18 Apr 07
Originally posted by SeitseYou had an affair with Crowley ?????
My dear huck,
If you are implying it was me, trust me I did not. Beyond your nose,
by the way, is the FACT that I clearly indicated catfood that I was not
even discussing widget's ban (which I haven't done so far, by the way)
but ONLY my 'affair' with Crowley.
So, can you see beyond your nose?
Regards,
F. O.
đ˛
18 Apr 07
2 edits
Originally posted by rbmorrisI agree with you that the result is correct.
Crowley banned someone for disseminating ethnic slurs.
Is that part of his job as a moderator? Yes.
I fail to see the relevance of what country he's from, his past avatars or whether of not he liked the poster. He did what he was supposed to do as a moderator.
The key question here is, IN THIS PARTICULAR SITUATION, what action should a totally an He's a good addition to the forums, unlike you and your crappy self-serving dime store logic.
I question the motivation and, even more, the arbitrary nature of the review process.
And why are some allowed to promulgate hurtful Racial stereotypes?
18 Apr 07
Originally posted by st00p1dfac3I think what people are saying here is that the moderator must have a level playing field.
Widget got banned for slurs against an entire country, not an ethnicity. Not to mention personal assaults on people who live in that country. That geriatric drunk was playing the fool on the internet because if he said half the crap he was spouting in real life he'd have had the crap kicked out of him before he could remember to whine "You wouldn't hit ...[text shortened]... satire to point out what a bunch of retards the British were being in Ireland at the time.
Many people here say that that has not been the case in Widgets case. That is the point and throwing ageist.... and pro-violence assumptions into the fray won't change those opinions.
To his Credit Crowley has stated his bottom line so no one has an excuse and we now have a reference point.
18 Apr 07
Actually Red is right.
For the sake of this website, we should concentrate in what is
preceding the ban, not the ban itself since all mods and many other
concur in it.
Let's concentrate on FACTS:
- Crowley is very clear on the persons he/she dislikes, and he is very
passionate about it.
- Such behavior stains his image as an impartial arbitror on the forums.
- He does not behave in a manner that projects TRUST and impartiality.
Those are facts.
He is NOT, then, suitable to be a mod.
Phlab. Belgian Freak, etc. can like or dislike people, but at least in
public they are nos shouting "I hate this guy. I will be VERY happy when I ban him".
CROWLEY is NOT suitable as a mod, and the admins should take
action, and the other mods, for the sake of their 'profession', should
also press for that.
Yup, I imagine a judge going to the papers before a trial and
saying: I hate the plaintiff, I really do... hey, but I will be impartial
when judging, ok?
18 Apr 07
Originally posted by Tirau DanI know, I know - you're right. I just happened to be one of the people he was giving stick, when all I had done up to then was point out that the flag was not Irish, but was the flag of the Ivory Coast. It was unnecessary for him to start in on anyone - and I agree with Phlabibit? who said it was unlike him. Normally I found his posts a bit silly but never so belligerant...
I think what people are saying here is that the moderator must have a level playing field.
Many people here say that that has not been the case in Widgets case. That is the point and throwing ageist.... and pro-violence assumptions into the fray won't change those opinions.
To his Credit Crowley has stated his bottom line so no one has an excuse and we now have a reference point.
Just think of it as my petty, pointless, payback...
18 Apr 07
Originally posted by Red NightAlert, alert, alert, and alert! If you are not alerting these things, you can't complain when they don't vanish. I can't think of an instance of racial humor that was not removed when it was alerted.
I agree with you that the result is correct.
I question the motivation and, even more, the arbitrary nature of the review process.
And why are some allowed to promulgate hurtful Racial stereotypes?
The only time this may happen is if you are going back and finding old posts to alert. They show up pages deep on the list, so are easy to overlook.
P-
18 Apr 07
Originally posted by SeitseRight, so being honest makes a person unsuitable for the oh-so-sought-after post of Mod. I gather you're completely impartial in this situation--no personal motive for stirring up some fairly dull and sleepy hornets? Sweet Jesus.
Let's concentrate on FACTS:
- Crowley is very clear on the persons he/she dislikes, and he is very
passionate about it.
- Such behavior stains his image as an impartial arbitror on the forums.
- He does not behave in a manner that projects TRUST and impartiality.
Those are facts.[/b]
18 Apr 07
Originally posted by Bosse de NageBosse, it is very recommendable to speak only when you have
Right, so being honest makes a person unsuitable for the oh-so-sought-after post of Mod. I gather you're completely impartial in this situation--no personal motive for stirring up some fairly dull and sleepy hornets? Sweet Jesus.
something intelligent to say.
Honesty has nothing to do with the self-containment any position
of responsibility requires.
An honest judge pulls back from judging in cases where he may be
biased.
An intelligent judge keeps for himself any thought that may stain
his image and the image of his peers.
God bless you, you poor thing.
18 Apr 07
Originally posted by SeitseI agree with you entirely Seitse.
Actually Red is right.
For the sake of this website, we should concentrate in what is
preceding the ban, not the ban itself since all mods and many other
concur in it.
Let's concentrate on FACTS:
- Crowley is very clear on the persons he/she dislikes, and he is very
passionate about it.
- Such behavior stains his image as an impartial arbitror o ...[text shortened]... g: I hate the plaintiff, I really do... hey, but I will be impartial
when judging, ok?[/b]
You are correct that I was attempting to go in two directions at once.
Many of you, rightfully, want to focus on the lack of impartiality.
I found that a problem.
I was also upset by the comments about "racial slurs" not being tolerated on RHP. Nothing could be further from the truth. The site is replete with racial slurs, INCLUDING an entire clan dedicated to the promulgation of negative racial stereotypes.
I wish it were true that racial slurs were not tolerated, but it isn't.
18 Apr 07
Originally posted by SeitseThat's chiefly an issue of public confidence, not individual competence. This is a private business, not a court of law; I'm pretty sure if Crowley continues acting fairly he will be allowed to continue by Russ.
An honest judge pulls back from judging in cases where he may be
biased.
If you aren't happy, leave.
18 Apr 07
Originally posted by dottewellWhy spoil a good opening for virtual-public histrionics by acting sensibly?
That's chiefly an issue of public confidence, not individual competence. This is a private business, not a court of law; I'm pretty sure if Crowley continues acting fairly he will be allowed to continue by Russ.
If you aren't happy, leave.