Canadian_Watcher's Ban Decision Poll

Moderators: DrVolin, 82_28, Elvis, Jeff

Should Jeff and TheMods be asked to re-consider their permanent ban on Canadian_Watcher?

1 No The permanent ban should stay
22
44%
2 Yes The permanent ban should be lifted
28
56%
 
Total votes : 50

Re: Canadian_Watcher's Ban Decision Poll

Postby Jerky » Tue Jul 23, 2013 3:09 am

You have yet to show me anything deeply shocking from C_W. You and her don't get along. I say it's better for the board if you ignore her if you can't take her catty rudeness. You say it's better that she be banned so you never have to look upon her blighted name again (which would be the same as you ignoring her, as far as your experience of the board was concerned).

I say it's worse to make OBVIOUSLY SINCERE insults and accusations using sarcasm and snark (Cuda saying RollingStone is a sock) than it is to make OBVIOUSLY INSINCERE (JOKING) "threats" and accusations (me with the masturbation thing, C_W with the T-word thing). Apparently, the mods and some of the favorite sons and daughters of this board think the opposite is true. That's their problem.

YOPJ
Last edited by Jerky on Tue Jul 23, 2013 3:12 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Jerky
 
Posts: 2184
Joined: Fri Apr 22, 2005 6:28 pm
Location: Toronto, ON
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Canadian_Watcher's Ban Decision Poll

Postby Jerky » Tue Jul 23, 2013 3:11 am

Oh, and the slow dribble upwards of the anti-C_W vote in this poll is a fucking farce, and I'd very much like to hear what Jeff has to say about it.

YOPJ
User avatar
Jerky
 
Posts: 2184
Joined: Fri Apr 22, 2005 6:28 pm
Location: Toronto, ON
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Canadian_Watcher's Ban Decision Poll

Postby Elvis » Tue Jul 23, 2013 3:18 am

Your "joke" was disgusting. Why don't you get lost for awhile?
"Frankly, I don't think it's a good idea but the sums proposed are enormous."
User avatar
Elvis
 
Posts: 6121
Joined: Fri Apr 11, 2008 7:24 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Canadian_Watcher's Ban Decision Poll

Postby Wombaticus Rex » Tue Jul 23, 2013 9:25 am

Jerky » Tue Jul 23, 2013 2:11 am wrote:Oh, and the slow dribble upwards of the anti-C_W vote in this poll is a fucking farce, and I'd very much like to hear what Jeff has to say about it.


:thumbsup

Image
User avatar
Wombaticus Rex
 
Posts: 10317
Joined: Wed Nov 08, 2006 6:33 pm
Location: Vermontistan
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Canadian_Watcher's Ban Decision Poll

Postby seemslikeadream » Tue Jul 23, 2013 9:44 am

I just want to know when the long long RI national nightmare will be over? Man I hope I get this extended funeral after I loose it ...actually this is exactly why I will never go out in flames here...I sure don't want to be fawned over for a month :P

just put me in the ground and shovel the dirt quickly
does announcing genocide on twitter violate terms of service?
User avatar
seemslikeadream
 
Posts: 31682
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:28 pm
Location: into the black
Blog: View Blog (83)

Re: Canadian_Watcher's Ban Decision Poll

Postby barracuda » Tue Jul 23, 2013 10:14 am

Sorry, slad, I've already got a group fawning period set aside for you in my DABDA model spreadsheet, and I'll be damned if I'm gonna re-do the whole thing.
User avatar
barracuda
 
Posts: 12887
Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2007 5:58 pm
Location: Niles, California
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Canadian_Watcher's Ban Decision Poll

Postby seemslikeadream » Tue Jul 23, 2013 11:12 am

barracuda » Tue Jul 23, 2013 9:14 am wrote:Sorry, slad, I've already got a group fawning period set aside for you in my DABDA model spreadsheet, and I'll be damned if I'm gonna re-do the whole thing.


Image
does announcing genocide on twitter violate terms of service?
User avatar
seemslikeadream
 
Posts: 31682
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:28 pm
Location: into the black
Blog: View Blog (83)

Re: Canadian_Watcher's Ban Decision Poll

Postby compared2what? » Tue Jul 23, 2013 12:08 pm

Jerky » Tue Jul 23, 2013 2:09 am wrote:You have yet to show me anything deeply shocking from C_W. You and her don't get along.


There were months and months before she started insulting and attacking me one day, out of the blue, for no reason I've ever known, during which we got along fine.

So presumably if she stopped doing that, we would again.

I say it's better for the board if you ignore her if you can't take her catty rudeness. You say it's better that she be banned so you never have to look upon her blighted name again (which would be the same as you ignoring her, as far as your experience of the board was concerned).


Like hell I do.

First of all, the choice is not between me putting her on "Ignore" and her returning.

