|
jt512
Aug 11, 2010, 4:01 AM
Post #26 of 131
(6607 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
philbox wrote: You'll also note that the Lab forum has advertised in very clear words that that forum is a highly moderated forum. Aric was doing his JOB.
Since when is a moderator's job to ban legitimate, highly valued users?
In reply to: I will always support the mods when they are doing their JOBS.
Right or wrong, eh? Hopefully, you guys are having some serious back-room discussion about how badly you've handled this situation, like we would have in the old days. Unfortunately, I doubt that that is now the case.
Jay
(This post was edited by jt512 on Aug 11, 2010, 4:02 AM)
|
|
|
|
|
philbox
Moderator
Aug 11, 2010, 4:02 AM
Post #27 of 131
(6605 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 27, 2002
Posts: 13105
|
jt512 wrote: philbox wrote: Keep digging that hole Jay. Wow, has your attitude deteriorated! And you've brought the rest of the staff down with you. Jay
So your abusive abrasive post content in this thread is civil enough such that I should care what you think.
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Aug 11, 2010, 4:16 AM
Post #28 of 131
(6601 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
philbox wrote: jt512 wrote: philbox wrote: Keep digging that hole Jay. Wow, has your attitude deteriorated! And you've brought the rest of the staff down with you. Jay So your abusive abrasive post content in this thread is civil enough such that I should care what you think.
You should care what a user thinks because you care about user feedback. You should care about the substance of the post, regardless of the tone. And I certainly have not "abused" anybody in this thread. Surely you are grown-up enough to handle the occasional use of the word "fucking" by an angry user and being called a "bonehead" when, in fact, you've acted like one.
Jay
(This post was edited by jt512 on Aug 11, 2010, 4:17 AM)
|
|
|
|
|
curt
Aug 11, 2010, 4:25 AM
Post #29 of 131
(6596 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 18275
|
jt512 wrote: Right or wrong, eh? Hopefully, you guys are having some serious back-room discussion about how badly you've handled this situation, like we would have in the old days. Unfortunately, I doubt that that is now the case. Jay
Hey Phil,
Jay's point above is really the crux of the matter. Using one's brain should be part and parcel of "doing one's job" as a moderator here. Instead, Aric in particular is acting like an individual who carries a gun--just hoping to come across a situation where he can shoot someone, just because he can.
Curt
|
|
|
|
|
blondgecko
Moderator
Aug 11, 2010, 4:51 AM
Post #30 of 131
(6586 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 2, 2004
Posts: 7666
|
jt512 wrote: The only tards were the staff. PtIong locked himself out of his account (ok, that's mildly retarded), and did the only thing practical (or maybe even possible): he started a new account, with no pretense whatsoever that the account wasn't his. And you geniuses nuked it!put a temporary hold on it, until we could figure out what was going on.
Fixed that for you.
Nobody was nuked. Nobody was permanently banned. PtIong had a temporary time-out as a simple precaution. Perhaps that precaution wasn't justified - but considering its utterly insignificant impact on ptlong, who the fuck cares? As far as I'm concerned, the shitstorm that we find ourselves in originates in its entirety from the ridiculous over-reaction by curt and yourself.
|
|
|
|
|
curt
Aug 11, 2010, 4:59 AM
Post #31 of 131
(6582 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 18275
|
blondgecko wrote: jt512 wrote: The only tards were the staff. PtIong locked himself out of his account (ok, that's mildly retarded), and did the only thing practical (or maybe even possible): he started a new account, with no pretense whatsoever that the account wasn't his. And you geniuses nuked it!put a temporary hold on it, until we could figure out what was going on.Fixed that for you. Nobody was nuked. Nobody was permanently banned. PtIong had a temporary time-out as a simple precaution. Perhaps that precaution wasn't justified - but considering its utterly insignificant impact on ptlong, who the fuck cares? As far as I'm concerned, the shitstorm that we find ourselves in originates in its entirety from the ridiculous over-reaction by curt and yourself.
The point is (by your own admission above) the action in question probably wasn't justified and as a result of bringing it up, I am the one who can no longer post in the Lab Forum. Does that truly sound OK to you? Hopefully not, as you normally post on the side of fairness around here.
Curt
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Aug 11, 2010, 5:06 AM
Post #32 of 131
(6576 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
blondgecko wrote: jt512 wrote: The only tards were the staff. PtIong locked himself out of his account (ok, that's mildly retarded), and did the only thing practical (or maybe even possible): he started a new account, with no pretense whatsoever that the account wasn't his. And you geniuses nuked it!put a temporary hold on it, until we could figure out what was going on.Fixed that for you. Nobody was nuked. Nobody was permanently banned. PtIong had a temporary time-out as a simple precaution.
