PapaG was banned tonight

[BlayZa]

ffs some of you people need to chill the fuck out, this is just a message board.... go the hell outside for 5 mins n get some perspective on what's real.

emo+

 

[Charcoal Filtered]

Now I see why the meltdown sucked. It is the editing! I feel like the poor kid that bought an NWA cassette at KMart and could not see the big controversy with "Fudge the Police".

 

[Mediocre Man]

I will miss the drama and completely ridiculous double standard of this board once I can stop myself from posting.

 

[julius]

I will miss the drama and completely ridiculous double standard of this board once I can stop myself from posting.

Ah, the good old "double standard" line. Because further was the one who brought up a private message between the two (which I have seen, he forwarded it to me asking if I thought the response was papag was warranted), and further was the one who continually said shit about someone (and two mods), and has a history of being suspended and temporarily banned in the past.

It can't be that, it has to be the double standard.


btw, its not a double standard when people don't understand the difference between addressing the issue and addressing the person.

 

[Denny Crane]

$50 and he's gone.

Let's start a bidding war, HCP style.

$49.

 

[julius]

Now I see why the meltdown sucked. It is the editing! I feel like the poor kid that bought an NWA cassette at KMart and could not see the big controversy with "Fudge the Police".

it's like that, but with more. the poor kid goes back to the kmart, and starts swearing at the cashier, brings up things from the cashiers past (which he knows because they've shared the information), cusses out the manager, and when the police come to escort him out of the building, he blames it on the fact he's treated differently than others are prior to his blow-up.

Or in other words, a typical weekend for Mags!


(I'm really liking this new meme!)

 

[Denny Crane]

Well it certainly will be a lot less heated around here I guess?

Somebody is going to have to double down now to make up for the loss.

It's either Bush's fault or Obama's.

 

[Denny Crane]

I wish he could have just been banned from the OT section.

He can be. If that's what people figure out is best.

 

[Denny Crane]

I know some mods should be able to read my private messages, certainly Denny could. I give permission to read any PM and if I ever mentioned his kids, post it, publicly shame me or life ban me. Not a problem cause I have never said anything even close.

I want everyone to know I could but never would consider it. I consider that a pretty major violation of your privacy. I won't do it.

 

[julius]

He can be. If that's what people figure out is best.

I think eventually if he comes back, maybe he should be.

But I doubt that he'll want to come back to the board (at this point, why would you want to come back? Granted, it's not like he went insane or something, just had a bad night). I think it depends on how he reacts/responds over the next few days.

If he continually makes fake screen names, just to get the last word in, it won't do the situation any good.

I know he knows this (as do we all, since we've either all done it or know people who do this to avoid admitting they're wrong about something), but after a while we almost all collectively forget shit that was said or done if it's forgotten or not talked about. SO if he comes back in a while (maybe under a new screen name, but don't be obvious about it), and say or does nothing to draw attention to himself, most people will not care.

We're the king of short attention spans.

 

[Denny Crane]

Sorry for all the posts.

I generally do not at all favor banning people. I've been on the receiving end of some of this, but I don't take it personally. It comes with the territory.

 

[jlprk]

Wait, what? I am late to the party!

Actually, I'm against banning, ignoring, etc. I want to cry. I will never see another Benghazi thread in my life.

Well, I must show courage. I will pretend to enjoy this.

WHEEEEEEAAAAA !!!!!!!!!

 

[Mediocre Man]

Ah, the good old "double standard" line. Because further was the one who brought up a private message between the two (which I have seen, he forwarded it to me asking if I thought the response was papag was warranted), and further was the one who continually said shit about someone (and two mods), and has a history of being suspended and temporarily banned in the past.

It can't be that, it has to be the double standard.


btw, its not a double standard when people don't understand the difference between addressing the issue and addressing the person.

Like when CrandC called several posters bigots? Is that what you mean?

 

[Charcoal Filtered]

it's like that, but with more. the poor kid goes back to the kmart, and starts swearing at the cashier, brings up things from the cashiers past (which he knows because they've shared the information), cusses out the manager, and when the police come to escort him out of the building, he blames it on the fact he's treated differently than others are prior to his blow-up.

