|
507. wabbit - 11/24/1999 8:21:05 AM Nostradamus, please stop.
Rosetta, what I was thinking was that Nostradamus would be a good moderator for the thread. I cannot keep track of every duplicate ID, though the requirement of an ISP based email address makes that easier now. I am unaware of any problems in the Spiritual Issues thread prior to today (other than the usual heated arguments that have always taken place there). As I said in the Suggestions thread, I prefer not to interfere in how moderators run their thread, but I will if it becomes necessary. 508. RosettaSTONE - 11/23/1999 9:25:35 PM I can not believe that you allowed a stalker, a spammer and a woman abuser to be the moderator of mote's Spirtual Issues thread. Are you mad?
Who knew of this and when? I'm disgusted with how much damage one person can do to this forum. 508. Nostradamus - 11/24/1999 1:50:54 AM I didn't know you were a spammer and a woman abuser too, Rosetta. But you're clearly a bit delusional since nobody's made you moderator of the SI thread. 508. dusty - 11/24/1999 3:03:17 AM AceofSpades
I'm a bit confused, and a bit torn.
I thought "God" was banned.
Nope
Per wabbit:
Despite rampant misinformation and misconceptions to the contrary, god was never banned the first time around. His ID was suspended and he chose to leave in protest to the suspension.
See Message # 496 in thread 39
Perhaps you are confused because you see posts with God. as a moniker? So was I until I noticed the period after the name. Also a subject of discussion in Policies. 508. Nostradamus - 11/24/1999 7:05:16 AM Don't be such a melodramatic fuck, Lucky. Nobody 'invited you to leave', you were simply reminded you were under no obligation to stay. 508. Lucky - 11/24/1999 7:06:01 AM I won't, sir. 508. Mr.Right-O - 11/24/1999 6:17:17 AM Let me get this straight.
The person, who caused all the problems for The Mote the first two weeks of its existance because of his arrogant choice of a name and the fact that he decided to share his side of a failed romance with a former member, never left?
Instead of being expelled or suspended, he came back under another name to insult your religious thread teacher--and then became the host of the spirtual thread?
Am I missing something? 508. Lucky - 11/24/1999 7:04:00 AM God just invited me to leave the "Spiritual Issues" thread because I questioned his ejection of RosettaStone. I don't know who any of these posters are and am not sticking up for anyone out of friendship; I just did not see a good enough reason for ejection in any of Stone's recent posts in that thread. That is the key phrase -- IN THAT THREAD. Criticism and dislike expressed? Yes. Over the top material worthy of ejection? No. I don't think that a thread moderator should eject someone due to conflicts that have happened in other threads or (especially) other fora, as this seems to be the case. That is an abuse of power IMO. 508. Lucky - 11/24/1999 7:17:28 AM BTW, I don't appreciate being called a "fuck", God. 508. Nostradamus - 11/24/1999 7:18:20 AM Then stop acting like one, shooter. 508. Lucky - 11/24/1999 7:22:14 AM Heehee. The Mote has Harry Rutland/Pym in charge of moderating a thread. 508. dusty - 11/24/1999 7:23:42 AM Good grief, I just finish telling Lucky how few incidents we have had, and I'm seeing one occur.
Nostradamus, did you really ban RS from the thread, or was that just bluster?
I read back a few posts and saw no justification for it, but I don't follow the thread closely, so I'm keeping an open mind.
508. Mr.Right-O - 11/24/1999 8:02:42 AM Will someone in authority please answer my question? 508. pseudoerasmus - 11/24/1999 8:04:22 AM A host can ban people from the thread? How??? 508. Nostradamus - 11/24/1999 8:05:51 AM You say 'You're banned.' and PRESTO! 508. wabbit - 11/24/1999 8:13:43 AM Mr. Right-O,
Your questions:
1) Evidently so.
2) Incorrect. God was suspended, as has already been explained. The ID Nostradamus was already registered at that point. As to the changing of hosts for the Spiritual thread, I do not recall the acrimony that some here have implied existed. 508. wabbit - 11/24/1999 8:16:16 AM Nostradamus,
Not quite. While I would rather not interfere in how individual moderators run their threads, I will if I think the moderator position is being abused. 508. Mr.Right-O - 11/24/1999 8:18:21 AM This person will all the different names and the foul mouth was your choice to be the moderator of your Spiritual Issues thread?
Goodbye, Mote.
508. wabbit - 11/24/1999 8:25:50 AM Mr. Right-O,
It was decided early on that anyone who expressed an interest in moderating a thread should be given the opportunity to do so. Further, prior to our requirement of an ISP based email address for registration, it would not have been possible for me to know whether Nostradamus was a duplicate ID. It seems to me that until the revelation of his identity the thread was running pretty much as it usually does. 508. RosettaSTONE - 11/24/1999 9:31:00 AM I'm not banned from the religious thread and no post has been deleted.
509. Nostradamus - 11/24/1999 1:56:02 PM As far as what the thread I host is called, I believe that's up to me (perhaps, 'within reason') and none of my alternate titles included profanity or vulgarity. But if somebody's decided that wabbit decides all thread titles, let me know and I won't play with it again. 509. Nostradamus - 11/24/1999 4:41:41 PM ee
What's your point? As I was saying, floater and Vic were essentially arguing about whether or not bloodnfire is an idiot (or if you don't like that word, choose a more polite word that means the same thing). floater was taking the position that he is not. 509. Nostradamus - 11/24/1999 1:49:18 PM 'This person will all the different names and the foul mouth was your choice to be the moderator of your Spiritual Issues thread?'
wabbit, your answer was quite weak, here's a better one:
He didn't have a bunch of different names, he had one name at the Fray, he decided to get a new name at the Mote, we wrongly tried to take it away from him, then we put him on probation for a relatively trivial (in the grand scheme of things) RoE violation and banned him for mentioning the name of a school somewhere, only then did he reappear with a different name.
He didn't have a particularly foul mouth. Only in the playpen, where foul mouths are allowed and expected.
He wasn't wabbit's choice as moderator, he was bloodnfire's choice, that choice was assented to by wabbit. bloodnfire is a kindly old Salvation Army dude. Bloodnfire has since praised his performance as Spiritual Issues moderator on more than one occasion.
Rosetta
You are banned from the Spiritual Issues thread and your posts have been and will be deleted. You can't run around slandering/libeling me in some threads and then expect to come into my thread and trash-talk me. I have been reminded on many occasions that this forum does not allow for an unlimited amount of free speech. It's time you were reminded of that as well. 509. Nostradamus - 11/24/1999 2:13:42 PM And if somebody else decides that the laws against libel and slander are irrelevant here, as long as we don't violate each other's 'privacy', however truthfully, let me know that, too.
Finally, if we decide that hosts really aren't allowed to make any meaningful decisions and that wabbit makes all decisions that one might suppose a thread's host might make, I suggest that we trash the host concept and let wabbit host all threads. 509. AceofSpades - 11/24/1999 3:08:11 PM
Nos:
I don't think you really understand the Moderator system very well.
Moderators don't have absolute power within a thread. Not even close. They have presumtive power in their thread. Wabbit presumes you're making the right call, but when she doesn't think you are, she steps in.
Think of it like state governments. Do whatever you like, sure. But step out of line too far and the Feds come in and take over. 509. RosettaSTONE - 11/24/1999 3:53:50 PM Wabbitt: I posted a message in the Spiritual Issues thread last night on why Jesus threw out the moneychangers from the temple. When I got up early this morning to help with the Thanksgiving meal, I noticed that the post was deleted. When I asked the moderator why he had done do, he erased that message.
I think you have made a terrible mistake in letting that person be the moderator of mote's religious thread. From all his past behavior, he shouldn't have that responsibility and isn't acting like an adult. He only seems to be here to harass people.
For example, just yesterday afternoon, this person changed the header of the thread to CHRISTIAN HATRED.
I'm sorry to bother you on Thanksgiving and you really don't have to deal with it until Monday, but I would like to see a change in that position. I would think there would be other volunteers to be moderator of Spiritual Issues
509. Nostradamus - 11/24/1999 4:29:03 PM Rosetta, Rosetta, Rosetta.
Your post was deleted because I've banned you, if you want to know why I've banned you, look to your own behavior and my explanation in the SI thread.
The only person who isn't acting like an adult here is you. And the guy who's out to harass is you. Who am I allegedly harassing? I'm the one who's trying to hold you accountable. Nobody else seems to think there's anything remotely wrong with your spreading nasty lies about me, but that's okay, because I'm a big boy and I can take care of myself when it comes to pathetic cowards like you. It seems the only 'private information' that's protected around here is the truthful kind. It seems you can reveal as much 'private information' about somebody as you want as long as it's not true. Well forgive me for stating the obvious, but that rule is bullshit. If you can't spread truthful gossip about somebody, you sure as hell shouldn't be able to spread malicious lies about somebody either. And this confrontation will hopefully see to that.
I briefly changed the title to Christian Hatred (for perhaps, ten minutes) while Vic and Jen (2 Christians) were involved in an argument that basically centred around whether or not bloodnfire (another Christian) is an idiot or not. I thought the temporary title appropriate. As thread host, I think that's my prerogative, but if it turns out I'm wrong, I've already agreed not to play with the title so your point is irrelevant.
Anything else, cupcake? 509. ee - 11/24/1999 4:38:06 PM SI thread #2805; This is floater(jen) in the conversation Nos reffers to aboveAlso, bloodnfire is one of the kindest, most sincere Christians in this thread. He and his wife have sent me beautiful heartfelt prayers which have meant a great deal to me. Respectfully, try not to alienate yourself from all of the *Christians* in here.
511. Nostradamus - 11/25/1999 6:29:03 AM Was post 510 deleted? 512. wabbit - 11/25/1999 11:15:01 AM Not deliberately. I moved posts into this thread and for some reason they didn't all make it. The post number 510 never showed up, though the number was listed in the header. I have no idea what happened. My apologies for the lost post(s). 513. ee - 11/25/1999 12:15:50 PM Post 510 showed up above 509 as 509 514. wabbit - 11/25/1999 12:51:33 PM Rosetta,
"I think you have made a terrible mistake in letting that person be the moderator of mote's religious thread. From all his past behavior, he shouldn't have that responsibility and isn't acting like an adult. He only seems to be here to harass people."
How and why Nostradamus became the host of the Spiritual Issues thread has been discussed already. Your problem with him has surfaced only since you discovered who he is. Prior to that, you didn't seem to have a problem with him, which leads me to believe that you are disregarding the past two months in favor of dredging up what happened two months ago. Repeatedly posting that you think Nostradamus is a stalker and a woman abuser could also be seen as harassment, couldn't it? Perhaps if you knock it off, Nostradamus will let you post in Spiritual Issues again.
"Are you mad?"
This is entirely possible. 515. Nostradamus - 11/27/1999 9:24:07 AM CalGal posted this in Religion, I am responding here, since it is a Policy related issue:
2931. CalGal - 11/28/99 12:21:26 AM
I know that if somebody was doing to CalGal or wabbit what Rosetta is doing to me, his ass would be gone (or severely warned and then banned if he ignored the warnings), not just from one thread, but from the Mote, and the fact that the worst of his behavior goes on in Salon is just not relevant. Double-standards are wonderful things.
How on earth can you type with your head lodged so firmly up your ass? People aren't banned for "abuse". No one has ever called for a banning on anything other than releasing of private information, and both Wabbit and I have withstood far more abuse than the whiny little weasel who used to call himself God Gave Me A Tiny Prick.
The reason no one is fussing about Stone is because he's not doing anything worth fussing about. You don't even know what abuse looks like, you sanctimonious little shit, and you've certainly never tolerated any worth mentioning--in fact, you've caused plenty yourself. Frankly, I'm relieved that more people aren't revolted at your presence here, since protesting about it gives you more attention than you're worth.
If you delete this post, I'll just post it in the Playpen, and mention that you were too chickenshit to let it stand. And don't go around pissing about how unfair people are to you again.
On topic--that picture is utterly disgusting. You should have linked to it.
516. Nostradamus - 11/27/1999 9:24:20 AM CalGal
If you think for a moment that I would even consider deleting your post, you obviously don't know me very well.
I will ask that if you wish to continue this, that you do it in here (Policy) or if you prefer, in a thread you control, such as Movies. I don't think that the Mote or the SI thread is served by having a meltdown there.
If you think I am 'hiding' behind my new handle, which seems to be your implication, I will happily stop using this handle and use the God. handle full-time. If that was not your implication, sorry for the confusion.
I think most of your anger is due to the fact that you seemed to enjoy interacting with me when you didn't know who I was and now you feel betrayed somehow. I apologize for the duplicity but it was rendered necessary by the rash decision to ban me (to be fair, wabbit says that she never intended to ban me, she just told me that I was banned and led me to believe that I was banned but she always planned to merely suspend my ID).
Why are you giving me all this attention if you think that that's what I'm after when virtually nobody else seems to be alarmed or concerned by my decision or identity?
Obviously you are concerned solely with the release of private information since you are hiding behind a pseudonym. Those of us on the Mote who are not as fearful and who have chosen not to hide are more concerned with 'real' issues such as libel and slander. I don't see why you are unable to grasp that distinction. You are essentially a cartoon character named CalGal interacting in a public forum. I am Jonathan Ferguson of Vanier (suburb of Ottawa) Ontario Canada. Your anonymity weakens any claim of slander or libel you might attempt to make. I lack that shield. You can tolerate as much abuse as you like. If my threshold is lower, tough shit, deal with it. 517. Nostradamus - 11/27/1999 9:28:17 AM I didn't do a very good job of copying CalGal's post in religion. The part in italics is where she is quoting me. The rest is her. My response is in the following post (516). Sorry for the glitch. Feel free to remedy it as you see fit. 518. CalGal - 11/29/1999 11:03:18 AM Nos,
The only reason I responded in SI is because you made the original comment there--in fact, I note that you are amazingly inconsistent about the off-topic bullshit you'll tolerate.
I am not angry at you at all; you are just a disgusting little punk who was whining and I smacked you. As for your prior identity--I have assumed that you were the little shit previously known as God(.) since the second or third week you showed up as Nostradamus. I thought you were a smarmy fuck before that point anyway, so it wasn't any real loss. 519. Nostradamus - 11/29/1999 11:35:56 AM CalGal
I'd love to talk dirty with you, but I've got bigger fish to fry. Have a wonderful week. Say hi to Spawn from Uncle Nost.
==):-) 520. wabbit - 12/4/1999 2:08:25 AM The past few days have seen a couple fake posts made. One was clearly identified as such, two were not.
I'd like some feedback. Is this a breach of security or privacy? Is it something we should have an outright ban on (meaning we would write the ban of such posts into the RoE)? Lawyers, do we have a legal issue here regarding fraud? 521. CalGal - 12/4/1999 2:16:43 AM Per Wabbit's request, I'm posting here on the conversation in Suggestions about "fake" posts.
I have seen people get really freaked out about this, and in most cases the faker was Ace, who was clearly just kidding. But if people get that freaked by it when the faker is obviously goofing, just think how much trouble it will be if a fake post is made for what are questionably malicious motives.
Another consideration is the newbie who sees it for the first time and gets the impression that we're not a secure site.
I'm just throwing these into the mix for consideration. I'm actually not sure what I think of an outright ban.
If you want to know what I'd like to ban, it's those damn sound posts. Wizard, this isn't a slam at you in particular, I just hate hearing whatever noise it is whenever I enter a thread, post, or hit refresh. 522. AceofSpades - 12/4/1999 2:21:41 AM
If you want to know what I'd like to ban, it's those damn sound posts. Wizard, this isn't a slam at you in particular, I just hate hearing whatever noise it is whenever I enter a thread, post, or hit refresh.
I was going to say this myself. 523. CalGal - 12/4/1999 2:51:22 AM Ace,
Great minds, etc. 524. CalGal - 12/4/1999 3:00:36 AM Irv asked in the Suggestions thread if there was a way to put the post heading outside the text body, so that posts couldn't be faked.
I have spent some time over the past few months mulling this. I am not an HTML expert, but I've tossed it around at work too, to make sure there is nothing I've missed.
The obvious solution is to format the post heading, either in position or appearance, in such a way that can't be duplicated. I can't come with any possibilities for appearance. Position is the obvious approach--indent the post text from the heading, putting the heading in an area that can never be duplicated by a fake post.
The one way that I can think to do this is to format the posts into a table. That way I can put the post heading in one row, split the next cell in two and leave the first one blank. That would cause an indentation.
But I worry that this would cause a performance degradation, since that would be a lot of formatting. I'm also unreasonably attached to simplicity, and this is a messy solution for a problem that can be addressed procedurally.
There may be a gloriously simple solution that I've missed, and I'm open to suggestions. 525. IrvingSnodgrass - 12/4/1999 3:03:04 AM CalGal:
I'd hate to sacrifice performance for this relatively minor issue. But maybe with all the great minds here, we can come up with something.
But don't ask me... I have no idea what's possible and what isn't. 526. IrvingSnodgrass - 12/4/1999 2:47:38 AM My 2¢:
I think that fake posts should be banned, until we can find a way to make them impossible.
Regardless of intent, all fake posts should be deleted. Otherwise we risk opening a huge can of worms.
I know fake posts are usually harmless and can be humorous, but as I mentioned elsewhere, the few can easily ruin it for the many.
Sure, they're usually easy to detect (though there are tricks to make them less detectable), but not everyone is checking every post for time stamps and post numbers.
We should fix the posting software so that the post number appears outside the column (iow, the posts are indented). would this be difficult?
Until then, I saw ban fake posts altogether, or risk continual meltdowns and hassles. 527. CalGal - 12/4/1999 3:11:35 AM I could also use the block tag, I suppose. I tried it and didn't like it. Should have mentioned that. Still, the same issue--it's more formatting, and I jes don't like it.
I need to be clear, though--I'm a purist. I don't know that the performance problem would be that bad, and the hit would be on the client side, not the server (at least, I think that's how HTML works?). But it just seems so....messy.
There are other possible problems: - As it is now, a badly placed table command can screw up a page. This would make the problem worse.
- Someone could, possibly, figure out how to forge a post even with this approach. They would probably screw up any formatting downstream of it, but the post itself would look real.
In general, I would prefer a procedural approach to a sloppy code approach. Best of all is a clean code approach, which I haven't been able to think up yet.
|
