and act of what me and others are saying! All this "You cannot impeach Dave" and "You are not part of our 'government'" talk is overdramatic diva rhetoric with a dash of spin doctorship.
If anything is overdramatic, NAV, it's you. This thread, your responses, everything. You got your answer now just give it a rest. None of your whining is going to change the situation at hand. I do respect some of what you have to say, but I think that most of what you say is said disrespectfully. You are demanding, pretentious, and immature, and I simply don't have the patience for it.

Obviously you can't impeach Dave. That's not diva rhetoric or any kind of spin; it's the truth. He created and owns this forum. End of story.

You are not a moderator, and you don't run this forum. In fact, so far all I've seen you do is make it HARDER to run this forum. Believe me, NAV, that's not a spin either.
post #273 of 274
Ok... I'm going to lock this because it's just going back and forth at this point with no new progress.

I will forward Dave this thread again and if he has any additional comments, I am sure he will respond.
post #274 of 274
here's the deal. we just want to run a civil forum. please simply don't be disrespectful.

when people are really disrespectful it requires the mods or managers or myself to have to step in and make judgement calls...we can't write a rule and a punishment for everything, most things we have to just make a call on based upon the situation.

if somebody posts pictures of somebody and writes really horribly mean things all over them, then i am gonna choose to ban that person for a couple of days. if a guy calls a girl a c*nt, then i am probably gonna ban them for a bit as well. we have no technical ability and we have no desire to ever dip into a person's pm box and read messages. but if somebody is getting harassing pm's from a well known member then we may step in.

but in the end its just a forum and we would simply like it to be respectful one.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Chat
This thread is locked  
DenimBlog.com › Welcome to the DenimBlog Community! › General Topics › Chat › So this one time at banned camp...