The Magnificent Seven: Or, These people are your friends.

[hero]

On a completely unrelated note, Altima's upgraded Avatar is great.

[Trevelyan]

When someone acts out, is warned, then continues to act out, the right thing to do is to ban them. You like it just fine when it applies to other people, but somehow it's wrong when the same standard is applied to you. That's where the unfairness lies.

Know what the word for that is? Pro-tip: hypocrites do it.

[Frantic Author]

I cannot ban myself, only the mods/admins can do that. If I get banned, it is their decision and, thus, their fault. They always have the option to choose to do the right thing, and the fact that "rules" exist does not mean it is OK to hide behind them as an excuse for blatantly unfair acts.

Wait... what?

I'm sorry, what? If they ban you, you'd have to have done something banworthy dude, I doubt that any of the admins or mods is just allowed to suddenly come out of nowhere and say "So yeah I think we should ban this guy."

On a completely unrelated note, Altima's upgraded Avatar is great.

I went looking for it and it is a beautiful work of art my god

[Techlet]

[Mereo Flere]

First, welcome back food, if that's who you are.

Second, I really wish you had just gotten your original account unbanned. While you're not evading a permaban, and it's still more or less another account you made when you could've just retrieved your old one.

Third, it's Mike. It's pointless to argue with him. Even when it seems like the new mods as a whole have been picked specifically to avoid confrontations with Mike, he'll claim the bias is against his favor.

Fourth, no reason to tell him to come up with 7 better qualified people, or even just ones to replace the ones he disagrees with. Ultimately, we have new mods, and they're not going to be removed before they get the chance to do anything. After all, the opening makes it clear that you can complain to one of the Admins about the mods... but only after the mods have done something to complain about as a mod.

[Mike1984]

When someone acts out, is warned, then continues to act out, the right thing to do is to ban them. You like it just fine when it applies to other people, but somehow it's wrong when the same standard is applied to you. That's where the unfairness lies.

Know what the word for that is? Pro-tip: hypocrites do it.

No, that's not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that the mods/admins should look into the situation before handing out warnings and bans, and not just act purely on the content of the post.

Wait... what?

I'm sorry, what? If they ban you, you'd have to have done something banworthy dude, I doubt that any of the admins or mods is just allowed to suddenly come out of nowhere and say "So yeah I think we should ban this guy."

No, I have to have done something they decree is "banworthy". Honestly, the rules are sufficiently broad and unspecific (for good reason) that most people probably do stuff which could technically be "ban-worthy" all the time.

Third, it's Mike. It's pointless to argue with him. Even when it seems like the new mods as a whole have been picked specifically to avoid confrontations with Mike, he'll claim the bias is against his favor.

How?

Other than people who are quite obviously unsuitable due to their past behaviour, who could they have picked who would be significantly worse at avoiding conflict with me than someone like Hymn or Leo (both of whom I have most certainly come into conflict with in the past). I guess the only one would be Alfheim, and maybe Keyne.

To me, it seems like the main criterion for this list was to avoid people who would treat me as a person (like Altima and, to some extent, Elf do) and not a post-bot, and to avoid accusations of bias from the other side like the ones that have been flying around recently. There are certainly people who I like who could have been chosen, but they weren't, and probably precisely because I like them.

Fourth, no reason to tell him to come up with 7 better qualified people, or even just ones to replace the ones he disagrees with. Ultimately, we have new mods, and they're not going to be removed before they get the chance to do anything. After all, the opening makes it clear that you can complain to one of the Admins about the mods... but only after the mods have done something to complain about as a mod.

Exactly. Me coming up with a list of 7 new mods is not going to change things, and my list would almost certainly be biased in any case (although not much more so than the current list...).

[food]

First, welcome back food, if that's who you are.

Second, I really wish you had just gotten your original account unbanned. While you're not evading a permaban, and it's still more or less another account you made when you could've just retrieved your old one.

I already PM'd the mods. I have not received the answer back yet.

Plus, what's the difference besides the lawlz? Everyone seems to know who I am two posts in. Failure in socketpuppeting.

Third, it's Mike. It's pointless to argue with him. Even when it seems like the new mods as a whole have been picked specifically to avoid confrontations with Mike, he'll claim the bias is against his favor.

Fourth, no reason to tell him to come up with 7 better qualified people, or even just ones to replace the ones he disagrees with. Ultimately, we have new mods, and they're not going to be removed before they get the chance to do anything. After all, the opening makes it clear that you can complain to one of the Admins about the mods... but only after the mods have done something to complain about as a mod.

Well, I have done my venting here. Toodles.

[hero]

Why the hell is Technology not a mod???????????????!!!!!!!!!11111111111111111111

[Frantic Author]

Other than people who are quite obviously unsuitable due to their past behaviour, who could they have picked who would be significantly worse at avoiding conflict with me than someone like Hymn or Leo (both of whom I have most certainly come into conflict with in the past). I guess the only one would be Alfheim, and maybe Keyne.

This is a public forum. There are people on here other than you - and an awful lot of them don't come into conflict with any of the new mods. Maybe that was the reasoning behind picking these mods? Because disliking a single person is, in fact, okay, and allowed? It's not bad if you dislike someone, it's human nature.

Why the hell is Technology not a mod???????????????!!!!!!!!!11111111111111111111

Because his name is Techlology.

[hero]

>implying Mike is human.
>implying mods are human

[Techlet]

Why the hell is Technology not a mod???????????????!!!!!!!!!11111111111111111111

Who is this person and why does he sound so familiar?

[Mike1984]

This is a public forum. There are people on here other than you - and an awful lot of them don't come into conflict with any of the new mods. Maybe that was the reasoning behind picking these mods? Because disliking a single person is, in fact, okay, and allowed? It's not bad if you dislike someone, it's human nature.

What, so picking a bunch of people who dislike me (who is likely to be one of the people they're going to deal with quite a lot) and who likes you and all the people who constantly troll me is fair? And I really don't see what qualifies Hymn as a good mod, either. Not to mention Leo, who I have already explained why I think he's a bad pick.

[Frantic Author]

What, so picking a bunch of people who dislike me (who is likely to be one of the people they're going to deal with quite a lot) and who likes you and all the people who constantly troll me is fair? And I really don't see what qualifies Hymn as a good mod, either. Not to mention Leo, who I have already explained why I think he's a bad pick.

It's not fair to you, no, but it is fair to the 1,906 other people who they have to deal with.

[Trevelyan]

Being a bitch about it doesn't tend to encourage mods to do you favours. In contrast to your good self, I think they're all fair and rational enough to perform the job without being biased, unfair or unreasonable.

That's all I'm going to say on the matter.

[hero]

Who is this person and why does he sound so familiar?

Alter ego with 100% more tits and erotic red hair.

[Kratosirving]

Why the hell are you being such a baby about this anyhow? Just curb your attitude and don't do anything that could result in a ban, and nothing will come of it. Also, DP said that this plan of mod/admin power for voting on bans isn't final yet, since Road/Elf/Altima haven't all/majority agreed to it, so there's no reason to be butthurt over it unless it is implemented.


That being said, I support the proposed plan myself. I've always seen that bit about the Admins having to have a unified consensus to ban someone as a huge detrement.

[eddyak]

Erm, how?

Name one person who could reasonably have been chosen as a mod who would have been significantly worse than someone like Hymn.

*Waves*

What, so picking a bunch of people who dislike me (who is likely to be one of the people they're going to deal with quite a lot) and who likes you and all the people who constantly troll me is fair? And I really don't see what qualifies Hymn as a good mod, either. Not to mention Leo, who I have already explained why I think he's a bad pick.

You are not the only person on this forum. There is one mod who will almost definitely vote against you. Tough break. He'd be fair to just about everybody else, and if you wanted to make all mods 100% unbiased, you'd need robots.

[Mereo Flere]

You are not the only person on this forum. There is one mod who will almost definitely vote against you. Tough break. He'd be fair to just about everybody else, and if you wanted to make all mods 100% unbiased, you'd need robots.

I, for one, don't find robots to be particularly unbiased, what with the whole "destroy all humans" thing.

[Techlet]

I, for one, don't find robots to be particularly unbiased, what with the whole "destroy all humans" thing.

At least they don't discriminate between meatbags.

[eddyak]

At least they don't discriminate between meatbags.

99% of all Terminators would destroy John Connor over any other carbon-based life form.