Second of all, I didn't say I wouldn't.

Third, I'M NOT THE ONLY ONE OUT OF THE TWO OF US WHO'S CAPABLE OF DOING SOMETHING CONSTRUCTIVE.

Fourth, her name is not blighted, afaic, and neither is she. I think she's great. I just think that I -- and you, and everybody on the board -- should have the right to express an opinion without being insulted or scorned for it.



I say it's worse to make OBVIOUSLY SINCERE insults and accusations using sarcasm and snark (Cuda saying RollingStone is a sock) than it is to make OBVIOUSLY INSINCERE (JOKING) "threats" and accusations (me with the masturbation thing, C_W with the T-word thing).


Then let me know how many OBVIOUSLY SINCERE insults and accusations using sarcasm and snark from C_w you want to see. Because if you're under the impression that never happens, you're wrong.***

Also, is it somehow not getting through to you that my whole point is that ignoring and/or dismissing everything anybody says about feeling hurt, intimidated or bullied -- as well as everything they show you by way of indicating the situation doesn't arise from "goading" -- in preference of singling out two examples for narrow comparison on terms that you've selected because they favor your favorite IS FAVORITISM?

Or do you sincerely think it isn't?

Because if it's the latter, I need an explanation.

Apparently, the mods and some of the favorite sons and daughters of this board think the opposite is true. That's their problem.


If you mean me, it's not. I like candor, sincerity, and jokes. All three. And I don't think there's anything wrong with ANY PEOPLE using a little sarcasm or snark to make a point, if that's how they feel like making it. I mean, freedom-of-style is a part of freedom-of-expression. Obviously.

It's the targeting people for abuse because you disagree with them and then opting to scapegoat them rather than take responsibility for what you did that I'm objecting to.

You're ignoring that objection as if it wasn't there, btw.
________________

*** ON EDIT: That's a real offer, if you care. So let me know. It's just that since the terms are not only narrow but also subjective, I'd rather not do the work of compiling a bunch of examples that you'd be perfectly free to put in the "OBVIOUSLY INSINCERE (JOKING)" category anyway no matter what, if you don't request it.
Last edited by compared2what? on Tue Jul 23, 2013 12:29 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: Canadian_Watcher's Ban Decision Poll

Postby compared2what? » Tue Jul 23, 2013 12:20 pm

Jerky » Tue Jul 23, 2013 2:11 am wrote:Oh, and the slow dribble upwards of the anti-C_W vote in this poll is a fucking farce, and I'd very much like to hear what Jeff has to say about it.

YOPJ


I still haven't voted.
“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: Canadian_Watcher's Ban Decision Poll

Postby barracuda » Tue Jul 23, 2013 12:27 pm

Neither have I, and I'd wager that neither has American Dream.

It appears to me that perhaps the most active members who were real excited about getting to the poll and casting their votes quickly seemed to favor reconsideration of the ban, but members who took their time and waited to decide, and/or those who visit on a less regular basis, have slowly demonstrated that the support for reconsideration was always sort of lukewarm around here. The dynamic has been interesting.

I still won't vote, though. I haven't changed my mind about the poll's usefulness, which is less than nil, essentially, aside from its utility as a steam valve.

Jerky » Mon Jul 22, 2013 7:11 pm wrote:And now, 17/25. All WELL after the basic thrust of the vote had already been decided.

When will this vote be done and action be taken? Once the mods get a result they want?


It would seem you'd've preferred to close the poll when the figures met your favor, which is an odd notion of fairness, friend.
User avatar
barracuda
 
Posts: 12887
Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2007 5:58 pm
Location: Niles, California
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Canadian_Watcher's Ban Decision Poll

Postby compared2what? » Tue Jul 23, 2013 12:49 pm

Jerky » Tue Jul 23, 2013 2:09 am wrote:You have yet to show me anything deeply shocking from C_W.


Also:

I wasn't trying to show you anything shocking.

I was trying to show you that the issue wasn't personal attacks, per se, but rather responding to legitimate challenges to what you said by attacking the people who raised them.

Because the thing about using "Ignore" as the solution to that is that it would mean everyone on the board would have to defend what they said on its merits same as everybody else.

Except for people who used insults and personal attacks, who could say whatever they wanted, right or wrong.

_________________

That's kind of the opposite of fair. Was my 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: Canadian_Watcher's Ban Decision Poll

Postby compared2what? » Tue Jul 23, 2013 1:13 pm

Elvis » Tue Jul 23, 2013 2:18 am wrote:Your "joke" was disgusting. Why don't you get lost for awhile?


All due respect to you, Elvis.

But on Jerky's behalf, I think it makes a difference that he was clearly speaking out of hurt, anger and frustration in an exceptional situation. That's not his usual self.

Also, I don't think "disgusting" is the best metric. Because, you know. Different...um, strokes.

It's really the "smug little face" part that would have hurt, had it been me. Because I thought that wasn't fair. There wasn't anything smug about what brekin said. But that's about the same as barracuda's snark to RollingStone or bph's sycophant comment.

Know what I mean? Insulting, but within parameters most adults can tolerate every once in a while. And pretty common during a dispute.

That's not ideal in an ideal world, but people get mad.

ON EDIT: Not that I blame brekin for objecting. Sympathy to you, brekin.
“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: Canadian_Watcher's Ban Decision Poll

Postby brekin » Tue Jul 23, 2013 1:53 pm

compared2what? wrote:
Elvis » Tue Jul 23, 2013 2:18 am wrote:Your "joke" was disgusting. Why don't you get lost for awhile?


All due respect to you, Elvis.
But on Jerky's behalf, I think it makes a difference that he was clearly speaking out of hurt, anger and frustration in an exceptional situation. That's not his usual self.Also, I don't think "disgusting" is the best metric. Because, you know. Different...um, strokes.

It's really the "smug little face" part that would have hurt, had it been me. Because I thought that wasn't fair. There wasn't anything smug about what brekin said. But that's about the same as barracuda's snark to RollingStone or bph's sycophant comment. Know what I mean? Insulting, but within parameters most adults can tolerate every once in a while. And pretty common during a dispute. That's not ideal in an ideal world, but people get mad.ON EDIT: Not that I blame brekin for objecting. Sympathy to you, brekin.


Thanks compared2what but Jerky wasn't addressing that rather vile remark towards me - but I think wintler or barracuda. Not that it matters however. Granted someone opened that door, but then he went in and shit on the floor. To me a little crassness is fine - but there are limits. Violent sexual imagery with a request to visit a member at their home address has an odor of implied threat and is not something I want to wade through. That he hasn't been talk to about this is pretty troubling. I'm not completely sure about wintler or barracudas genders but if they are women and I assume that Jerky is a man it is even more vile (not that if they are all men or women it is a pass). It is kind of ironic that Jerky is CW's most outspoken advocate also. It seems members who have troubling deciphering where the lines of appropriate discourse are have a common cause as the RI nation goes to the polls.
If I knew all mysteries and all knowledge, and have not charity, I am nothing. St. Paul
I hang onto my prejudices, they are the testicles of my mind. Eric Hoffer
User avatar
brekin
 
Posts: 3196
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 5:21 pm
Blog: View Blog (1)

Re: Canadian_Watcher's Ban Decision Poll

Postby rollingstone » Tue Jul 23, 2013 1:55 pm

[url=/board2/viewtopic.php?p=504468#p504468]Canadian_watcher » Tue May 21, 2013 11:25 pm[/url] wrote:
Wombaticus Rex wrote:
IanEye wrote:You are not genuine or seeking truth.

Fuck off.


Image

Let us moderate. Together.



I don't know if this is going to show up how I see it on my screen, but on my screen I only see the words and then a little icon indicating that ther ought to be a picture there, but none is showing up. "Great!" I think to myself upon seeing this post. "Wombat is actually moderating, and objecting to me being told that I'm a shill and to fuck off."

So time and posts go by and later on I see this:

IanEye wrote:
Wombaticus Rex wrote:
Image

Let us moderate. Together.


.




(leaving out the analysis of Dirty Harry as a film here)

so it's spooky to me. It's spooky not as in CIA spooky but as in 'am I actually being threatened with a gun?' spooky Because I know you're all far away and shit but to me it is not cool at all to be mad at someone and post a picture of someone aiming a gun in their general direction. It sorta says lynch mob ... call me crazy. So that's where that's coming from. I do hope I've made myself clear and that you understand it now.

Sorry for the confusion, but I still don't know what the image is that you tried to post and that ianeye "punch in the face" "fuck you" was riffing off of, but it didn't look good.


Can a moderator explain the above so the group can understand how the incident referenced does not qualify as unequal enforcement of the rules? IOW, I'd like to know how this was let go. What logic was used in this case that is not being used for C_W?

It might be confusing but it looks from here like the code will create a link to the page I am taking this from and I hope that will be the case. It is worth looking at that page to see the development of the issue, too.
rollingstone
 
Posts: 14
Joined: Sat Jul 20, 2013 1:10 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Canadian_Watcher's Ban Decision Poll

Postby rollingstone » Tue Jul 23, 2013 1:57 pm

also, all things considered, CW's commentary does not - in any way - seem to indicate that she cannot control herself as is being alleged repeatedly in this thread.
rollingstone
 
Posts: 14
Joined: Sat Jul 20, 2013 1:10 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

PreviousNext

Return to Ask Admin

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest