an open letter to the mods from Whiney G. Weingarten

Dear mods,

I understand and respect your decision to ban me for a while. I was unduly cranky to a few posters for a while, engaged in some trolling (sorry, Dan!) and was more than a little annoying with the auto-embed YouTubes, amusing no one but myself (and maybe the rev). I began atoning for my sins a few weeks before i was 51'd (see the hug it out with whiney thread) was was hoping to turn around my posting style to the more "keep-it-posi" vibe ON MY OWN. Needless to say the time off is probably a good thing, and I don't blame you guys for getting rid of me.

However--I was wondering if I can be allowed to post in the F2k thread. It seems weird that there's a thread where people are talking about my writing, and I can't be around to participate.

If you can't tweak the system to allow me to post in one thread, can you reinstate me fully and I'll promise NOT to post in ANY OTHER THREADS until the mods say OK? Think of this as work-release program. I get to leave jail to go to one place that's work-related and i promise not to run off and hang with my buddies.

next day whiney found doing 80 down the interstate with battle axes and an eeepc

j/k <3 u dogg

http://faculty.virginia.edu/MyTube/fall2009_adspotlights/files/2009/09/Willie-Horton.jpg

http://www.nhtsa.gov/buckleup/ciot-planner/planner07/resources/creative/general/Posters/NoExcept-72dpi.jpg

maybe we can let him back but before and after each post he gets a badge like

ATTENTION THIS POSTER RECEIVED 52 SUGGEST BANS READ AT UR OWN PERIL

the most likely outcome of this is either:

- ppl will start posting/crossposting comments to Idolator, as I suggested on the F2K thread
- J0rdan or another kind proxy will post Whiney's responses on that thread when appropriate

I support this proposal, but I'm a bleeding heart like that.

parole hearing

it's his first offense, come on.

he's been offending me forever

Yeah, don't see this happening. In what way would it be fair to other people who've just sucked up their SBs?
(Whiney: semantics aside, mods didn't decide to ban you, you were SBd). If you get a friendly poster to post for you on the thread those posts can stay, but otherwise, month's a month.

Yeah, don't see this happening. In what way would it be fair to other people who've just sucked up their SBs?

You could unban L0u1s and confine him to Cape of Good Hope?

no.

it was worth a shot.

wait louis is banned?? i never know

u guys were wasting time here when we should all be saying mean things abt whiney in the F2k thread

http://i742.photobucket.com/albums/xx65/jenn8865/Decorated%20images/true-love.jpg

not an obstical

nothing an obstitrician couldn't fix

You could unban L0u1s and confine him to Cape of Good Hope?

not until the Australian cricket season starts to pick up

http://www.spiritlink.com/first30days.gif

he'll be back by then anyway

only if he publicly renounces his (Maura's?) Moldy Peaches h8ration on Idolator...via web-cam--i wanna savor the bitter tears of remorse dammit!

what is the difference between a sockpuppet/ip runaround and a posting proxy? i think any whiney proxy should also be banned. this is serious business!

so are you saying anyone who posts something by a currently banned user should also be banned?

KRAMER: You know this whole place is going vrrrrrrrrrrrrt, downhill. I could have come in here last week with a bad plum but I let it go.

JOE: Well let me put a solution for you: do your business elsewhere, I don't want your business.

KRAMER: Oh now you don't want my business.

JOE: No, I don't want your business and from this moment you're banned from the store, you're banned!

KRAMER: But what am I gonna do for fruit?

http://www.spiritlink.com/first30days.gif

we should have another fundraising drive so we can buy up like 15-20 copies of this book and mail it to those that are sb'd

who would keep them in their house i would volunteer bcos it would be a good talking point when visitors come by

^^great idea

have you shagged ariane de bonvoisin yet?

so are you saying anyone who posts something by a currently banned user should also be banned?

ab-so-lutely

belzer otm

Dear Whiney,

http://i17.tinypic.com/6ptj2ua.gif

Dear Roxy,

Why did you lock the diarrhea diarrhea thread on 1p3 iirc?

~Whiney

why does Roxy lock any thread?

http://www.cozykittens.com/Herbie101.jpg

one of my favorite locks

did we ever do a best thread locks poll

xp - precisely - if you gaze into the smoke persian's face, you will discover why roxy locked the diarrhea diarrhea thread.

i need some place to tell rox that this thread:

Now this is how it started: THE ILX 1980s ALBUM POLL RESULTS!!

I don't know what the title is reference to, but every time i see it, i sing the "origins of the addamms family" song from third grade

Do you have weird alternative lyrics for songs that play in your head?

THEY ALL BECAME RETARDED

xp Edward - best thread locks nominee - see today's new COGH thread.

Results 1 - 10 of about 1,190 for "THEY ALL BECAME RETARDED"

kinda think his temp ban was a bit harsh

don't speak of it or you'll get tempbanned

first rule of tempban

i dunno why he was banned, if it was just a case of being overly whiney then it seems a bit much. he does give a pointer, what wth the DN and all

sb?

That will happen soon enough.

okay i read that thread - basically he was making a complaining joke about the non-77 poster's display name discussion that got those threads moved to ILE - and he got banned for that? or was it that he didn't stop when Dan warned him to stop?

see you in 27 days, dumbass

harsh. i like that guy; what'd he do?

oh! thanks.

tbph i duno why, if unperson's DN is so bothersome, that the temp ban hasn't gone that way.

who's the unperson now?

^^ seriously - like Dan felt strongly it should be changed, Whiney had been complaining that it should be changed - why ban Whiney?

you can tear a building down, but you can't erase a memory

this was a mercy comatosing

i dunno - it just reminds me of the noize board AC Transit bus fight video incident where a couple posters pissed off Dan, and then he banned them, but that was only a few hours banning.

dan perry is the Rudy Giulianni of message baord mods

To be blunt, because instead of acting like a normal, rational poster and either addressing unperson directly or going to MRF, Whiney went to 77, took offense when reminded that meta-shit about non-77 people was a no-go (note: I was also involved in the meta-shit but I dropped it immediately when reminded of what I was doing) and spent the next few days loudly proclaiming that ILX mods are champions of rape jokes when to my knowledge none of the mods had even encountered unperson on a thread since he changed his screen name to that. When I encountered him, I asked him to change his screen name, and Whiney took that as an opportunity to rant some more EVEN THOUGH THE SHIT HE WAS ORIGINALLY COMPLAINING ABOUT WAS BEING HANDLED.

I am actually going to speak for every site mod here: we are sick of this shit. Knock it off.

Whiney took that as an opportunity to rant some more EVEN THOUGH THE SHIT HE WAS ORIGINALLY COMPLAINING ABOUT WAS BEING HANDLED.

were there posts that were deleted or was this in a different thread? because it just seemed to me like he was just following up on am0n's post.

http://grab.by/7dgO

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41P376NSBJL._BO2,204,203,200_PIsitb-sticker-arrow-click,TopRight,35,-76_AA300_SH20_OU03_.jpg

http://www.cartoonstock.com/newscartoons/cartoonists/mba/lowres/mban1577l.jpg

(note: I was also involved in the meta-shit but I dropped it immediately when reminded of what I was doing)

― lol tea partiers and their fat fingers (HI DERE), Wednesday, November 3, 2010 4:54 PM (21 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

mod ban thyself

calling the poster a "dumbass" in the admin log does not make the decision appear to be about the community.

oh wait what's this i thought for sure official policy was moving threads from 77

haven't seen the exchange in question but if whiney brought up that unperson bullshit again it's his own fault imo - it's not a dificult rule to follow

otoh 27 days seems a bit harsh and "see you in 27 days, dumbass" is a lame tombot bite

oh wait what's this i thought for sure official policy was moving threads from 77

uh thread in question this time wasnt on 77 so

oh what...so whiney got tempbanned for annoying perry?

man and i was gonna be all pro-mods on this one, i swear

back to the pile

The thing that should be taken away from this is that ranting like an insane person about off-topic meta things will get you tempbanned if I come across it.

Spend more time talking about things other than each other and you shouldn't have any problems.

but we luv each other why cant u see

mod, heal thyself

Whiney did not get tempbanned for annoying Perry

If making fun of rapeyness is a bannable offense, we should all get a time-out for that thread where we ragged on Sublime for singing an anti-rape song.

