Xixax Film Forum

Non-Film Discussion => Xix & Xax => Topic started by: ᾦɐļᵲʊʂ on January 05, 2004, 05:43:32 PM

Title: Banning
Post by: ᾦɐļᵲʊʂ on January 05, 2004, 05:43:32 PM
I just want to know what's going on.  That's all.  There was discussion over Pantalones getting banned, and JJ getting banned, which sparked its own controversy (that was quickly hushed by certain Admins.)  Now this isn't an attack on admins, nor a plea for JJ's return, but a request.

It seems swift persecution is the easiest way to quash any other opinions. People with high post counts seem to get more respect (some of them) even though it's said over and over the amount of posts dosen't matter.  Well, it dosen't to me.  I may have said it in the past, but it was jokingly.  

The banning of Neatahwanta and cowgoesmoo were quick, hushed actions.  Now, I wasn't a huge fan of Neat, and just recently started talking to cow.  I can understand people disagreeing with them, I did on several occasions, but banning them?  I understand bannings when the person posts endless pictures of Goatse or strings of profanities, but no.  They were over disagreements on certain topics and opinions.  That, or they tried to start a "revolt."  Rest assured, any admins afraid I'm taking the path of the problem starter, I'm not trying to cause any "revolts."

I'm trying to prevent them.  Why would revolts need to happen?  I doubt Pantalones or JJ decided that it would be hilarious to try to turn this message board on it's head for the entertainment value.  They know they'd be banned, and it's not like they'd inspire any posters to try the same.  

Furthermore, how exactly does one instigate a "revolt" in a message board? It's not like anyone's getting hurt.  The worst case scenario is people stop coming here, but that's very worst.  People like this board, I love this board.  That's why I'm concerned.  This board is where I get a lot of my movie information and movie discussion, but also just some great conversations with people I don't know.  Idle Chatter is just as much an important element to this board as Everything Else Cinema.  We're cinephiles, it's true.  That dosen't mean we only think abuot movies 24/7.  If that's truly the case, I picked the wrong board.  I realize someone will quote me on that, but it's true.  There's more to life than movies and having status on a message board.

My question is: can we get some justice?  If an admin hates someone, it's very fascist like to ban them on that grounds.  Even if all the admins don't like him, just as many admins didn't want JJ as those who wanted him back, but those weren't admins.  It's true we didn't have any power over you guys...shit, I started going on abuot JJ.  Sorry, it's not the fact it was JJ, but the principle.

So, I'm sure a lot of you skimmed this, it's ok.  I'm not saying stop banning, and I'm not saying you have to do exactly what I say, but my main complaint, that I hope I'm the only one who thinks it, but am sure more people feel it as well:

With people getting banned or ridiculed for having a different opinion, it makes it so that no one wants to post their own thoughts.

Engineering the same thoughts dosen't sound like a message board, but reassurance to those in charge that they're right.

Anyone else's thoughts?
Title: Banning
Post by: kotte on January 05, 2004, 05:53:42 PM
If cow's banned...I'm glad.

He posted alot of stuff not related to the subject of the thread. In this case I do think post count matters.

EDIT: Correct me if I'm wrong here. Cow posted stuff he knew people would react to...and when they did he just went in the opposite direction and went like "I'm just kidding, guys". Why the hell post in the first place if you don't mean it. By 'stuff' I don't mean 'I dwell in baby anuses" but real arguments about serious subjects. Example (http://www.xixax.com/viewtopic.php?t=5023&start=30).

Correct me if I'm wrong.
Title: Banning
Post by: cine on January 05, 2004, 05:57:12 PM
Christ, it's making threads like this that just provoke more bullshit. Whoever was banned was banned for the good of the site. Can we just please drop this admin-banning shit? If the Cow was banned, Xixax will be better for it. The Bozo posts were pathetic. And don't get me started on Xeditor. Ugh. Let's not talk about this again.
Title: Banning
Post by: Pedro on January 05, 2004, 06:03:32 PM
it seems "hip" to take a DOWN WITH THE ADMIN stance, but they know what they're doing...if moocow's gone, that's good.  i didn't dig him on the board, though if i talked to him online or any other place im sure we'd get along.
Title: Banning
Post by: Sleuth on January 05, 2004, 06:03:32 PM
Dear Upton Sinclair,

oh nevermind, just dear Upton Sinclair.
Title: Banning
Post by: ᾦɐļᵲʊʂ on January 05, 2004, 06:04:23 PM
Ok.  Let's not talk about it.  Let's ignore it.  The less free thinking, the better.

I'm bringing it up for clarity for myself.  Maybe I'll cut out all the "questions" and close my eyes later on, ok?
Title: Banning
Post by: Xixax on January 05, 2004, 06:05:04 PM
Quote from: CinephileChrist, it's making threads like this that just provoke more bullshit. Whoever was banned was banned for the good of the site. Can we just please drop this admin-banning shit? If the Cow was banned, Xixax will be better for it. The Bozo posts were pathetic. And don't get me started on Xeditor. Ugh. Let's not talk about this again.
:yabbse-thumbup:
Cinephile gets my vote to be the next Xixax admin. He "gets it".

There was nothing hushed about it at all. There is a protocol that is followed when a user is banned, and every recent instance of user removal on Xixax has followed that protocol.

It's pretty simple, but that protocol does not include public discussion of the user in question, nor does it include consideration of the opinions of anyone other than the Xixax admins.
Title: Banning
Post by: ᾦɐļᵲʊʂ on January 05, 2004, 06:11:29 PM
The only reason I wish you'd involve us, the non-admins, or if I'm speaking for myself, ME, is because I don't know why a person gets banned and suddenly BOOM they're gone?

How am I supposed to post my own opinion if it differs from those in charge?

I'm not trying to start shit, but I want to know I won't be dropped because the admins "know what they're doing."

And by that, I'm not making an attack on them.  I'm just referring to whoever has banning power should consult people so they know the line, rather than trying to assume it.
Title: Banning
Post by: kotte on January 05, 2004, 06:14:15 PM
Quote from: Walrus, KooKookajoobHow am I supposed to post my own opinion if it differs from those in charge?

I'm pretty sure that's not why people get banned.


EDIT:
Quote from: kotteHe posted alot of stuff not related to the subject of the thread. In this case I do think post count matters.

I just have to emphasize this. Don't want it to come off the wrong way.
Title: Banning
Post by: Pedro on January 05, 2004, 06:18:32 PM
people get banned because they start too much shit, sorta like this.  i dont think that opinions really have anything to do with it.
Title: Banning
Post by: Banky on January 05, 2004, 06:18:59 PM
Listen, not a year goes by, not a year, that I don't hear about some escalator accident involving some bastard kid which could have easily been avoided had some parent - I don't care which one - but some parent conditioned him to fear and respect that escalator!
Title: Banning
Post by: Pas on January 05, 2004, 06:52:11 PM
I think people should just SHUT THE HELL UP about most of the things they talk about, and the banning of annoying members is one of these things.
Title: Banning
Post by: MacGuffin on January 05, 2004, 06:58:31 PM
I'll address this matter, and maybe some of the other Admins might wanna weigh in with their own thoughts.

Yes, over the weekend, cow and XEditor and the other two new members he subsequently created were banned. But...

This has nothing to do with difference of opinion on anything that is discussed here.

Walrus, why do you assume that it's the Admins that hates a member just because he doesn't like something he has an opinion on? Ever think it's the other way around? Have you had you PM box flooded with hate messages, full of slander and offenses and Bozo pictures by any of the Admins.? I doubt it, but I would think you would be pretty upset by it, and seeing them every time you logged on here. And would you want to have the entire Idle Chatter full, and I mean full, of "Does Walrus Know What He's Doing?" topics and have polls for other members to conduct?

If this was a member who really just wanted to discuss movies and political issues and have general discussions, why would he antagonize other members (not just the Admins. either) with every one of his posts? I can also tell you this was not a swift decision. Numerous PM's to stop were met with either another insult or were just ignored. From there it escalated to warnings, and there were many. So please know it wasn't just an over-night decision.

If the Admins. really wanted to prevent free thinkers, we would have deleted this thread. In fact, we'd just get rid of the board as a whole. Why do you think we are against free-thinkers and those outspoken? Jesus, if that was the case, Gold Trumpet would have been our first member banned. But you see the difference between GT and someone like cow is, GT can conduct debates and discussions without it turning personal. The Admins would never think of sending GT PM's with four letter words because he didn't like "The Matrix" and he wouldn't send us any because we didn't like "Die Hard".

Let me reitterate again: THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH DIFFERENCES OF OPINION OF MATTERS ON THE BOARD. You are all open to discuss whatever the heck you want.

The Admins are trying to prevent the worst case scenerio.
Title: Banning
Post by: ©brad on January 05, 2004, 07:01:34 PM
Quote from: Walrus, KooKookajoobThe only reason I wish you'd involve us, the non-admins, or if I'm speaking for myself, ME, is because I don't know why a person gets banned and suddenly BOOM they're gone?

How am I supposed to post my own opinion if it differs from those in charge?

I'm not trying to start shit, but I want to know I won't be dropped because the admins "know what they're doing."

for the love of... dude no one has been banned b/c of an opinion. can you imagine if we actually did that?

and yeah, you are starting shit.
Title: Banning
Post by: Jeremy Blackman on January 05, 2004, 07:06:19 PM
Quote from: Walrus, KooKookajoobI'm not trying to start shit, but I want to know I won't be dropped because the admins "know what they're doing."
Banning is never a surprise. For every Xixax ban that has ever happened, the member in question is given a personal warning saying bluntly "stop doing x or you will be banned."

The theory that we enjoy banning people to crush dissent and filter public opinion has absolutely no merit. Haven't we proven this before?
Title: Banning
Post by: picolas on January 05, 2004, 07:16:26 PM
i was about to say pretty much the same thing as Mac.

i just think you're totally missing the boat and flat out ignoring information when you can think that any of those guys are gone now because we didn't like their opinions.

JJ, Pantalones and cowXed all had several things in common before the moment of their ban-hammering: they had been making every thread they posted in worse and worse (and not in the delightful thread-ruining way America has come to embrace in the likes of certain unnammable tangent loving non-bad people), they had been discussed and agreed upon by the majority of the admins as a big source of unnecessary trouble over and over, and they had been warned again and again. it was coming, they knew it, and they knew what they were doing.

can you show me the post where the admins "quickly hushed" the debate over jj's ban? i'm pretty sure that it never happened.
Title: Banning
Post by: Banky on January 05, 2004, 07:38:23 PM
do we have to go through all this shit about the warnings and everything everytime somone is banned?
Title: Banning
Post by: picolas on January 05, 2004, 07:40:01 PM
Quote from: Brodiedo we have to go through all this shit about the warnings and everything everytime somone is banned?
if someone brings it up, yupper.
Title: Banning
Post by: RegularKarate on January 05, 2004, 08:04:28 PM
Someone change the damn channel, I'm sick of seeing this one over and over.

This has been explained.
Title: Banning
Post by: ᾦɐļᵲʊʂ on January 05, 2004, 08:36:56 PM
Quote from: ©brad
and yeah, you are starting shit.

I tried to pussy foot around saying it, and I wasn't trying to start shit.  I know that some people are just way too touchy.  I have to tip-toe through the fucking tulips just to ask a question so that someone doesn't turn it into a joke.

I don't do anything as personal attacks on this board (well, I guess if you consider me "starting shit" then now I am) so I know I won't be banned soon.  At least I shouldn't be.  

I'm just sticking up for those banned that I still enjoy talking to.  I'm sorry I make you guys reexplain yourselves.  So let people throw a few more "Shut ups", "Listen to the admins" and "You remind me of JJ's" out, then explain maybe another 2 or 3 times to me and then lock this.

I'm not trying to blow this up, I'm trying to resolve a matter.  I think some sort of action should be taken as far as speaking out goes, it should be a big deal.  People shouldn't blow off bannings if they cared, and I thought the cow getting banned was abrupt.  I know now there were PM warnings for him, but I still feel, although non-admins have no power other than posting, we have a right to know such events.

It makes it seem Gestapo style to do it that way, in my opinion.
Title: Banning
Post by: cine on January 05, 2004, 08:46:20 PM
Look, again, it's not my place to say anything, but the bottom line here, I think, is that it's been talked about so many times before. So if you really wanted to know what went down without making a big issue about it publicly, then use the PM button so it doesn't turn into a big discussion amongst members that are not admins (like me).
Title: Banning
Post by: ᾦɐļᵲʊʂ on January 05, 2004, 08:48:22 PM
Is that to assume that every non-admin dosen't care about what's going on here?  If so, then I'm sorry for this thread.

I just figured there had to be someone else who wondered why, but I guess not.
Title: Banning
Post by: Pedro on January 05, 2004, 09:00:43 PM
Quote from: Walrus, KooKookajoob
Quote from: ©brad
and yeah, you are starting shit.

It makes it seem Gestapo style to do it that way, in my opinion.
maybe, but i think one purpose is to help prevent public outbursts we've heard a million times before, like this, from happening
Title: Banning
Post by: ᾦɐļᵲʊʂ on January 05, 2004, 09:21:43 PM
OK, so maybe Gestapo was a bit far.

I was just feeling a little frustrated, which, I'm very certain you all are with me.  But that's the nature of things, I suppose.
Title: Banning
Post by: RegularKarate on January 05, 2004, 09:25:14 PM
are you serious?

do you actually believe that everyone else feels "frustrated" with the admin, but are scared to say so?
Title: Banning
Post by: ᾦɐļᵲʊʂ on January 05, 2004, 09:50:39 PM
How would you know any more or any less than I would on that topic?

EDIT: I didn't say everyone, I said if there was anyone else.
Title: Banning
Post by: pete on January 05, 2004, 09:57:47 PM
It really seems like Walrus here is simply asking a question and he's trying to be as polite about it as he can.  He seems to be antagonized rather quickly, and, despite the numerous times he's stated that he's not trying to start anything, several posters keep on accusing him of doing just that.  If you wanna defend the admins, fine, but stop alienating the boy.
Oh yeah, I didn't like cows and do not know the story of his getting banned (and don't really care to), but I do miss JJ.
Title: Banning
Post by: MrBurgerKing on January 05, 2004, 10:24:07 PM
I think TheCow was banned because of the mad cow disease scare! Or I should say the 'mad cow disease scare.' I've been constantly bombarded with warnings from friends and family because they know about my tendencies to eat the red meat from fast food chains a few times a week. They're worried that maybe I'll get some sort of cholesterol disease, or mad cow disease, or suicidal thoughts. I'm willing to take the risk though.. If those same pricks are willing to take the risk smoking a pack a day, or drinking, that's their business. They're taking that risk, and I'm taking this risk: eating a frame-broiled whopper with cheese.. if I die, so be it.
Title: Banning
Post by: pete on January 05, 2004, 10:25:46 PM
I only eat at fastfood restaurants that PETA has protested against or has had the recent mad cow disease scare...'cause that way I KNOW they're using real beef.  They'd never protest against American middle school cafeterias or the prison.
Title: Banning
Post by: cine on January 05, 2004, 10:36:17 PM
Quote from: peteIt really seems like Walrus here is simply asking a question and he's trying to be as polite about it as he can.  He seems to be antagonized rather quickly, and, despite the numerous times he's stated that he's not trying to start anything, several posters keep on accusing him of doing just that.  If you wanna defend the admins, fine, but stop alienating the boy.
Yes, he's being polite but I think it's the fact that this has been brought up several times before in threads that have went out of hand and as a result, have been locked for it. Look em up, guys. They're there. So attacked quickly? Yeah, you're not surprised about that. The admins have went through a lot of shit to try to make this site a better place for guys like me who don't want to put up with the shit disturbers. Walrus is NOT a shit disturber but to bring up something and say "Is that to assume that every non-admin dosen't care about what's going on here?" Well, have you seen any other threads being made about this? I didn't see one. Redirect me if I'm wrong, of course. Only you brought it up and nobody has said "God damn, I miss that funny cow! Where's those Bozo pictures that I miss?" He was an asshole. So if anybody wanted to speak up about him, isn't it fair to just PM and get some sort of confirmation or whatever? Why do the admins have to announce when some troublemaker is banned? Why can't we just talk about World Idols and things we try to agree on instead of this again. And again. And again.

This is my take on it, but if you still feel it REALLY should've been a post to rehash issues like this for everyone, then to each his own, I guess.
Title: Banning
Post by: Pubrick on January 05, 2004, 10:58:32 PM
um ok. pete and Walrus, thank you for ignoring evething the admins hav posted in this thread. how can u argue with what Mac said? he answered every paranoid query walrus brought up. and then walrus goes on to quote a random line just to continue this DEAD debate.

really. from the beginning of time walrus has thought the world was against him. it's a shame because that isn't true. the problem is not with the admins, who hav treated this subject every-single-nauseating-time with utmost courtesy and diplomacy, but with parnoid ppl who continue to ignore information. what do u want to hear from us, do u want to become an admin and rule the world? do u want every member to be made admin so that then it would be fair? jesus christ man. what exactly do u want to hear from us that we havn't already calmly explained. yes u keep ignoring everything we say., stop ignoring everything we say. stop ignoring everything we say. stop ignoring everyhting we say.

apart from a decent explanation and reasoning which has now for the umpteenth time being given, what more can we SAY. all we can do is TELL u the truth and that's what's happened. yet u refuse to believe it. that is clearly ur problem. now ur gonna blame us cos no one else is willing to disbelieve everything we say like u do? sigh. there's nothing we can do now except to wait for the next time you bring this up, in total disbelief that ppl still don't care about this lunacy. if anything, it seems the normal members of this board are tired of this paranoia. seriously.
Title: Banning
Post by: Jeremy Blackman on January 05, 2004, 11:17:25 PM
In summation:

1. We are not out to get you.
2. We do not ban anyone without debates and warnings.
3. We encourage free-thinking.
4. Free-thinking and harassment are two entirely different things.
5. No free-thinking person has ever been banned.
Title: Banning
Post by: Sleuth on January 05, 2004, 11:18:15 PM
they just gon' hax you
Title: Banning
Post by: bonanzataz on January 05, 2004, 11:51:07 PM
i'm bored. imma go take a shit.

happy anniversary...
Title: Banning
Post by: pete on January 05, 2004, 11:55:19 PM
what do I have to do with anything?  I said people should be nicer to walrus in this thread and that I miss JJ.  who's the paranoid one here.

Quote from: Pum ok. pete and Walrus, thank you for ignoring evething the admins hav posted in this thread. how can u argue with what Mac said? he answered every paranoid query walrus brought up. and then walrus goes on to quote a random line just to continue this DEAD debate.

really. from the beginning of time walrus has thought the world was against him. it's a shame because that isn't true. the problem is not with the admins, who hav treated this subject every-single-nauseating-time with utmost courtesy and diplomacy, but with parnoid ppl who continue to ignore information. what do u want to hear from us, do u want to become an admin and rule the world? do u want every member to be made admin so that then it would be fair? jesus christ man. what exactly do u want to hear from us that we havn't already calmly explained. yes u keep ignoring everything we say., stop ignoring everything we say. stop ignoring everything we say. stop ignoring everyhting we say.

apart from a decent explanation and reasoning which has now for the umpteenth time being given, what more can we SAY. all we can do is TELL u the truth and that's what's happened. yet u refuse to believe it. that is clearly ur problem. now ur gonna blame us cos no one else is willing to disbelieve everything we say like u do? sigh. there's nothing we can do now except to wait for the next time you bring this up, in total disbelief that ppl still don't care about this lunacy. if anything, it seems the normal members of this board are tired of this paranoia. seriously.
Title: Banning
Post by: Pubrick on January 06, 2004, 12:01:49 AM
and i said ppl HAV been nice to walrus. and jj has nothing to do with anything. who's ignoring everything here.
Title: Banning
Post by: pete on January 06, 2004, 12:04:11 AM
yeah but you totally said that AFTER I posted my thoughts, so how could I have ignored what you haven't written yet?
or, how could I NOT have ignored what is yet to be written?
Title: Banning
Post by: Pubrick on January 06, 2004, 12:05:32 AM
i was and am talking about what every other admin has written. they were being nice, even before i pointed it out.

bye
Title: Banning
Post by: pete on January 06, 2004, 12:15:08 AM
that still has nothing to do with what I've said originally.  walrus was antagonized even before macguffin's post.
Title: Banning
Post by: Jeremy Blackman on January 06, 2004, 12:19:37 AM
Quote from: petethat still has nothing to do with what I've said originally.  walrus was antagonized even before macguffin's post.

Maybe people are sick of talking about the same thing and seeing people try to unresolve things that have been resolved.
Title: Banning
Post by: molly on January 06, 2004, 08:18:58 AM
Quote from: Jeremy Blackman
Quote from: Walrus, KooKookajoobI'm not trying to start shit, but I want to know I won't be dropped because the admins "know what they're doing."
Banning is never a surprise. For every Xixax ban that has ever happened, the member in question is given a personal warning saying bluntly "stop doing x or you will be banned."

The theory that we enjoy banning people to crush dissent and filter public opinion has absolutely no merit. Haven't we proven this before?


true
I said that there are some things in Cosmopolitan worth reading and stayed alive(not banned).
:P
Title: Banning
Post by: kotte on January 06, 2004, 08:23:05 AM
Quote from: molly
Quote from: Jeremy Blackman
Quote from: Walrus, KooKookajoobI'm not trying to start shit, but I want to know I won't be dropped because the admins "know what they're doing."
Banning is never a surprise. For every Xixax ban that has ever happened, the member in question is given a personal warning saying bluntly "stop doing x or you will be banned."

The theory that we enjoy banning people to crush dissent and filter public opinion has absolutely no merit. Haven't we proven this before?


true
I said that there are some things in Cosmopolitan worth reading and stayed alive(not banned).
:P


If you knew how close you were...
Title: Banning
Post by: Raikus on January 06, 2004, 10:02:24 AM
... and another one has been swept under the rug.

Nothing to see here. Move along.
Title: Banning
Post by: ᾦɐļᵲʊʂ on January 06, 2004, 10:32:54 AM
Ok, then I'll guess I'll stick a knife in this one saying:

I didn't mean to cause waves in the pool, I just wanted to know when someone was banned because it's kind of a big thing.  But if no non-mod cares, then I guess I'm the only one who does.  So, whenever someone is banned, I just would like a PM or something.  I want to know where the line is so I don't cross it.

That's that.
Title: Banning
Post by: Pas on January 06, 2004, 10:48:43 AM
The world of shit you are currently in is making you stink.
Title: Banning
Post by: Raikus on January 06, 2004, 10:50:23 AM
You're not the only one that cares. Not every person gets banned for the same exact reason. So the whole "we already expained it! Yeesh! It's so hard for us to come up with reasons other than... Yeesh! We already explained it!" excuse is tired. Banning is a big event because it's permanently removing a member from the community. If the admins don't understand why non-admins would appreciate an explanation when this happens than there's a bigger gap between all of us than we realize.
Title: Banning
Post by: Xixax on January 06, 2004, 11:08:43 AM
It's all about questioning authority, really.

I'm not sure if that's a good thing in this case, or a bad thing.

Ya can't please all the people all the time I reckon.
Title: Banning
Post by: Raikus on January 06, 2004, 11:14:47 AM
It's not really even about questioning authority though (even though I think that's a healthy virtue--politics especially). Bannings don't happen every day. What is the harm in defining the reason(s) the person was banned when they are? Surely the reasons are already within the PM's being send around between the admins. Why is it so hard to post them for the public?

Most of this "dissention" isn't coming from the fact people are getting banned. It's coming from no one notifying the community that it happened except for the banned member or until someone asks a question about it. Then it does turn into a thing because someone asks about it and other people start chosing sides.

What harm is there in public notification with causes expressed?
Title: Banning
Post by: RegularKarate on January 06, 2004, 02:27:50 PM
there's obviously no winning here.

If we were to start a thread that said "So and So was banned today because blah blah blah" then people would think we were holding up the severed head of our enemy, screaming "This might happen to you if you don't watch out!"

It's not like we would ever just ban someone out of the blue without warnings first.

Pantelones had been warned off and on for months before he was banned.  

If you're really worried about doing something bannable, just use your head.  If you drift even close to being banned, you'll know it.

it's getting to the point where "it's all been said before" has been said so many times before that it's really lost meaning.
Title: Banning
Post by: Raikus on January 06, 2004, 02:41:09 PM
This isn't about knowing guidelines on bannable offenses.

This is about courtesy. You're in the know as an admin. The vast majority of us aren't. So when members begin dropping like flies I'd appreciate knowing why. If the roles were reversed, wouldn't you appreciate someone informing you why a member was banned instead of keeping it hush-hush? Eventually someone is going to ask what happened to ______ and it will begin again.

So, again, why is it so hard to nip this in the bud and just say why they were banned when they are?
Title: Banning
Post by: kotte on January 06, 2004, 02:42:50 PM
Quote from: RegularKarateIf we were to start a thread that said "So and So was banned today because blah blah blah" then people would think we were holding up the severed head of our enemy, screaming "This might happen to you if you don't watch out!"
Title: Banning
Post by: slice on January 06, 2004, 02:45:00 PM
wouldn't it be so much more fun if people just started disappearing and nobody knew why

okay so let's all split up and search the house
no that's what they want us to do
yes exactly

later

suzy this ramsacked ballroom is giving me the creeps...suzy?
Title: Banning
Post by: Raikus on January 06, 2004, 02:46:05 PM
Quote from: kotte
Quote from: RegularKarateIf we were to start a thread that said "So and So was banned today because blah blah blah" then people would think we were holding up the severed head of our enemy, screaming "This might happen to you if you don't watch out!"
Yeah, thanks Kotte. I read it, I just don't think it's viable. I'm still holding out for a real answer.
Title: Banning
Post by: phil marlowe on January 06, 2004, 02:51:09 PM
i must say that i enjoy this DAMN FINE RESTAURENT, and the food is for free too. isn't that nice?

and i don't have a problem with the management kicking out people who SHIT IN OTHER PEOPLES FOOD.
Title: Banning
Post by: Jeremy Blackman on January 06, 2004, 02:54:33 PM
I think it's reasonable to ask us to announce when a member has been banned, because it really is a big deal... but how should we do that (like RK said) without seeming threatening and ominous?

Quote from: Walrus, KooKookajoobI want to know where the line is so I don't cross it.
Don't flatter yourself. You're not even close.
Title: Banning
Post by: Raikus on January 06, 2004, 03:02:40 PM
Quote from: Jeremy BlackmanI think it's reasonable to ask us to announce when a member has been banned, because it really is a big deal... but how should we do that (like RK said) without seeming threatening and ominous?
Just the facts, jack. Presenting the facts can't be misconstrued as threatening I would think. Cite two examples as to why they were in the hot seat and then the final thing that pushed them over the edge. I'm sure there's some type of protocal that admins use to decide to when to ban someone, so I would imagine that would suffice as well.

It doesn't need to be a Supreme Court verdict or anything, just a simple explanation of why they were banned and the examples. I think if communication was openned to include everyone a lot of this type talk would cease to exist.

Oh, and JB, thanks for listening.
Title: Banning
Post by: Xixax on January 06, 2004, 03:44:56 PM
Offense 1: GDIDM has a small penis.
Offense 2: GDIDM has never been in my anus.
Banned Because: GDIDM doesn't want a piece of me.
Title: Banning
Post by: ᾦɐļᵲʊʂ on January 06, 2004, 06:03:05 PM
Ok, so maybe could we start a Usergroup and when you decide to ban someone or do something important, message everyone in the user group?

You don't need to post a thread, just PM those who would like to know...is that so much to ask?

I'm sorry I ruffled some feathers, and I didn't set out to accuse and call people out.  I guess if we can start a usergroup:

1) how do we do that?
2) who wants to join?
Title: Banning
Post by: Pedro on January 06, 2004, 07:12:34 PM
you seem a little insecure, buddy.  they'll be a comment somewhere on here when someone gets banned, and you'll know.  i dont think we need to go this far...
Title: Banning
Post by: ᾦɐļᵲʊʂ on January 06, 2004, 07:18:07 PM
Quote from: Pedro the Wombatyou seem a little insecure, buddy.  they'll be a comment somewhere on here when someone gets banned, and you'll know.  i dont think we need to go this far...

That may be, but here's how about this:
If I never brought it up, would the admins have taken it upon themselved to tell us?  

They were saying that he was warned through PMs and such, so it was a private thing, but banning is kind of a big thing.  But since it was all behind the curtain, would they have felt compelled to tell us?  Maybe no one cares but Raikus and I, but that's why I made this thread.

Because at least one person cared.  Furthermore, even though it was only one person, it did show that someone else would like to have known.
Title: Banning
Post by: Sleuth on January 06, 2004, 07:20:27 PM
1) Cow got out of hand

2) I didn't see Cow anymore

3) I laughed and laughed

4) Walrus makes this thread
Title: Banning
Post by: Pubrick on January 06, 2004, 07:39:38 PM
5) i vomited
Title: Banning
Post by: Sleuth on January 06, 2004, 07:46:14 PM
is this the "we can all agree on this" thread
Title: Banning
Post by: ᾦɐļᵲʊʂ on January 06, 2004, 08:10:36 PM
Well, there's almost as much discrepancy here as there is there.
Title: Banning
Post by: Reinhold on January 06, 2004, 09:43:14 PM
fucking a. does anybody come here to relax?

how many people post here on a regular basis? it's probably in the area of the 20 or so that i see. everybody brings something different to the board, unless, of course, they're jumping on a bandwagon tossing shit one side  or the other of an argument.  when somebody goes away permanently, so do the good things that they bring. the admins obviously believe that the bad outweighs the good, but it still sucks to see somebody go when you look forward to their posts. even if this was a democracy, admins still have the power. i guess that means that we deal with their way or we leave. however, as members of the community, it's not out of bounds to be pissed or to voice concerns-- even if others are tired of hearing them. nobody's making you read this.
Title: Banning
Post by: NEON MERCURY on January 06, 2004, 10:12:00 PM
banned in the USA ...i was Baned in the USA....banned in the USA....


-2 live crew.....


:sleeping: .......
Title: Banning
Post by: Jeremy Blackman on January 07, 2004, 12:33:51 AM
Quote from: Reinhold Messnereven if this was a democracy, admins still have the power. i guess that means that we deal with their way or we leave. however, as members of the community, it's not out of bounds to be pissed or to voice concerns-- even if others are tired of hearing them. nobody's making you read this.

I agree.

Just understand that we're not saying "you shall not offend the administration! you have now been blacklisted!" We're just saying "Come on, haven't we gone over this?" Defensive? Yes. Annoyed? Yes. Tired? Very much.
Title: Banning
Post by: GodDamnImDaMan on January 07, 2004, 01:19:35 AM
I miss that fuck JJ....
Title: Banning
Post by: Sleuth on January 07, 2004, 01:41:01 AM
Well, I miss Cow, so fuck you.
Title: Banning
Post by: godardian on January 07, 2004, 01:55:33 AM
I guess if someone is being warned about getting banned in PMs, it's up to them whether they want to make it public. I have complete trust that these admins are not banning people for no good reason; they're not banning people for bullshitting around or being stupid, otherwise we'd all be banned some days. And they're not banning people unilaterally and out of the blue, as they said. So... if you're a person who's warned about getting banned (and the reasons why, and what you can do to avoid it) time after time, and you decide you're not going to change your behavior and you're going to get banned, then you can choose to share that with everyone or not. It shouldn't be up to the admins to be the bad guy in a case where there giving someone chances they won't take. When it comes to banning issues, we're all playing by the same rules, here. I mean, I think as long as you have a little common sense and civility, you won't get banned.

Maybe rather than "announcing" each banning as some kind of event and looking like triumphalists over a negative occurrence, the admins could post a general guideline over what will get a member banned, though it seems pretty obvious to me. That way, it would be clear when a member was doing something bannable, and it wouldn't be a surprise, and no need for a special announcement. Nobody has ever been banned over their beliefs or sense of humor; they've been banned for their antagonistic, fight-picking ways of expressing their beliefs, or more often not just starting shit for the sake of starting shit under the pretense of expressing a belief or feeling, or protesting "humor" after the fact over posts that are destructive to the overall goodwill and peace of the discourse here.
Title: Banning
Post by: (kelvin) on January 07, 2004, 07:03:37 AM
Quote from: godardianI have complete trust that these admins are not banning people for no good reason; they're not banning people for bullshitting around or being stupid, otherwise we'd all be banned some days. And they're not banning people unilaterally and out of the blue, as they said.


I think the main issue is sed quis custodiet ipsos custodes? And, overall, the lack of transparency. Therefore, I support Walrus' initiative (without wanting to express any mistrust towards the admins).
Title: Banning
Post by: godardian on January 07, 2004, 07:59:02 AM
Quote from: kelvin
Quote from: godardianI have complete trust that these admins are not banning people for no good reason; they're not banning people for bullshitting around or being stupid, otherwise we'd all be banned some days. And they're not banning people unilaterally and out of the blue, as they said.


I think the main issue is sed quis custodiet ipsos custodes? And, overall, the lack of transparency. Therefore, I support Walrus' initiative (without wanting to express any mistrust towards the admins).

I actually think some of the admins do, too... I was just saying that if we're going to get into the dangerous territory of "here's who's banned and why," on an individual-announcement basis, then it would be just as reasonable to have a guideline that applied to everybody out front, so that nobody will be surprised when someone is banned for breaking it. That's the odd thing- everyone is so surprised by some of these bannings, when obviously they had been a long time coming, and if you look at how the people that were banned behaved differently from all the rest of us who weren't, surprise isn't a very understandable reaction.
Title: Banning
Post by: (kelvin) on January 07, 2004, 09:31:54 AM
Quote from: godardian
Quote from: kelvin
Quote from: godardianI have complete trust that these admins are not banning people for no good reason; they're not banning people for bullshitting around or being stupid, otherwise we'd all be banned some days. And they're not banning people unilaterally and out of the blue, as they said.


I think the main issue is sed quis custodiet ipsos custodes? And, overall, the lack of transparency. Therefore, I support Walrus' initiative (without wanting to express any mistrust towards the admins).

I actually think some of the admins do, too... I was just saying that if we're going to get into the dangerous territory of "here's who's banned and why," on an individual-announcement basis, then it would be just as reasonable to have a guideline that applied to everybody out front, so that nobody will be surprised when someone is banned for breaking it. That's the odd thing- everyone is so surprised by some of these bannings, when obviously they had been a long time coming, and if you look at how the people that were banned behaved differently from all the rest of us who weren't, surprise isn't a very understandable reaction.

It 's understandable in a way that xixax, and this has ben said before, unites only a few dozen members. If there were a thousand (active) members, nobody would care about those issues.
But, the fact is, this is a small messsage board which needs better communicational links between members and admins.
I also had an idea about a thread announcing similar problems, but thought more of an "official statements thread" with widespread topics than of a " who's banned" thread. It would be a thread where only admins can post and therefore it won't be "polluted" with arguments like this.
Without a few -if I may say so- institutionalized structures, this debate will come up every single time the board faces tensions. And we know, this is only a matter of time.
Title: Banning
Post by: Pwaybloe on January 07, 2004, 02:01:01 PM
You'll never see me post in this thread.  No sir.
Title: Banning
Post by: cron on January 07, 2004, 02:03:28 PM
hey Pawbloe, your avatar is sweeeeet, where did you get it?
Title: Banning
Post by: MacGuffin on January 07, 2004, 02:29:52 PM
Quote from: chuckhimselfohey Pawbloe, your avatar is sweeeeet, where did you get it?

Can't you read? He won't answer that question in this thread.
Title: Banning
Post by: cron on January 07, 2004, 02:40:22 PM
thank you MacGuffin. that was the joke  :x
Title: Banning
Post by: MacGuffin on January 07, 2004, 03:52:01 PM
Quote from: chuckhimselfothank you MacGuffin. that was the joke  :x

That you can't read? Then how am I able to communicate with you?
Title: Banning
Post by: cron on January 07, 2004, 03:56:19 PM
i'll be crying in the shower.
Title: Banning
Post by: modage on January 07, 2004, 04:39:39 PM
seeing part of my name as part of your name is making me think i'm doing more posting than i am.  can someone please ban me for excessive posting already?
Title: Banning
Post by: ᾦɐļᵲʊʂ on January 07, 2004, 07:05:28 PM
He wanted me to post it for him, and I know you guys may think he's old news and we're over it, he was banned without saying one last thing, this is just what he said.  I'm not taking sides, just doing him a favor.  The integrity of it is not my business.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

   I was banned a few days ago. I was banned over my comments in the "Here's Some Things We Can All Agree On" thread. But I wasen't banned for just these comments, I had been on the Admins shit list for awhile, because I disagreed with a few of them. Now obivously this thread I was banned in, was a fun joke thread where other people poked fun at other members.

   It wasen't serious, and in the beginning you see people making fun of other members. In fact, someone calls GodDamnImTheMan a prick, haha. And then, around the 3rd page, Sigur Ros explains that I am his bitch. So obviously this thread is full of fun, intil I decide to post. Because of these people who don't like me from our past history, my comments are placed on the shit list higher then everybody elses. When I say things like, "Cinephile is such a tool" or "I think I can safely say, I can piss off P, by posting a Bozo picture. And yes, the symbolism is there. heh". These comments become huge offenses to them, as you see them explaining that I am ruining the thread.

   And the PM's start flooding in, how I need to calm down over and over... Now my comments were of the same content as all the prior posts people had posted. But I am singled out. That's not right. After that post, (and its my only post in that thread", I tried to reply to a post by P. P said "51. apart from the first time he posted it, i've never reacted to cow's bozo pics.". Now when I read that, I laughed because P was outraged by me posting the picture of Bozo the Clown. He sent me numerous private messages pissed off at the clown picture. To prove his lie wrong, I took a quoted message from his one of his many PM's he sent me, and tried to put it in my message. This post never made it to the thread, because the admins deleted every attempt at a reply I could do. I logged off xixax, and the next morning I was banned. No emails sent to me, I never could read a PM they sent me.

   I apologize for my annoying friend "Xeditor" but he was at my friends house. On the other computer on the dsl router. That wasen't me guys its my friend Nick, who hasen't posted in forever. Anyways his stupidity runs rampant in the next several replys back and forth.

   Anyways I really enjoyed XIXAX because I enjoyed the members there. I have never hated any members at XIXAX because each one has helped me with something. I loved being on a site, where the majority of PTA fans congregated on the internet. Because that's the way I found this site, through the original PTA forums and site.

   I think when you ban someone, you lose allot of variety. It's good to have people on XIXAX, you strongly disagree with because it makes the topics interesting and not all one sided, or "everybody agrees with everybody". I know their are members who hate me but I just wanna let them know, I never hated them, especially over trivial message board shit.



Chris
Title: Banning
Post by: cine on January 07, 2004, 07:16:07 PM
Well that was a splendid public service announcement.
If you're going to play the mailman for banned people again, let me know in advance so I can make the effort to not come back to this thread.
Title: Banning
Post by: ©brad on January 07, 2004, 08:46:00 PM
Quote from: Walrus, KooKookajoobI apologize for my annoying friend "Xeditor" but he was at my friends house. On the other computer on the dsl router. That wasen't me guys its my friend Nick, who hasen't posted in forever. Anyways his stupidity runs rampant in the next several replys back and forth.

buuuuuuul shit. so he lives in atlanta but goes to MIT? that's one helluva commute everyday.

whatever. we're over it.
Title: Banning
Post by: picolas on January 07, 2004, 08:50:39 PM
Quote from: Walrus, KooKookajoobHe wanted me to post it for him,

Quote from: cbradwalrus and whoever else communicates w/ acjj outside of xixax, please DO NOT post any messages from him. it's not going to change anything. we banned him for a reason. it's over. any more of these messages should and will be deleted.

http://www.xixax.com/viewtopic.php?p=98340#98340

nonez-vous.
Title: Banning
Post by: MacGuffin on January 07, 2004, 08:51:20 PM
Once again, cow is very selective about the details he gives, and doesn't tell the whole story.
Title: Banning
Post by: ᾦɐļᵲʊʂ on January 07, 2004, 08:56:56 PM
I'm not going to be his mailman, I just felt the goodbye thing was the least I could do for him.  But I guess you banned him for a reason, and all that rigamaroo that I don't want to get into again, and I'm sure nor do you.

So the end.
Title: Banning
Post by: Pubrick on January 07, 2004, 09:10:16 PM
everything he said is bullshit.

the PM he was quoting was from the first ones i ever sent him before he even posted bozo.

let's hope it really is the end.
Title: Banning
Post by: freakerdude on January 11, 2004, 07:29:53 PM
I know this revival is not happy with some, but you also have the option of not reading and/or responding as well. So please take your option before reading below.

- edited to be correctly forewarned as Walrus put it.















Quote from: Reinhold Messnerfucking a. does anybody come here to relax?

how many people post here on a regular basis? it's probably in the area of the 20 or so that i see. everybody brings something different to the board, unless, of course, they're jumping on a bandwagon tossing shit one side  or the other of an argument.  when somebody goes away permanently, so do the good things that they bring. the admins obviously believe that the bad outweighs the good, but it still sucks to see somebody go when you look forward to their posts. even if this was a democracy, admins still have the power. i guess that means that we deal with their way or we leave. however, as members of the community, it's not out of bounds to be pissed or to voice concerns-- even if others are tired of hearing them. nobody's making you read this.
Wow...what a thread and so much activity I missed while on vacation. RM's statement above sums it up for me though. Walrus and then Pete backing him up is kind of an example. We are on this site which is run by admins with the power to make decisions as a sole group. I'm not even going to suggest valued members be included in a board of such, but it would be more representative of the whole community IMO. I remember the admin Ghostboy assuring me I would not be banned for my political/humanitarian views in the Saddam captured thread.

I'm not reviving this thread for a purpose, I was just away from my wired connection and missed all of this.
Title: Banning
Post by: ©brad on January 11, 2004, 09:08:45 PM
Quote from: freakerdudeI'm not reviving this thread for a purpose, I was just away from my wired connection and missed all of this. I know this revival is not happy with some, but you also have the option of not reading as well.

i wish it was that easy.
Title: Banning
Post by: Pubrick on January 11, 2004, 09:21:23 PM
whatever. that is the biggest cop out, it's never that easy. cos then i can easily say "if u don't like what u see on this board then don't read any of it and go sumwhere else". where does it end? it's a stupid thing to say.
Title: Banning
Post by: ᾦɐļᵲʊʂ on January 11, 2004, 09:26:52 PM
How the fuck do they know they didn't want to read it if you put that sentence at the end?

Doesn't make much sense, does it?

It's a dead topic, now.  If you wanted to revive it for questions, there really isn't much left to be said.
Title: Banning
Post by: freakerdude on January 11, 2004, 09:27:57 PM
OK.....I will add "It's your option not to respond to my post" as well as not reading it before the message. I don't think that is a cop out but one already knows that before anybody reads anything on this board or anywhere else.

Jeez, I am just trying to help here but catch crap anyway.

Off to revive some older threads........jjGoesMoo!