I agree. The Mods do have tough/thankless jobs here and you cannot have anyone going apeshit like PapaG did. Hopefully he just takes a couple months off and comes back. Not my decision though.

I would just like to see the unedited PM that Further sent him.

 

[Denny Crane]

I think eventually if he comes back, maybe he should be.

But I doubt that he'll want to come back to the board (at this point, why would you want to come back? Granted, it's not like he went insane or something, just had a bad night). I think it depends on how he reacts/responds over the next few days.

If he continually makes fake screen names, just to get the last word in, it won't do the situation any good.

I know he knows this (as do we all, since we've either all done it or know people who do this to avoid admitting they're wrong about something), but after a while we almost all collectively forget shit that was said or done if it's forgotten or not talked about. SO if he comes back in a while (maybe under a new screen name, but don't be obvious about it), and say or does nothing to draw attention to himself, most people will not care.

We're the king of short attention spans.

We've been really generous about giving people second (and third...) chances. I actually banned him once a long time ago when he wanted to quit the board and delete his account. It was restored at his request.

 

[julius]

Like when CrandC called several posters bigots? Is that what you mean?

for what she felt were making bigoted statements? no.

did she start a new thread about it, calling out an individual person?

did she share a private message between her and a person?

did she have a melt-down like papag did?

if the answer to those is "no", then I think that it's not a case of a double standard, but someone getting themselves banned by their own choices and not someone getting away with stuff. Hell, posters here get away with more shit than anywhere else. INCLUDING those you think have a double standard forced on them.

btw, look up with bigot means. It's not just against races.

: a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance

there are times when the people she called a bigot, have actually been bigots.

 

[Fez Hammersticks]

Usually the time between the end of SPL and fall camp is the worst but this board hasn't been this fired up since ......ever?

 

[PtldPlatypus]

for making bigoted statements? yes.

To be fair, even if someone is making statements that one perceives as "bigoted", calling them a bigot is a personal attack, and I have yet to see one of crandc's posts of such nature edited, so I think MM has a valid point. Not saying she should be banned, not putting her on the same level as PapaG, but there does appear to be a general difference in handling.

 

[Mediocre Man]

for what she felt were making bigoted statements? yes.

did she start a new thread about it, calling out an individual person?

did she share a private message between her and a person?

did she have a melt-down like papag did?

if the answer to those is "no", then I think that it's not a case of a double standard, but someone getting themselves banned by their own choices and not someone getting away with stuff. Hell, posters here get away with more shit than anywhere else. INCLUDING those you think have a double standard forced on them.

So it's only wrong if you start a new thread? So I can personally attack a poster or posters out within a thread, just not start a new one to do it.....yep, no double standard there, thanks for the lesson.

 

[Mediocre Man]

To be fair, even if someone is making statements that one perceives as "bigoted", calling them a bigot is a personal attack, and I have yet to see one of crandc's posts of such nature edited, so I think MM has a valid point. Not saying she should be banned, not putting her on the same level as PapaG, but there does appear to be a general difference in handling.

Or in other words........

 

[Denny Crane]

for what she felt were making bigoted statements? yes.

did she start a new thread about it, calling out an individual person?

did she share a private message between her and a person?

did she have a melt-down like papag did?

if the answer to those is "no", then I think that it's not a case of a double standard, but someone getting themselves banned by their own choices and not someone getting away with stuff. Hell, posters here get away with more shit than anywhere else. INCLUDING those you think have a double standard forced on them.

btw, look up with bigot means. It's not just against races.

: a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance

there are times when the people she called a bigot, have actually been bigots.

The Truth is her defense.

I expect people to get upset with one another over topics of religion and politics. It's part of the turf, and we've been quite tolerant about such things. I'm pretty sure that PapaG has posted that he wanted to get himself banned, though maybe not recently.

