Speaking of gun control..

[nikki4982]

Rob's still cool. As is Matt. And everyone else who's still around here, for that matter.

Maybe we're not your kind of people. Whatever, that's fine. So then leave, rather than trying to change us and upsetting people you've never known in the process.

[starvingeyes]

the only people i have upset are your toadies. i am beginning to see this situation for what it is and presently feel MUCH more justified in my actions.

since it is an admitted fact that the moderators of this board conspire in private to trick or trap a member into getting themselves banned, how do i know that you guys didn't just PM the "offended parties" in my threads and instruct them to react in that fashion? i wouldn't put it past you, although i question why you bother considering it's not like it's a secret that fair administration of the rules has gone the way of the do-do.

either way, the only person who remains "offended" by me outside of you, matt and robbo is kathy, and she has repeatedly refused to recognize my apologies, so frankly i don't give a shit if she's offended by me or not.

you three, i'm afraid, are going to remain offended by me until you ban me, because there is absolutely no way in hell you are either going to argue long enough or good enough with me to prove your point, and i know i'm not changing my opinions of the three of you until you show me why i should. i do not believe you can.

the only thing i'm presently guilty of is speaking out against a mod team that is absolutely KILLING one of my favorite internet haunts. don't like it? then ban me. that is what you do isn't it?

because for every second that i have a voice on this board i am going to speak out against your practices. aren't you like 26 years old? shouldn't you know better by now? what happened nikki? did you miss some hugs as a child?

[mosaik]

Would it be fair to say then that you rely first on your own judgement when somebody confronts you over a comment you said that offended them?

No, I don't believe it would be fair to say that, and I'm not quite sure how you got to this conclusion. But I'm not going to get into it since this thread seems to have worked it's way back to the topic.

Would it be fair then to say that you don't trust your own judgement when confronted over percieved offensive behavior?

[mosaik]

I don't think that violence at any point is acceptable. Can I ask what you mean by 'overthrowing the man'? I love that statement.

Wait..I read this after I posted and....I guess if you were defending your life and you HAD to use violence, then it could be justified.

What I meant by overthrowing the man is that if you were participating in a revolution.

[nelison]

If this is going to be the venue then that's fine... I've stayed out of it, but I'm going to offer my opinion as someone who doesn't regularly post on the CM anymore, but still checks in enough to know what is going on.

There's a number of issues that I've noticed over the last 8-12 months that pertain to what's happening now. I may be wrong, but there have been more bans on people in the last year than ever that I can remember (usually it was just Alan getting banned over and over). Part of the problem is the CM has become incredibly clique-y. It always had its group of people who had met and became friends and what not that just happened to run this place, but there were times over the years where I probably couldn't tell you who the mods were here. The fact that everyone here knows who the mods are is an indication to me at least that they're in the limelight far too often by banning people or policing situations.

Yes I understand that people are given warnings and what not, but if you look at the CM today and what it was like maybe 2 years ago, it is basically now a small group of people who run the place and a whole bunch of noobs. A noob today started a thread on drug use and said in the post that she would like to have a discussion if it was okay with the mods. What does that say about the state of the CM?

regarding this situation I think both sides are at fault. Yes, Chris can be brash with his comments and sarcasm/jokes don't always come through properly with text, but come on, people need to lighten up. Maybe Chris needs to watch what he says or post a little at the end of his posts from now on so people know its a joke. He also may want to lay off his facts about people. Honestly man, I understand what's going on, but it doesn't hurt to just bite your tongue and take the high road sometimes.

I also think the way the mods have handled this is a joke. There is really no excuse for Nikki and Rob to continue chasing Chris around and provoking him (you can say you aren't provoking, I'm not coming back to reply so it doesn't matter). As mods you guys are supposed to act more responibly than you have. This isn't the first time mods have tried to provoke someone into saying something to get banned. I go around to other forums, and never have I seen mods act the way some of you guys have. The CM isn't going to fall apart if you guys aren't roaming around policing. It's the internet. If someone offends someone, they just have to get off the computer and go for a walk if they're that upset. We're all adults (although I have no clue how old most of the noobs are nowadays) and I'm pretty sure people can take care of themselves. The abuse of mod powers on the CM has been going on for some time now. They know what they're doing behind the scenes and it's something I have never seen at any other forum. It just proves to me that the CM is a clique and its a shame cause this was a pretty cool place.

Again I only say this as an outsider looking in. There are some awesome people on the CM, and most of them are people that I have kept in contact with since I decided to stop posting. I don't have a solution other than for both sides to cool it and move on, but I hope this post might be an eye-opener for some of the people around here. Don't bother trying to argue with me about this since I don't have any plans to respond to comments. Take what you want from it, if anything at all.

[starvingeyes]

man i don't know if my memory serves me correctly but didn't i used to think that jim wasn't even close to the smartest motherfucker posting here? wow did i have ever have THAT wrong.

i don't know if you're going to read this man, but if you don't WRITE, like, your thoughts on whatever, for other people to read, you should. based on the two genius posts of yours i've read in the past few days i bet you could even get some people to pay you money to do so. i know i sure as hell would.

well said. massive understatement but nonetheless.

[mosaik]

Yes, I do. Though I hate to drag this thread back off topic again, you wanted a response from me, so I feel need to answer.

"Controlled" is a harsh word for it. All we're asking of him is that he doesn't post offensive cracks, jokes and what-have-you on the board. And if he does accidentally offend anyone, he apologize for it and simply move on, rather than getting his panties all in a bunch and attacking the people he's already upset by offending.

It's not a hard concept. It's civil discussion. Maybe he's not used to that on other messageboards, but we have respect for each other and each other's feelings on this board.

... Well, I (clearly) don't have any respect for his, but that's because he's proven time and time again to me that he doesn't deserve my respect. But that's a personal issue between the two of us. He can call me names til he's blue in the face for all I care, just don't say stuff that upsets my friends (read: other CMers).

both you and Rob don't like my use of the world controlled. I wonder why that is? In my opinion it seems like the most accurate term possible. You mean to control what he does while he uses this message board.

So far I am unable to get a clear understanding of your reasoning. But I can guess. I would guess that you want starvingeyes controlled because you dislike his attitude and his conviction.

However, as you can easily read for yourself, others on the message board, people you call friends in fact, have started to understand starvingeyes' mindset. They now understand why he makes the jokes that he does and they have even come to appreciate why they are funny.

The reason that this was possible is that starvingeyes genuinely was trying to be funny. The reason you cannot appreciate his jokes is because you refuse to accept his intentions really were pure. You believe he was trying on purpose to anger you and your friends when this was never the case.

This dispute can be resolved one of two ways. Starvingeyes must either bow out to the pressure you are putting on him and quit posting, or you must open your mind to his perspective.

If you cannot open your mind, you will soon feel like your only option is to ban him. If you attempt to put yourself in his shoes and think as he thinks, you may find out that he is in fact an intelligent and compelling person and you may end up wanting him around.

It is up to you. Now you have to decide what kind of person you want to be.

[mosaik]

And one footnote that I wanted to make clear: Starvingeyes is, in fact, intelligent and compelling. This is a fact. It is not my opinion, or my perspective, or my taste in people.

Intelligent and compelling are traits that a person can have. Starvingeyes has both, whether you will admit it or not. You cannot argue this. The only thing you need to decide is, do you want intelligent & compelling people on this website?

[Bandalero]

so that i may kick their asses in debate?

hells yes.

[I AM ME]

lol me and J-Neli should be MOD's.

Seriously though, lets cool down a bit here, i can understand both parties and also understand that there's a lot of emotions flaring here. Chris's posts are only becoming more offensive then before because of these actions, and he should, as Jim said, just bite his tongue for a bit, and take the highroad. And MOD's just need to cool down a bit aswell, and if people are getting offended perhaps remind them in the thread that Chris is most likely kidding, instead of getting out the weapons.

Rob I know you've always been fair in the past, and I'm sure you're just trying to do the right thing now as well, but don't validate his accusations by doing just what he says you would do. While I don't always have much faith in other MOD's, I've always trusted you to be the logical one.

Also I'd like to say that I agree with most of Jim's latest post, and I think that maybe we should think of how the CM used to be, and try and get there again. Thsi should after all be a free place to speak not a dictatorship.

[Rusty]

Not that I care to get involved, but I'd just like to point something out. You say that you aren't ignorant, yet I've been reading your arguments and they are pretty bad. I can count several illogical fallacies in almost all of them. These illogical fallacies do nothing to help your argument they merely draw attention away from any source of logic. I would explain what an illogical fallacy is, but I'm sure such an "extremely well read" individual like yourself will have some knowledge of basic philosophy.

are you sure you want to bark up this tree? considering the term you're searching for is "logical fallacies", not ILLOGICAL fallacies, i can assure you know i know what it is you are referring to, and furthermore that i have committed none.

but you are welcome, nay, encouraged, to bring up any issue with anything i've said, ESPECIALLY if it pertains to logic.