Oh, bullshit. Precaution against what, for crying out loud? If you mods (especially Aric) had been doing your job, you would have realized that there was an overwhelming probability that the two accounts belonged to the same person, and that the second account was not opened for any nefarious purpose.
In reply to: Perhaps that precaution wasn't justified - but considering its utterly insignificant impact on ptlong, who the fuck cares?
You should, Aric should, Phil should, every single moderator should. You're smarter than this, Tristan. Surely you see the fallacy in your argument. You guys fucked up badly, and you simply lucked out: rather than piss off a valuable contributer to the point where he decides that participating in the site isn't worth his time or his dignity, he magnanimously brushes off your ineptitude. With someone else (and, I would argue, with a lot of someone elses) it would have gone the other way, and we'd have lost the user. I know lots of scientists, Tristan, some of them quite prominent, and I can't imagine a single one of them ever bothering to post to a site again where their guilt (over a trivial matter, no less) was presumed, and they were treated in the manner that you treated ptlong. You blew and got lucky. That's hardly a basis for defense of your actions, never mind a policy.
Jay
(This post was edited by jt512 on Aug 11, 2010, 5:11 AM)
|
|
|
|
|
blondgecko
Moderator
Aug 11, 2010, 5:09 AM
Post #33 of 131
(6570 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 2, 2004
Posts: 7666
|
curt wrote: blondgecko wrote: jt512 wrote: The only tards were the staff. PtIong locked himself out of his account (ok, that's mildly retarded), and did the only thing practical (or maybe even possible): he started a new account, with no pretense whatsoever that the account wasn't his. And you geniuses nuked it!put a temporary hold on it, until we could figure out what was going on.Fixed that for you. Nobody was nuked. Nobody was permanently banned. PtIong had a temporary time-out as a simple precaution. Perhaps that precaution wasn't justified - but considering its utterly insignificant impact on ptlong, who the fuck cares? As far as I'm concerned, the shitstorm that we find ourselves in originates in its entirety from the ridiculous over-reaction by curt and yourself. The point is (by your own admission above) the action in question probably wasn't justified and as a result of bringing it up, I am the one who can no longer post in the Lab Forum. Does that truly sound OK to you? Hopefully not, as you normally post on the side of fairness around here. Curt
No, what got you banned was abusing a mod, and continuing to make off-topic posts in that thread after being told to stop.
Seriously, your reaction was way over the top. Far from being "drunk on power", Aric is one of the most level-headed mods here, was simply trying to do the job he volunteered for, and copped a broadside of abuse for it.
|
|
|
|
|
blondgecko
Moderator
Aug 11, 2010, 5:14 AM
Post #34 of 131
(6564 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 2, 2004
Posts: 7666
|
jt512 wrote: blondgecko wrote: jt512 wrote: The only tards were the staff. PtIong locked himself out of his account (ok, that's mildly retarded), and did the only thing practical (or maybe even possible): he started a new account, with no pretense whatsoever that the account wasn't his. And you geniuses nuked it!put a temporary hold on it, until we could figure out what was going on.Fixed that for you. Nobody was nuked. Nobody was permanently banned. PtIong had a temporary time-out as a simple precaution. Oh, bullshit. Precaution against what, for crying out loud? If you mods (especially Aric) had been doing your job, you would have realized that there was an overwhelming probability that the two accounts belonged to the same person, and that the second account was not opened for any nefarious purpose. In reply to: Perhaps that precaution wasn't justified - but considering its utterly insignificant impact on ptlong, who the fuck cares? You should, Aric should, Phil should, every single moderator should. You're smarter than this, Tristan. Surely you see the fallacy in your argument. You guys fucked up badly, and you simply lucked out: rather than piss off a valuable contributer to the point where he decides that participating in the site isn't worth his time or his dignity, he magnanimously brushes off your ineptitude. With someone else (and I would argue, with a lot of someone elses) it would have gone the other way, and we'd have lost the user. I know lots of scientists, Tristan, some of them quite prominent, and I can't imagine a single one of them ever bothering to post to a site again where their guilt (over a trivial matter, no less) was presumed, and they were treated in the manner that you treated ptlong. You blew and got lucky. That's hardly a basis for defense of your actions, never mind a policy. Jay
Seriously? You know lots of people who would leave in a fit of pique over something so trivial? Really?
|
|
|
|
|
curt
Aug 11, 2010, 5:19 AM
Post #35 of 131
(6562 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 18275
|
blondgecko wrote: curt wrote: blondgecko wrote: jt512 wrote: The only tards were the staff. PtIong locked himself out of his account (ok, that's mildly retarded), and did the only thing practical (or maybe even possible): he started a new account, with no pretense whatsoever that the account wasn't his. And you geniuses nuked it!put a temporary hold on it, until we could figure out what was going on.Fixed that for you. Nobody was nuked. Nobody was permanently banned. PtIong had a temporary time-out as a simple precaution. Perhaps that precaution wasn't justified - but considering its utterly insignificant impact on ptlong, who the fuck cares? As far as I'm concerned, the shitstorm that we find ourselves in originates in its entirety from the ridiculous over-reaction by curt and yourself. The point is (by your own admission above) the action in question probably wasn't justified and as a result of bringing it up, I am the one who can no longer post in the Lab Forum. Does that truly sound OK to you? Hopefully not, as you normally post on the side of fairness around here. Curt No, what got you banned was abusing a mod, and continuing to make off-topic posts in that thread after being told to stop. Seriously, your reaction was way over the top. Far from being "drunk on power", Aric is one of the most level-headed mods here, was simply trying to do the job he volunteered for, and copped a broadside of abuse for it.
