| Author | Thread |
|
|
11/02/2007 07:02:09 PM · #26 |
Originally posted by frisca:
I do appreciate your thoughts on this. I spoke in that thread, up until the lock (which was a discussion, not a unilateral decision on my part) as just myself, not as or on behalf of Site Council. I spoke my mind on a topic that concerned me, and I agree, I did response to OT posts because they struck such a chord with me that I could not ignore them. My biggest, and most egregious mistake was to be both myself and SC in the same thread. Something I normally never do, and am unlikely to ever do again.
And while SC may not be perfect, I have to say, that we have more often than not, suffered more attacks than we have levelled. |
This is probably true, and I've defended you guys on many issues of site governance before.
It's the personal things, as you said yourself, that get out of hand and have not place being dealt with. It's simply a conflict of interests. You can't be the judge of your own case, it just doesn't work.
|
|
|
|
11/02/2007 07:02:32 PM · #27 |
Originally posted by routerguy666:
so seeing this particular rant appear is about as surprising as watching the sun rise in the morning. |
does this happen at weekends as well?
|
|
|
|
11/02/2007 07:02:53 PM · #28 |
| wavelength, unless you're willing to support you hefty accusations against Council (and me) with some evidence, I would ask you to kindly retract, or rephrase your comments about our actions, specifically the "pack of dogs" comment. |
|
|
|
11/02/2007 07:02:54 PM · #29 |
|
|
|
11/02/2007 07:03:10 PM · #30 |
Originally posted by wavelength:
Originally posted by Simms:
you're out of order mate. |
No, I'm not. Simple as that. You don't know, and I don't feel like dredging up the past any more than I have. |
S
Surely what you are doing there is exactly the same as what Frisca is being accused of. You are having your say, then sticking your fingers in your ears and not wanting to hear what other have to say.
I'll willingly accept a PM with the whole story. |
|
|
|
11/02/2007 07:04:50 PM · #31 |
Originally posted by frisca:
wavelength, unless you're willing to support you hefty accusations against Council (and me) with some evidence, I would ask you to kindly retract, or rephrase your comments about our actions, specifically the "pack of dogs" comment. |
link
2nd or 3rd page of that was a nice experience for me, as far as the pack of dogs thing goes.
Message edited by author 2007-11-02 19:05:33. |
|
|
|
11/02/2007 07:05:22 PM · #32 |
Originally posted by Simms:
Originally posted by aerogurl:
no offense, but the topic quickly changed from peoples general feedback about an article to peoples personal opinion on homosexuality. I don't think she locked it because of your comment, I think she locked it because it was teetering on a possibly dangerous subject and it had lived its purpose. What more really needed to be said? If you want to discuss it further I suggest making a thread about homosexuality or whatever subject you choose and then discuss away! |
But surely thats just the natural flow of conversation.. When you are sitting & talking with friends do you follow a strict critera of what you plan to talk about? of course not, good conversation naturally flows from one subject into the next, sprouting other lines of topic along the way. |
I agree that normal conversation flow but this is a forum and the words "off topic" in relations to forums exist for a reason. If I went to the thread and wanted to read what others thought of the article, I would have to sift through 130+ posts to read what I wanted. Other websites I belong to delete individual posts for being off topic in a thread, at least you are allowed to veer off topic here until finally the SC rains it in and closes it down. I think they do a great job. Based on my experience on forums, I think that this SC is right in the middle between "strictly by the rules" and "no rules, free for all". I assume it would be hard to give your opinions while at the same time knowing when others or even yourself have gone too far, breached a rule, etc.. I think they do a great job for what they have to put up with.
|
|
|
|
11/02/2007 07:09:48 PM · #33 |
Originally posted by routerguy666:
Originally posted by frisca:
wavelength, unless you're willing to support you hefty accusations against Council (and me) with some evidence, I would ask you to kindly retract, or rephrase your comments about our actions, specifically the "pack of dogs" comment. |
link
2nd or 3rd page of that was a nice experience for me, as far as the pack of dogs thing goes. |
I had a very quick skim, and did not see what you may have been referring to. If you could quote a post, even to start from, it would help. Its a long thread.
ETA: I think I may have found what you are referring to. After reading that thread, I cannot agree with your conclusion that you were baselessly attacked by a "pack of dogs". Seems to me you antagonized that pack pretty good to start with. Also, I did not participate in that thread.
Message edited by author 2007-11-02 19:16:46. |
|
|
|
11/02/2007 07:13:47 PM · #34 |
Originally posted by frisca:
Originally posted by routerguy666:
Originally posted by frisca:
wavelength, unless you're willing to support you hefty accusations against Council (and me) with some evidence, I would ask you to kindly retract, or rephrase your comments about our actions, specifically the "pack of dogs" comment. |
link
2nd or 3rd page of that was a nice experience for me, as far as the pack of dogs thing goes. |
I had a very quick skim, and did not see what you may have been referring to. If you could quote a post, even to start from, it would help. Its a long thread. |
Reading through it myself now.. I cant believe I am willingly reading another post regarding whats legal and isnt in Basic editing.. gotta love friday nights in (with a bottle of wine or two). |
|
|
|
11/02/2007 07:15:31 PM · #35 |
Originally posted by frisca:
I had a very quick skim, and did not see what you may have been referring to. If you could quote a post, even to start from, it would help. Its a long thread. |
Search in it for my post "Yeah I think people who have the power to disqualify contenstants in a contest should not be participants in the same contest. It's a conflict of interest." and start reading from there.
Anyway, I don't see why wavelength should have to offer proof to back up what he posts or be asked to retract it. |
|
|
|
11/02/2007 07:17:16 PM · #36 |
Originally posted by frisca:
wavelength, unless you're willing to support you hefty accusations against Council (and me) with some evidence, I would ask you to kindly retract, or rephrase your comments about our actions, specifically the "pack of dogs" comment. |
You'll just have to lock me up, judge, because I don't want to testify.
I'll just have to say that that's my opinion on the subject, consider it a really sloppy "friend of the court" brief, if you will.
|
|
|
|
11/02/2007 07:18:54 PM · #37 |
Originally posted by routerguy666:
Originally posted by frisca:
I had a very quick skim, and did not see what you may have been referring to. If you could quote a post, even to start from, it would help. Its a long thread. |
Search in it for my post "Yeah I think people who have the power to disqualify contenstants in a contest should not be participants in the same contest. It's a conflict of interest." and start reading from there.
Anyway, I don't see why wavelength should have to offer proof to back up what he posts or be asked to retract it. |
Well, we are held to that standard by the users of this site. Why should we have to suffer an accusation without proof? Why should anyone be allowed to claim a "fact" without backing it up? An allegation without proof carries no weight; it is not persuasive. You don't have to back it up, but you won't be believed. |
|
|
|
11/02/2007 07:23:03 PM · #38 |
Originally posted by frisca:
Originally posted by routerguy666:
Originally posted by frisca:
I had a very quick skim, and did not see what you may have been referring to. If you could quote a post, even to start from, it would help. Its a long thread. |
Search in it for my post "Yeah I think people who have the power to disqualify contenstants in a contest should not be participants in the same contest. It's a conflict of interest." and start reading from there.
Anyway, I don't see why wavelength should have to offer proof to back up what he posts or be asked to retract it. |
Well, we are held to that standard by the users of this site. Why should we have to suffer an accusation without proof? Why should anyone be allowed to claim a "fact" without backing it up? An allegation without proof carries no weight; it is not persuasive. You don't have to back it up, but you won't be believed. |
Then don't believe it. When you tell him he should back it up or retract it then you, in a position of power, come off yet again as attempting to control what people can or can not say. Look I have nothing against you, but the majority of appearances you make in the forums are either telling people what not to say, threatening to and/or locking threads, or posting reminders about what a grueling job SC has and how people should show more gratitude.
If that is the result of group discussions of which you are the ultimate voice, you may consider asking someone else to take a turn playing bad cop so that you don't get stuck looking like the site facist time and again.
And while you may very well be posting hundreds of other jovial posts per day, I don't seem them. And I do spend an inordinate amount of time browsing here, so it is probably safe to say that my point of view is not atypical.
None of which is meant to be an insult. Hope you don't take it as such. |
|
|
|
11/02/2007 07:26:48 PM · #39 |
Message edited by author 2007-11-02 19:45:11. |
|
|
|
11/02/2007 07:28:52 PM · #40 |
Originally posted by routerguy666:
Look I have nothing against you, but the majority of appearances you make in the forums are either telling people what not to say, threatening to and/or locking threads, or posting reminders about what a grueling job SC has and how people should show more gratitude.
If that is the result of group discussions of which you are the ultimate voice, you may consider asking someone else to take a turn playing bad cop so that you don't get stuck looking like the site facist time and again.
|
I was going to PM a reply to you about this part, but I think you deserve a reply in the forum - this is actually a very valid point you have made.
Message edited by author 2007-11-02 19:29:59. |
|
|
|
11/02/2007 07:40:07 PM · #41 |
Originally posted by routerguy666:
Originally posted by frisca:
Well, we are held to that standard by the users of this site. Why should we have to suffer an accusation without proof? Why should anyone be allowed to claim a "fact" without backing it up? An allegation without proof carries no weight; it is not persuasive. You don't have to back it up, but you won't be believed. |
Then don't believe it. When you tell him he should back it up or retract it then you, in a position of power, come off yet again as attempting to control what people can or can not say. Look I have nothing against you, but the majority of appearances you make in the forums are either telling people what not to say, threatening to and/or locking threads, or posting reminders about what a grueling job SC has and how people should show more gratitude.
If that is the result of group discussions of which you are the ultimate voice, you may consider asking someone else to take a turn playing bad cop so that you don't get stuck looking like the site facist time and again.
And while you may very well be posting hundreds of other jovial posts per day, I don't seem them. And I do spend an inordinate amount of time browsing here, so it is probably safe to say that my point of view is not atypical.
None of which is meant to be an insult. Hope you don't take it as such. |
I'm not insulted, but I think you are wrong. Any user can look up the last 10 threads I have posted to. A bunch were birthday threads, one is this one, one is the one this one is spawned off of, one answers a question about Noel_NZ, and the post where you suggest I tell people to "show gratitude" was in fact, one where I was hoping and trying to give helpful tips to everyone on how to best use the ticket system. The bit about "gratitude" was the very last point, and not at all the most salient one in that thread I made, so I do take exception to your mischaracterization of my intention and action. You claim you read these forums, I'm surprised you missed all that. |
|
|
|
11/02/2007 07:45:17 PM · #42 |
Originally posted by klstover:
SC are users too, I thought. :( |
you thought correctly. And they do good job. there are times we do not agree but mostly we all appreciate the work they do for us. |
|
|
|
11/02/2007 07:47:29 PM · #43 |
Originally posted by zxaar:
Originally posted by klstover:
SC are users too, I thought. :( |
you thought correctly. And they do good job. there are times we do not agree but mostly we all appreciate the work they do for us. |
This is certainly true.
|
|
|
|
11/02/2007 07:50:56 PM · #44 |
| cool, found the *turn rants off* button so dpc will seem rosier now :) |
|
|
|
11/02/2007 07:59:08 PM · #45 |
I am going to be honest with all of you and speak from the heart. This is me showing some weakness now. I'm tired, and I'm sorry to have engaged in this back and forth for so long. I will admit when I am wrong and I will fight when I am right. I have done both here tonight.
I'm sorry some of you feel attacked by SC. I promise you we don't calculate things, nor do we have 'whipping boys.' We recognize the value and importance of this site's users, and the charismatic people within this community. We do what we can to keep harmony in the community. It is our sole aim.
We often feel and are attacked, and we more often than not, stay silent. That is soul crushing. Appreciate me, or don't. I don't demand anything from anyone here but respect because that is what I aim to give all of you.
Please don't mistake the style of my speach for condescension. My aim is professionalism and to be clearly and plainly understood. I appreciate my friends, and I appreciate the honest thoughts of those who have criticisms of me. I have taken those to heart and will do my best to not repeat my mistakes.
that said, I do not wish to continue participating in this thread, so if anyone wishes to speak to me about what I've said or done, I welcome private messages (though my email is wonky right now, so it might take a day for it to get to me). cheers and goodnight. |
|
|
|
11/02/2007 08:18:57 PM · #46 |
I don't mean to stray from the topic but I think this question goes along with the discussion.....
What do I need to do to become a whipping boy? I'll be bad - I promise. |
|
|
|
11/02/2007 08:24:48 PM · #47 |
Thanks to all who tried to see my side. For the record; I have no other problems with SC. This thread started because I felt that frisca was being unfair in the other thread.
IMO she should have just locked the thread after my comment. That would not have bothered me at all. BUT to refute my last post with hers and THEN lock the thread was uncalled for. There have been MANY MANY MANY times when I would have liked to have made my comments the last post and then lock the thread. However, I don't have that power!
IMO this should never happen again. If SC wants to lock it, they should not be allowed "one last post" with no one else allowed after that. That is not fair. If SC wants something locked, then just state the reason and lock it.
Thanks,
Kenskid
Originally posted by frisca:
I am going to be honest with all of you and speak from the heart. This is me showing some weakness now. I'm tired, and I'm sorry to have engaged in this back and forth for so long. I will admit when I am wrong and I will fight when I am right. I have done both here tonight.
I'm sorry some of you feel attacked by SC. I promise you we don't calculate things, nor do we have 'whipping boys.' We recognize the value and importance of this site's users, and the charismatic people within this community. We do what we can to keep harmony in the community. It is our sole aim.
We often feel and are attacked, and we more often than not, stay silent. That is soul crushing. Appreciate me, or don't. I don't demand anything from anyone here but respect because that is what I aim to give all of you.
Please don't mistake the style of my speach for condescension. My aim is professionalism and to be clearly and plainly understood. I appreciate my friends, and I appreciate the honest thoughts of those who have criticisms of me. I have taken those to heart and will do my best to not repeat my mistakes.
that said, I do not wish to continue participating in this thread, so if anyone wishes to speak to me about what I've said or done, I welcome private messages (though my email is wonky right now, so it might take a day for it to get to me). cheers and goodnight. |
Message edited by author 2007-11-02 20:25:29.
|
|
|
|
11/02/2007 08:26:11 PM · #48 |
Originally posted by Phil:
What do I need to do to become a whipping boy? I'll be bad - I promise. |
First, become a vegetarian ...
 |
|
|
|
11/02/2007 08:31:24 PM · #49 |
Originally posted by kenskid:
Thanks to all who tried to see my side. For the record; I have no other problems with SC. This thread started because I felt that frisca was being unfair in the other thread.
IMO she should have just locked the thread after my comment. That would not have bothered me at all. BUT to refute my last post with hers and THEN lock the thread was uncalled for. There have been MANY MANY MANY times when I would have liked to have made my comments the last post and then lock the thread. However, I don't have that power!
IMO this should never happen again. If SC wants to lock it, they should not be allowed "one last post" with no one else allowed after that. That is not fair. If SC wants something locked, then just state the reason and lock it. |
Except she didn't refute your last post, she sort of agreed with you, and then said "but it's time to lock it"...
well ken, I agree its ok to say you don't want to see gay dating games, etc, and that doesn't make you homophobic. However, that's not what jimbo said. What jimbo said was "at least he's not taking photos of other guys" and other similar comments stating that, essentially, things could be worse, he could be a *gasp* gay activist! That's the homophobia. Hatred for/fear of people who are homosexual.
This thread is beyond its purpose and usefulness. I am locking it.
R.
|
|
|
|
11/02/2007 08:42:27 PM · #50 |
Nope...Bear... IMO she took one final swipe at Jimbo and then locked the thread. If you are going to make that kind of statement, you should allow at least one more reply from ME or Jimbo.
She simply should have NOT stated her last opinion on the case if she was going to lock it up. That is what is not fair.
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by kenskid:
Thanks to all who tried to see my side. For the record; I have no other problems with SC. This thread started because I felt that frisca was being unfair in the other thread.
IMO she should have just locked the thread after my comment. That would not have bothered me at all. BUT to refute my last post with hers and THEN lock the thread was uncalled for. There have been MANY MANY MANY times when I would have liked to have made my comments the last post and then lock the thread. However, I don't have that power!
IMO this should never happen again. If SC wants to lock it, they should not be allowed "one last post" with no one else allowed after that. That is not fair. If SC wants something locked, then just state the reason and lock it. |
Except she didn't refute your last post, she sort of agreed with you, and then said "but it's time to lock it"...
well ken, I agree its ok to say you don't want to see gay dating games, etc, and that doesn't make you homophobic. However, that's not what jimbo said. What jimbo said was "at least he's not taking photos of other guys" and other similar comments stating that, essentially, things could be worse, he could be a *gasp* gay activist! That's the homophobia. Hatred for/fear of people who are homosexual.
This thread is beyond its purpose and usefulness. I am locking it.
R. |
|
|
