Freethought & Rationalism Archive

seebs · 12-04-2006, 05:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crazy Liz

Yet saying one believes seebs' marriage is invalid is not flaming seebs?

We have no basis for definite claims on this. I am suspicious that staff chose not to take action on that specifically because of my blog postings; certainly, I could assemble a series of snippets from nasty notes I got which would be persuasive evidence.

That said, even if it is a flame, there's no requirement that flames written by staff be edited or removed. If rnmomof7's supervisor prefers to, say, order her a pizza or send her a bottle of champagne, there is no firm basis in staff protocol for rejecting this as a valid reaction to a public flame of a member. Staff supervisors have authority to handle rules violations in the way that seems best to them.

rigorist · 12-04-2006, 05:42 PM

And who is superior to Admins?

Lel · 12-04-2006, 05:54 PM

Execs.

Crazy Liz · 12-04-2006, 05:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rigorist

And who is superior to Admins?

Daveleau.

seebs · 12-04-2006, 06:14 PM

I had assumed it was ksen, whose position on the issue was made quite clear if you combine the stuff he denied having said with the stuff he said out in the open where it can't easily be denied.

Jello · 12-04-2006, 06:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stray bullet

I'd like to come up with some conspiracy theory here, but I really don't know. In the last infraction, I 'flamed' drstevej, and was given a warning for harrassing him. I said he was being a hypocrite. I'd suspect they didn't want me talking with staff about myself and drstevej- so that's a rational explanation. Please keep in mind, I was not even remotely harrassing stevie, I just responded to a comment of his. The ironic thing is that he was the one that stalked me on IIDB and throws a temper-tantrum everytime I post in the Discussion and Policy forum. I think the moderator at the time was quoting some tiny section of the rule that wasn't related to harrassment, but it was funny-ironic anyways.

I think they want to avoid me having a public appeal to discuss the inconsistencies of the debate rule- it's like giving me a free pass to say whatever I want about it.

Because of your problems here at IIDB with buzz, I have suspected your problems at CF are also related to the buzzard. JMO.

Jello · 12-04-2006, 06:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nitz

The point being, that compassion and taking an interest accomplishes far more than "this is the way it is!". Amazing that they totally failed to get the point and instead chose to treat me to another version of "this is the way it is!"

wow, that would make a great sig! :notworthy:

Jello · 12-04-2006, 06:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crazy Liz

Yet saying one believes seebs' marriage is invalid is not flaming seebs?

According to Exec, mommy was *only* expressing her opinion.

Jello · 12-04-2006, 06:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by seebs

We have no basis for definite claims on this. I am suspicious that staff chose not to take action on that specifically because of my blog postings; certainly, I could assemble a series of snippets from nasty notes I got which would be persuasive evidence.

That said, even if it is a flame, there's no requirement that flames written by staff be edited or removed. If rnmomof7's supervisor prefers to, say, order her a pizza or send her a bottle of champagne, there is no firm basis in staff protocol for rejecting this as a valid reaction to a public flame of a member. Staff supervisors have authority to handle rules violations in the way that seems best to them.

Ya know, the thing is, if staff are Christian, wouldn't it be the Christian thing to just edit the post? I mean really, if I posted something that I later realized had hurt someone, do you think I would even hesitate to edit my post?

I think most of us here would quickly and gladly edit any post that had resulted in someone being hurt.

If we don't know we've hurt someone, then that's a different story. But if we KNOW we've hurt someone, and then refuse to make amends, then that's a whole nuther situation.

Mommy knows she's hurt you. Mommy knows she's insulted you. Apparently, mommy is satisfied with that.

seebs · 12-04-2006, 06:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jello

According to Exec, mommy was *only* expressing her opinion.

This is a dishonest dodge on their part. Everyone there has seen discussions at some length of whether an insulting remark is protected by virtue of being "an opinion". If I were to post that, in my considered opinion, a given CF staff member lacked the reading comprehension skills to participate in discussions at an adult level, do you think they would defend my post on the grounds that it "only expressed my opinion"? If I were to post that, in my personal opinion, a given CF staff member was cruel and this incapable of the sorts of grace and discernment necessary to moderate effectively, do you think they would defend my post on the grounds that it only expressed my opinion?

I don't think so.

And, when I'm done fooling around on vacation, I will have a lot of fun talking about some of the details of the marriage icon thing... And yes, that includes the stuff that they are so ashamed of that they would rather lie than admit it. Christianity has no place for hiding in shame.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

12-04-2006, 05:42 PM	#902
rigorist Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: The Court of the Weirdo King Posts: 8,818	And who is superior to Admins?

12-04-2006, 05:54 PM	#903
Lel Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Phx area Posts: 3,122	Execs.

12-04-2006, 06:14 PM	#905
seebs Contributor Join Date: May 2002 Location: Saint Paul, MN Posts: 24,524	I had assumed it was ksen, whose position on the issue was made quite clear if you combine the stuff he denied having said with the stuff he said out in the open where it can't easily be denied.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.