BROCOLLI RAPE

bee rape (nod to aerosmith)

Anyway, I think Whiney had probably just had too many circus peanuts or something. Just give him a couple days and he'll cool off.

a couple of days, lol

just give him a couple pills and like 30 years of therapy

imo something should be added to the FAQ saying basically "be nice to Dan Perry all the time or be prepared to face the consequences" because that's pretty much how it feels at this point. maybe all the mods stand together on his decisions but usually it feels like it's him taking stuff personal, acting on it, and then usually jjjusten backing him up. nothing against you, dude, you're an A+ poster and as big a part of ILX as anybody but i'm getting Tombot flashbacks.

some dude making a lot of sense, but otoh...

Whiney did not get tempbanned for annoying Perry

― Pashmina, Wednesday, November 3, 2010 6:14 PM (Yesterday) Bookmark

cant really argue with this stone cold logic

stfu noob

Whiney obviously can be a gaping asshole and can be 51'd when he's a general nuisance, as he has been and may be again in the future. but if anything that lowers the impetus for mod intervention, especially a 4-week ban for the kind of thing that iirc usually warrants a couple days in the penalty box. when i talked to him about it he didn't seem particular upset or impatient to get posting privileges back, so i'm not really adamantly protesting on his behalf or anything, but i still think it was pretty clearly a raw deal.

xp uh well fuck you dude

People taking the fact that hi dere and I have known each other for a billion years and turning it into evidence #1 for how we are rogue mod cop buddies watching each others back can stfu IMO. Shit is getting old.

its more classic than old

xp uh well fuck you dude

― samosa gibreel, Thursday, November 4, 2010 12:24 AM (3 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

j/k noob jeez

Like so far my "backing him up" in this instance was clarifying that the 28 day deal was generated by the system just so peeps had transparency on that and all of a sudden I'm gabby Hayes dancing on a saloon table in the background while dan cold guns em down.

\(O_O)/

brand n00bian

I'm generally fine w/ mod fascism but 'see you in 27 days, dumbass' seems like more of an abuse of power than the actual banning

i read this whole thread and i still dont really understand why whiney is banned

um maybe if u read this one

ILX Posters Whose Butts I Want To Smack With A Spiny Fish

this is a good one to let go smack w/a spiny fish

― lol tea partiers and their fat fingers (HI DERE), Monday, November 1, 2010 1:11 PM (3 days ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

The fact that peeps still invoke tombot in these threads like you are survivors of some despotic Internet police state is totally fucking pathetic as well btw.

*cowers instinctively*

from whiney:

I 100% feel like I was temp-banned for annoying Dan Perry and nothing else. I have learned absolutely nothing from this experience and when I return in 27 days, I will continue to post as I always have, even--and especially--if that includes lightly poking fun of the terrible mod decisions of Dan and jjjusten. If they're too thin-skinned to handle that, they can continue temp-banning me and everyone until ILX is the boring cuddle party they so clearly desire.

The fact that peeps still invoke tombot in these threads like you are survivors of some despotic Internet police state is totally fucking pathetic as well btw.

― O_o-O_0-o_O (jjjusten), Thursday, November 4, 2010 12:53 AM (3 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

YOU DONT KNOW

YOU WERENT THERE

you guys are going to learn, I think, that I'm the nicest mod you fucking have

-- El Tomboto, Wednesday, 28 May 2008

miss u, dude

Also, the two of them are being more mean and meta-snarky on this this thread than ANY of my gags about moving the finest thread. This is a ridiculous double standard. And pathetic. And honestly i'm proud to be banned from any site where moderators can dish it all day out but cannot take it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VpWzeykbJSA

max channeling the spirit of whiney is super weird

http://c2.api.ning.com/files/sEVmhyB3c1XfSzQ6CgQys*cVHfiHrJAeqGs6D7PMf92tVsvCAlJ1NUhVplXjBlT4axsCd1n3kT6Wjrk62Uc*uSBpgBH8zN6m/ouija1.jpg

http://www.socialstudiesforkids.com/graphics/fifeanddrum.jpg

the length of these bans is straight ridiculous

Uh yknow pretty sure nothing I've said on this thread is up to par snarkwise with repeatedly talking about how the mods love rape jokes so whatever dude.

do THE MODS LOVE RAPE JOKES?

so this is 27 days because that's all the system will allow? what happened to three day temp bans?

do THE MODS LOVE RAPE JOKES?

no

so this is 27 days because that's all the system will allow? what happened to three day temp bans?

temp bans are automatically made longer by the system each time

Wow jhosh yknow it actually really bums me out that we used to get along on this site but then I became a mod and now you seem to go out of your way to be a dick to me.

oh xp

jj

1. i do like you and i reget and apologize for any previous excessively feeling hurting behavior, but that was clearly an hilarious text formatting based joke

2. if you dont want people to give you shit re being a mod, just dont be a mod, easy

anyway imo this is a ridiculous ban but whatever

i feel like unperson should be banned for even being collateral damage in this dust up

ban unperson

come unpeople now, smile on your brother

xp - as mod of 1p3 you can ban ph1l from that board - granted he doesn't post there - but maybe it'd make you feel better?

if he posted on 1p3 i would ban him

i.e. i banned princess tamtam

could you pretend to post as him and then ban him?

Yeah this is an awesome direction to take this thread

it was going so well before

in the interest of science, can't he just be banned for three days?

three days is a pretty limp, non-threatening ban tbh

yeah but Whiney likes indie rock womanhood, doesn't he?

i have irl fondness for whiney and take no pleasure in sharing this, but y'all should be aware (and whiney has already been made aware) that dude is perched right at 51 and he is likely going to be taking a three month ban extremely shortly so this is all kind of a moot point

wait, why would he be taking a 3 month ban?

102 = 3 month

but Kate got 102'ed and got let back in 30 days!

why don't captainlorax's bans get progressively longer ;)

why are you trying to get rid of the capn

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fyF5J7au1jE

^^ unperson's a big fan of the Railroad

but Kate got 102'ed and got let back in 30 days!

― sarahel, Thursday, November 4, 2010 1:38 AM (3 minutes ago) Bookmark

for real? *scratches chin*

also i don't think jagger was gone for three

they're a colombian band
xpost

nah LJ only got another 30 - but he's kinda the ilx equivalent of a made guy imo

guys, i don't keep up with the ban bylaws; all I'm saying is that he's at 51. Whatever the stand-in-the-corner time is with that.

guys, i don't keep up with the ban bylaws; all I'm saying is that he's at 51. Whatever the stand-in-the-corner time is with that.

― a pun based on a popular ilx meme (forksclovetofu), Wednesday, November 3, 2010 11:44 PM (2 seconds ago)

you had me worried there - this could seriously derail our ultra-scientific study

it's also convenient that whiney got banned on the cusp of 51 so when he comes back from his 27 (lol) day ban he'll post for like 2 days & then get a 30 day

Well except for the fact that some of his sbs would expire and he'd be less likely to accrue new ones but feel free to roll on w/yer none dare call it a conspiracy vibe

ha, i'm not saying it's a conspiracy! just that if he was that close to being sb'd maybe just wait until he gets sb'd or just incur his sb on this ban but whatever idk about the mechanization of the sb

Sorry then, misread how u meant convenient.

but j0rdan, what would happen if Dan went back on his word and unbanned Whiney? I mean, wouldn't that make mods look weak or soft or something?

I have learned absolutely nothing from this experience and when I return in 27 days, I will continue to post as I always have

kind of loling at the idea that whiney would have magically 'reformed' if he had been 30 day'd by via the more traditional route

I mean, it's clear that the dudes is going down the road of cankles recidivism and will never change. one hug it out thread does not a reform make

who is this "ph1l" btw

fr33m4n

i'm backin dp/jj re-election ticket in 2012 tbh, even though i'm always in the press enclosure watching them like a hawk

Whiney was actually on 49 SBs even before that ban and as a result of that thread has since gone up to 52, so nature would have taken its course anyway and the end result would have been much the same. Except without this sense of perceived persecution and Sarahel meta-concern trolling.

Pretty sure Whiney would have come back with an identical posting voice whatever happened. He doesn't seem to want to post in any other way.

I have to lol that at least four of the people attacking this ban clicked the SB button themselves for Whiney. I know it's not exactly the same but still.

peoples got a right to know matt, even if sarahel's usually the first to ask. That's why, imho, there's a comments field in the admin log.

Well actually what Sarahel did was revive this thread to say the temp ban was harsh and THEN go and read the Rollins thread to find out why he was tempbanned. Disingenuous as hell.

well tbh i skimmed rollins thread and still aint sure but i'm a concepts not a details man

ice cr?m killin it itt tbh, these things need to be treated with the appropriate levity

^ sb

h8 u

Man, I Know it's not going to happen, but it would be educational to see what posts people get sb'd for.

like, just in terms of accountability/transparency

Haha that would prove so, so divisive.

finite no of sb's a poster can give in 6 month rolling term imo.

