Thread Rating:

MrV
MrV
Joined: Feb 13, 2010
  • Threads: 310
  • Posts: 6775
January 24th, 2018 at 7:41:08 PM permalink
Quote: RS

To say "life isn't fair, too bad so sad" is equally as stupid, as it's confirming the unfairness. How people can't understand this is beyond me.



LOL

What, you think life is fair?

How you can't understand this salient aspect of the human condition is beyond me.
"What, me worry?"
RS
RS
Joined: Feb 11, 2014
  • Threads: 59
  • Posts: 8001
Thanks for this post from:
RogerKint
January 24th, 2018 at 7:48:56 PM permalink
Quote: Mission146

Thatís what the, ďDiscussion About the Suspension List,Ē thread is for. We read and we typically respond.


So people's problem with this discussion is.....that we're in the wrong thread? :rolls_eyes:

Quote: Mission146

Anything that makes it there is usually in the framework of someone having been Suspended, but that doesnít mean any Rules couldnít be discussed sans someone being recently Suspended under them.

I think, ďThis Rule needs to be made more specific or is ambiguous,Ē is a better opening framework for the discussion than, ďThe Admins suck and are biased,Ē though.


I don't see anyone having a problem with any rules being too specific or ambiguous, but with bias or uneven enforcement of the rules from admins.

Quote: Zcore13

The issue is that your term "unfair" is your opinion and subjective. I don't find anything here unfair.


Quote: Zcore13

What world do you live in where you get everything you want, everything is fair and every rule is enforced by the letter in every situation? Grow up.... [ellipses added so I don't get banned for 'misquoting']


You don't find anything here unfair, yet you insinuate it isn't fair and the rules aren't enforced by the letter of the law, given the above (the second of yours) quote.

A: "That's unfair."
B: "Nothing's fair." <-- insinuating it isn't fair
A: "So we should fix it, maybe...?"
B: "I think it's fair."

*facepalm*

Quote: MrV

LOL

What, you think life is fair?

How you can't understand this salient aspect of the human condition is beyond me.


Enough with the trolling, MrV.

I didn't say life is unfair. But we shouldn't use "life is unfair" to perpetuate unfairness.
ďMan BabesĒ #AxelFabulous
MrV
MrV
Joined: Feb 13, 2010
  • Threads: 310
  • Posts: 6775
January 24th, 2018 at 8:08:09 PM permalink
Quote: RS

Enough with the trolling, MrV. I didn't say life is unfair.



No, you didn't. I did: "Yeah, the world just ain't fair, is it?"

You responded with "To say "life isn't fair, too bad so sad" is equally as stupid."
"What, me worry?"
Mission146
Mission146
Joined: May 15, 2012
  • Threads: 118
  • Posts: 11654
January 24th, 2018 at 8:11:21 PM permalink
Quote: RS

So people's problem with this discussion is.....that we're in the wrong thread? :rolls_eyes:



Thatís not what I meant, I just meant there is a place to discuss the Rules and youíll generally get a response from an Admin.

Thatís in the context of a general rule, though, or specific Suspension. Iíll often refrain from discussing specific suspensions if I did not levy them, but sometimes Iíll discuss them.

Quote:


I don't see anyone having a problem with any rules being too specific or ambiguous, but with bias or uneven enforcement of the rules from admins.



Thatís where I think there may be room to discuss the underlying rule itself. Would it be possible to construct a set of Rules that leave less room for personal bias to come into play? That would be a worthy discussion.

Letís assume for a second that there will not be any changes to the Admin staff, because there havenít been in terms of, ďGreens,Ē for awhile. As far as Secret Admins, I donít even think I know who all of them are. Given the assumption, and your opinion of uneven moderation, it seems the best course of action would be to suggest changes to the rules such that bias (real or perceived) is less likely to come into play.

Thatís one of the reasons Iíd advocated for a no ad hominem rule at one point in the past. You have some subjectivity with what is or isnít a personal insult, but less when it comes to what is or isnít an ad hominem statement of any kind. Whether or not something is an ad hom statement is pretty clear.

The only problem is that would be a much stricter rule than, ďNo personal insults,Ē so thatís an obvious downside. I think just about anyone would agree we donít want the rules to be too strict. I wouldnít want them to be too strict, but my idea of, ďToo strict,Ē is probably more strict than that of most people. So, even if I could write the rules, I doubt if most people would want me to.
Vultures can't be choosers.
Ibeatyouraces
Ibeatyouraces
Joined: Jan 12, 2010
  • Threads: 68
  • Posts: 11933
January 24th, 2018 at 8:15:36 PM permalink
DUHHIIIIIIIII HEARD THAT!
PokerGrinder
PokerGrinder
Joined: Apr 30, 2015
  • Threads: 19
  • Posts: 2784
January 25th, 2018 at 1:13:50 AM permalink
Mission this might be a little off topic but seeing as you just mentioned them in you last post Iím going to ask. Iíve always wondered why we have secret mods on WoV? What is the point of having secret mods? I have no problem with them existing, itís more just curiosity. Thanks in advance.
You can shear a sheep a hundred times, but you can skin it only once. ó Amarillo Slim Preston
Mission146
Mission146
Joined: May 15, 2012
  • Threads: 118
  • Posts: 11654
January 25th, 2018 at 3:58:07 AM permalink
Youíre welcome!

Five reasons that Iím aware of:

1. They basically act as regular Admins when it comes to Spam deletion. The more the merrier, there.

2. They can turn someone red for a particularly egregious offense, then a Green can come in later and decide how long the ban will be.

3. More specific to them: Given the existence of Secret Admins, nobody can look at who is online, see that there are no Greens and then figure they can violate the Rules now and edit the post later. Could be a SA on, the person would have no way of knowing.

4. In a few cases, itís almost like a training.

5. In a few other cases, they want to help out, but donít WANT to be green.
Vultures can't be choosers.
PokerGrinder
PokerGrinder
Joined: Apr 30, 2015
  • Threads: 19
  • Posts: 2784
Thanks for this post from:
Mission146
January 25th, 2018 at 5:30:26 AM permalink
Cool thanks for the detailed explanation.
You can shear a sheep a hundred times, but you can skin it only once. ó Amarillo Slim Preston
MaxPen
MaxPen
Joined: Feb 4, 2015
  • Threads: 12
  • Posts: 2620
Thanks for this post from:
SanchoPanzaDeMangoonenickelmiracle
January 25th, 2018 at 11:24:10 AM permalink
I find it hard to see the need for secret admins, especially on a forum with less than a page worth of threads per day. The way people get banned around here pretty soon it will only be admins and secret admins. In my opinion things should be allowed to breathe a little more around here. Might promote some growth.
Posting on the People's Approved Internet Network
Mission146
Mission146
Joined: May 15, 2012
  • Threads: 118
  • Posts: 11654
January 25th, 2018 at 1:08:42 PM permalink
Quote: MaxPen

I find it hard to see the need for secret admins, especially on a forum with less than a page worth of threads per day. The way people get banned around here pretty soon it will only be admins and secret admins. In my opinion things should be allowed to breathe a little more around here. Might promote some growth.



Worth mentioning is the fact that the concept of Secret Admins has been around for several years, so it's not like we're just rolling this out. We just never ceased having Secret Admins.

Aside from that, I stand behind the five reasons in my post. For what it's worth, I don't think there have been more than five or so bans (other than spammers and/or dupes) initiated by a Secret Admin in...as long as I remember. To the extent that there have been any bans of Members otherwise in good standing, in almost all instances, it has been for something that a Green would have banned the person for anyway.
Vultures can't be choosers.

  • Jump to: