Forums | MacLife

oatmeal · 2005-10-24 7:27 pm

HeadonaStick put it extremely well:

HeadonaStick wrote:
The topic was almost ten months old, I'm sure you could have taken the time to start a new one, with a bit more background, or just any content at all really. It's not like this was your life's work that got trashed, it was an AP news clipping.

You want to talk about spam? We can talk about spam. Here's the rule about spam, I'll bold the relevant part - the part that I've been lax about for you lately but that I can start enforcing if we're going to have problems.

3) No SPAM.
- Any unsolicited advertisement, for profit or otherwise.
- Duplicate threads. One of a duplicate thread will be locked, either the second one created if they're discovered early enough or the one with fewer posts & at the moderator's discretion.
- Topics with no discernable suggestion for the course of debate.
- Topics specifically about other posters at MAF.

I would probably have understood if you were upset by the response it recieved if you had actually bothered to type something, but much like many of your topics lately the post you reopened that thread with was nothing more than a quote and a link. There's no "I feel this way because..." There's no "that's smurfed up because..." No "he's getting what he deserves" or "they should lay off of him."

Typically, in the middle of an active thread that wouldn't be considered spam. In a zombie? Well, if it had had any content beyond quote & link I could have moved the post and relevant replies out into the wild. As it was, culled out of the zombie your initial post would have been spam, not suggesting any course for debate. Just like so many of your other topics lately.

You were out of line, everyone else knew it, they responded in kind. I shut it down the moment I found it lest they go too far. Their behavior was a direct result of you ignoring the rules.

"But teacher, they're all breaking rules too!!! Look at what they're doing!!!" What is this, kindergarden? Pointing out other's misbehavior to cloak your own might have worked then, but I'm not falling for it. I've been doing my best to be more hands-off lately, but if you like, I can start enforcing the rules when you violate them - that probably means that most tof your topics, quote & link as they've been lately, would be shut down before anyone replied to them.

You really want MORE moderation?

Duke Stratosphere · 2005-10-24 8:27 pm

XYZ wrote:
No spam includes not posting pages of huge images.

No it doesn't. It includes no spam. I'll be the first to admit that I forgot that just because I have a cable modem doesn't mean everyone has one. The Brother Voodoo pic might have been a little large, and I was too lazy too shrink it. Get over it. Benighted removed it anyway.

XYZ wrote:
Stay on topic means don't derail topics with huge images,

Stay on topic means stay on topic. Since this was a zombie thread my huge image of Brother Voodoo was quite on topic. I didn't run to this thread and cry like a baby bitch because it was removed, I hope you'll notice.

XYZ wrote:
talk about Steyr,

If I was concerned about the status of one of my fellow MiniThinkers because I'd not seen him post for several months, and inquired about him, and you don't like it, smurf YOU! Believe it or not, if I'd not seen you post (with any of your alternicks) for several months, I'd ask if anyone knew what had happened to you as well, and be genuinely concerned as well.

XYZ wrote:
and heckling about the Rules.

If by "heckling" you meant "quoting," I couldn't agree more.

XYZ wrote:
No flamewars means no derailment with huge images, screaming all-caps posts, irrelevant talk about Steyr, and heckling about the rules.

I must have missed that part of the rule. Perhaps you can quote it for us. Or, then again, perhaps you smurfing can't. lol

XYZ wrote:
And, don't be a jerk means don't do anything you did, Duke,

When oatmeal rewrites that particular rule to read, "Don't do anything Duke Stratosphere does," I guess you'll finally have a valid point. lol

XYZ wrote:
and then start another topic to rub it in more.

Whatever could you be referring to? wink

XYZ wrote:
Oatmeal.

Oh, sure, go whaa to the mod.

XYZ wrote:
When someone grossly violates 5 rules,

How the hell do you get 5? So far, as far as I can tell, you are the only one who's broken a rule, and you're just crying because I called you on it. Stop ressurecting zombie threads already. Is that so hard?

XYZ wrote:
I find it hard to accept the least important rule,

In your opinion.

XYZ wrote:
one that you changed,

If you want his job so badly, grow the balls to ask for it and stop beating around the bush.

XYZ wrote:
is the one that prompted your action.

Since it's the only rule that was really broken outside of your fantasy world, what other violation would you suggest should have prompted his action? roll

XYZ wrote:
You used to agree that topics that are still relevant can be continued.

Well, I guess he changed his mind. Get over it.

XYZ wrote:
Nothing about Debbie's Jeb Bush topic was out of date.

Except that she started it 10 months ago. Hence, it's a zombie. Start another one. Be original while you're at it, and stop plagiarizing Debbie.

XYZ wrote:
The discussion was working just fine until Duke realized he could be a jerk at my expense.

You handed me the opportunity of a lifetime and I jumped on it. What was I supposed to do? PM you and warn you not to be so idiotic? I hardly think that was gonna happen. lol

XYZ wrote:
The topic was destroyed

How much smurfing effort do I have to go through to get it through your thick head that the topic was already expired before I ever touched it?

XYZ wrote:
and the moderators were fine with that.

Why shouldn't they be? Make your smurfing case or shut up, Brother Voodoo. lol

XYZ wrote:
That makes this forum very poor indeed.

Then leave and don't ever come back. lol Again. lol

XYZ wrote:
You can say "well, it was a zombie" all you like, but the fact is that you used to think that it's ok to continue relevant discussions. Even Benighted agreed after a long debate on the subject that locking topics simply because of the date of creation or last post is illogical. You can say "I'm a mod so what I say goes", or "might makes right", but might makes right is not logical. Might makes might, not right. Truth is not determined by convenience.

It's their message board and, frankly, might does make right. There are alternative forums, you know.

XYZ wrote:
This place should be a place for civilized adult discourse, not a kiddie playpen.

Buy the place. Then you can say what you think it should be and people might listen to you. shrug

XYZ wrote:
The behavior in Debbie's topic by Duke and even somewhat by Shnicky is abominable,

Yeah, it's almost like we hijack planes and fly them into buildings or something. hmm How "abonibable."

XYZ wrote:
and you're not helping this forum by promoting it.

WTF? I thought it was pretty well implied that our opinions are our own, and not those of the moderators or administrators. I must have missed the Google ad that said "Girls, click here to get laid by Duke Stratosphere!" lol

Tallgeese · 2005-10-24 8:58 pm

Duke Stratosphere wrote:
Tallgeese wrote:
http://homepage.mac.com/oatmeal/MAF/maxes/violin.gif

And who is "Goosey Loosey?"
That would be ShnickyShnack. He caused the whole thing I'm sure. It couldn't possibly be me that XYZ is so pissed at. I'm just "Chicken Little."

That's just stupid.

Duke Stratosphere · 2005-10-25 2:19 am

Tallgeese wrote:
Duke Stratosphere wrote:
Tallgeese wrote:
http://homepage.mac.com/oatmeal/MAF/maxes/violin.gif

And who is "Goosey Loosey?"
That would be ShnickyShnack. He caused the whole thing I'm sure. It couldn't possibly be me that XYZ is so pissed at. I'm just "Chicken Little."
That's just stupid.

Renaming people after poultry? lol I guess I'd have to agree.

Tallgeese · 2005-10-25 7:42 am

Duke Stratosphere wrote:
Tallgeese wrote:
Duke Stratosphere wrote:
That would be ShnickyShnack. He caused the whole thing I'm sure. It couldn't possibly be me that XYZ is so pissed at. I'm just "Chicken Little."
That's just stupid.
Renaming people after poultry? I guess I'd have to agree.

Hey!

Tallgeese · 2005-10-25 7:43 am

Duke Stratosphere wrote:
XYZ wrote:
And, don't be a jerk means don't do anything you did, Duke,
When oatmeal rewrites that particular rule to read, "Don't do anything Duke Stratosphere does," I guess you'll finally have a valid point.

Hm... Not a bad idea!

oatmeal · 2005-10-25 9:19 am

Tallgeese wrote:
Duke Stratosphere wrote:
XYZ wrote:
And, don't be a jerk means don't do anything you did, Duke,
When oatmeal rewrites that particular rule to read, "Don't do anything Duke Stratosphere does," I guess you'll finally have a valid point.
Hm... Not a bad idea!

big_smile <--Click me

Tallgeese · 2005-10-25 9:21 am

Har!�

Duke Stratosphere · 2005-10-25 11:31 am

lol ROFL lol

HeadonaStick · 2005-10-26 6:30 am

I am shocked, nay stunned, that XYZ has not returned to defend himself in this thread.

hal9k · 2005-10-26 6:47 am

As it happened, it was a good start to 'curing' my hangover that morning. Absolutely hilarious.

'Ya want zombies? I got 'em. All over the place.'

I guess it would nail those on dialup, though.

With that caveat, 'priceless'. Try that pre-'teh intraweb'!

MysticCow · 2005-10-26 1:40 pm

HeadonaStick wrote:
I am shocked, nay stunned, that XYZ has not returned to defend himself in this thread.

I don't want to sound bitchy, can can we change the subject before the board is accused of flaming XYZ?

