With regret, Canadian Watcher has been banned.

Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff

Re: With regret, Canadian Watcher has been banned.

Postby conniption » Sun Jul 21, 2013 6:36 pm

"JUST IN CASE, ANYONE WHO WANTS TO VOTE ON THE CW BAN POLL IT IS LOCATED IN THE ASK ADMIN FORUM."

LINK
conniption
 
Posts: 2480
Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2012 10:01 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: With regret, Canadian Watcher has been banned.

Postby seemslikeadream » Sun Jul 21, 2013 6:39 pm

Searcher08 » Sun Jul 21, 2013 5:35 pm wrote:
seemslikeadream » Sun Jul 21, 2013 9:55 pm wrote:
brainpanhandler » Sun Jul 21, 2013 1:58 pm wrote:
I respectfully disagree with this as well. One of the "theories" that CW and her band of sycophantic cohorts allude to all the time is some back channel conspiracy by a cabal of evil freedom haters secretly working their plans to squelch dissent and creative thought on the board. The thought police! C'mon.

No need to give them any grist for that mill. Let the discussion be as public as possible.



Would you like to name the members here that you are calling her band of sycophantic cohorts?

Because if you can't or won't then maybe you should shut up...sounds like a pretty personal attack...but with a bit of oh I won't name names cause that against the rules...I can go around the rules this way...would it be some of the 21 people that voted for that thread to be shut down??

Who is "them"?


That was really helpful and sincerely said, bph
Thank you for such a snark free constructive comment. :lol2:

SLAD, My conception of Them isnt the same as Dr B P Hackenbush upthread , more


:partydance: :partydance: :partydance: V-A-N M-O-R-R-I-S-O-N :partydance: :partydance: :partydance:

Last edited by seemslikeadream on Sun Jul 21, 2013 6:41 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Mazars and Deutsche Bank could have ended this nightmare before it started.
They could still get him out of office.
But instead, they want mass death.
Don’t forget that.
User avatar
seemslikeadream
 
Posts: 32090
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:28 pm
Location: into the black
Blog: View Blog (83)

Re: With regret, Canadian Watcher has been banned.

Postby Hunter » Sun Jul 21, 2013 6:41 pm

conniption » Sun Jul 21, 2013 6:36 pm wrote:"JUST IN CASE, ANYONE WHO WANTS TO VOTE ON THE CW BAN POLL IT IS LOCATED IN THE ASK ADMIN FORUM."

LINK

Thank you for that.
Hunter
 
Posts: 1455
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2012 2:10 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: With regret, Canadian Watcher has been banned.

Postby Ben D » Sun Jul 21, 2013 6:42 pm

barracuda » Mon Jul 22, 2013 3:44 am wrote:Allow me to preemptively delegitimize the whole idea of polling this decision.

- We already have an excellent system for dealing with these situations - a panel of highly respected, longtime forum members, hand-picked by the site admin, make decisions with him based upon the infraction at hand, the past history of the poster, personal appeals by pm and forum postings, and previous moderator threads dealing with the poster and other posters in similar situations.


But then there's precedent...like when you don't like a mods ban decision...

http://rigorousintuition.ca/board2/viewtopic.php?p=507536#p507536
There is That which was not born, nor created, nor evolved. If it were not so, there would never be any refuge from being born, or created, or evolving. That is the end of suffering. That is God**.

** or Nirvana, Allah, Brahman, Tao, etc...
User avatar
Ben D
 
Posts: 2005
Joined: Sun Aug 12, 2007 8:10 pm
Location: Australia
Blog: View Blog (3)

Re: With regret, Canadian Watcher has been banned.

Postby seemslikeadream » Sun Jul 21, 2013 6:53 pm

band of sycophantic cohorts winning almost 3 to 1

non CW cohorts - No The permanent ban should stay
7
28%


band of CW's sycophantic cohorts - Yes The permanent ban should be lifted
18
72%
Last edited by seemslikeadream on Sun Jul 21, 2013 6:55 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Mazars and Deutsche Bank could have ended this nightmare before it started.
They could still get him out of office.
But instead, they want mass death.
Don’t forget that.
User avatar
seemslikeadream
 
Posts: 32090
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:28 pm
Location: into the black
Blog: View Blog (83)

Re: With regret, Canadian Watcher has been banned.

Postby Searcher08 » Sun Jul 21, 2013 6:55 pm

Ben D » Sun Jul 21, 2013 10:42 pm wrote:
barracuda » Mon Jul 22, 2013 3:44 am wrote:Allow me to preemptively delegitimize the whole idea of polling this decision.

- We already have an excellent system for dealing with these situations - a panel of highly respected, longtime forum members, hand-picked by the site admin, make decisions with him based upon the infraction at hand, the past history of the poster, personal appeals by pm and forum postings, and previous moderator threads dealing with the poster and other posters in similar situations.


But then there's precedent...like when you don't like a mods ban decision...

http://rigorousintuition.ca/board2/viewtopic.php?p=507536#p507536


I LOL-ed
User avatar
Searcher08
 
Posts: 5887
Joined: Thu Dec 20, 2007 10:21 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: With regret, Canadian Watcher has been banned.

Postby compared2what? » Sun Jul 21, 2013 6:55 pm

seemslikeadream » Sun Jul 21, 2013 9:55 pm wrote:
brainpanhandler » Sun Jul 21, 2013 1:58 pm wrote:
I respectfully disagree with this as well. One of the "theories" that CW and her band of sycophantic cohorts allude to all the time is some back channel conspiracy by a cabal of evil freedom haters secretly working their plans to squelch dissent and creative thought on the board. The thought police! C'mon.

No need to give them any grist for that mill. Let the discussion be as public as possible.



Would you like to name the members here that you are calling her band of sycophantic cohorts?

Because if you can't or won't then maybe you should shut up...sounds like a pretty personal attack...but with a bit of oh I won't name names cause that against the rules...I can go around the rules this way...would it be some of the 21 people that voted for that thread to be shut down??

Who is "them"?



If that's an issue for one...

stevie ray » Fri Jul 19, 2013 2:52 pm wrote:More disruptive than instigating hatred? I see a lot of hate here and not only a lot of hate but the celebration of it, and as far as I can tell that is very well tolerated by the moderation team if there really is a team because I don't see anyone but you piping up Wombaticus.


SLAD wrote:There is plenty of blame to go around for this one..... CW shouldn't be the one carrying all of it



Col Quisp » Sat Jul 20, 2013 9:32 am wrote:Perma-banning should be meted out evenly. That is, do not let some get away with bad behavior while others get banned for the same offenses. Not naming names. Long time members should get more chances to redeem their bad behavior. I understand keeping out the riffraff (can't remember their names), but getting rid of people who have contributed a lot to our collective knowledge seems like cutting off the nose to spite the face. You can always put people on ignore.

Was the banning because of the rant against Brekin? I admit, that was pretty reckless and stupid. But if we have to fear a humorless Big Brother to that extent, then we are in pretty deep doo doo.


stevie ray » Sat Jul 20, 2013 10:51 am wrote:I think that I, as a very hesitant poster, would appreciate a little clarification of "harmful to others" as it pertains to this message board. This is in reference to worldsastage's comment right above mine but also sort of alluded to by others as well.

I would also wonder about number of suspensions leading up to a banning as I have to ask myself whether or not those suspensions were reasonable in the first place.

Finally, as other people have commented already so sorry to repeat, why is the same behavior punished when some do it but not when others do it?


...why not for all?

I mean, I don't think it necessarily is, myself. But that's partial, not comprehensive. I just figured I had enough to make the point.
“If someone comes out of a liquor store with a weapon and 50 dollars in cash I don’t care if a Drone kills him or a policeman kills him.” -- Rand Paul
User avatar
compared2what?
 
Posts: 8383
Joined: Sun Oct 21, 2007 6:31 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: With regret, Canadian Watcher has been banned.

Postby worldsastage » Sun Jul 21, 2013 6:58 pm

conniption » Sun Jul 21, 2013 5:36 pm wrote:"JUST IN CASE, ANYONE WHO WANTS TO VOTE ON THE CW BAN POLL IT IS LOCATED IN THE ASK ADMIN FORUM."

LINK


Got it! Thanks!!!
"who is more likely to make a personal, resolute change - an optimist... or a pessimist?
I reckon The System prefers an optimist"----Coffin_dodger
worldsastage
 
Posts: 56
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2008 4:13 pm
Location: baltimore
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: With regret, Canadian Watcher has been banned.

Postby Searcher08 » Sun Jul 21, 2013 7:10 pm

worldsastage » Sun Jul 21, 2013 10:17 pm wrote:
Is Jeff ok with allowing her back if the poll suggests such and what this the threshold? On the other forum I suggested, you need at least 68% in favor of ban for there to be an actual banishment of a member, I dont know where they got that number but that is the one we use.



I like Hunter's suggestion: A set time for an open poll with two simple questions:

Should C_W remain banned?
Should we allow C_W to return?
We go with the one with 68% of the votes.

In fairness going forward I think offering such a poll option for repeated violations of the forum guidelines would be ideal. I would like to see her back even if at times I don't particularly like something she says. It's about reasonable adult discourse.

I've moderated much larger forums than this and there are always problems. On one in particular, after a series of issues the administrator decided to take a rigid and authoritarian stance regardless of what everyone else thought. It quickly devolved into a place where little disagreement but also little learning and discourse occurred. Suffice to say I left along with a number of long-term members. Those remaining ended up behaving as if they had a monopoly on "truth" and activities that questioned the leader no matter how polite, was not allowed at all. It's now has levels, some closed and some open but all must toe the line or get booted. Thank goddess this place isn't like that. The firepit usually but not always suffices. The latest flap is just one of a few, very few cases that I've seen (I miss Hugh) of repeated offenses by an individual and something has to give. A poll before banning outright is fair in my view. As for adding on other previously banned members or those who choose to leave to this poll, I don't agree. C_W and should remain the focus for this particular poll. Those who choose to leave did that on their own and can always return if they wish.

My dos pesos.


Thank you for that - I changed the Poll based on feedback from Hunter - (and from Cuda, who then boycotted it, which cracked me up :) )
User avatar
Searcher08
 
Posts: 5887
Joined: Thu Dec 20, 2007 10:21 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: With regret, Canadian Watcher has been banned.

Postby compared2what? » Sun Jul 21, 2013 7:11 pm

seemslikeadream » Sun Jul 21, 2013 5:53 pm wrote:band of sycophantic cohorts winning almost 3 to 1

non CW cohorts - No The permanent ban should stay
7
28%


band of CW's sycophantic cohorts - Yes The permanent ban should be lifted
18
72%


Great. And when that's done, I guess we can started on the others who are plenty to blame, whoever they are.

It wasn't a nice thing for him to have said. But is it really that impossible to see that almost EVERYBODY vents without naming names sometimes for very understandable reasons -- some good, some bad, but usually including not wanting to pick fights with them -- ALL THE TIME?

....

I don't know. Asking who's being spoken of once is always totally justified, imo. But obviously you should suit yourself and not me.
____________________

ON EDIT: It's been brought to my attention that it might not be clear that every post I quoted in my previous response asserts that posters here are doing some culpably bad and objectionable thing without naming them.

I have no problem with any of them. My point was that if it was wrong for bph, it should be just as wrong for everyone. But if it's not, everyone should have the same right to say something's bothering them without either throwing down about it themselves or being attacked ad infinitum.

Just my opinion.
Last edited by compared2what? on Sun Jul 21, 2013 7:25 pm, edited 1 time in total.
“If someone comes out of a liquor store with a weapon and 50 dollars in cash I don’t care if a Drone kills him or a policeman kills him.” -- Rand Paul
User avatar
compared2what?
 
Posts: 8383
Joined: Sun Oct 21, 2007 6:31 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: With regret, Canadian Watcher has been banned.

Postby seemslikeadream » Sun Jul 21, 2013 7:24 pm

Did anyone here call the 7 members of RI that voted for CW to be permanently banned names like a little child?
Mazars and Deutsche Bank could have ended this nightmare before it started.
They could still get him out of office.
But instead, they want mass death.
Don’t forget that.
User avatar
seemslikeadream
 
Posts: 32090
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:28 pm
Location: into the black
Blog: View Blog (83)

Re: With regret, Canadian Watcher has been banned.

Postby compared2what? » Sun Jul 21, 2013 7:33 pm

seemslikeadream » Sun Jul 21, 2013 6:24 pm wrote:Did anyone here call the 7 members of RI that voted for CW to be permanently banned names like a little child?


I wouldn't have said so. But I'll admit it's close to the boundary. The thing is, though, SLAD....You express yourself in equally strong terms when you don't care for how other people are behaving. And you don't always name names. In fact, usually you don't.

I've always thought your reasons for doing that were more good than bad.

But if you have a serious problem and you're sure it's what you think it is and not what I think it is, stick to your guns.

The truth is that people say things that are just as bad or worse about me without naming names on a pretty regular basis sometimes. And maybe I'm wrong not to make a bigger deal of it than I do. But who cares? My point is that I'm not an impartial judge.

Anyway. I wasn't trying to boss you. If I made the conflict more and not less heated, I apologize. That's the opposite of what I intended.
“If someone comes out of a liquor store with a weapon and 50 dollars in cash I don’t care if a Drone kills him or a policeman kills him.” -- Rand Paul
User avatar
compared2what?
 
Posts: 8383
Joined: Sun Oct 21, 2007 6:31 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: With regret, Canadian Watcher has been banned.

Postby Searcher08 » Sun Jul 21, 2013 7:42 pm

compared2what? » Sun Jul 21, 2013 11:11 pm wrote:
seemslikeadream » Sun Jul 21, 2013 5:53 pm wrote:band of sycophantic cohorts winning almost 3 to 1

non CW cohorts - No The permanent ban should stay
7
28%


band of CW's sycophantic cohorts - Yes The permanent ban should be lifted
18
72%


Great. And when that's done, I guess we can started on the others who are plenty to blame, whoever they are.

It wasn't a nice thing for him to have said. But is it really that impossible to see that almost EVERYBODY vents without naming names sometimes for very understandable reasons -- some good, some bad, but usually including not wanting to pick fights with them -- ALL THE TIME?

....

I don't know. Asking who's being spoken of once is always totally justified, imo. But obviously you should suit yourself and not me.


I appreciate what your saying, the problem with it from my PoV is that it always creates more problems than it's worth. People can be left wondering "where they talking about me?". It can be very destructive. When I look back on many of the interactions in various Icke threads they have that flavour. There is a cumulative effect that kind of lowers the tone. So that gets said, I then refer to bph as Dr B P Hackenbush etc etc

On what might seem like a tangent, but it isnt, one of the posters I have come to value enormously here is 8bit. Whatever the word for "being able to interact in a way whereby the stories and values that weave our lives get shared without it being a big deal".

Perhaps it is just a learning styles thing... Mindmappers and Harvard Referencers trying to get along <wistful pondering...>
User avatar
Searcher08
 
Posts: 5887
Joined: Thu Dec 20, 2007 10:21 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: With regret, Canadian Watcher has been banned.

Postby barracuda » Sun Jul 21, 2013 7:46 pm

Searcher08 » Sun Jul 21, 2013 3:55 pm wrote:
Ben D » Sun Jul 21, 2013 10:42 pm wrote:
barracuda » Mon Jul 22, 2013 3:44 am wrote:Allow me to preemptively delegitimize the whole idea of polling this decision.

- We already have an excellent system for dealing with these situations - a panel of highly respected, longtime forum members, hand-picked by the site admin, make decisions with him based upon the infraction at hand, the past history of the poster, personal appeals by pm and forum postings, and previous moderator threads dealing with the poster and other posters in similar situations.


But then there's precedent...like when you don't like a mods ban decision...

http://rigorousintuition.ca/board2/viewtopic.php?p=507536#p507536


I LOL-ed


How very middle school. LOL away, by all means, but my post linked by Ben D is exactly what I stated in my list, a personal appeal. I didn't set a precedent. That avenue has always been available when member have a disagreement with the mods. Why is that so? Because it's a discussion forum, hello.
User avatar
barracuda
 
Posts: 12890
Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2007 5:58 pm
Location: Niles, California
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: With regret, Canadian Watcher has been banned.

Postby barracuda » Sun Jul 21, 2013 7:49 pm

seemslikeadream » Sun Jul 21, 2013 3:53 pm wrote:band of sycophantic cohorts winning almost 3 to 1

non CW cohorts - No The permanent ban should stay
7
28%


band of CW's sycophantic cohorts - Yes The permanent ban should be lifted
18
72%


The socks are "winning".
User avatar
barracuda
 
Posts: 12890
Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2007 5:58 pm
Location: Niles, California
Blog: View Blog (0)

PreviousNext

Return to Ask Admin [old version/not in use]

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests