ernest_t_bass;1463288 wrote:F4F (and other mods) - I begged for like_that and hasbeen to be allowed back in the exercise thread, if they promised to not hurt feelz anymore... why was that not honored?
GoChiefs;1463328 wrote:Because thats not how thread bans work. The point of them are to try to derail people being assholes to begin with, not be assholes, get banned, promise to not be an assole, then have the thread ban lifted.
GoChiefs;1463328 wrote:Because thats not how thread bans work. The point of them are to try to derail people being assholes to begin with, not be assholes, get banned, promise to not be an assole, then have the thread ban lifted.
like_that;1463337 wrote:In our defense, said was the one who derailed the thread. We just pretty much told him how much of a dipshit he is.
I see. I did not derail that thread. I can back up everything I posted.like_that;1463337 wrote:In our defense, said was the one who derailed the thread. We just pretty much told him how much of a dipshit he is.
GoChiefs;1463343 wrote:Why not just let it go to begin with?
ernest_t_bass;1463225 wrote:Please change thread title to tl;dr.
I think you guys are confusing the threads.said_aouita;1463348 wrote:I see. I did not derail that thread. I can back up everything I posted.
It's all the dipshits who were dumb enough to reply to me derailed the thread.
Exactly.
Just because I have poor taste in humor and "lol'ed" at some idiots who died doing something very stupid should not be considered derailment.Fly4Fun;1463352 wrote:
Said did derail the dayton thread.
I initially agree, I think it's a difference in opinion as I defend in that thread. But I think at some point the issue should be dropped, hence Heretic eventually banning you.said_aouita;1463354 wrote:Just because I have poor taste in humor and "lol'ed" at some idiots who died doing something very stupid should not be considered derailment.
After reading this, I change my vote.Fly4Fun;1463245 wrote:Oh I agree that an opt-in poll is not really a good indicator of the feelings of an entiregroup as there are plenty of flaws with trying to extrapolate the results of a sample to the entirety. Now if everyone answered the poll then it would have some legitimacy.
Also, none of us moderators want this to be JJHuddle. A lot of us had our fair share of issues with the moderation at JJ, even before the mass exodus. We didn't mind having the site be a no-holds barred in the beginning, but that devolved to the point where there was very little actual discussion going on in most threads and it was filled with either personal attacks or trolling being lobbed back and forth between the disagreeing sides. And then we tried to come up with rules to curb that behavior some but still allow for general shenanigans. That's also the reason that we've tried various lenient enforcement policies (3 strike system with infractions with the initial warning infraction, creating the basement so people are never permanently gone, and even more recently using threadbans in lieu of the infractions so people aren't stuck in the basement for extended periods such as DeyDurkie and Thavoice). Even with the recent threadbannings of said, like_that, and hasbeen from the exercise/fitness thread that this "bruhaha" is all about I said that I have no problem undoing the thread ban if they can refrain from resorting to personal attacks. And I genuinely wanted them back in the thread as they were providing good information in there before things got too personal between the three of them.
But I do agree that we need to somehow be proactive to get people to view the site. As I do think it's entertaining despite it's flaws.
But I miter all my joints!ZWICK 4 PREZ;1463363 wrote:After reading this, I change my vote.
Way too serious business.
Fly4Fun;1463352 wrote:I think you guys are confusing the threads.
Said did derail the dayton thread.
But said was legitimately participating in the Lifting thread before hasbeen started to repeatedly call him creep, then like_that said he would suck another man's penis, and then said retailiated with some name calling and a remark about like_that's wrestling history.
Hasbeen and Like_that were the ones who derailed that thread. But I threadbanned all 3 since all three were involved in the personal attacks by the time I saw it.
He was... he's just not raising a big stink about it.ernest_t_bass;1463368 wrote:Sounds like said should be banned too.
Fly4Fun;1463356 wrote:I initially agree, I think it's a difference in opinion as I defend in that thread. But I think at some point the issue should be dropped, hence Heretic eventually banning you.
