I lost my pet whore when Hina decided to seclude herself from everything that happened this week.
You leave my Hina out of this.
Ooh, I had a hamster named Buster as a kid :D He froze to death :(
- Beatrice likes this
Jump to content
Keep it scrollin'.
Posted by Eros Thanatos on 24 April 2017 - 11:02 AM
i dont have anything against the joke, i thought it was fine and kept scrolling down when it was made. its just seeing a mod going 'fucking savage' on it felt improper.
Posted by Eros Thanatos on 24 April 2017 - 07:26 AM
Jesus. I don't think I've ever woken up this early to this much ridiculousness in a long time. Right, let's clear some things up.
The why the fuck I am still around? Or Dae? Or Black?
That's obviously loaded bait, but I'll admit, I laughed.
TThere are a lot of people who'd probably describe themselves as Arseholes, and yet we get essentially free reign on here to do and say what we want.
False. I've punished people on both sides, from Cowcow, and Craft to Polaris and Winter. So idk where this is coming from.
Like jesus fucking christ of all the possible things you as a team could have done you chose theexact thing and timing that completely validates what Winter and Shard were complaining about.
I mean, I know Winter derailed a lot of shit with his manner, but he doesn't deserve sole punishment for this when he's not the sole problem here. In fact, more people have probably been cunts to Winter in the past few weeks than he's been to others.
For the record; I don't especially like Winter, I think he actively makes the site worse by being around. But after knowing him for like 5 years now, that should not be reason alone to ban the guy, and if he wasn't be to be overwhelming smug I'd request his immediate unbanning because this is aburd.
Timing was awful, I concur. You could chalk it up to coincidence, but that's both true and false.
And this whole thing about thing about people being cunts to Winter? I punished them for it. Look at what happened to Snatch. That's your most recent example. Are you accusing me of bias or what? Because frequency is a big deal. When Winter brings purposely antagonistic and belligerent arguments site wide, blows them up, and causes reports regularly, it's problematic.
And your bolded point solidifies the point. As a presence on this site, Winter actively made it worse. For just about everyone. Even when he tried to create discussion, he turned it into a blame came, had a pity party, and made himself the victim. Citing his great archnemesis and "Moderation's Greatest Evil", Roxas, every turn he got, and proceeding to blow up the report feed (by getting reported, though a lot of these particular claims I was of course lenient with him, since it amounted to very little).
1. Level/frequency of assholery is what I am assuming
That's part of it. The amount of reports I got on Winter was multiple times a week. This is one user. Over the course of a month, and then a year, up until now, it's not noticeably changed. Even when I can let him slide, there's still things that I had to punish him for. And even after I would PM him, try to get him to improve his behavior, and have private conversations with him per his request, even going so far as to involve Super Mods and make sure he felt his absolute most comfortable, he still turned around and did the same thing, over, and over, and over again.
1) And yet people seemed to be dicks to Winter pretty damn frequently without punishment. Or if punishment comes, it comes well after it's due.
I'm just gonna refer you back to my statement above.
2) Consitency; If being a pest for two fucking years (Or however long it's been) wasn't a cause for banning up till now, something had to change in order to validate the choice now. Either a new mod bringing a changing attitude and standards, or as it reads currently 'If they can't get with the program, there's only one inevitable conclusion anyway. Best not waste our time any further.'
Something did change. After I stepped into the "Moderators Stifling Freedom" thread, and I explicitly stated what the problem was, what was and wasn't going to happen, and how I was going to try to keep the thread open for discussion, he almost hand waved it. He went on his usual tirades, contributed little to nothing, and devolved the thread even further.
Following recent events in the "Chechnya" thread, that was enough for evil to step in. Thus the ban.
Regarding Zai's quote, I only caught it after he posted it in someone's status. No comment.
And I am outright calling for Winter's ban to be undone, he be given an apology, and by whatever measure is possible for the team you get your shit together. You establish a proceedure, you make it known, and you follow it. Any mod who steps outside that procedure should be punished.
