TOMBOT and john justin should not be mods

Yeah sorry I'm getting too far up into this argument without having all the context and did cherry-pick from a very long post, not trying to be glib here.

But what max said: my strawmen, show me them. I've referred to mods, to people being banned, to other people making points, all by name, and I think it's generally been clear who I mean when I refer to "some people" or "a lot of people" or whatever.

btw once tom said something on 77 jokingly about letting difft people control the board at difft times which i think is an amazing and lolarious idea

its like radio djs, you can tune into ilx when your fave mod is modding

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2140/2189916287_31398ea690.jpg

under those circumstances substitute "polish" "italian" or "thai" for quotemarksmexicanquotemarks xp

i think Matt is focussing too much on this one instance of Dom being banned, which isn't what is being discussed here. i just can't tell if that's a sincere mistake or something more rhetorical.

http://www.dineouthere.com/images/tequila-kitchen-01.jpg

The church would be interesting borad if once a week two people were elected borad mods as chosen at random by one permamod who exerted no power other than that. I would enjoy playing in that flavor of the month petri dish.

I am ordering empanadas today; this thread is controlling me

o where u getting them from

"if two people were elected borad mods FOR ONE WEEK ONLY " of course

Some dude, did you deliberately overlook "Ad hominem snide at any other poster about IRL things that are not under discussion on that thread"?

-- Matt DC, 28 August 2008 14:40 (3 minutes ago) Bookmark Link

i'm not even close to being in the 'opposite' camp to you here matt, i know tombot posted all that stuff to get a reaction out of certain posters, but isn't that just what dom does? (not in any way defending having a personal go at tombot, but as far as i can recall, uh that was waaaaaay after that thread had started and the refs to chaki etc had been posted)

photos of delicious ethnic food aside, which i'm sure we can all agree is what we're all on ILX for

the church WAS an interesting board xpost

empanada mama!
http://events.nytimes.com/2005/12/14/dining/reviews/14unde.html
v v tasty

im thinking abt that arepas place on 7th st for dinner

kinda over pricd tho

Yeah I am very much focussing on a specific incident here. Fuck doing Trial By ILX for anyone really.

wait, are you saying you disapprove of posters discussing the moderation of the board?

oh hay i 've been there, forks!

USA apple pie empanada is aces.

are you saying you disapprove of posters discussing the moderation of the board?

No.

the church WAS an interesting board xpost

-- darraghmac, Thursday, August 28, 2008 4:52 PM (3 minutes ago) Bookmark

*arches eyebrow*

mods closing ranks + rhetoric + obfuscation. a tried and tested formula.

fwiw what dom said on that thread was way worse than mere "meta snidiness"

http://www.festivalsupplies.co.uk/images/breakfast.jpg

That looks foul. The parsley looks slightly embarassed.

I don't even know what this is between the bacon and the fried bread.

Reading some of this thread, you'd get the impression that Tom and John seem to spend all their time dominating other posters, and that they do it for no reason other than spite, machismo and drunkenness. This is bullshit.

There's an example upthread of perception vs reality. Adrian complains about Tom and John being moderators. Tom points out that if it wasn't for the fact that he unbanned Adrian, Adrian wouldn't be able to raise this. Adrian responds that Tom banned him in the first place. The whole story isn't being told here, though, is it? Nobody mentions that Tom didn't just ban Adrian for no reason, Adrian was baiting other posters in a really obnoxious way. Nor does anybody mention that Tom took the time to have an email dialog with Adrian about this before unbanning him from the site*. I've seen Tom do stuff like this loads of times since we added him as a sitewide mod, he gets no credit for the time he spends thinking about & acting on shit like this, people just bitch at him because his low tolerance for meta snidery is expressed in more upfront terms than mine or Matt's or whoever & say he's drunk. Believe me this shit fucks me off just as much at it does Tom &/or John. Just because I don't post in the same way as Tom does doesn't mean I don't feel the same way about it. I'm really fucking sick of seeing the same people tossing out the same meta snide bitchery, and seeing people cheer them on, often from the "safety" of the private board. It's fucking truly pathetic juvenile behaviour, and it's been escalating over the last few weeks. Some people need to cut it the fuck out, and a bunch of other people need to learn the difference between "mischievous" and "malicious" and act acordingly. I'm too pissed off about this to adeqately express how I feel about it. Never in my life have I seen a board or list which trolls itself like this one does. I just don't get it.

The short version I guess is if a few people cut out acting like dicks and a few more people stopped cheering on their worst tendencies & cut out the drama queenery then I'm pretty sure that the alleged "problem" with Tom would certainly cease being a "problem" very quickly.