Actually, I was looking for the term "Informal fallacies" my mistake.

A few I can name would be argumentum ad populum (appeal to emotion), argumentum ad hominem (attack on the person), post hoc ergo propter hoc (False Cause) as well Composition and Division. I'll also, say Argumentum ad Baculum (Appeal to force).

I call you on appeal to emotion because you seem to rely on heavily charged language or mostly swearing even to make your arguments seem more valid. It makes it seem as though you are trying to gain support from others by using emotionally charged language in your posts.

I call you on attack on the person because you consitently attack the Admins and mods and their character in your posts. This has nothing to do with an argument, it only causes others to try to take your side by making it look as though they are bad people.

I call you on false cause because you repeatedly claim that the mods/admins had no right to lock your threads or delete your posts. You run on the assumption that you did nothing wrong in them and they did it purely to spite you.

I call you on composition because you make assumptions that all of the mods/admins are against you. You make the assumption that because you are angry or having trouble with one or two that they are all like that.

I call you on division because you make the assumption that since the admins/mods are taking action for the threads/posts that they do this all of the time just for the hell of it.

I call you on appeal to force because you rely on telling others how great you are at debating and that if they try to debate you how you will rip them apart. You try to intimidate them when you say this.

[mosaik]

I just want to say, nice job posting the latin in italics.

Really drives your point home.

[Kathy]

either way, the only person who remains "offended" by me outside of you, matt and robbo is kathy, and she has repeatedly refused to recognize my apologies, so frankly i don't give a shit if she's offended by me or not.

Why oh why did I come back to this thread? Geez.

I haven't refused to accept your apologies. I just didn't forgive you and give you a big hug.

I don't think "offended" is the right word to use anymore. Perhaps "disgusted" and "disturbed" would work better to describe how I felt about some of your posts from a few days ago. When you first began posting I had no idea what you were all about. Now I do. You've apologized, I've apologized, I'm not on the offensive anymore.

And one footnote that I wanted to make clear: Starvingeyes is, in fact, intelligent and compelling. This is a fact. It is not my opinion, or my perspective, or my taste in people.

Intelligent and compelling are traits that a person can have. Starvingeyes has both, whether you will admit it or not. You cannot argue this. The only thing you need to decide is, do you want intelligent & compelling people on this website?

Awww... your support of him is sooo cute!

[happening fish]

They're twins. It's self defense!

[faninor]

:GASP:
I'd say that all involved, including MOD's should just leave it alone for a bit. People are getting way to upset over something trivial. I'd like to say, in Chris's defense that in several cases moderator's have abused or misused their power from time to time on this board. Esspecially over the last year or so. But in almost all cases Rob has been fair and reasonable. I think we just need to let this cool down a bit so everyone can look at this clearly without passion obstructing their vision.

I would like to add though, that locking of Chris's Censorship thread was un-needed. It's very likely it was a sarcastic jab at misuse of mod powers, but he remained civil in the thread, and it had a legitimate argument in it.

this type of talk is likely to get you banned for association. while i appreciate the support i don't want anybody else getting banned on account of me, so next time just fire me a PM.

What basis do you have for believing that? I am just curious.

[Axtech]

I agree with Sean on almost all counts there, actually. Locking the original censorship thread was a snap decision because I was sick of discussing it with him in the PMs, and I didn't much like the fact that he was making light of it. Should I have locked it? No. But on the same note, he shouldn't have been making sarcastic jabs like that (I still beieve he does things like that in order to get a reaction), especially when I was putting in the time to try discussing it with him. We were both in the wrong on that one. Only difference is that I had the power to do more than he could, and I used it when I shouldn't have.

[starvingeyes]

kathy, did i miss a post or something? this is the first time you've posted anything to me since i apologized to you in two different threads. both times, you stopped posting in the thread after the apology. unless i missed something this is the first time you've acknowledged that you even READ my apologies. i'm not trying to start a fight here, simply trying to call a spade a spade.

faninor - mostly from the people who, while sending me support etc. have asked not to be identified for fear of consequences.

rob - all communication is designed to get a reaction.

[Kathy]

yeah, I walked away after I had posted... I stayed on the CM, just avoided these threads. I just got caught up with everything early this morning.

[starvingeyes]

alright jigga. i know you can feel my flava now. don't lie. you like it. you think it's groovy. not only can you pick up what i'm putting down, you want to, and you want to pick up more.

amirite? lolz i so am.

[Kathy]

Now you're just talkin' crazy!