Is there a theist who actually WANTS to be a moderator?

[rappoccio]

In my position as "Moderator Emeritus", I'd like to pose a question.

With all the recent mod-bashing from several theists on this board,
are there any theists who actually WANT to be the designated spam-
killers for a while?

For a long time it was myself and OldMan. Then we retired, and the
current crew stepped up. The only reason there are no theist mods is
because none have volunteered. That's it. No conspiracy. No blocking
out. Nothing.

So is there anyone here that is willing to step up and help kill spam,
if you all think it's such a glorious and powerful position? (I can
assure you it is neither glorious nor powerful... more like a constant
pain in the ass).

The current moderators should also weigh in with their opinions. I
think they'd love to see a theist here who can moderate effectively,
just so they don't have to hear a daily thread about how crappy a job
they're doing since no theists want to do it.

[Jerry]

Great idea to have a theist mod. There have been anarchy and chaos
lately and close to dictatorship ala Hitler in this group. Paranoia
exists everywhere. Any new theist that moves is tagged as Liam.
Incredible.

I recommend, Checkers, Treebeard, Brock, Thea, Joe, Chris, and
Tertullian. I could come up with some other names later.

[Joe]

I do not volunteer.

[Jerry]

On Dec 5, 3:53 pm, Joe <thelemiccatho...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I do not volunteer.

Too bad, you'll be a great mod.

[Woodbridge]

Prove it

[Jerry]

Joe is a Christian, that's more than enough proof.

[Woodbridge]

No that is not proof it is only false opinion of Christian

[simonsaysbye]

I don't volunteer, but I wish there was some theist who would, if
anything to bring these tedious bullshit threads about moderating and
banning to an end. The mods do a pretty thankless job; getting a
theist on board would not change anything in terms of outcomes, but it
might in terms of perception.

[Jerry]

On Dec 5, 4:42 pm, simonsaysbye <tahtah4...@live.co.uk> wrote:
> I don't volunteer, but I wish there was some theist who would, if
> anything to bring these tedious bullshit threads about moderating and
> banning to an end.  The mods do a pretty thankless job; getting a
> theist on board would not change anything in terms of outcomes, but it
> might in terms of perception.

Perception is good, but moderation should be practiced without bias.
I've been gathering info and here's what I found.

1. Wanderer posted a name of a CEO. They said it's personal
information. Well, it only becomes personal information if the other
poster is not using a handle or he is posting his real name,
otherwise, the CEO's name is just as anonymous as the anonymous
poster.

2. LiamToo was banned because some mods think that he is Wanderer.

3. According to other theists, LiamToo never posted a personal
information. If he did, nobody can provide a text, similar to the one
that they provided from Wanderer's post.

So, the mods are biased.

[simonsaysbye]

So you turn this thread to another example of that tediousness I was
referring to.

[Trance Gemini]

On Fri, Dec 5, 2008 at 5:42 PM, simonsaysbye <tahta...@live.co.uk> wrote:

I don't volunteer, but I wish there was some theist who would, if
anything to bring these tedious bullshit threads about moderating and
banning to an end.  The mods do a pretty thankless job; getting a
theist on board would not change anything in terms of outcomes, but it
might in terms of perception.

That's a shame Simon because I think you'd make a good Mod and would be happy to work with you.

 

On Dec 5, 9:47 pm, rappoccio <rappoc...@gmail.com> wrote:

> In my position as "Moderator Emeritus", I'd like to pose a question.
>
> With all the recent mod-bashing from several theists on this board,
> are there any theists who actually WANT to be the designated spam-
> killers for a while?
>
> For a long time it was myself and OldMan. Then we retired, and the
> current crew stepped up. The only reason there are no theist mods is
> because none have volunteered. That's it. No conspiracy. No blocking
> out. Nothing.
>
> So is there anyone here that is willing to step up and help kill spam,
> if you all think it's such a glorious and powerful position? (I can
> assure you it is neither glorious nor powerful... more like a constant
> pain in the ass).
>
> The current moderators should also weigh in with their opinions. I
> think they'd love to see a theist here who can moderate effectively,
> just so they don't have to hear a daily thread about how crappy a job
> they're doing since no theists want to do it.

--
Witchy Woman, AvC Anti-Spam Brigade. AA Wolf Pack Member #7
"Change is the only constant in the universe. Fear its' constant companion. Overcoming fear is the key to unlocking its' gifts." --Trance Gemini, Andromeda

[Trance Gemini]

Simon perhaps you'll reconsider?

 

[Jerry]

No, I was only responding to the content of your post. I would not
have responded any other way.

[checkers]

Allan volunteered last time but dag did not want him or any theist for
that matter. i am sure he is still interested.
what about you Jerry?
Brock you never swear and spend a fair time here.
Chris come forward and be counted.
i'm not going through the list so any theist come forward. it will be
good if there are two on board. damn, then i cannot make a noise
anymore :(

i'll rather stand down as i am sure the existing mods will reject me.
i'm too rough around the edges...a rough diamond ;) i'll say there
will be less bannings. imagine loosing high volume members like Dev
and A42 or even myself. this is why i'd rather have the other banned
members unbanned than ban these apes. there are only a few high volume
members active here that keeps the boat afloat. this is how i see it.
Liam was an average volume poster and banned for something trivial.
the atheists must realise they cannot have a show without theists,
fools!

[Jerry]

On Dec 5, 5:27 pm, checkers <mkone...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
> Allan volunteered last time but dag did not want him or any theist for
> that matter. i am sure he is still interested.
> what about you Jerry?

Not me. I have a lot of time now, but tomorrow, I may not have it.

> Brock you never swear and spend a fair time here.

Brock is a good one.

> Chris come forward and be counted.

Chris is good too.

> i'm not going through the list so any theist come forward. it will be
> good if there are two on board. damn, then i cannot make a noise
> anymore :(
>
> i'll rather stand down as i am sure the existing mods will reject me.
> i'm too rough around the edges...a rough diamond ;) i'll say there
> will be less bannings. imagine loosing high volume members like Dev
> and A42 or even myself. this is why i'd rather have the other banned
> members unbanned than ban these apes. there are only a few high volume
> members active here that keeps the boat afloat. this is how i see it.
> Liam was an average volume poster and banned for something trivial.
> the atheists must realise they cannot have a show without theists,
> fools!

Agreed 100%. So chx, you'll be a good mod too. I hope that you'll
consider.

[Turner Hayes]

Back so soon, Liam?

 

[Turner Hayes]

Once again, I find myself appreciating simon saying something that NO other theist will (this time, thanking the mods and not bashing them). Thank you, simon.

On Fri, Dec 5, 2008 at 5:42 PM, simonsaysbye <tahta...@live.co.uk> wrote:

[Turner Hayes]

What, no nominating the great and illustrious Liam? No praying for Liam to rise again like Jesus and take the modship?

 

[Jerry]

On Dec 5, 8:36 pm, "Turner Hayes" <lordlacol...@gmail.com> wrote:

LOL! Paranoia persists.

[Drafterman]

On Dec 5, 5:42 pm, simonsaysbye <tahtah4...@live.co.uk> wrote:
> I don't volunteer, but I wish there was some theist who would, if
> anything to bring these tedious bullshit threads about moderating and
> banning to an end.  The mods do a pretty thankless job; getting a
> theist on board would not change anything in terms of outcomes, but it
> might in terms of perception.

Tragedy of the commons.

[checkers]

chx
they will go balistic man. i am not setting myself up for their
response when they reject the notion. i already know the reaction and
outcome from two other topic threads.
the question is who desides on new mods? the existing mods? i know the
answer, they will tell me to fuck off, go away, just leave the group,
etc.

[Treebeard]

In this latest situation, I actually did state that I would accept
being a moderator. At first, the comment was more basically to have a
theist moderator to ensure that theists felt that bans were fair, so
that the theist moderator could say "I saw that, and yes, it was valid
to ban them". That idea didn't seem to fly with the other moderators,
but I did comment that I would be a moderator after that regardless of
that stance, and it was ignored.

I am still unlikely to do a lot of spam removal due to time
constraints, but at least I would be available to support moderator
decisions while being in possession of all the facts (I assume that
moderators do not arbitrarily make moderation decisions).

[Trance Gemini]

On Fri, Dec 5, 2008 at 9:37 PM, Turner Hayes <lordla...@gmail.com> wrote:

Once again, I find myself appreciating simon saying something that NO other theist will (this time, thanking the mods and not bashing them). Thank you, simon.

He'd make a good Mod for the theist side don't you think?

[trog69]

You are a dispicable liar. Everyone here knows that an invitation to
moderate was made to you, asshole. Quit with the martyr routine,
unless you'd care to go full out and kill yourself.

I'll get the popcorn...

[trog69]

Put him in, guys. At least he'd have to tell these imbeciles to shut
up.

[checkers]

On Dec 6, 2:40 pm, trog69 <tom.tro...@gmail.com> wrote:
> You are a dispicable liar. Everyone here knows that an invitation to
> moderate was made to you, asshole. Quit with the martyr routine,
> unless you'd care to go full out and kill yourself.

chx
where and when?

> I'll get the popcorn...

i'll also have some

> > etc.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[Jerry]

Well, you and Treebeard are theists who are up to be moderators. You
two will be great and we're just waiting now for the response of
whoever is in charge.

So to the powers that be, we have two great theists who can be great
moderators.

[Jerry]

You'll be a great moderator man, just like chx.

[Treebeard]

On Dec 6, 7:43 am, trog69 <tom.tro...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Put him in, guys. At least he'd have to tell these imbeciles to shut
> up.

I do that now, without being a moderator ...

[trog69]

I won't argue that, but I will say that I fervently wish we had more
like you here, rather than the...less thoughtful theists.

[Brock]

On Dec 5, 6:32 pm, Jerry <JerryHightower...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Brock you never swear and spend a fair time here.
>
> Brock is a good one.

Thanks, Jerry and Checkers, I'd be happy to be a moderator for this
group.

Regards,

Brock

[Answer_42]

On 6 déc, 12:43, Brock <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:


> > > Brock you never swear and spend a fair time here.
>
> > Brock is a good one.
>
> Thanks, Jerry and Checkers, I'd be happy to be a moderator for this
> group.

Prove you are unbiased first.
For instance, instead of pointing out only the atheists who use
"invectives and vitriol", start by remonstrating the theists who do it
as well. You cannot claim you do not know where and when such posts by
theists occur, I have been pointing them out to you for about two
weeks now, even including your name in the thread subject tile to
catch your attention.

As far as I am concerned, two weeks later is too late, you are
incapable of acting in an unbiased manner.

The only theists posters whose name I have seen mentioned in this
thread who seem able to go beyond the theist/atheist line in an
unbiased way are Treebeard and simonsaysbye.
________________________________________
There is in every village a torch: the schoolmaster -- and an
extinguisher: the parson.
-- Victor Hugo

[Answer_42]

On 6 déc, 08:47, Jerry <JerryHightower...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> You'll be a great moderator man, just like chx.

Woooh, don't insult Treebeard like that!

[rappoccio]

That's precisely my intention and hope. The fact that there aren't any
current theist mods is merely an accident, that many have taken as a
great deal more than it is. Those that want to step up are encouraged.
Get those spam-killing fingers ready!

On Dec 5, 5:42 pm, simonsaysbye <tahtah4...@live.co.uk> wrote:
> I don't volunteer, but I wish there was some theist who would, if
> anything to bring these tedious bullshit threads about moderating and
> banning to an end.  The mods do a pretty thankless job; getting a
> theist on board would not change anything in terms of outcomes, but it
> might in terms of perception.
>

[rappoccio]

On Dec 5, 6:04 pm, "Trance Gemini" <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Fri, Dec 5, 2008 at 5:42 PM, simonsaysbye <tahtah4...@live.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > I don't volunteer, but I wish there was some theist who would, if
> > anything to bring these tedious bullshit threads about moderating and
> > banning to an end.  The mods do a pretty thankless job; getting a
> > theist on board would not change anything in terms of outcomes, but it
> > might in terms of perception.
>
> That's a shame Simon because I think you'd make a good Mod and would be
> happy to work with you.

I concur. I think simon would be a very suitable and excellent mod.

[rappoccio]

On Dec 5, 6:27 pm, checkers <mkone...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
> Allan volunteered last time but dag did not want him or any theist for
> that matter.

I don't actually recall this. I recall him turning the position down.

> i am sure he is still interested.
> what about you Jerry?
> Brock you never swear and spend a fair time here.
> Chris come forward and be counted.
> i'm not going through the list so any theist come forward. it will be
> good if there are two on board. damn, then i cannot make a noise
> anymore :(
>
> i'll rather stand down as i am sure the existing mods will reject me.
> i'm too rough around the edges...a rough diamond ;)

I'd say something instead: That you don't always get all the facts
before rushing to conclusions.

> i'll say there
> will be less bannings. imagine loosing high volume members like Dev
> and A42 or even myself. this is why i'd rather have the other banned
> members unbanned than ban these apes. there are only a few high volume
> members active here that keeps the boat afloat. this is how i see it.
> Liam was an average volume poster and banned for something trivial.

Posting personal information maliciously on this board is not
trivial.

Would you like me to find out where you live, post your address, phone
number, living quarters, wife's social security number, and the
locations of all your children? Would you consider that "trivial"?

I don't. It's disconcerting and scary.

[rappoccio]

So you agree to abide by the rules of the group as a moderator?

[thea]

Brock said he would be a moderator!

Give it to him.

thea

[rappoccio]

I apologize for that, I missed it. If you want the job, so far as I'm
concerned, you've got my thumbs up.

[checkers]

On Dec 6, 10:54 pm, rappoccio <rappoc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 5, 6:27 pm, checkers <mkone...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
>
> > Allan volunteered last time but dag did not want him or any theist for
> > that matter.
>
> I don't actually recall this. I recall him turning the position down.

chx
if i recal it was in the AvC policy debate where Allan said he will be
a moderator but sometimes he will not be here. he will come in to
confirm a proper banning etc. Dag said he trusts no theist because bla
bla bla. this ended in nasty word exchange.

>
> > i am sure he is still interested.
> > what about you Jerry?
> > Brock you never swear and spend a fair time here.
> > Chris come forward and be counted.
> > i'm not going through the list so any theist come forward. it will be
> > good if there are two on board. damn, then i cannot make a noise
> > anymore :(
>
> > i'll rather stand down as i am sure the existing mods will reject me.
> > i'm too rough around the edges...a rough diamond ;)
>
> I'd say something instead: That you don't always get all the facts
> before rushing to conclusions.

chx
two already said so. this is why i asked somewhere who decides on
mods! i am not setting myself up for rejection.

>
> > i'll say there
> > will be less bannings. imagine loosing high volume members like Dev
> > and A42 or even myself. this is why i'd rather have the other banned
> > members unbanned than ban these apes. there are only a few high volume
> > members active here that keeps the boat afloat. this is how i see it.
> > Liam was an average volume poster and banned for something trivial.
>
> Posting personal information maliciously on this board is not
> trivial.

chx
according to google a name of a person and emails are not breaking
google rules. CEO's names are puplic anyway. companies are puplic as
well. a smiley indicates a joke.
unlisted information like addresses and telephone numbers are illegal
in most states and countries and one of google rules.

but wait, about what you say below, i am going to send you a link to
see.

> Would you like me to find out where you live, post your address, phone
> number, living quarters, wife's social security number, and the
> locations of all your children? Would you consider that "trivial"?
>
> I don't. It's disconcerting and scary.

chx
very scary when it is linked to a threat. i'll send the link after
this and you will see why i believe Wanderer was banned wrongfully. he
did not violate google.

>
>
>
> > the atheists must realise they cannot have a show without theists,
> > fools!
>
> > On Dec 5, 11:47 pm, rappoccio <rappoc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > In my position as "Moderator Emeritus", I'd like to pose a question.
>
> > > With all the recent mod-bashing from several theists on this board,
> > > are there any theists who actually WANT to be the designated spam-
> > > killers for a while?
>
> > > For a long time it was myself and OldMan. Then we retired, and the
> > > current crew stepped up. The only reason there are no theist mods is
> > > because none have volunteered. That's it. No conspiracy. No blocking
> > > out. Nothing.
>
> > > So is there anyone here that is willing to step up and help kill spam,
> > > if you all think it's such a glorious and powerful position? (I can
> > > assure you it is neither glorious nor powerful... more like a constant
> > > pain in the ass).
>
> > > The current moderators should also weigh in with their opinions. I
> > > think they'd love to see a theist here who can moderate effectively,
> > > just so they don't have to hear a daily thread about how crappy a job

> > > they're doing since no theists want to do it.- Hide quoted text -

[Dev]

Does the asking of this question imply he's an honest person against
the facts, or are you just fucking with him?

[checkers]

chx
Dev, if one disagrees with another it is not being dishonest. it just
means what it is, he disagrees with your argument. dishonesty and lies
go hand in hand. i must admit i never saw Brock loose his cool and
turn to the insults we dish out.

anyway if there is no bias and we all play to the policy as it is
written, then it does not matter who the moderator is. if there has to
be a ban, a balanced decision will be good if represented by both
sides.

members stick to the rules, moderators stick to the rules and we are
all happy. we can spend our energy debating real topics. i very seldom
bashed the moderators until recently.