Haha, what absolute nonsense. I only replied to Aric the way I did because of his smarmy condescending PM to me. I certainly don't owe anyone (mods included) more respect than they show me. It's obvious, however, that the mods here feel differently.
Edited to add:
I've added my email address to my profile--just in case my body does end up on the tarmac.
Curt
(This post was edited by curt on Aug 11, 2010, 5:26 AM)
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Aug 11, 2010, 5:29 AM
Post #36 of 131
(6554 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
blondgecko wrote: jt512 wrote: blondgecko wrote: jt512 wrote: The only tards were the staff. PtIong locked himself out of his account (ok, that's mildly retarded), and did the only thing practical (or maybe even possible): he started a new account, with no pretense whatsoever that the account wasn't his. And you geniuses nuked it!put a temporary hold on it, until we could figure out what was going on.Fixed that for you. Nobody was nuked. Nobody was permanently banned. PtIong had a temporary time-out as a simple precaution. Oh, bullshit. Precaution against what, for crying out loud? If you mods (especially Aric) had been doing your job, you would have realized that there was an overwhelming probability that the two accounts belonged to the same person, and that the second account was not opened for any nefarious purpose. In reply to: Perhaps that precaution wasn't justified - but considering its utterly insignificant impact on ptlong, who the fuck cares? You should, Aric should, Phil should, every single moderator should. You're smarter than this, Tristan. Surely you see the fallacy in your argument. You guys fucked up badly, and you simply lucked out: rather than piss off a valuable contributer to the point where he decides that participating in the site isn't worth his time or his dignity, he magnanimously brushes off your ineptitude. With someone else (and I would argue, with a lot of someone elses) it would have gone the other way, and we'd have lost the user. I know lots of scientists, Tristan, some of them quite prominent, and I can't imagine a single one of them ever bothering to post to a site again where their guilt (over a trivial matter, no less) was presumed, and they were treated in the manner that you treated ptlong. You blew and got lucky. That's hardly a basis for defense of your actions, never mind a policy. Jay Seriously? You know lots of people who would leave in a fit of pique over something so trivial? Really?
Yes, I believe I do, because most anybody with the level of knowledge of ptlong would be hard-pressed to justify spending his time by posting to a forum like this in the first place, and it wouldn't take much incitement for them to perceive that the favor they are doing by bothering with such a forum isn't worth it. For similar reasons I no longer post to any non-professional nutritional forum. And I can rattle off a list of nutritional and medical professionals who have made the same decision. In fact, I can rattle off a list of nutritional forums that have lost almost 100% of their participation among professionals due to mistreatment by forum management.
People with professional expertise do us a favor by participating in this forum. You should be bending over backwards to encourage their participation; not treating them the same way you'd treat some half-literate adolescent playing an immature prank.
Edit: What the fuck am I thinking? I can rattle off a list of climber-scientists who refuse to participate in this forum due to incompetent moderation. In fact, of the many partners of mine who are scientists, not a single one (including my girlfriend) wants to have any part of this cesspool. And why is it a cesspool? Because you guys have no clue about how to moderate it.
Edit to the edit: Forget scientists. Has it ever occurred to you geniuses to question why hardly a single prominent climber contributes to this site?
Jay
(This post was edited by jt512 on Aug 11, 2010, 7:31 AM)
|
|
|
|
|
blondgecko
Moderator
Aug 11, 2010, 5:30 AM
Post #37 of 131
(6552 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 2, 2004
Posts: 7666
|
curt wrote: blondgecko wrote: curt wrote: blondgecko wrote: jt512 wrote: The only tards were the staff. PtIong locked himself out of his account (ok, that's mildly retarded), and did the only thing practical (or maybe even possible): he started a new account, with no pretense whatsoever that the account wasn't his. And you geniuses nuked it!put a temporary hold on it, until we could figure out what was going on.Fixed that for you. Nobody was nuked. Nobody was permanently banned. PtIong had a temporary time-out as a simple precaution. Perhaps that precaution wasn't justified - but considering its utterly insignificant impact on ptlong, who the fuck cares? As far as I'm concerned, the shitstorm that we find ourselves in originates in its entirety from the ridiculous over-reaction by curt and yourself. The point is (by your own admission above) the action in question probably wasn't justified and as a result of bringing it up, I am the one who can no longer post in the Lab Forum. Does that truly sound OK to you? Hopefully not, as you normally post on the side of fairness around here. Curt No, what got you banned was abusing a mod, and continuing to make off-topic posts in that thread after being told to stop. Seriously, your reaction was way over the top. Far from being "drunk on power", Aric is one of the most level-headed mods here, was simply trying to do the job he volunteered for, and copped a broadside of abuse for it. Haha, what absolute nonsense. I only replied to Aric the way I did because of his smarmy condescending PM to me. I certainly don't owe anyone (mods included) more respect than they show me. It's obvious, however, that the mods here feel differently. Edited to add: I've added my email address to my profile--just in case my body does end up on the tarmac. Curt
A few pertinent posts of yours from that thread - before you were banned, and before Aric's PM to you:
curt wrote: Are you fucking nuts?
curt wrote: Why do idiots like you gravitate towards positions of authority? |
|
|
|
|
curt
Aug 11, 2010, 5:33 AM
Post #38 of 131
(6548 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 18275
|
blondgecko wrote: curt wrote: blondgecko wrote: curt wrote: blondgecko wrote: jt512 wrote: The only tards were the staff. PtIong locked himself out of his account (ok, that's mildly retarded), and did the only thing practical (or maybe even possible): he started a new account, with no pretense whatsoever that the account wasn't his. And you geniuses nuked it!put a temporary hold on it, until we could figure out what was going on.Fixed that for you. Nobody was nuked. Nobody was permanently banned. PtIong had a temporary time-out as a simple precaution. Perhaps that precaution wasn't justified - but considering its utterly insignificant impact on ptlong, who the fuck cares? As far as I'm concerned, the shitstorm that we find ourselves in originates in its entirety from the ridiculous over-reaction by curt and yourself. The point is (by your own admission above) the action in question probably wasn't justified and as a result of bringing it up, I am the one who can no longer post in the Lab Forum. Does that truly sound OK to you? Hopefully not, as you normally post on the side of fairness around here. Curt No, what got you banned was abusing a mod, and continuing to make off-topic posts in that thread after being told to stop. Seriously, your reaction was way over the top. Far from being "drunk on power", Aric is one of the most level-headed mods here, was simply trying to do the job he volunteered for, and copped a broadside of abuse for it. Haha, what absolute nonsense. I only replied to Aric the way I did because of his smarmy condescending PM to me. I certainly don't owe anyone (mods included) more respect than they show me. It's obvious, however, that the mods here feel differently. Edited to add: I've added my email address to my profile--just in case my body does end up on the tarmac. Curt A few pertinent posts of yours from that thread - before you were banned, and before Aric's PM to you: curt wrote: Are you fucking nuts? curt wrote: Why do idiots like you gravitate towards positions of authority?
Well, those are both legitimate questions considering the circumstances at the time.
Curt
|
|
|
|
|
blondgecko
Moderator
Aug 11, 2010, 6:55 AM
Post #39 of 131
(6528 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 2, 2004
Posts: 7666
|
curt wrote: blondgecko wrote: curt wrote: blondgecko wrote: curt wrote: blondgecko wrote: jt512 wrote: The only tards were the staff. PtIong locked himself out of his account (ok, that's mildly retarded), and did the only thing practical (or maybe even possible): he started a new account, with no pretense whatsoever that the account wasn't his. And you geniuses nuked it!put a temporary hold on it, until we could figure out what was going on.Fixed that for you. Nobody was nuked. Nobody was permanently banned. PtIong had a temporary time-out as a simple precaution. Perhaps that precaution wasn't justified - but considering its utterly insignificant impact on ptlong, who the fuck cares? As far as I'm concerned, the shitstorm that we find ourselves in originates in its entirety from the ridiculous over-reaction by curt and yourself. The point is (by your own admission above) the action in question probably wasn't justified and as a result of bringing it up, I am the one who can no longer post in the Lab Forum. Does that truly sound OK to you? Hopefully not, as you normally post on the side of fairness around here. Curt No, what got you banned was abusing a mod, and continuing to make off-topic posts in that thread after being told to stop. Seriously, your reaction was way over the top. Far from being "drunk on power", Aric is one of the most level-headed mods here, was simply trying to do the job he volunteered for, and copped a broadside of abuse for it. Haha, what absolute nonsense. I only replied to Aric the way I did because of his smarmy condescending PM to me. I certainly don't owe anyone (mods included) more respect than they show me. It's obvious, however, that the mods here feel differently. Edited to add: I've added my email address to my profile--just in case my body does end up on the tarmac. Curt A few pertinent posts of yours from that thread - before you were banned, and before Aric's PM to you: curt wrote: Are you fucking nuts? curt wrote: Why do idiots like you gravitate towards positions of authority? Well, those are both legitimate questions considering the circumstances at the time. Curt
You may think so - and I know better than to try to convince you otherwise. But that just means that you felt justified in your abuse, not that you weren't abusive.
|
|
|
|
|
adatesman
Aug 11, 2010, 2:07 PM
Post #40 of 131
(6515 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 13, 2005
Posts: 3479
|
Christ on a fucking pogo stick.
Jay:
- I'm sorry that you had issues with other users spoofing your username, which lead to the current policy of banning such confusing usernames on sight AT YOUR VOLUMINOUS REQUEST.
- I'm sorry that neither pt_L_ong nor pt_I_ong responded to my request in thread for clarification of whether they were one in the same.
- I'm sorry that pt_L_ong lost his password and therefore wasn't able to respond to the PM I sent him asking if this doppelganger account was legit
- I'm sorry I haven't been following your thread closely enough to decide for myself that pt_L_ong is now pt_I_ong. While I look at every post in The Lab to make sure Lab Rules are followed (no trolling, no flamefests), I only actually read threads that interest me. As such there's no justification for your expectation that I should have read those posts and known that pt_I_ong is in fact pt_L_ong.
- I'm sorry that there is little to no overlap in IP info between pt_L_ong and pt_I_ong, which on the surface makes the chances of it being a spoof account more likely.
- I'm sorry both pt_L_ong and pt_I_ong have chosen to hide their Last Login Date from their profiles, which would have been very helpful information in determining that the one account had been left for the other
- I'm sorry that Phil saw my thread in the Mod Forum advising them of a possible spoof account (and instructed me to enforce the no-spoof-usernames policy) before I was able to confirm that pt_I_ong was indeed legit.
- I'm sorry the utter hypocrisy of you demanding the rules that only exist because you demanded them be put in place be enforced in some instances and not in others is completely lost on you.
- I'm sorry you feel you are more equal than the rest of the animals and deserve special treatment.
- I'm sorry your Napoleon complex will prevent you from admitting you're on the wrong side of this.
- I'm sorry for pointing out that rumor has it you're vertically challenged and compensate by being a complete abrasive ass to people.
- I'm sorry Curt feels I'm drunk on power, when its really the case that he got told 3 times that instructions to do what I did came from up the food chain and if he took issue with it his recourse was to go up the food chain.
- I'm sorry Curt got the Banz from The Lab, but he was being a complete ass to me in thread and deserved it. When he's ready to play nice he's more than welcome to come back.
- I'm sorry you are under the impression that BlondGecko had anything to do with this. He was away and only came in to the discussion after you began your hissy fit to try and smooth things over here in S&F. Frankly you owe him a BIG apology
Now, kindly BACK THE FUCK OFF.
edit- typo
edit x2- add #6
edit x3- add #14 because I don't like lists with 13 items and because BG deserves a big apology for the crap he's gotten here.
edit x4- looks like I forgot the /ol tag.
(This post was edited by adatesman on Aug 11, 2010, 3:50 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Aug 11, 2010, 4:29 PM
Post #41 of 131
(6473 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
In reply to: "adatesman"]Christ on a fucking pogo stick. Jay:
Aric:
In reply to: I'm sorry that you had issues with other users spoofing your username, which lead to the current policy of banning such confusing usernames on sight AT YOUR VOLUMINOUS REQUEST.
I'm sorry that you feel it is necessary to misrepresent both my request and your current policy. I requested, and you implemented, a policy prohibiting the spoofing of a user by creating a misleading username.
In reply to: I'm sorry that neither pt_L_ong nor pt_I_ong responded to my request in thread for clarification of whether they were one in the same.
I'm sorry that you didn't bother to see if ptIong was still online when you made a "request" of him online, and that you gave him all of about 15 minutes to respond before banning him from posting.
In reply to: I'm sorry that pt_L_ong lost his password and therefore wasn't able to respond to the PM I sent him asking if this doppelganger account was legit
I'm sorry it did not occur to you that he might have lost his password, which is why he might have set up a new account in the first place.
In reply to: I'm sorry I haven't been following your thread closely enough to decide for myself that pt_L_ong is now pt_I_ong. While I look at every post in The Lab to make sure Lab Rules are followed (no trolling, no flamefests), I only actually read threads that interest me. As such there's no justification for your expectation that I should have read those posts and known that pt_I_ong is in fact pt_L_ong.
I'm sorry that, when you saw the new account, you did not bother to compare the content, tone, and vocabulary of ptlong's and ptIong's posts, which would have immediately alerted you to the fact that the two accounts almost surely belonged to the same person.
In reply to: I'm sorry that there is little to no overlap in IP info between pt_L_ong and pt_I_ong, which on the surface makes the chances of it being a spoof account more likely.[
Well, if you actually checked, then at least you did one thing right. Good work!