Ok, so you found it nessesary to threaD BAN AND DELETE\ THE POSTS, BUT IT'S OK FOR YOU TO POST IT ON ANOTHER THREAD BECAUSE YOU FEEL IT SUPPORTS YOU ARGUMENT.Fly4Fun;1463352 wrote:I think you guys are confusing the threads.
Said did derail the dayton thread.
But said was legitimately participating in the Lifting thread before hasbeen started to repeatedly call him creep, then like_that said he would suck another man's penis, and then said retailiated with some name calling and a remark about like_that's wrestling history.
Hasbeen and Like_that were the ones who derailed that thread. But I threadbanned all 3 since all three were involved in the personal attacks by the time I saw it.
I highly doubt that.Fly4Fun;1463367 wrote:But I miter all my joints!
Like I have said before, I don't think there is anything wrong with having a controversial opinion. I think the issue here is that at some point, trying to justify making fun of the death of people should be dropped as it eventually just comes off as trolling the same way there was that person codysaltsman/rollredroll/coachreno that kept trying to be the counterpoint and say nothing is wrong in stuebenville on those threads. I wasn't the one who threadbanned you for your opinion, but I can understand the reasoning. At some point you should be respectful of the dead and just let it go.said_aouita;1463370 wrote:I was only replying to those individuals who disliked my taste in humor. I also don't know why it should have been dropped. Not much benefit to forums when everyone has the same opionion and agrees with each other.
When the argument is that I enforce the rules unfairly and should lose my moderator status because of actions that are not within the rules, I would think I should be allowed to defend my actions based upon what happened. You could liken it to the attorney-client privilege. The client holds the privilege, and the attorney can't divulge communications unless the client says so, EXCEPT when the client brings a suit against the attorney for malpractice, then the attorney can divulge the communications.Devils Advocate;1463372 wrote:Ok, so you found it nessesary to threaD BAN AND DELETE\ THE POSTS, BUT IT'S OK FOR YOU TO POST IT ON ANOTHER THREAD BECAUSE YOU FEEL IT SUPPORTS YOU ARGUMENT.
This makes them pissy and petty, and you a Ginormous ass.
Hope this helps.
GoChiefs;1463343 wrote:Why not just let it go to begin with?
said_aouita;1463348 wrote:Exactly.
That had zero to do with the thread and just makes you sound bitter and that you obviously can't let it go. What purpose does that post have besides trying to stir up shit?said_aouita;1463375 wrote:Hopefully it's not considered derailment by pointing out it happened in Michigan and not Ohio.
I also bit my lip so not to LOL.
Please don't ban me to the basement.
Hope this helps.
You totally missed the point, so I'll shuck it in your face again.Fly4Fun;1463378 wrote:When the argument is that I enforce the rules unfairly and should lose my moderator status because of actions that are not within the rules, I would think I should be allowed to defend my actions based upon what happened. You could liken it to the attorney-client privilege. The client holds the privilege, and the attorney can't divulge communications unless the client says so, EXCEPT when the client brings a suit against the attorney for malpractice, then the attorney can divulge the communications.
lulz sphincterDevils Advocate;1463393 wrote:You totally missed the point, so I'll shuck it in your face again.
You delted a post about somebody's penis because it was against da rules. Presumably to keep it from offending somebody. And yet you repost it to prove a point. I would of never guessed that said liked penises until you repostd it.
That's what make you the super sphincter here.
No, the posts aren't deleted but unapproved. The point here is that if there are a few people accusing me of improperly moderating, I should be able to defend myself with the facts of what the content of the posts were that warranted the moderation, otherwise, how would I defend myself? Otherwise there really isn't much I could say to defend myself is there? So therefore we'd have to take each accusation as true, wouldn't we?Devils Advocate;1463393 wrote:You totally missed the point, so I'll shuck it in your face again.
You delted a post about somebody's penis because it was against da rules. Presumably to keep it from offending somebody. And yet you repost it to prove a point. I would of never guessed that said liked penises until you repostd it.
That's what make you the super sphincter here.
GoChiefs;1463382 wrote: That had zero to do with the thread and just makes you sound bitter and that you obviously can't let it go. What purpose does that post have besides trying to stir up shit?