(*not getting at you here Ade, yr a funny guy w/an unusual outlook & i like you, but you were way out of line baiting those ppl like that)

poll it

-- blueski, Thursday, 28 August 2008 01:58 (13 hours ago) Bookmark Link

er, duh! like DEMOCRAZY is ever an answer!

http://www.ilxor.com/ILX/ThreadSelectedControllerServlet?boardid=63&threadid=1208

the church WAS an interesting board xpost

-- darraghmac, Thursday, August 28, 2008 4:52 PM (3 minutes ago) Bookmark

*arches eyebrow*

-- special guest stars mark bronson, 28 August 2008 14:56 (8 minutes ago) Bookmark Link

woah, woah- i meant before it was 'the church'. anyway, how would i know, i'm banned.

lol Matt you're so right, i'm sorry. i don't know what that is next to the "bacon" either!

this is a little better
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/145/369538179_6e08629184.jpg?v=0

oops also

ADMIN POLL: IMPORTANT VOTE

The short version I guess is if a few people cut out acting like dicks and a few more people stopped cheering on their worst tendencies & cut out the drama queenery then I'm pretty sure that the alleged "problem" with Tom would certainly cease being a "problem" very quickly.

I agree! And I think people need to stop encouraging the drama by starting intentionally provocative clusterfuck threads! Including poster "El Tomboto"!

this one is a bit better

http://www.londondailypicture.com/images/october_2007/english-breakfast-blackpudding-min.jpg

woah, woah- i meant before it was 'the church'. anyway, how would i know, i'm banned.

-- darraghmac, Thursday, 28 August 2008 16:09 (3 minutes ago) Bookmark Link

Ah come on now, you deserved it, you can't just go round pointing out the small number of posts on a board willy-nilly

The short version I guess is if a few people cut out acting like dicks and a few more people stopped cheering on their worst tendencies & cut out the drama queenery then I'm pretty sure that the alleged "problem" with Tom would certainly cease being a "problem" very quickly.

I agree! And I think people need to stop encouraging the drama by starting intentionally provocative clusterfuck threads! Including poster "El Tomboto"!

-- Curt1s Stephens, Thursday, August 28, 2008 11:12 AM (2 minutes ago) Bookmark Link

hoos

ADMIN: This is not a democracy

we have done this a few times before.

curtis, why so disingenuous? you seem to love encouraging the posters who love to stir up the most trouble

what trouble do I encourage?

ilx dirty little secret: the problem posters are often the best posters

WAHT A BORD @ DO??!??!!

ilx dirty little secret: the problem posters are often the best posters

ain't true in the slightest!

lol^

we used to have have an admin log in old ILX for years, and I can't remember it ever causing any problems

jesus h christ. you're saying that because we had an admin log nobody ever started complaint threads about people they liked getting banned?

uh, no, I was wondering what the basis was for keith's objection to an admin log. maybe you should cut back on the caffeine consumption?

anyway, glad to hear an admin log's in the works. thx guys!

blueski i don't even like mushrooms and that looks pretty, pretty good

thanks surm, 'preciate it

i think ice craem is wrong too

booooring

this horrifically malicious thread everyone's talking about is making me curious but I'm philosophically opposed to private borads so I guess I'll just have to wonder

booooring or obnooooxious. that's the choice.

uh, no, I was wondering what the basis was for keith's objection to an admin log. maybe you should cut back on the caffeine consumption?

you do know my comment was directed to tuomas and not you right?

what trouble do I encourage?

-- Curt1s Stephens, Friday, August 29, 2008 1:19 AM (42 seconds ago) Bookmark Link

i've never read 77 so i can't speak for that, but to me you've always come across very supportive of many of the posters the mods have had trouble with, now and in the past. i have no personal beef with you, but i don't really understand where you're coming from sometimes with regards to this board

booooring or obnooooxious. that's the choice.

-- blueski, Thursday, August 28, 2008 11:25 AM (1 minute ago) Bookmark Link

troo

mods have decided for us which one shall prevail

this horrifically malicious thread everyone's talking about is making me curious but I'm philosophically opposed to private borads so I guess I'll just have to wonder

-- Edward III, Thursday, August 28, 2008 5:24 PM (2 minutes ago) Bookmark Link

- tombot starts thread saying let's have a thread for all the awful, terrible, etc., "meta people", kind of inviting the meta in.
- meta ensues
- in the fracas, dom got banhammered, in a suicide-by-cop stylee
- more meta ensues