In reply to: I'm sorry both pt_L_ong and pt_I_ong have chosen to hide their Last Login Date from their profiles, which would have been very helpful information in determining that the one account had been left for the other
I'm sorry that you do not know how to obtain a user's last login date when a user does not show it in their profile. ptlong's last login date was June 30. HTH
In reply to: I'm sorry that Phil saw my thread in the Mod Forum advising them of a possible spoof account (and instructed me to enforce the no-spoof-usernames policy) before I was able to confirm that pt_I_ong was indeed legit.
I'm sorry that Phil hasn't taken personal responsibility for the decision, but has rather stated that he was defending his staff. I'm sorry that, unlike in my day as a mod, decision-making isn't more consultatory. I'm sorry that either Phil now considers himself to be a dictator or that you weren't willing to question his decision.
In reply to: I'm sorry the utter hypocrisy of you demanding the rules that only exist because you demanded them be put in place be enforced in some instances and not in others is completely lost on you.
I'm sorry that you still don't understand that the rule prohibits spoof accounts, and that that rule was not broken. I'm sorry that you don't realize that is a case of pure moderator error.
In reply to: I'm sorry you feel you are more equal than the rest of the animals and deserve special treatment.
I'm sorry that you have this delusion, and I think you would find it impossible to support with any facts. I do believe that valued users, such as ptIong, should not be treated like a half-literate adolescent user playing a prank. I'm sorry if you feel that is elitist. I'm further sorry that it is actually you who thinks you are "more equal" than us, since you feel that as a moderator you can publicly tell a user to "back the fuck off," whereas if a user were to say that to you, you would likely ban them.
In reply to: I'm sorry your Napoleon complex will prevent you from admitting you're on the wrong side of this.
I'm sorry that you still fail to see that this was a pure case of moderator error. You guys blew it. No user—me or anyone else—is on the wrong side of this. I'm further sorry that you believe that your status as a moderator entitles you to violate the rule against making ad hominem attacks against users in the forums.
In reply to: I'm sorry for pointing out that rumor has it you're vertically challenged and compensate by being a complete abrasive ass to people.
I'm sorry that you would publicly embarrass yourself, and demean the entire staff, by making such an immature comment
In reply to: I'm sorry Curt feels I'm drunk on power, when its really the case that he got told 3 times that instructions to do what I did came from up the food chain and if he took issue with it his recourse was to go up the food chain.
Again, I'm sorry that Phil hasn't taken full personal responsibility for this debacle, thereby at least partially exonerating you.
In reply to: I'm sorry Curt got the Banz from The Lab, but he was being a complete ass to me in thread and deserved it. When he's ready to play nice he's more than welcome to come back.
I'm sorry that you feel the need to exaggerate Curt's attitude toward you in that thread. Per the backup of my browser cache, all Curt did was post was "Are you fucking nuts?" in response to your banning ptIong. [Edit: per blondgecko's post, I missed the "Why do idiots like you gravitate to positions of authoriy?" line.]
In reply to: I'm sorry you are under the impression that BlondGecko had anything to do with this. He was away and only came in to the discussion after you began your hissy fit to try and smooth things over here in S&F. Frankly you owe him a BIG apology
I'm sorry I used the word "you" in its plural sense to refer to the moderators as a group in responding to blondgecko. In fact I do not think blondgecko had anything to do with the decision. I'm sorry that blodgecko defended the staff's position publicly when the staff made a clear error. In fact, I'm sorry that blondgecko is a moderator at all, not because he is a bad one, but because the "job" demeans anyone who undertakes it.
Finally, I'm sorry that you believe that it it is within the scope of your responsibilities as moderator to post insincere, sarcastic apologies when a real apology is in order.
In reply to: Now, kindly BACK THE FUCK OFF
Quoted for posterity.
Jay
(This post was edited by jt512 on Aug 11, 2010, 4:32 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
curt
Aug 11, 2010, 4:30 PM
Post #42 of 131
(6472 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 18275
|
adatesman wrote: Christ on a fucking pogo stick. I'm sorry Curt feels I'm drunk on power, when its really the case that he got told 3 times that instructions to do what I did came from up the food chain and if he took issue with it his recourse was to go up the food chain. I'm sorry Curt got the Banz from The Lab, but he was being a complete ass to me in thread and deserved it. When he's ready to play nice he's more than welcome to come back. Now, kindly BACK THE FUCK OFF.
Exactly what I'm talking about. You seem to think you can be as big a motherfucker to regular users here as you like (and you are) but you then expect respect from us, merely because your a moderator. Get over yourself.
Curt
|
|
|
|
|
adatesman
Aug 11, 2010, 4:58 PM
Post #43 of 131
(6459 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 13, 2005
Posts: 3479
|
^^^not reading that.