I can tell you right now, there's almost zero chance that evil's decision gets undone. Also, you already know our procedure. Sakura updated the rule book not long ago. Winter was a high profile case that escalated to this point very quickly. He was quite an exception. But I agree. Stepping out of procedure causes problems.
Basically you're asking me at this point if you can have unrestricted access to the Mod Forum and the report module. But YCM isn't mature enough to handle that kind of information, which is why we created the PR Position. So unfortunately, that cannot happen. But I think once we've gotten past this "shock and awe show" (cuz that's what it is), you'll find the place cleaned up.
And for the record, you didn't cause site wide problems. You were aggressive, sure. But I didn't punish Winter for being aggressive. I punished him for attacking people. Same way I punished anyone else who crossed that line.
Posted by Eros Thanatos on 23 April 2017 - 09:59 PM
Yeah I was both shocked and bewildered when I heard about this. It's as illogical as it is abhorrent. I do agree that this is not appropriate, because of the state of women's right in the Middle East. Specifically in this case, this needs to be changed right away.
Posted by Eros Thanatos on 23 April 2017 - 11:39 AM
There was a soft slurping sound emerging from a small, white, porcelain cup, being tightly clasped in two strong hands across the teacher's lounge. Sitting in a fine leather arm chair, Dr. Atomic--or, Langley Faust--sipped his morning coffee. With one leg folded over the other, he lost himself in the luxurious aroma and the fine, bold taste of ristretto coffee. With a pinch of sugar and cream for taste.
As the cup emptied, he stood up from his seat, and walked over to the large window that oversaw the entrance of U.A. His comrade and principal, Glory, had just arrived. And he'd begun the new semester's ritual.
"WELCOME TO YOUR HERO ACADEMIA STUDENTS!
The students were always very proud of their school. It was an honor and a privilege to watch Glory conduct himself, and engage with students. Faust smiled as he looked over the entrance, and watched the students pour into the building. He played a mental game with himself, picking out freshman and determining their hero names. He kept it to himself, just for fun.
He returned to a sink, where he washed and cleaned his porcelain cup, before drying it and sitting it atop a glass dish. Picking up his signature red coat, Faust threw it over his shoulders, and it clung to him snugly. He stretched his hands and fingers, and took a deep breath. He hadn't been this excited since--well, last year, at the start of the semester. Fresh young minds were easily influenced. He wanted to make sure he had the right influence on his students. "Will you surprise me this year, Class 1-A?" he asked aloud to no one, with a big smile. Faust plucked a buttered bagel from the staff table and removed its gravity, floating it up to eye level. Spinning the bagel, he left the teacher's lounge, and began excitedly looking among the students.
As they encroached the second floor, Faust would nibble on his floating, spinning bagel, and bid good morning to the brightest heroes in the world. At U.A.
Posted by Eros Thanatos on 23 April 2017 - 11:17 AM
Greetings. If you're like one of the many people who clicked on this topic for the absolutely abhorrent clickbait in the title, I apologise. Welcome to the Debates section, also known as the collective anushole of this board, or the moderation team's least favourite place. This thread is intended to put forward several suggestions to how the Debates section could, in my personal opinion, be better run, and cause less issues for moderators.
If you're a debates regular you probably clicked on this to either a) lock this topic, b) shit on me or my opinions, or c) agree wholesale with the truthbombs I'm about to drop in this thread. Otherwise, please respond in any manner you see fit. As expressed in the title and in the opening statement of this thread, I feel the Debates section as a whole, is managed, at worst, with contempt and negligence, and corruption and bias at worst. While as an independent forum and not linked to any political source, YCM is not obligated to abide by any of the free speech laws that protect political speech in the majority of the Western world, I believe this is a poor excuse to suppress people's opinions in Debates. In any debate, both sides want to speak their opinion as they see it, and reducing people's abilities to say things as they see fit strangles freedom of speech. This is bad for Debates in multiple ways. Firstly, it often leaves Debates as a forum that is more often described as trying to light a bonfire in the rain. Every time a real debate, in this allegory, a fire, is started, a moderator is almost immediately dispatched to stamp on the bonfire and put the fire out. Secondly, and more importantly, it will ultimately kill Debates as a section. Debates is for well, Debates. What's a Debate without an opposition? Members need the right to speak their mind, even if their opinion is not of the popular mindset.
