Zero Tolerance

First of all, I did not receive a single unban request from you, Zap.

Then the system is broken. I sent one. I got the verification screen, the whole bit.

Second of all, before you accuse me of being "overzealous", I would like to remind you that I sent you a PM asking you to please tone down the sarcastic and frankly rude nature of the majority of your posts.

And I did - greatly. Which is why I sinceerely wonder what on earth I was banned for.

I received no reply.

I didn't know you expected one?

After what seemed like having my request be ignored by you, under the zero tolerance rules, I handed out 24 hours.

Ignored? Where?

What did I post? Where?

When they do, if you don't hear from a moderator after submitting an unban request, then log on with a sock and PM.

As I explained, I tried to make a sock, but the activation mail was never received by me.

Do you normally receive unban requests via email? If so, I would wager the boards email mechanism has been broken in the last few days.

The fact that you accused me of being overzealous in public-rather than PM me and ask what the problem was-doesn't enhance my perception of your character.

How was I supposed to PM you when I was banned and could not make a sock?

How was I supposed to know it was you who banned me?

I also await some form of information of exactly what I wrote (after reading your PM) that was a bannable offense?

For your information, yours was the second ban I have handed out in my entire moderating career. It takes a lot to get me to do this and therefore you must have really stepped over the line.

So point out where I did it.

/Z

 

I was thinking maybe we could just open a special flame and trolling thread, where people can hurl partisan insults at each other, individuals can gripe endlessely about how the moderators are treating them unfairly, and moderators can grudgingly defend their policies in a brusk and dismissive manner. We can call it the "Zero Tolerance" thread.

 

I was thinking maybe we could just open a special flame and trolling thread, where people can hurl partisan insults at each other, individuals can gripe endlessely about how the moderators are treating them unfairly, and moderators can grudgingly defend their policies in a brusk and dismissive manner. We can call it the "Zero Tolerance" thread.

We already have that. They call it JCC.

 

I suggest you follow the advice Dick Cheney gave Senator Leahy

Ok, I got banned for asking JediSmuggler if he had an objective source blocker on his browser (yes...you read that right) but he can say "F U" to me???

This is absolutely frickin ridiculous. You should change the name of the policy to "Zero Tolerance only if I disagree with you and/or you're a liberal". At least that way you're honest about it.

 

Zap,

You didn't tone down anything. And yes, I would've expected some kind of response to the PM, especially since you seem to disagree with my assessment of your posting style.

I hate to come across as heavy-handed, I really do, but I felt like you were baiting me.

More later, I'm in the middle of a case.

Peace,

V-03

 

The problem, as I see it, is that the mods do a great job like 95% of the time, but then sometimes when things fall through the cracks, you guys dont' like to admit that mistakes could have been made.

Like I PM'D Mr. 44 about, one poster has made several posts with grand negative generalizations about liberals or even Europeans and the mods seem to be tired of dealing with it and just let half his statements go, and then still ban others for reletively minor infractions.

Again, I myself still fail to see how stating that conservatives are giving Bush less scrutiny on his war record than they give Kerry is untrue OR a bannable offense. Seems a little ridiculous to me, that's why I protested by being disobedient and took my weeklong ban.

Also, Vader, I tried creating a sock when banned, but it doesn't work. I don't think you can create a sock when banned (unless you use a new and different e-mail address which not everyone has.)

 

You didn't tone down anything.

Yes I did. If you knew what I could have posted instead, you wouldn't say that.

And yes, I would've expected some kind of response to the PM,

Okay, I didn't expect you did.

especially since you seem to disagree with my assessment of your posting style.

I disagree QUITE a lot.

Yes, I am somteimes a bit sarcastic, it's called humor, you should look it up sometimes (There, see, an example of )

But seriously, point out to me which posting, posted after you sent me the PM, which constites a bannable offense.

I agree that with some stretched imagination one could, possibly, label some of the postings I did before your PM as slightly caustic. A tiny bit. Nothing that EVER would be bannable by my definition - but now it's not my definition that goes, now is it?

But after it? Which post caused the banning? What exactly did I do?

I'm still wondering. It's a simple question, really.

I know that technically moderators can ban at their whim, but I think it would be common courtesy to tell me what I suppose to have done.

/Z

 

But after it? Which post caused the banning? What exactly did I do?

Ok, here goes. You were banned for labelling others as theism trolls, calling someone's ideas pseudojustification, claiming you would build a special track and sidecar for those who didn't agree, and claimed you were allowed to be arrogant in that thread.

Is anything still unclear, or did that jog your memory?

Now, beyond that, this thread should be winding down. Does anyone else have any legitimate concerns over what is expected?

Because this thread was never intended to be used as a rantbox, where every person gets to complain about how they feel slighted.

Or even worse in my opinion, as a means to argue every loophole to death.

And I'll let certain people in on a secret.

The entire "I'm new, so don't hold it against me when I get all sarcastic" schtick is getting mighty old.

If that applies to you, take the warning to heart. (yes, I erased your post. Don't do that again)

If anyone has a specific concern about what happened to them, take it up with that specific mod, through the established procedure.

Because quite frankly, I'm getting mighty tired of all the babysitting, and the feigning of ignorance.

Our entire point of this was to improve the forum, for everyone, because we were getting complaints.

Instead, people seem intent on finding every way around the system, I guess out of some weird sense of self-deprecating rebellion.

Last week, I would have never seen the wisdom of the second phase of this experiment, but now I'm not so sure. It will certainly be a lot easier.

 

Well, whatever, I agree, close this thread its pointless now.

 

Zap-

You seem really bent on challenging my authority as a moderator and pushing my buttons, don't you?

I rarely react in this manner, but for once I'm going to say what's on my mind. I hope that this doesn't cost me any respect from anybody, but if it does, then so be it.

95% of the time I let a lot of things slide, because I believe that it is better to try and use honey instead of vinegar in terms of moderating style, but that doesn't seem to be good enough for you.

Mr44 delineated just about everything, but I will reiterate it.

Here goes:


Yes I did. If you knew what I could have posted instead, you wouldn't say that.

I suspect I already know, as your posting style in general has led me to believe that you a) see yourself as superior to others; and b) feel that the rules don't apply to you. This is not the case in any way, shape or form.

If you had posted "what you wanted", then you might have found yourself disinvited to be a member of the JC for quite some time. You are as bound by the TOS as I am, and you ignored a PM warning. Simply stated:

"I was a little mean when I could've been a LOT mean, SO THERE" neither alters that fact nor absolves you of being bound by the rules. Frankly, you have pushed the envelope of banning numerous times for a very long time; we have taken a harder stance now so that the tolerance level for your shenanigans has dropped. I'm sorry if you dislike this state of affairs, but no-one is forcing you to post here. I personally like to warn and gently steer discussion back to civility before hitting the ban button, but I felt as if you had left me no choice.


I disagree QUITE a lot.

I'm sorry we disagree. Referring to theists as "trolls" who use "pseudoarguments from scripture who try and derail threads and set the discussion back one level" (as well as your quip about a racetrack and sidecars) was well over the line. That occured after I PMed you, and as such, I felt the ban was warranted.

Yes, I am somteimes a bit sarcastic, it's called humor, you should look it up sometimes (There, see, an example of )

There are degrees of humor, especially online and even more especially when it's clear that other parties don't find it funny. If someone asks you to stop and you continue to ridicule them, you are violating the TOS. By the way, your humor comes across as biting and mean a good deal of the time. Can you be funny without sounding arrogant?

It's a problem I had in real life for a long time, and it took some hard lessons-including one very serious smackdown during my fourth year of medical school-before I picked that one up.

But seriously, point out to me which posting, posted after you sent me the PM, which constites a bannable offense.

Already done, by me and Mr44.

I agree that with some stretched imagination one could, possibly, label some of the postings I did before your PM as slightly caustic. A tiny bit. Nothing that EVER would be bannable by my definition - but now it's not my definition that goes, now is it?

Do you honestly believe that? Your posts can be very, very condescending, and often enough to label them such as a general rule, rather than an exception. And since you insist on beating this horse, then yes, it's my definition of the TOS that counts. I really hate to say that, because it makes me sound like a jerk, but if you insist that I say it, I will bite the bullet and spit it out.

But after it? Which post caused the banning? What exactly did I do?

I'm still wondering. It's a simple question, really.

I know that technically moderators can ban at their whim, but I think it would be common courtesy to tell me what I suppose to have done.

I did tell you; it was for baiting and inflammatory commentary on pg 68 (?69) of the atheism thread, made after you got my PM request to tone it down.

I'm through with this discussion with you.

Peace,

V-03

EDIT: See first p