Noodle vague's gonna sb me for that

People taking the fact that hi dere and I have known each other for a billion years and turning it into evidence #1 for how we are rogue mod cop buddies watching each others back can stfu IMO. Shit is getting old.

― O_o-O_0-o_O (jjjusten), Thursday, November 4, 2010 12:25 AM (7 hours ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

The fact that peeps still invoke tombot in these threads like you are survivors of some despotic Internet police state is totally fucking pathetic as well btw.

― O_o-O_0-o_O (jjjusten), Thursday, November 4, 2010 12:53 AM (7 hours ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

on one level I do understand where you're coming from and I do feel sorry for kind of putting you in a possibly unfair light in posts. but on another level, it feels like you're trying to embarrass people out of criticizing you, which, y'know, doesn't do you any favors in a discussion about whether mods are bullies.

some dude on the fucking money

it'd be nice btw if every fucking visible mod didn't post from the same slumber party

― avoyoungdro's number (k3vin k.), Friday, October 29, 2010 12:54 AM (6 days ago)

on one level I do understand where you're coming from and I do feel sorry for kind of putting you in a possibly unfair light in posts. but on another level, it feels like you're trying to embarrass people out of criticizing you, which, y'know, doesn't do you any favors in a discussion about whether mods are bullies.

I'm not sure attempting to cast Whiney as a victim of bullying is going to work either dude.

i see where i called Whiney a "gaping asshole," but you'll have to point out where I called him a victim.

2. if you dont want people to give you shit re being a mod, just dont be a mod, easy

― ice cr?m, Thursday, November 4, 2010 1:15 AM (7 hours ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

this should seriously be emblazoned on a plaque at the top of the front door of ilx city hall. I'm sorry, but if you guys want to be able to tell us when we're misbehaving and penalize us when we don't without being constantly criticized or questioned, you have to at least SEEM like you're more mature and thick-skinned than the rest of us.

yeah nobody should be able to do that job, and if someone has to they certainly should be drafted in from another website or recruited or whatever as opposed to being y'know, good posters and good dudes.

i'm not asking mods to be saints, i'm just saying if they don't think they're making decisions out of anger or petty beefs they should maybe work harder and making it look like they're not.

cos just sayin, any time dp, jj or mattdc ever felt the need to pull mod shit on me, i took a good long look first before deciding my internet posting rights had been violated.

the insult to injury "haha i get to call you a name in the admin log as i ban you" thing is pretty disgusting. wasn't that little text box made to explain/justify mod actions?

and imo if you have notions that mods must have an extra layer of skin than other posters, fair enough. It's fair enough on the other side of the coin- have an extra layer of courtesy when dealing with them in their modding capacity.

xp well yeah that was not ideal tbh

different rules apply for whiney, in fact I believe they're called the "whiney house rules"

I would just like a pat on the head for not posting any of the dumb shit that I typed and then erased. thanking u

'cider-by-cop house rules

the whole case here seems to be 'whiney should be treated like an adult!'.

Eh, why? Like the guy a lot but maturity aint his modus operandi afaict.

The 27 days thing, yeah does seem excessive- not hi dere's call.

don't know why you think this is about coddling Whiney. it's more like "if he was at 49, maybe the mod should have just taken that knowledge as some comfort, and waited a couple days for the guys pissing him off to get himself banned."

if you dont want people to give you shit re being a mod, just dont be a mod, easy

And if you don't want to end up being tempbanned, don't be a dick to people all the time, easy.

it's still completely unclear to me what whiney is meant to have done

ban durations are not a force of nature. disingenuous to shift blame to the code.

i've never been banned and probably never will unless i suicide-by-cop out of frustration with you guys, so that's not advice you need to give me. don't know why it's so ridiculous to hold mods to a higher standard than the most aggressive bannable posters.

afaict dp has a pretty solid record of implementing and justifying his decisions in a way that results in clusterfucks. the fact that many of the people posting on this thread sbed whiney themselves is evidence of this, matt, not evidence that dan is modding well. and he doesn't even seem to like being a mod that much. perhaps a sabbatical?

speaking personally i'd much rather mods dealt tempbans independent of the sb system if it's merited. There was accusations of tinkering before iirc ?enrique?

The tempban was independent of the Suggest Ban system.

If you guys want I can officially lift Whiney's mod-inflicted temp ban and then ban him for 30 days because he's on 52 Suggest Bans. Would that help clear this up?

afaict if someone was to ban themselves after a full and public explanation there'd be three clusterfucks within a minute

xp yeah matt was respondin to some dude above re temp bans being kept independent

no reason to cry for whiney but it was a pretty whimsical and arbitrary ban. maybe 'he had it coming' is true but it doesn't look good as precedent.

If you guys want I can officially lift Whiney's mod-inflicted temp ban and then ban him for 30 days because he's on 52 Suggest Bans. Would that help clear this up?

― Matt DC, Thursday, 4 November 2010 12:52 (2 minutes ago)

i think so? kinda

works for me, if you also take away dan's mod powers. who will police the police?

If you guys want I can officially lift Whiney's mod-inflicted temp ban and then ban him for 30 days because he's on 52 Suggest Bans. Would that help clear this up?

― Matt DC, Thursday, November 4, 2010 8:52 AM (1 minute ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

I don't feel comfortable speaking for Whiney or anyone else, but tbh I think that would be fair. would be kind of ridiculous if he served his 27 days, then got SB ban sentence back to back, seems like it should be one or the other.

I was taking the piss a bit with that post, but I think he'll be off for a month whatever happens.

I mean it comes down to it that the mods agreed with Whiney about the rape username, it was being dealt with. But Whiney was being pointlessly sarcastic and antagonistic (in the way he is with everyone) for no reason other than to be a dick and provoke a fight.

He could have actually put his point rationally and he didn't, which is why he's tempbanned and Some Dude and whoever else is making their point more-or-less straighforwardly on this thread isn't.

I mean it comes down to it that the mods agreed with Whiney about the rape username, it was being dealt with. But Whiney was being pointlessly sarcastic and antagonistic (in the way he is with everyone) for no reason other than to be a dick and provoke a fight.

dealing with this sort of low level assholery (as in not racist/hacking/etc.) trolling is exactly what i thought the sb system was for, at least that's how it was explained (most vocally by dan). if you're not willing to trust it to do this as mods then i have no idea why we even have it any more.

Yeah I don't disagree with that and I without wanting to debate the rights and wrongs of the SB system yet again, the system broadly works. As it happens, in this case the system agreed with Dan, another two people SBed Whiney almost immediately.

The thing that's always exasperating about these discussions is that it's always couched in two things. Firstly is the "who watches the Watchmen?" line, implying it's a shady conspiracy to keep certain people we don't like down, just because we don't like them. Trust me, if I thought I could just get away with banning everyone I don't like then there would be a hell of a lot more people on the permaban list. Actually, the mods ARE accountable. They're accountable to the other mods, and above all to the coders who have the ultimate say. We disagree on things more than people think and that has an effect on policy.

The other thing, which is particularly irritating, is that there's nearly always a "we think X should not be a mod" strand, like people are actively aiming to have someone's mod privs removed. Everyone's entitled to express that opinion but ultimately the same ten or so people who are always on these threads do not have any say in it, that's purely a matter for the people who run the site, and that's always been the case, from Tom Ewing onwards. I'm sure if Keith and Stet seriously thought that any mod was not trusted by the community to moderate the site, then they wouldn't be moderating the site. If you don't like that, tough, really.

It's also worth pointing out that if you look at Dan's modding history, he almost always overturns a temp ban after a day or so and my guess is that would have happened here as well. The 29 day thing is a quirk of the system based on the number of times he's been tempbanned in the past.

It's irrelevant now as Whiney's been 51'ed anyway. I'd imagine he'd be let back in a month, but at the same time going "when I return I will continue to post as I always have" is not really the way to persuade mods to treat you leniently.

remember what happened the mouth of sauron, man, dont be that guy threatening the mob.

I'd imagine he'd be let back in a month, but at the same time going "when I return I will continue to post as I always have" is not really the way to persuade mods to treat you leniently.

― Matt DC, Thursday, November 4, 2010 1:41 PM (1 minute ago) Bookmark

not really seeing whiney's steez as particularly offensive

guess i've been here a long time, seen a lotta shit go down

I was about to write Matt's last post almost verbatim (and in fact has said similar to him privately before this).

If Whiney comes back and continues to be an abusive ass with a secret "oh but it's hust jokes, I really love you guys FUCK YOU haha I'm a scamp!" thread on 77, I will permaban him. ILX does not need that shit.

If "spend more time being civil than uncivil to other posters" is too much for you to bear, don't post here.

whuuuuuuuut?

that excludes most of the board's a-list, past and present

don't worry, there's always room for b-list dicks and sociopaths

OK, if you've got our backs when people are being assholes and are capable of doing this without the guidance of SB counts behind the scenes, which is what you seem to be saying, lets ditch the SB system.

Firstly is the "who watches the Watchmen?" line, implying it's a shady conspiracy to keep certain people we don't like down, just because we don't like them.

That's not my point. My point is that, like a lot of aspects of moderation (Sb thresholds, ban durations), you act like the mod roster is a force of nature, and not something that's up for debate. Every time this happens you just circle the wagons.

there's nearly always a "we think X should not be a mod" strand, like people are actively aiming to have someone's mod privs removed. Everyone's entitled to express that opinion but ultimately the same ten or so people who are always on these threads do not have any say in it, that's purely a matter for the people who run the site, and that's always been the case, from Tom Ewing onwards

Absolutely. But if someone acting as mod doesn't have the trust of regular users then surely this is at least relevant to the decision you guys are making, since it impairs their ability to mod. This "if someone" is not hypothetical concern trolling by the way. I don't trust dan to make the right decisions. I didn't trust tom either, but he was lolz. Not saying that should be a deal breaker though. Just letting u know how i feel.

there are huge gaps btwn what sb deals with and some other banworthy behaviours.

I propose that there be one Super Mod on ILX who can do whatever he/she wants. however, each user will also be given a Super Mod Button. when a user presses the Super Mod Button, the current Super Mod will be permabanned and the user who pressed the button will become the new Super Mod. The Mod Is Dead, Long Live The Mod

The thing that's always exasperating about these discussions is that it's always couched in two things. Firstly is the "who watches the Watchmen?" line, implying it's a shady conspiracy to keep certain people we don't like down, just because we don't like them. Trust me, if I thought I could just get away with banning everyone I don't like then there would be a hell of a lot more people on the permaban list. Actually, the mods ARE accountable. They're accountable to the other mods, and above all to the coders who have the ultimate say. We disagree on things more than people think and that has an effect on policy.

The other thing, which is particularly irritating, is that there's nearly always a "we think X should not be a mod" strand, like people are actively aiming to have someone's mod privs removed. Everyone's entitled to express that opinion but ultimately the same ten or so people who are always on these threads do not have any say in it, that's purely a matter for the people who run the site, and that's always been the case, from Tom Ewing onwards. I'm sure if Keith and Stet seriously thought that any mod was not trusted by the community to moderate the site, then they wouldn't be moderating the site. If you don't like that, tough, really.

― Matt DC, Thursday, November 4, 2010 9:34 AM (18 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

well, maybe the only way they'll know who the community trusts to moderate the site is if we have these kinds of threads now and again. if pestering little people like me are so powerless you might as well at least let us talk.

I do understand that it kind of takes things in a weird uncomfortable direction to talk about the character or temperament of people who mod, but honestly I feel it does matter -- Dan's a great poster partly because of how hilariously inflexible he is about his opinions and how mercilessly he shoots down others' arguments. that's great fun in a thread about Justin Timberlake, not so much when he's the one deciding who gets to post or not for the next month. I mean, there are a lot of great personalities on this board, but for pretty obvious reasons I'd be fine with nabisco modding, Alex in NYC not so much.

both those traits make him a pretty good mod too

for pretty obvious reasons I'd be fine with nabisco modding, Alex in NYC not so much.

― Danble Perritration (some dude), Thursday, November 4, 2010 2:04 PM (2 minutes ago) Bookmark

mostly agree with some dude but ehh whatever @ this

As much as it's pissing me off, you can say whatever you want to about me and how you perceive my personality on these threads as it is pertinent to the discussion. Neither nabisco or Alex in NYC is, and dragging their names into this clusterfuck is unfair to both of them.

That's not my point. My point is that, like a lot of aspects of moderation (Sb thresholds, ban durations), you act like the mod roster is a force of nature, and not something that's up for debate. Every time this happens you just circle the wagons.

I honestly have not seen that happen in this situ, unless saying "I honestly have not seen that happen" is the kind of thing you hold up as circling the wagons.

Any instance of the moderators agree with each other is "circling the wagons". The problem is that we have all of our arguments elsewhere and have generally reached consensus by the time these threads start running, so the people who always post on them feel like they're talking to a brick wall.

Like, and maybe I'll get shit for posting this, but Matt strongly disagreed with me banning Whiney and has been making the same "he was going to get 51'ed anyway" argument being put forward here.

Posting the word "dumbass" in the admin log was wrong. I had about a paragraph of measured text in there that I ended up deleting because it seemed stupid to put an essay in the admin log. I shouldn't have done that.

wow, didn't realize it was going to be horribly offensive and controversial to use a couple of actual poster display names as shorthand for "even-tempered poster" and "hotheaded poster," sorry guys.

if someone gets banned immediately after mouthing off to one mod, and the other mods back that mod up later, it looks like one person made a decision and everyone else kinda shrugged and went well let's just stand together on this, as opposed to the mods all having a conversation and deciding together to ban the sassmouth. that's not a conspiracy theory, I'm just telling you how it looks logically to anyone paying attention.

but i do really appreciate you admitting that the namecalling in the admin log was wrong, that's definitely one of the major points of contention here.

i.e. i banned princess tamtam

― J0rdan S., Thursday, November 4, 2010 2:04 AM

:-(

there are huge gaps btwn what sb deals with and some other banworthy behaviours.

― cant believe you sb'd me for that (darraghmac), Thursday, November 4, 2010 9:59 AM (21 minutes ago)

yeah but dan decided that because he's a mod he got to have two or three SB's for the one time whiney pissed him off instead of one SB like everyone else on the site. seems fair to me

the "he was gonna get 51'd anyway" line is irrelevant - dan perry was out of line, it's not the first time this has happened, own up to it

what fuckin 2 or 3 sb's? Jeez this discussion can happen without shit-talk like this, cmon.

No it can't, and that is the problem with these conversations.

stfu dan you like granny weatherwax ffs.

ur on shaky ground as it is

k3vin k. using posters real names when shit gets heated

oh hey look everyone i just told brute mod hi dere to stfu guess i'm about to be permabanned, cos that's what this dude is like, right?

Rmde

this is a good one to let go, send buffy dvds

ban darraghmac

wondering where some dude is taking this w/ his dn tbh

That display name is at least a couple of days old, I assume it has nothing to do with anything happening here.

yeah it's due for a change anyway

better?

peritonitis wd be better i think

If Whiney comes back and continues to be an abusive ass with a secret "oh but it's hust jokes, I really love you guys FUCK YOU haha I'm a scamp!" thread on 77, I will permaban him. ILX does not need that shit.

― lol tea partiers and their fat fingers (HI DERE), Thursday, November 4, 2010 9:44 AM (49 minutes ago) Bookmark

feeling the futility of all this now that the ultimate verdict has been cast

i don't think whiney is the biggest asshole on the board, imo there are much bigger and more gaping assholes, he's just the most visible because he posts a lot and often in all caps

I "like" whiney fine but surely part of being a big asshole is related to the frequency of yr posts?

I raise this in a philosophical, probing-at-definitions fashion, not cos I've got a pony in this race.

i'd say visibility is the "big" part of "big asshole"

whineys problem imho is mostly that he has no taste

Anyway, caek and some dude have a point; their distrust in me and my judgment is going to make whatever I do as a moderator seem suspect and making mistakes like letting someone who is actively attempting to frustrate me succeed reinforces that.

I am, for better or worse, firmly of the opinion that actively attempting to frustrate and annoy a moderator (Note: not a poster; in this particular instance, I was, as a site mod, asking a poster to change a display name that others, including Whiney, had found offensive, and Whiney was spending his time derailing his own thread and making the situation worse than the offensive display name was. I have not and have never used moderation powers against someone who was arguing with me poster to poster and, aside from the entirely unlikely case of people suddenly deciding to drop n-bombs at me, I never will.) opens you to having moderation action taken against you. If you disagree with that and feel you have a better way, I offer you my moderation powers (pending approval from the other site mods).

the g. stood for goatse all along

an open letter to the mob from hi dere imo.

Personally can't think of anyone i'd want to take over, as well to say that as i'm sure there'll be plenty naysayers with 2c each

Dear Roxy,

Why did you lock the diarrhea diarrhea thread on 1p3 iirc?