Does this mean I feel members should be able to say anything they like in Debates? Yes, yes I do. Moderators in real political Debates mostly exist to prevent actual physical violence between Debaters, Supporters and to generally keep the situation under control. However, the only Debates that actually matter is when both parties express their opinion truthfully and a conclusion can be reached based on both side's argument. The way it is currently set up in Debates, if you say anything that could be deemed mildly offensive to any group, but certain groups receive special protection which I feel, they do not deserve, as no group in a rational society is above scrutiny, your Debate can be shut down and you may receive warning points. When a member says something in Debates, it should be up to the rest of the Debates community to respond with at least a degree of rationale. We are not five, and while throwing colorful language at each other may look bad, all it does is weaken the argument of those hurling it. In turn, members move to ignore wildly irrational and pointless provocations within Debates, vastly improving post quality. In short, what I am proposing is a degree of self-governance within Debates. Only by holding every post by every member in Debates to account from here on is the only way I see to create a Debates forum where things are actually debated.
Much like how in real politics, a big government equals a weak citizen, a strong moderation team equals a weak member. Law and order, much like in real life, is to be upheld by the members of the forum, not a selected group of elites with absolute authority. In the current system, where only moderators can pick moderators, expression of what the forum actually wants is lacking. While this mostly applies to Debates, such logic can be extrapolated to other boards if deemed successful. If the average Debates member is able to self-govern their own forum of interest with decent levels of success, why are they not given the agency to determine who ultimately governs the Debates forum itself? The moderator in the Debates forum should be there to prevent blatant rules abuses, linking to illegal content, pornography, violent imagery, and so on. Things that don't actually really contribute anything to the debate. Anything else should be fair game in the Debates forum. At the end of the day, what people's honest truthful opinions are may hurt someone's feelings. That doesn't disprove the validity of said argument. The core of freedom of speech is, at it's heart, the freedom to disagree with popular consensus in a rational and reasonable manner without fearing retaliation, from moderator or member, in any manner that may ultimately demean or cause actual damage to a member's life. Nannystating the Debates forum is not a way to create good discussion. For an example, there is a widely held trend amongst members in the Debates forum who tend to lean to the political left. This makes someone's opinion from the right, such as my own, often immediately contrary to others. If I, or any other poster crosses the line in Debates, I expect to be reprimanded by a member with hard evidence and facts, not warning points and a broken profile page. The overwhelming leftist bias in the YCM Debates forum stifles free-speech in itself, where expressing an opinion that is what any would consider "politically incorrect".
As for how moderation elections themselves would work in Debates, I feel that is not an issue to be decided solely by me, that would be outright hypocritical to everything I have said in this topic. Moderation election and the process of such in regards to a Debates moderator is to be determined by in large, the Debates Community. Thanks for reading this far, regardless of how you feel on this issue.
So it took me some time, but I thought about this, all night. I've given it plenty of thought, and there's a lot to talk about, so bare with me.
First and foremost, let's be very clear. Debating in YCM has been an issue for years. Since the idea for it stemmed back in, what, 08'? (I'm old, I don't remember.) And I have been more lax and laid back on Debates and General, than I'm pretty sure any other mod has before me. So this whole "stifling of free speech" is nonsense. I'm a liberal. Believe me, if I was out to get you and shut you up for any dissenting opinions, I wouldn't be in this position as a mod, and you damn sure wouldn't even be posting in debates right now. The fact of the matter is, this is my section, and I've tried to be cooperative with both sides of the spectrum. Clearly, I'm not doing that well enough. Let's put it all on the table.
You say there's too much interference. You feel like the very life is being choked out of you and your right to post whatever you please. But there's a few things you're forgetting.
1.) Access to YCM is a privilege. Not a right.