MysticCow · 2005-10-26 1:42 pm

oatmeal wrote:
You really want MORE moderation?

I think moderators need to moderate in moderation.

HeadonaStick · 2005-10-26 4:25 pm

MysticCow wrote:
HeadonaStick wrote:
I am shocked, nay stunned, that XYZ has not returned to defend himself in this thread.
I don't want to sound bitchy, can can we change the subject before the board is accused of flaming XYZ?

Certainly, it's just slightly miffing that XYZ has seemingly abandoned his argument.

Sassy · 2005-10-26 7:30 pm

The Rules are 'guidelines' and Oats is pretty lenient when it comes to enforcement. Of course, he has a viewpoint. He's not a computer or a robot that would be totalitarian with enforcement. I am not easily offended by postings, but have been on occasion. Still, some people feel strongly and show that emotion about some topics. I do too, so how can I complain if they disagree with my views. I like the jokes, so long as they aren't 'mean spirited.' But, a good discussion/debate is priceless because we can hear rebuttals to our own viewpoint, which can become trite, tired and redundant.

Oats is a very good moderator. Not too strict, not too lenient. But, guys, he IS the moderator, so he has the office for the last word. We're lucky he has staying power to ride herd on the mavericks. MacAddict could shut us down. They are footing the bill and giving us the freedom to have fun. I was a subscriber, still am, to the magazine before I became a subscriber to the forum. I would hate to be exiled for bad behavior.

Ronald Reagan · 2005-10-26 7:57 pm

Sassy wrote:
But, guys, he IS the moderator, so he has the office for the last word. We're lucky he has staying power to ride herd on the mavericks. MacAddict could shut us down. They are footing the bill and giving us the freedom to have fun. I was a subscriber, still am, to the magazine before I became a subscriber to the forum. I would hate to be exiled for bad behavior.

Ronald Reagan · 2005-10-26 7:59 pm

Since when is having good discussions destroyed by caprious posters "fun"?

The MiniThink is poorly moderated and too many posters lack the ability to debate rationally. Instead, this place is like a gathering of kids. One should note that the discussion went smoothly until DS saw an opening for a flame fest. That's the bottom line.

As for staying in this topic to read a lot of suck-up-to-authority posts, count me out.

Ronald Reagan · 2005-10-26 8:01 pm

The word is capricious. Excuse the typo. I'm not going to edit the post because I'm sick of the "edited" notice being posted for every bloody typo.

Zetetic Apparatchik · 2005-10-26 8:40 pm

Ronald Reagan wrote:
Since when is having good discussions destroyed by capricious posters "fun"?
Some more sense.

I certainly think that oatmeal takes sides a little too openly (e.g. Cybercott).

Phydeaux · 2005-10-26 8:57 pm

Ronald Reagan wrote:
Sassy wrote:
But, guys, he IS the moderator, so he has the office for the last word. We're lucky he has staying power to ride herd on the mavericks. MacAddict could shut us down. They are footing the bill and giving us the freedom to have fun. I was a subscriber, still am, to the magazine before I became a subscriber to the forum. I would hate to be exiled for bad behavior.
http://www.historyplace.com/worldwar2/ww2-pix/annex.jpg

Oh, now you're just being a smurfing smurf.

Phydeaux · 2005-10-26 8:58 pm

And Godwin's Law. I win.

Duke Stratosphere · 2005-10-26 8:58 pm

Ronald Reagan wrote:
Since when is having good discussions destroyed by caprious posters "fun"?

You're really taking this whole thing way too seriously.

Ronald Reagan wrote:
The MiniThink is poorly moderated

In your opinion. shrug

Ronald Reagan wrote:
and too many posters lack the ability to debate rationally.

In your opinion. Is "the ability to debate rationally" a requirement to post here? As far as I know, no such requirement exists.

Ronald Reagan wrote:
Instead, this place is like a gathering of kids.

Well, no smurf. lol How old are you again? lol

Ronald Reagan wrote:
One should note that the discussion went smoothly until DS saw an opening for a flame fest. That's the bottom line.

"Flame fest?" lol lol lol lol lol Remember the Jamaica thread? Now that was a flame fest. This was just poking a little fun at a zombie thread.

Ronald Reagan wrote:
As for staying in this topic to read a lot of suck-up-to-authority posts, count me out.

Something or other did give me kind of a queasy feeling a few posts back. tongue

Duke Stratosphere · 2005-10-26 8:59 pm

Ronald Reagan wrote:
Sassy wrote:
But, guys, he IS the moderator, so he has the office for the last word. We're lucky he has staying power to ride herd on the mavericks. MacAddict could shut us down. They are footing the bill and giving us the freedom to have fun. I was a subscriber, still am, to the magazine before I became a subscriber to the forum. I would hate to be exiled for bad behavior.
http://www.historyplace.com/worldwar2/ww2-pix/annex.jpg

See? lol A little fun with pictures never hurt anybody. lol

MysticCow · 2005-10-26 10:31 pm

Zetetic Apparatchik wrote:
Ronald Reagan wrote:
Since when is having good discussions destroyed by capricious posters "fun"?
Some more sense.
I certainly think that oatmeal takes sides a little too openly (e.g. Cybercott).

Oatie has been taking sides and I've PM'd him about that, which is how it should be addressed. If you have a problem with a poster (and I don't care if he has that GDMF-ing [PM if you want to know] Moderator thing attached to their nick) you should bring it up in private first.

Last edited by MysticCow (2005-10-26 10:32 pm)

Duke Stratosphere · 2005-10-26 10:52 pm

MysticCow wrote:
Zetetic Apparatchik wrote:
Ronald Reagan wrote:
Since when is having good discussions destroyed by capricious posters "fun"?
Some more sense.
I certainly think that oatmeal takes sides a little too openly (e.g. Cybercott).
Oatie has been taking sides and I've PM'd him about that, which is how it should be addressed. If you have a problem with a poster (and I don't care if he has that GDMF-ing [PM if you want to know] Moderator thing attached to their nick) you should bring it up in private first.

Really? I didn't even have a problem with oatmeal when he banned me for a month. I e-mailed everyone I knew in here and laughed about it, in fact. But if someone does have a problem with him, I don't see why they shouldn't rake him over the coals about it right out here in public, especially in a thread named "The Rules: Discuss," which he himself created just for that specific purpose. He's perfectly capable of defending himself, ya know.

Ronald Reagan does have a point. You are a blatant suck-up. If you really feel such an urge to suck up to oatmeal, you must be planning a big flame fest lol . Let us know when it all goes down, OK? PM me. lol

Maybe you'll get your name mentioned in the Rules right beside mine someday. lol ROFLMAO lol

Forums | MacLife

#276 2005-10-24 7:27 pm

Re: The Rules - Discuss

HeadonaStick wrote:

#277 2005-10-24 8:27 pm

Re: The Rules - Discuss

XYZ wrote:

XYZ wrote:

XYZ wrote:

XYZ wrote:

XYZ wrote:

XYZ wrote:

XYZ wrote:

XYZ wrote:

XYZ wrote:

XYZ wrote:

XYZ wrote:

XYZ wrote:

XYZ wrote:

XYZ wrote:

XYZ wrote:

XYZ wrote:

XYZ wrote:

XYZ wrote:

XYZ wrote:

XYZ wrote:

XYZ wrote:

XYZ wrote:

#278 2005-10-24 8:58 pm

Re: The Rules - Discuss

Duke Stratosphere wrote:

Tallgeese wrote:

#279 2005-10-25 2:19 am

Re: The Rules - Discuss

Tallgeese wrote:

Duke Stratosphere wrote:

Tallgeese wrote:

#280 2005-10-25 7:42 am

Re: The Rules - Discuss

Duke Stratosphere wrote:

Tallgeese wrote:

Duke Stratosphere wrote:

#281 2005-10-25 7:43 am

Re: The Rules - Discuss

Duke Stratosphere wrote:

XYZ wrote:

#282 2005-10-25 9:19 am

Re: The Rules - Discuss

Tallgeese wrote:

Duke Stratosphere wrote:

XYZ wrote:

#283 2005-10-25 9:21 am

Re: The Rules - Discuss

#284 2005-10-25 11:31 am

Re: The Rules - Discuss

#285 2005-10-26 6:30 am

Re: The Rules - Discuss

#286 2005-10-26 6:47 am

Re: The Rules - Discuss

#287 2005-10-26 1:40 pm

Re: The Rules - Discuss

HeadonaStick wrote:

#288 2005-10-26 1:42 pm

Re: The Rules - Discuss

oatmeal wrote:

#289 2005-10-26 4:25 pm

Re: The Rules - Discuss

MysticCow wrote:

HeadonaStick wrote:

#290 2005-10-26 7:30 pm

Re: The Rules - Discuss

#291 2005-10-26 7:57 pm

Re: The Rules - Discuss

Sassy wrote:

#292 2005-10-26 7:59 pm

Re: The Rules - Discuss

#293 2005-10-26 8:01 pm

Re: The Rules - Discuss

#294 2005-10-26 8:40 pm

Re: The Rules - Discuss