Seriously, Jay and Curt, you're well out of line on this and its time you back off.
Yes, perhaps the decision to banz pt_I_ong was a bit hasty, but it was 100% in line with existing policy and precedent and the correct action to take while digging into whether the account was legit or not. As mentioned above, worst case would be that pt_I_ong would be mildly inconvenienced while it got sorted out.
Or, to put it another way, what would you have me do if someone decided to register JT5I2 and slyly participate in the forums before causing trouble? Wait a week while we discuss existing policy or enforce the policy that was already put into place after long debate? JT512 from a while back argued strongly for the latter, and I'm finding the sudden shift on the policy you helped create quite hypocritical.
As I said before, you're no more equal than the rest of the animals and deserve no special treatment. As such I strongly suggest you back the hell off if not drop it altogether.
|
|
|
|
|
curt
Aug 11, 2010, 4:59 PM
Post #44 of 131
(6455 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 18275
|
jt512 wrote: In reply to: "adatesman"]Christ on a fucking pogo stick. Jay: Aric: In reply to: I'm sorry that you had issues with other users spoofing your username, which lead to the current policy of banning such confusing usernames on sight AT YOUR VOLUMINOUS REQUEST. I'm sorry that you feel it is necessary to misrepresent both my request and your current policy. I requested, and you implemented, a policy prohibiting the spoofing of a user by creating a misleading username. In reply to: I'm sorry that neither pt_L_ong nor pt_I_ong responded to my request in thread for clarification of whether they were one in the same. I'm sorry that you didn't bother to see if ptIong was still online when you made a "request" of him online, and that you gave him all of about 15 minutes to respond before banning him from posting. In reply to: I'm sorry that pt_L_ong lost his password and therefore wasn't able to respond to the PM I sent him asking if this doppelganger account was legit I'm sorry it did not occur to you that he might have lost his password, which is why he might have set up a new account in the first place. In reply to: I'm sorry I haven't been following your thread closely enough to decide for myself that pt_L_ong is now pt_I_ong. While I look at every post in The Lab to make sure Lab Rules are followed (no trolling, no flamefests), I only actually read threads that interest me. As such there's no justification for your expectation that I should have read those posts and known that pt_I_ong is in fact pt_L_ong. I'm sorry that, when you saw the new account, you did not bother to compare the content, tone, and vocabulary of ptlong's and ptIong's posts, which would have immediately alerted you to the fact that the two accounts almost surely belonged to the same person. In reply to: I'm sorry that there is little to no overlap in IP info between pt_L_ong and pt_I_ong, which on the surface makes the chances of it being a spoof account more likely.[ Well, if you actually checked, then at least you did one thing right. Good work! In reply to: I'm sorry both pt_L_ong and pt_I_ong have chosen to hide their Last Login Date from their profiles, which would have been very helpful information in determining that the one account had been left for the other I'm sorry that you do not know how to obtain a user's last login date when a user does not show it in their profile. ptlong's last login date was June 30. HTH In reply to: I'm sorry that Phil saw my thread in the Mod Forum advising them of a possible spoof account (and instructed me to enforce the no-spoof-usernames policy) before I was able to confirm that pt_I_ong was indeed legit. I'm sorry that Phil hasn't taken personal responsibility for the decision, but has rather stated that he was defending his staff. I'm sorry that, unlike in my day as a mod, decision-making isn't more consultatory. I'm sorry that either Phil now considers himself to be a dictator or that you weren't willing to question his decision. In reply to: I'm sorry the utter hypocrisy of you demanding the rules that only exist because you demanded them be put in place be enforced in some instances and not in others is completely lost on you. I'm sorry that you still don't understand that the rule prohibits spoof accounts, and that that rule was not broken. I'm sorry that you don't realize that is a case of pure moderator error. In reply to: I'm sorry you feel you are more equal than the rest of the animals and deserve special treatment. I'm sorry that you have this delusion, and I think you would find it impossible to support with any facts. I do believe that valued users, such as ptIong, should not be treated like a half-literate adolescent user playing a prank. I'm sorry if you feel that is elitist. I'm further sorry that it is actually you who thinks you are "more equal" than us, since you feel that as a moderator you can publicly tell a user to "back the fuck off," whereas if a user were to say that to you, you would likely ban them. In reply to: I'm sorry your Napoleon complex will prevent you from admitting you're on the wrong side of this. I'm sorry that you still fail to see that this was a pure case of moderator error. You guys blew it. No user—me or anyone else—is on the wrong side of this. I'm further sorry that you believe that your status as a moderator entitles you to violate the rule against making ad hominem attacks against users in the forums. In reply to: I'm sorry for pointing out that rumor has it you're vertically challenged and compensate by being