~Whiney

Suggest rolling "ILXor's Top Mod" competition.

caek 4 mod!

maybe there should be a rotating monthly mod spot, just to see what it 'feels like'

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tribune

make caek and al shipley mods

^^^^^

http://rtfitch.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/fireworks.jpg

GOOD LUCK ILXORA

I just wanna say that in about 90% of cases I completely agree with Dan's mod decisions. While I don't necessarily agree with him in this case, apparently 51+ people did. This kinda astounds me because I don't really see anything offensive about WGW's style of posting, but there have been loud protests in the past against SBeanings that I thought were completely justified. Guess it takes all kinds to make this community. I don't have a conclusion for this thought. Peace.

ice cr?m for mod

we all scr?m for ice cr?m

no no come on u guys we all know i would make dan look like *attempting to think of a well known reasonable politician*

think of an attractive one, plz

I don't want to be ugly

http://i36.tinypic.com/wbvxv5.gif

lol xp

jjjusten for mod

fuck you man I aint no screw

i think i should be mod mod not mod

we should have a knockout poll tournament after a nominations thread.

if modding's gonna be an arbitrary popularity contest then fuckit, lets get real on dis ting

I do love how people nominations for mod are "let's have a mod who would never ban an awesome bro no matter what he said" -- great look, that

i think we would all ban whiney permanently given the chance. no one is disagreeing with that.

lol

aerosmith for mod

yeah see dan acknowledging that you're gonna send people to their rooms if they annoy mod-hat hi dere is the kind of paternalistic bs that ppl legitimately have beef with - adopt a more even-handed perspective or please stop being a mod

xp aero no one is saying that, and most of the noms are jokes. al would be an excellent mod I think

my first act as mod will be to auto-embed coroner songs into every thread

Since peeps are bringing up the idea that whiney is not necc the biggest asshole on the site, just the most visible, this is prob a good time to bring up that the same thing kinda applies to whatever mod is the "problem" mod at any given point. the problem is that dudes want mod actions to be visible and explained, but when we do that, it normally turns into a bunch of accusations of hardmanning or meanness or snarkiness or whatever. it'd be WAY easier to just mod without transparency, and lots of sites do exactly that, but thats not how ilx works or should work. this same thing applies to the circling the wagons deal - if we didnt try to explain why a mod action was taken or how certain systematic stuff works, no one would think that, because youd never hear any explanation in the first place.

tbh im not crazy about tying this further into this thread since i think its counterproductive to talk about sorta the big mod concerns in a poster/situation specific thread, but i would be totally down with starting a general mod concerns thread or some such if peeps want to hash some of this out.

not knowing all that being a mod really entails i would be into a tryout period to see if i like it or would do an acceptable job but i'm not gonna actively campaign for it or anything, i don't sincerely thing regime change is the only answer here

i got an open letter from the weingartenment the other day

i think dan was pretty clear i explaining this tempban. If mods are taking crap for no other reason than being mods, why the fuck should they react as a normal poster?

Have zinged jj and dan many's the time and there was no 'paternalistic' repercussions. Maybe if you dont act like a brat you dont get sent to yr room i dunno seems p fuckin reasonable.

Reject hi dere's offer of resignation, ban kevin k.

yeah see dan acknowledging that you're gonna send people to their rooms if they annoy mod-hat hi dere is the kind of paternalistic bs that ppl legitimately have beef with - adopt a more even-handed perspective or please stop being a mod

I read this as "Be better than we are, and never EVER show anger." You know, it's a nice ideal, and it IS the ideal -- it's what we shoot for. But you're not going to get it 100% of the time. Sorry.

Seriously, if you know of a messageboard with more even-tempered mods, please post a link -- I would love to see it and study it.

I don't even care, man, I was tired of hearing that I personally was #1 fan of rape jokes and could not get enough of them.

Like having to hear that, multiple days in a row, in all-caps...it was a bullshit argument and pretty mean too, imo.

http://www.80stees.com/images/products/Devo_Energy_Dome-Hat.jpg

^ mod-hat

haha "it could be worse" is always a great defense

poster does something out of line, gets a 27 day ban. mod does something out of line, beats around the bush for 200 posts while his buddies and british attack dog make excuses and gets no action taken against him. that seems to be what happens

^^^ This is why no one takes you seriously.

wow dude i dont even really know what to say to you at this point

aint sb'd u yet man, but just for confirmation did u just refer to me as 'british'?

I do.

Fuck off, you little child. This is why you are worthless.

SB away.

Have fun being a mod, some dude.

Part of me feels like I am letting the terrorists win but honestly it is 100% worth it.

I gotta say obv dan can do whatever he wants but the chances of anyone getting elected as new mod out of this clusterfuck is like 0%. no offense to some dude, but 10 hyped up peeps snapping at each other (myself included in that number btw) isnt the best way to find out who works as a site wide mod.

it's like when sean connery unloads on the warden at the end of 'the hill'

going to restate my no permanent mods idea b/c I think it does well to diminish the us vs. them on both sides. also keeps general moderation more fluid and flexible.

more fuiud

But the "us vs them" is totally overexaggerated, it's like 15 posters maximum who get involved in this sort of mod-bashing and because they shout loudly and get involved in 500-post clusterfucks they convince themselves there's a major problem, when actually there isn't.

'No permanent mods' is very harsh on mods like Abbott and Ned and WmC who generally just clear up things on request and don't get directly involved in these sort of things. Also rotating mods would see you pretty soon run out of people who both want to mod and are trusted by the coders to actually do so.

k3vin, i honestly think you are really overstepping the line here, and have been for about a week since the explosion re: finest display names getting moved. the way yer arguing this all is super counterproductive because it keeps returning to the personal and then hackles get obv raised etc, so maybe take it down a notch, huh?

The funny thing is that I still don't know what k3vin k. wants to happen/be done. Dan already said the "dumbass" thing was a mistake. What do you want, Jimmy Swaggart style tears?

If "spend more time being civil than uncivil to other posters" is too much for you to bear, don't post here.

― lol tea partiers and their fat fingers (HI DERE), Thursday, 4 November 2010 13:45 (2 hours ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

whuuuuuuuut?

that excludes most of the board's a-list, past and present

― rip whiney g weingarten 03/11 never forget (history mayne), Thursday, 4 November 2010 13:49 (2 hours ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

I have never minded Whiney, but I really hate this sort of attitude. So someone like D0m P was, in your opinion, a more worthy poster than, say, Ned, or nabisco, or Abbs, or... well, pretty much the majority of posters here? Ilx, regardless of what you might think, is best when it's not full of snark or zing culture.

I do love how people nominations for mod are "let's have a mod who would never ban an awesome bro no matter what he said" -- great look, that

― honkin' on joey kramer (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Thursday, November 4, 2010 11:39 AM (33 minutes ago) Bookmark

there's a guy in RI who runs for lieutenant governor and his sole position is "abolish the lieutenant governor post", I vote for him every time

I gotta say obv dan can do whatever he wants but the chances of anyone getting elected as new mod out of this clusterfuck is like 0%. no offense to some dude, but 10 hyped up peeps snapping at each other (myself included in that number btw) isnt the best way to find out who works as a site wide mod.

― O_o-O_0-o_O (jjjusten), Thursday, November 4, 2010 12:09 PM (18 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

yeah i agree with this

when posters like k3v who generally play nice and don't argue a lot become combative about mod action, it's seen as "man, you're really losing your way, you used to be such a good kid." that's an interesting interpretation imo.

when the assholes stand up to the mods, they're assholes. when the nice guys stand up to the mods, they're taking things too seriously and need to take it down a notch. that's why we get the "paternalistic" vibe, guys.

I don't even care, man, I was tired of hearing that I personally was #1 fan of rape jokes and could not get enough of them.

― 17th Century Catholic Spain (Abbbottt), Thursday, November 4, 2010 12:00 PM (30 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

Like having to hear that, multiple days in a row, in all-caps...it was a bullshit argument and pretty mean too, imo.

― 17th Century Catholic Spain (Abbbottt), Thursday, November 4, 2010 12:01 PM (29 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

most productive fucking thing that's been said all day

I'm still pretty upset about it! I didn't know what to say because I couldn't trust myself to not get really emotional about it though : /

Just this one thing, anything else it's ducks off my back, you know?

Lol darra taken for a brit. Did the heroes of '16 die for nothing?

yeah some dude thats not what i am saying at all so i think yer making the interpretation here not me

when the assholes stand up to the mods, they're assholes. when the nice guys stand up to the mods, they're taking things too seriously and need to take it down a notch. that's why we get the "paternalistic" vibe, guys.

feel for u abbott but also agree with this ^

I def got that feeling when I was unhappy w/ the way the sb system was designed

but maybe I shouldn't dig up old graves

btw if hi dere is no longer a mod, be prepared for even less transparency into mod decisions.

and that's not a snipe at the other mods, but ime he is usually the first one out there taking shit from the rest of us.

when posters like k3v who generally play nice and don't argue a lot become combative about mod action, it's seen as "man, you're really losing your way, you used to be such a good kid." that's an interesting interpretation imo.

Okay two things:

- I have no real issue with K3v but come on he's always been a pretty fractious poster.
- The reason the mods find arguments like this exasperating is because you insist on making the argument in such a loaded way and this is a case in point.

kev k is persistently needlessly antagonistic and wilfully dense in these threads. Nobody said 'u used b such a nice boy' lots of ppl said 'stfu ur full of it'.

That's not paternalism, that's callin a dude (who yeah is normally a good poster) on the same bullshit in every similar thread.

I mean, maybe tell us WHAT, IF ANYTHING, YOU ACTUALLY WANT DONE and maybe then some sort of a decision can be made as and when everyone's calmed down.

If you're just saying "we'd like the mods to stop banning people in the heat of the moment" then yes I think everyone's agreed on that. I personally veer very strongly towards yellow carding and warning people first and then going ahead with the ban if they ignore that, but that's a personal view.

i think moderation should be very much up to the individual churchgoer

I love lessons learned

this is just a suggestion, no agenda, but i think whiney should be permabanned but encouraged to frequently submit open letters to the mods to be published here.

man dont bring 'the church' into this

xp: ha

eventually to be collected into a handsomely bound volume

what about a handsomely bound whiney g. whinegarten?

dmac i'm sorry i called you british

i don't think my point that it's unfair how dan gets a mod pass for comparably frowned-upon behavior while whiney gets banned is particularly unreasonable tho. i washalf-trolling too which was my fault. that is all

k3v has "always been a fractious poster"? maybe it's just cause i don't read the politics threads much or wherever he starts shit, to me he's like the least controversial autogoon/77 dude.

top of the mornin kev, i respect ur passion even if shit gets heated

(new postin style is to always make up with ppl online before five pm)

dan decided that because he's a mod he got to have two or three SB's for the one time whiney pissed him off instead of one SB like everyone else on the site.

k3vin, did this happen or was this you half-trolling?

i don't read the politics threads much

ha yeah maybe this is key

tho i expect feuding with deej is sort of subject-agnostic

If you're just saying "we'd like the mods to stop banning people in the heat of the moment" then yes I think everyone's agreed on that. I personally veer very strongly towards yellow carding and warning people first and then going ahead with the ban if they ignore that, but that's a personal view.

i think this is what i want done

http://www.ilxor.com/ILX/ThreadSelectedControllerServlet?boardid=77&threadid=68974

btw i will cop to being both "nice guy" and "recalcitrant" depending on the type of thread i'm on, but i appreciate the backup some d and agree with your point and basically everything you've said itt

my new favorite mod

abbott otm

k3v, still would like to know what, if anything, you want done.

He already got what he wanted, namely me quitting as a mod.

Dan, goddamnit, don't quit as mod.

Why shouldn't I?

I mean, who in their right mind would put up with this unmitigated bullshit indefinitely?

take a day or two off and think about it

i vote for dan staying

subtle dig at jj imo

seriously, dude--shit got heated today and that's the worst time to make any decision.

if you came back tomorrow and said "yeah, i'm definitely done" it would make a lot more sense imo

If you're just saying "we'd like the mods to stop banning people in the heat of the moment" then yes I think everyone's agreed on that. I personally veer very strongly towards yellow carding and warning people first and then going ahead with the ban if they ignore that, but that's a personal view.

If we're still pretending like the suggest ban system has some kind of corrective effect on poster's behaviour whereby we're supposed to "learn something" from it (because trust me, from experience, it does not function that way, it just tends to make one more defensive and paranoid) rather than the crude popularity contest it actually functions as, then perhaps it would actually make more sense to have an automatic yellow card which tells you, privately, when you are approaching the 51 limit? (and maybe give you some clue what you're getting hit for? Like what post, what thread has acrued the most bans?)

Because my personal experience is that mod bans *do* have a behavioural effect (mainly because you are *told* what you are being banned for; and because the ban is effective immediately, the punishment is actually linked to the negative behaviour in a Pavolovian sense, rather than just being inflicted - seemingly randomly - hours, days or even months after the mysterious "thing" you are supposed to be being punished for, which is how SB functions.)

And Suggest Bans, as they function now, do not; in fact they actively functioned to make me *more* defensive, more prone to meta and sniping and thinking "I'm being persecuted for having unpopular *opinions*".

Anyway, that's my new rule of "no meta" broken already, but honestly, if you want to have some discussion of how banning is supposed to work as a "reforming" tactic you might actually bother asking the repeat offenders if it works like you think it does - and the answer is, it fucking well doesn't, for all the reasons above.

Why shouldn't I?

Because I'm imagining you being all goth about it right now.

automatic yellow card which tells you, privately, when you are approaching the 51 limit?

This is an EXTREMELY sensible suggestion, in my opinion.

"you have 8 SBs to comply"

lol

include a little ed-209 icon

http://gifarchive.files.wordpress.com/2008/02/robo1.gif?w=510

i have to think that any new mechanisms or code changes or board functions are just not going to happen

if people are arguing for changes they have to argue for either policy change or personnel change

see the problem that is kinda arising here is that peeps dont want the sb because it should be up to the mods to make decisions about what justifies a ban etc, but then a mod decides to ban someone and everyone is all up in arms about abusing their power or whatever so uh what exactly are people suggesting as a coherent way to do this?

xposts

frankly the current situation where WGW got mod banned and then sbed within 24 hours could not illustrate this better imo - yet here we are still arguing about how mods mod. or at least i think that is what we are arguing about? idk anymore frankly

i have to think that any new mechanisms or code changes or board functions are just not going to happen

this could be done manually with minimal extra work afaict

sb is not relevant to this discussion--if ppl want to talk sb they should take it elsewhere

"manually" = "policy", right? don't think we're disagreeing

I think it illustrates that 51 people does not make a consensus on ilx and no matter how this is done, people are gonna be pissed when their friends get in trouble, so you mods should just pat their heads and say "there, there...there, there, little ones" for a day or two until it blows over.

the prob ppl are having with wgw is that it *appeared to be* a quick pull of the trigger and was accompanied by namecalling in the admin log.

i still don't know how widespread the thing whiney was doing was. could only find it a couple times in search. i could easily see how it could be misconstrued if you weren't aware of certain threads.

sorry goole i read too fast

I agree with kkvgz

anyways, the fact that temp bans auto-increase is dumb and doesn't make any sense. what he was doing was not worth a 4 week ban. that caused ppl to freak as well.

k3v, still would like to know what, if anything, you want done.

― Unfrozen Caveman Board-Lawyer (WmC), Thursday, November 4, 2010 1:13 PM (16 minutes ago)

well when this started i didn't know that whiney had gotten 51'd too - originally i thought the temp ban was unnecessary but if he got SB'd there's not much to do there.

i also want a pony

whiney has been suggest banned within the past year and people didn't get that pissed; this is strictly about mod action, like it always is.

this ilx tea party shit is lol

yeah i agree with cad

in hindsight, the *best* way to handle whiney in that particular thread would have been to check how many sb's he had and let it drop--but hey that didn't happen and here we are.

frankly the current situation where WGW got mod banned and then sbed within 24 hours could not illustrate this better imo - yet here we are still arguing about how mods mod. or at least i think that is what we are arguing about? idk anymore frankly

― O_o-O_0-o_O (jjjusten), Thursday, November 4, 2010 1:32 PM (4 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

yeah i guess we just see this very differently -- to me that illustrates how unnecessary Dan's action was. it's almost like a cop planting drugs on a criminal that's already been caught in the act, why even stick your neck out taking a questionable action when justice will be served either way?

this could be done manually with minimal extra work afaict

Always my favorite part of a mod thread.

yeah because so many people are over 40 sb's at all times

http://pic.phyrefile.com/n/na/narf/2010/06/14/facepalm.jpg

We don't really need to go through this again do we?

I'd support the idea of warning people when they hit, say, 40 Suggest Bans, but an automated warning is the very worst way to go about it.

^^^making sense all over the place

you mean in terms of coding, matt?

Seems to me like being a mod is a pain in the freakin ass. Other boards that I come across don’t even indulge these discussions so big up to the mods for having a dialog.

In the end it’s just a temp ban and it's like don't you have to go really out of your way to get a ban in the first place?

MOST PEOPLE ON HERE DONT GET BANNED IMO

yeah i guess we just see this very differently -- to me that illustrates how unnecessary Dan's action was. it's almost like a cop planting drugs on a criminal that's already been caught in the act, why even stick your neck out taking a questionable action when justice will be served either way?

What the fuck are you talking about? "Planting evidence" would be editing Whiney's posts into inflammatory nonsense to encourage other people into suggest-banning him. This is a deliberately inflammatory, prejudicial analogy.

My communication method in this instance was too compressed because, quite frankly, I was also severely annoyed at the time, but what I was attempting to accomplish was:

- stopping an unnecessary, IMO destructive derail of the thread (which was dragging on off-topic beef that had been going on for several days on other threads)
- informing Ph1l that his username was offending people and that he should change it

The "27 days" portion of the admin log comment was an allusion to how many times Whiney had been temp-banned. To my knowledge, there's never been a temp-ban that's lasted longer than three but I'm not going to search the archives or the admin log to verify that, so I'll just assume I'm wrong and it's happened a couple of times. Also, and I don't expect anyone to believe this, I was hoping that a temp ban would keep him from getting sb'd yet again, because the point Masonic Boom raises with regard to the anonymity of the suggest ban and how it comes across as a gross popularity contest without any relevant feedback is possibly the best point I've read on this thread with regards to the system as it is currently working (and one reason why I ultimately think the "how many sbs do I have" is a good idea) and has actually been a topic of discussion amongst site mods within the past couple of months.

lol, all this talk about sbs made me revive the 77 version of that thread, hi dere.

bring back whiney

show all messages (360 of them)

well, i said "almost" because i couldn't think of an analogy that didn't involve a more serious offense than what you actually did, sorry.

it's almost like a cop planting drugs on a criminal that's already been caught in the act

Why would anyone even want to be a mod when you get rhetoric like this? But then I would just ban people at whim so it's not like I'm ever going to be asked to be a mod anyway, the point is probably moot.

i did it for the ilx tote bag but tbh in retrospect i regret the decision

the MODS have DEATH PANELS

Why would anyone even want to be a mod when you get rhetoric like this?

really really good question

It is really fucking rich to be all "mods should be held to a higher standard of behavior" on one hand and then going out of your way to use deliberately provocative language to describe their actions, pretty much daring them to lose it and therefore prove themselves unfit to be a moderator.

also lol @ "ILX Tea Party"

dunno if everybody's figured this out yet but there is NOT A HOMOGENOUS MOD STYLE.
You don't become a mod and get a handbook. Everybody tries to respect everyone else's decisions and discuss them. Generally if there's a confrontation or disagreement, it gets discussed on the mod board and you get a sense of what the group as a whole thinks. Everyone strives to match a mean.
I don't always agree with some of Hi Dere's hardman modding decisions but then I'm willing to put up with a lot of shit that he isn't and that's our respective prerogative. He's also more of a comedy modder; he'll toss out a one day ban for the lulz and the uproar is mostly just because the log reads it as 27 days or whatever. I kinda like dude's insouciance and "oh you wanted a fight" venom; if anything hi dere is your representative in this congress.
Personally, I haven't SB'd anyone in the past six months and my only attempst at banning were an LJ ban (which kinda shouldn't count) and a bad decision on my part for a threadban when I was figuring out how this worked. But I'm more chaotic neutral and happy to see shit get crazy as long as nobody's feeling's get hurt/no godwin's law/no racist shit/no irl repercussions. Not everybody rolls like that and i can dig it.
real talk: this is a diversion and without some shit-stirring and drama, it can be not enough of a diversion to hold everyone's attention. So some of the 500 post threads on these kinda topics are mostly about talkin' to talk. But nobody should be losing sleep about this stuff and nobody should be taking it personal. it's the internet

i hear hi dere is a secret 4channer, a manchurian chandidate as it were

I wish someone photoshop Dan w/joker makeup.

It is really fucking rich to be all "mods should be held to a higher standard of behavior" on one hand and then going out of your way to use deliberately provocative language to describe their actions, pretty much daring them to lose it and therefore prove themselves unfit to be a moderator.

Isn't that what kicked this all off in the first place?

excuse me for being cynical about mods, but the one time in recent memory I started a thread on the MRF board (to have meta-snark deleted from a thread i'd just started!), the request was unanswered for almost 2 days, and when I bumped the thread to complain about the lack of action, Dan, you weren't happy with my tone but at least you took action, which makes me wonder how many mods we have and how vigilant they are about helping out people when they ask for it.

can only speak for myself but i troll MRF daily.

some dude i remember that specific incident and the facts of the matter is that it took 2 days because we were discussing if it was an appropriate request - we arent really in the business of deleting stuff from threads just because the original poster thinks its a derail unless its pretty egregious.

also its kinda frustrating that now all of a sudden yer new tack is to say that mods are lazy and dont do their jobs?

you know one thing that was never really resolved was who is in the 77 clique

can only speak for myself but i troll MRF daily.

― a pun based on a popular ilx meme (forksclovetofu), Thursday, November 4, 2010 6:18 PM (5 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

this is exactly the kind of "one rule for the mods, one rule for everyone else" shit i'm talking about

excuse me for being cynical about mods, but the one time in recent memory I started a thread on the MRF board (to have meta-snark deleted from a thread i'd just started!), the request was unanswered for almost 2 days, and when I bumped the thread to complain about the lack of action, Dan, you weren't happy with my tone but at least you took action, which makes me wonder how many mods we have and how vigilant they are about helping out people when they ask for it.

I think your cynicism is to an extent manufactured here, just done a quick search and most of your requests were dealt with pretty quickly, but of course that doesn't get a mention...

ok -- felt like i was being ignored, maybe in that case it wouldn't hurt to say "we'll get back to you" or something?

i'm just saying i see mods taking actions nobody asked for but my experience hasn't been great when i did ask for something, like it always seems like we have this team of Super Friends keeping the trains running on time but then my little amount of firsthand experience made me question that

delete request

This is the thread you're talking about, which was posted mid-week in the middle of vacation season.

These are your other MRF threads:

cleanup on aisle 77
maybe delete
delete post(s) from wrong thread
please up date thread title

Exactly how/why do you have cause to be cynical about mods, based on these threads?

You're basically saying "excuse me for being cynical about mods but here is an example in which I am going to ignore every instance in which they've actually helped me out..."

how many mod requests have i made, like 3 or 4? i'm just saying i'm pretty sure that's the only one i've made in the last few months and it was a pretty frustrating situation for me. (xpost)

ie, you are, possibly subconsciously, inventing shit to support your belief that the moderators are untrustworthy

knock it off

this is exactly the kind of "one rule for the mods, one rule for everyone else" shit i'm talking about
― caek, Thursday, November 4, 2010 6:24 PM (1 minute ago)

what does this mean?

it was a joke about the definition of the word "troll"

Some Dude, you do realise that this perfectly illustrates the 'OMG the mods are just oppressing us' hysteria in which these debate invariably begin, right?

i know i can't fucking win with you guys, but that's the only reason i keep fighting, you know that, right?

That is what makes you a troll.

just when dan thought he was out THEY PULL HIM BACK IN

can we lock this yet?

your call, not mine

not without meeting minutes and a list of action items

This is the thread you're talking about, which was posted mid-week in the middle of vacation season.

you probably shouldn't say "don't expect swift action when we're all likely to be off at the beach" after someone else already said "we were actually having intense behind-the-scenes debates about that" btw

can we lock this yet?

no I think I can get at least 3 more DNs out of this

i dont mind locking this because at this point it has basically nothing to do with whiney, but i am down with trying to straighten out all this mods vs us bullshit because it kinda wears me down that we go through this on the regular

maybe on a different thread idk

xpost: some dude, i am speaking from memory here and finding it in the mod discussion forum is way insano searchwise so i cant absolutely clarify, but i am quite sure that some of us were talking about it, although dan may not have been in on the discussion.

i don't think dan should quit as mod, personally

altho this

If Whiney comes back and continues to be an abusive ass with a secret "oh but it's hust jokes, I really love you guys FUCK YOU haha I'm a scamp!" thread on 77, I will permaban him. ILX does not need that shit.