 

[julius]

So it's only wrong if you start a new thread? So I can personally attack a poster or posters out within a thread, just not start a new one to do it.....yep, no double standard there, thanks for the lesson.

why did you ignore the other things I said, and concentrated on the one thing you could target? Do you honestly think that papag has been unfairly maligned? Or that people have done EQUALLY what he did and got away with it?

 

[Denny Crane]

To be fair, even if someone is making statements that one perceives as "bigoted", calling them a bigot is a personal attack, and I have yet to see one of crandc's posts of such nature edited, so I think MM has a valid point. Not saying she should be banned, not putting her on the same level as PapaG, but there does appear to be a general difference in handling.

To be fair, we let all those bigoted posts stand.

 

[julius]

To be fair, even if someone is making statements that one perceives as "bigoted", calling them a bigot is a personal attack, and I have yet to see one of crandc's posts of such nature edited, so I think MM has a valid point. Not saying she should be banned, not putting her on the same level as PapaG, but there does appear to be a general difference in handling.

"not putting her on the same level as Papag" kind of suggests the "it's not a double standard" defense is accurate though...

 

[Mediocre Man]

The Truth is her defense.

I expect people to get upset with one another over topics of religion and politics. It's part of the turf, and we've been quite tolerant about such things. I'm pretty sure that PapaG has posted that he wanted to get himself banned, though maybe not recently.

You see, this is ridiculous. "The truth is her defense" That implies her thoughts about people she doesn't know from Adam are correct. It implies her view of the world is right and everyone elses view is wrong.

 

[Denny Crane]

You see, this is ridiculous. "The truth is her defense" That implies her thoughts about people she doesn't know from Adam are correct. It implies her view of the world is right and everyone elses view is wrong.

We let the bigoted posts stand unedited. And hers. Let the reader decide.

 

[Mediocre Man]

"not putting her on the same level as Papag" kind of suggests the "it's not a double standard" defense is accurate though...

No one is saying she should be banned....at least I'm not. However, a personal attack, is a personal attack, and she attacks people all the time and is never edited for it like everyone else.

 

[PtldPlatypus]

To be fair, we let all those bigoted posts stand.

Are the "bigoted posts" (a label which is easily debatable on many of those so labeled) violations of the site TOS?

"not putting her on the same level as Papag" kind of suggests the "it's not a double standard" defense is accurate though...

Not really, because as I said, nobody thinks she should be banned, because she obviously hasn't done all the same things PapaG has. But she is guilty--often--of personal attacks, and they are ignored, whereas many other people's aren't. Would you like to help me understand how that's not a double-standard?

 

[julius]

Or in other words........

like Denny said, if there was a double standard, don't you think

A: more of the people you claim have a double standard would be banned
or
B: their posts would be far more edited (the ones where they're making those comments)?

It's easy to scream "hey, there's a double standard here!" and then not actually have to back it up. You're putting the burden of proof on the mods, and alleviating yourself of proof.

The things people have said on here have rarely been edited, and unless you think we should be able to say ******, *** and other almost universally accepted words we don't say, I don't see what you're bitching about.

Were ANY of those posters who said things about gays, minorities (or since I know you'll have a fit) whites, banned or suspended?

Show me where there is a consistent and purposeful practice of suspending, or editing posts favorably? And missing one because we don't see it doesn't count. Show this trait of one of the 5 mods here (2 of which are more conservative, one who rarely posts here anyways but is conservative, and Wheels I'm not sure of) fit your description.

Because realistically, you're saying that Nate, Brian and Sly are playing favorites towards a more liberal slant. And while Sly may be more "liberal" than Brian or Nate, I don't think he's a "play favorites" type poster.

Plus, he does most of the editing. Are you saying HE'S exhibiting a double standard?

And if you are, say it to him. Or say it to Denny.

 

[PtldPlatypus]

We let the bigoted posts stand unedited. And hers. Let the reader decide.

Yet we want the same done on PapaG's meltdown thread, and instead we get pages of redaction. I'm filing a FOIA request for the unedited posts. Where's Julian Assange when we really need him?