2.) YCM has always had a stern policy against hate. Whether you dress it up and put a few irrelevant, decorative words around it, or you say it outright. It's not acceptable.
If you can't argue your view points without creating a hostile environment, that's where I step in. That's what moderators do. And when you cause an uproar, I have to evaluate the situation, without bias. Ask Winter. There's been many a time he's been reported. I can tell you from my brief history as a mod, only about 20% of the time do I actually have to punish him. And by no means have I tried to forcefully convert him into a leftist. Hell, I don't even like the left. I say I'm a liberal, but damn, I'm a centrist.
There's so many extremes involved, that I don't want to be a part of either side of the spectrum. And don't think for a second I haven't had to punish a few lefties here. No one is going to get special treatment from me.
Anyway, I'm rambling. I believe this argument you've brought up--it has fine points, and I think you handled it well, even if I don't agree with it--stems from the Islamic thread posted in General (for whatever silly reason). We all know how that went down. Frankly, I should've been more stern with you. I was actually scolded for being too lenient. Your punishment would have been much worse if Zai hadn't handled it, and I hadn't stepped in.
Speaking of which, I also handled that poorly. I publicly humiliated a fellow team member and acted inappropriately. I should not have engaged that topic the way I did, and it was unacceptable conduct. I'm sorry for my behavior, to those in the thread, and to Zai. I'll do my best to correct it and uphold the standards I expect from everyone else.
Back on topic. You're misconstruing some evidence here. Right now, the only one that I'm aware of who has a problem with your opinion, is you. I don't care if you're arguing from the right. I don't care what you believe. What I care about is argument presentation.
Having a problem with a person's faiths and ideologies is one thing. I follow Christ. I get that argument a lot. But then you took it up. You berated them as people. You degraded them as humans. You attacked their person and not their foundation. Your argument was messy, it was extremely generalized, and it read as if you were ready to launch a campaign against any and all Muslims from the West to the East. You strummed up something that sounded a lot like a demonstration--not against the extremists and scumbags who've attacked innocents and killed for their flawed ideologies--of marching on Muslims. That is the problem.
Your argument was accurate. Hell, I researched it myself. But it was also headstrong. You were blinded by your own extreme hatred for persons in the middle east, that you went off into a toxic rant that caused the entire damn thread to be shut down.
For the record, no. I will not allow Debates to go completely un-moderated. As much as I'd like to give it a month's break, I can't do that. I can't just walk off my job to please a handful of my co-workers who dislike me. I have work to do.
I said it before, I'll say it again. I have been more than lenient with this section. To all parties. If Aerion wrote some bullshit like that, you better believe I'd be on his ass like white on rice on a paper plate with a glass of milk in a snowstorm. So, let me reiterate. You won't find me pushing an agenda. That's your job as debaters. To push your ideals and argue points.
But I won't let you go h.a.m. just so you can feel more free. I'm risking too much for too little. The net result is a negative for the site. I can't do that.
I didn't get to cover everything here, but I'll answer questions obviously. I'll try to keep this thread open until the end of today, midnight central time. But as it stands, there's discussion for it to be shutdown. I'll leave you to this and I'll get back to you. Just know if it gets out of hand, I'm locking it.
Posted by Eros Thanatos on 21 April 2017 - 09:43 PM
Because Obama never bother to take efforts to address my concerns. Nor has any democrat thus far. So I'd hope that that the republican I helped vote in would atleast
Because by doing what Craft or you want, he's likely not doing what I want.
It's game theory really, I'm the higher payoff matrix for him
So you think Trump is gonna address your concerns because he's a republican and you voted for him? I mean that's adorable in concept, but the elite only care about the elite.
Posted by Eros Thanatos on 21 April 2017 - 06:00 PM
Yeah, go on, so why should Trump try to cater to Craft or Roxas? It's a wasted effort that's gonna piss of people who might actually give him a fair shot
We already touched on this. Partisanship. He should try to cater to Craft or Roxas by actually taking an interest in their points of view. That's typically how you win a vote.