― lol tea partiers and their fat fingers (HI DERE), Thursday, November 4, 2010 8:44 AM (4 hours ago) Bookmark

seems like a borderline vendetta

yeah well whineys letter where he swears that hes going to come back unchanged to bitch about dan and i and how terrible we are at modding prob aggravated that a bit maybe

one thing to remember, no matter who the mods are, it's not a 24-7 on call support line. doesn't excuse any laxity but come on, there are limits to anyone's irl attention here.

one way to fix this would be to just have more mods, but then you'd necessarily make the modding more inconsistent. these things just naturally go on a see-saw.

John, you're confusing that meta-clusterfuck with another one. Since you guys won't revoke my mod privs I looked on our discussion thread and there was no discussion about that request between the time it was created and when I responded to some dude.

yeah well whineys letter where he swears that hes going to come back unchanged to bitch about dan and i and how terrible we are at modding prob aggravated that a bit maybe

― O_o-O_0-o_O (jjjusten), Thursday, November 4, 2010 1:34 PM (2 minutes ago) Bookmark

i think there's a conflation of whiney's posting style here... i don't think he antagonizes mods that often, mostly it's people who post about chillwave or witch house

no matter who the mods are, it's not a 24-7 on call support line

clearly the only way we can sort this is with an ilx funding drive to employ a full-time 24-7 on-call mod

might as well face it you're addicted to mod

xxp

It is really fucking rich to be all "mods should be held to a higher standard of behavior"

(with disclosure that i haven't read the thread since this was posted) for what it's worth i don't really expect a higher standard to be applied to mods. whiney is mad annoying sometimes - everyone agrees with this - hell i'm probably more annoying - and the appropriate response is to call him out on being annoying. call him names, zing him, do what you will - the issue was you did all this and then seemingly went "oh hey i'm a mod, i'll just ban this asshole!" to me that's an abuse of your power. i don't think you can make a reasonable argument that the ban wasn't the result of a personal beef between the two of you. that's what people are objecting to in this case

J0rdan are you willfully ignoring the whole "mods love rape" thing thats been going on for the last week.

for real

J0rdan are you willfully ignoring the whole "mods love rape" thing thats been going on for the last week.

― O_o-O_0-o_O (jjjusten), Thursday, November 4, 2010 1:41 PM (14 seconds ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

no, i'm not -- it's pretty unusual for whiney & i think he just sees it as an extension of his "whiney" persona, i don't think he was actually claiming that he was gonna come back and explicitly antagonize the mods

honestly i think whiney was being enough of a dick -- esp cuz dan at that point did pretty much threaten to ban unperson if he didn't change the rape name -- that i don't even think HE would care about a three day ban, but it wasn't clear until earlier today that it would've been a three day ban

also i sb'd whiney upon request so his 30 day sb ban would kick in because we were still under the assumption that dan had banned him for 27 days

...

That makes zero sense to me.

game the system get played

That makes zero sense to me.

― lol tea partiers and their fat fingers (HI DERE), Thursday, November 4, 2010 1:44 PM (27 seconds ago) Bookmark

which part?

whiney wanted to serve concurrent sentences

nah, it was to prevent him from possibly serving concurrent sentences

from whiney:

I 100% feel like I was temp-banned for annoying Dan Perry and nothing else. I have learned absolutely nothing from this experience and when I return in 27 days, I will continue to post as I always have, even--and especially--if that includes lightly poking fun of the terrible mod decisions of Dan and jjjusten. If they're too thin-skinned to handle that, they can continue temp-banning me and everyone until ILX is the boring cuddle party they so clearly desire.

plz point out where i was wrongly characterizing whiney in this quote

I'd like to point out, just for the point of talking you understand, that as far as I can tell Whiney made like 3 posts about mods/rape/unperson's screen-name. Calling it "going on for the last week" isn't exactly accurate, I don't think.

j0rdan that might have been a bad system game tho because this is whineys 2nd sb which is supposed to be a 60 day ban.

you will rue the terrible day whiney returns to speak the truth before the ppl

nah, it was to prevent him from possibly serving concurrent sentences

...

Did you mean "consecutive"? Because otherwise you are still not making any sense.

yeah, consecutive

only whiney could parlay a 3 day ban into a 63 day ban, I gotta admit the guy goes big

j0rdan that might have been a bad system game tho because this is whineys 2nd sb which is supposed to be a 60 day ban.

― O_o-O_0-o_O (jjjusten), Thursday, November 4, 2010 1:49 PM (4 minutes ago) Bookmark

well at that point it had been established that neither l0u1s jagg3r nor kate served 60 days

plz point out where i was wrongly characterizing whiney in this quote

― O_o-O_0-o_O (jjjusten), Thursday, November 4, 2010 1:47 PM (6 minutes ago) Bookmark

i didn't realize that whiney had made a specific note about you guys in his letter

This is only Whiney's 2nd sb? for real?

:3

Well actually what Sarahel did was revive this thread to say the temp ban was harsh and THEN go and read the Rollins thread to find out why he was tempbanned. Disingenuous as hell.

― Matt DC, Thursday, November 4, 2010 3:15 AM (8 hours ago)

I beg your pardon, what? This came up on a different thread, and Dan had said that basically Whiney got banned for pissing him off. I understand the increasing length of temp ban thing that's built into the system, and that that's why it was 27 days, but not overriding the system, which Dan has done in the past, seemed harsh.

When did omar little become such a policy lovin pussy? shameful, bro.

we're all rollins imo

Wait who cares if I registered today and asked for an invite? What exactly are you guys protecting? So I have to like know some of you guys personally if I want to read the super secret elite board everyone talks about?

― the questeon, Wednesday, September 29, 2010 4:55 PM

it's just kinda hard to have a rational discussion with mods about this kinda thing, when it feels like, as a poster, when you do bring stuff up, you get accused of "meta snark" or "concern trolling" or have your motives questioned. It's kinda the equivalent of when posters accuse mods of conspiring or all posting from the same slumber party.

oh shit i misread the questeon as "the question"!

i <3 the questeon

where was all this mods rapey stuff going on, obviously thats uncool but i didnt see it at all which is why i was all why did whiney get banned

When did omar little become such a policy lovin pussy? shameful, bro.

― the questeon, Thursday, November 4, 2010 3:07 PM (6 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

xp the instances i found were in the rollins thread and the k. wiig thread

omar gone soft, better watch his back in corner delis.

o i didnt read the kristen wiig thread

also in the 77 beatles thread

whiney got banned for the exchange in the rollins thread

When did omar little become such a policy lovin pussy? shameful, bro.

― the questeon, Thursday, November 4, 2010 3:07 PM (6 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

― max

¯\(°_o)/¯

it is a message board on the internet, i think it's all lol

some of you people seem to think this is actually important, which is more lol

whiney will be back soon, ready to roll. he's probably out there enjoying the lovely nyc weather, having a break from the ilx lyfe.

it is important enough to discuss on a message board on the internet

it's good times

so, will Whiney get unbanned after his 30 days for being sb-ed are over, or what?

http://i56.tinypic.com/ao5g21.gif

frankly most of the mods have been on this thread so we havent really discussed it yet

this is whineys 2nd sb which is supposed to be a 60 day ban.

he can make a plea for leniency but his cotton mather act might put a kink in those plans

thanks, jjj - i know i've trolled you in the past, but i appreciate your transparency and candor in mod-related issues.

whiney is always a hard case to defend in board lawyering

compared to cankles?

madoff vs manson

mods should have a pre-determined annual bank of ban days for whiney and just use a few up whenever he is overheating.

maybe we should put these bans in some kind of lockbox

whiney is the bob probert of ilx, his job simply involves spending a decent amount of time in the penalty box.

That is such blasphemy.

Ty Domi, maybe.

an open letter to the mods from Whiney G. Weingarten

my "i'm only gonna come back stronger" post was made when I was under the assumption that I was banned for 27 days over pointless, arbitrary dan perry beef. If it was a three-day comedy ban, I would have honestly laughed along with Dan about the whole thing. However I will gladly take my democratically decided 30-day 51-suggban sentence like a man, as it is clearly what the people want.

Also, sincere, non-snarky apology to Abbbott or if anyone who got legitimately offended by my 2 or 3 posts re mod/rape/phil. It was an admittedly dickish way to point out what I felt was a hypocrisy of mod action being "ruin the best thread on 77" instead of "confront a dude about his rapey display name."

That is all.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d7gkD5uyl-U

had subway for lunch in his memory

drowned a doe eyed girl while sobbing uncontrollably

pulled out the tablecloth and upset the pussy buffet

wrapped a keffiyeh around a puppy's neck

argued with a mod today in his memory

OK, cool, everybody seems to have successfully had their say, so --