a complete abrasive ass to people. I'm sorry that you would publicly embarrass yourself, and demean the entire staff, by making such an immature comment In reply to: I'm sorry Curt feels I'm drunk on power, when its really the case that he got told 3 times that instructions to do what I did came from up the food chain and if he took issue with it his recourse was to go up the food chain. Again, I'm sorry that Phil hasn't taken full personal responsibility for this debacle, thereby at least partially exonerating you. In reply to: I'm sorry Curt got the Banz from The Lab, but he was being a complete ass to me in thread and deserved it. When he's ready to play nice he's more than welcome to come back. I'm sorry that you feel the need to exaggerate Curt's attitude toward you in that thread. Per the backup of my browser cache, all Curt did was post was "Are you fucking nuts?" in response to your banning ptIong. [Edit: per blondgecko's post, I missed the "Why do idiots like you gravitate to positions of authoriy?" line.] In reply to: I'm sorry you are under the impression that BlondGecko had anything to do with this. He was away and only came in to the discussion after you began your hissy fit to try and smooth things over here in S&F. Frankly you owe him a BIG apology I'm sorry I used the word "you" in its plural sense to refer to the moderators as a group in responding to blondgecko. In fact I do not think blondgecko had anything to do with the decision. I'm sorry that blodgecko defended the staff's position publicly when the staff made a clear error. In fact, I'm sorry that blondgecko is a moderator at all, not because he is a bad one, but because the "job" demeans anyone who undertakes it. Finally, I'm sorry that you believe that it it is within the scope of your responsibilities as moderator to post insincere, sarcastic apologies when a real apology is in order. In reply to: Now, kindly BACK THE FUCK OFFQuoted for posterity. Jay
Aric, Phil, Gecko,
This is a very well written and well reasoned post. If you don't agree with everything in it, you probably have no business being moderators.
Curt
|
|
|
|
|
curt
Aug 11, 2010, 5:02 PM
Post #45 of 131
(6453 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 18275
|
adatesman wrote: As I said before, you're no more equal than the rest of the animals and deserve no special treatment. As such I strongly suggest you back the hell off if not drop it altogether.
Try taking a good look in the mirror, Aric. It isn'y Jay or myself here who believe we are somehow "special."
Curt
|
|
|
|
|
adatesman
Aug 11, 2010, 5:12 PM
Post #46 of 131
(6444 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 13, 2005
Posts: 3479
|
curt wrote: adatesman wrote: As I said before, you're no more equal than the rest of the animals and deserve no special treatment. As such I strongly suggest you back the hell off if not drop it altogether. Try taking a good look in the mirror, Aric. It isn'y Jay or myself here who believe we are somehow "special." Curt
I don't consider myself special in any way, Curt; simply not deserving of the abuse handed me by the two of you for merely enforcing a policy I was told to enforce. As noted above, I was actively trying to determine if pt_I_ong was legit at the time and even left the posts after banning the account because they contributed to the discussion.
Now please drop this and go away.
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Aug 11, 2010, 5:17 PM
Post #47 of 131
(6440 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
adatesman wrote: ^^^not reading that. Seriously, Jay and Curt, you're well out of line on this and its time you back off.
I'll back off when I damn well feel like it, Aric.
Jay
|
|
|
|
|
adatesman
Aug 11, 2010, 5:21 PM
Post #48 of 131
(6435 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 13, 2005
Posts: 3479
|
jt512 wrote: adatesman wrote: ^^^not reading that. Seriously, Jay and Curt, you're well out of line on this and its time you back off. I'll back off when I damn well feel like it, Aric. Jay
Do you feel like it now? Because its long past the time that you did.
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Aug 11, 2010, 5:23 PM
Post #49 of 131
(6433 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
adatesman wrote: jt512 wrote: adatesman wrote: ^^^not reading that. Seriously, Jay and Curt, you're well out of line on this and its time you back off. I'll back off when I damn well feel like it, Aric. Jay Do you feel like it now? Because its long past the time that you did.
Does it look like I do?
Jay
|
|
|
|
|
curt
Aug 11, 2010, 5:25 PM
Post #50 of 131
(6431 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 18275
|
adatesman wrote: curt wrote: adatesman wrote: As I said before, you're no more equal than the rest of the animals and deserve no special treatment. As such I strongly suggest you back the hell off if not drop it altogether. Try taking a good look in the mirror, Aric. It isn'y Jay or myself here who believe we are somehow "special." Curt I don't consider myself special in any way, Curt; simply not deserving of the abuse handed me by the two of you for merely enforcing a policy I was told to enforce. As noted above, I was actively trying to determine if pt_I_ong was legit at the time and even left the posts after banning the account because they contributed to the discussion. Now please drop this...
You first.
adatesman wrote: ...and go away.
You sure you want that, Aric? There aren't all that many 30+ year real climbers posting here anymore.
Curt
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: [philbox] The moderator-induced ptIong debacle
[