> > So you agree to abide by the rules of the group as a moderator?- Hide quoted text -

[Bob Crowley]

How many hours a day does it involve? As a rule I'm not one of those
who bash moderators because I think it would be an onerous job, with a
lot of reading and weeding out to do. On the other hand I'm already
involved in several things, and not keen to extend myself even more.

[checkers]

On Dec 6, 2:40 pm, trog69 <tom.tro...@gmail.com> wrote:

> You are a dispicable liar. Everyone here knows that an invitation to
> moderate was made to you, asshole. Quit with the martyr routine,
> unless you'd care to go full out and kill yourself.

chx
do i know about it, did i reply? i recal someone nominating me once.
it could have been Brock or Liam some time back. nothing came of that.

> > etc.- Hide quoted text -

[checkers]

On Dec 7, 12:56 am, Bob Crowley <bobcrow...@acenet.net.au> wrote:
> How many hours a day does it involve?  As a rule I'm not one of those
> who bash moderators because I think it would be an onerous job, with a
> lot of reading and weeding out to do.  On the other hand I'm already
> involved in several things, and not keen to extend myself even more.

chx
here is another good candidate. i vote for you Bob. i don't think time
is a great factor. a fair number of moderators will make it hard for
spammers to get in. i recon moderators should be elected from
different time zones to eliminate spam, don't you think? Australia,
GMT and USA belts/zones. who the moderator is does not matter as he
only removes spam except under unusual cases. Rap said this 100's of
times. this may be why theists never bothered i think.

you do realise there will be no bashing if there is no bias. the
bashing you see now was never here so severe before. all i am on about
is consistency. is the ban of Mr X for rule Y applied the same to Mr
Z. we all see the answer is NO = zero consistency.

2 theists will be a good representation.

>
> On Dec 6, 7:47 am, rappoccio <rappoc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > In my position as "Moderator Emeritus", I'd like to pose a question.
>
> > With all the recent mod-bashing from several theists on this board,
> > are there any theists who actually WANT to be the designated spam-
> > killers for a while?
>
> > For a long time it was myself and OldMan. Then we retired, and the
> > current crew stepped up. The only reason there are no theist mods is
> > because none have volunteered. That's it. No conspiracy. No blocking
> > out. Nothing.
>
> > So is there anyone here that is willing to step up and help kill spam,
> > if you all think it's such a glorious and powerful position? (I can
> > assure you it is neither glorious nor powerful... more like a constant
> > pain in the ass).
>
> > The current moderators should also weigh in with their opinions. I
> > think they'd love to see a theist here who can moderate effectively,
> > just so they don't have to hear a daily thread about how crappy a job

> > they're doing since no theists want to do it.- Hide quoted text -

[checkers]

On Dec 6, 10:55 pm, rappoccio <rappoc...@gmail.com> wrote:

chx
well Rap, i see 3 volunteers, you have three for the job. the more the
merrier.
Treebeard
Brock
Bob.
3 is better than two, take all 3. there was no shortage of theists
after all. there will then be 4 atheists and 3 theists. sounds good to
me ;)

the question is, who decides?

[Dev]

And I'll state again, Allan is garbage and just because he's a theist
doesn't mean we need an affirmative action program to ignore that.
simon is a proven liar, but at least he's shown something of an
interest in applying consistent standards to theists and atheists with
regards to this group's moderation on this thread. Allan only led the
rats into the cluster that started this completely pointless mess,
based entirely on thetard lies. Fuck him. He's no better than checkers
or Jerry. He's shit.

> concerned, you've got my thumbs up.- Hide quoted text -

[Trance Gemini]

On Dec 6, 8:52 pm, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> And I'll state again, Allan is garbage and just because he's a theist
> doesn't mean we need an affirmative action program to ignore that.
> simon is a proven liar, but at least he's shown something of an
> interest in applying consistent standards to theists and atheists with
> regards to this group's moderation on this thread. Allan only led the
> rats into the cluster that started this completely pointless mess,
> based entirely on thetard lies. Fuck him. He's no better than checkers
> or Jerry. He's shit.

I object to Allan's attitude.

He's still saying he's not willing to do any of the grunt work but
he's be there like some fucking overseer to "make sure we're doing the
right thing".

Has there been any doubt?

He keeps claiming that he agreed with the banning and then keeps
waffling with bullshit like this implying that we didn't do the right
thing and therefore require supervision.

During the entire Checkers debacle he went along with Checkers lies
and instead of even trying to make an effort to calm things down he
actually kept things heated up.

He was completely two-faced about the entire thing.

Either he takes on the full Mod responsibilities like all of us do or
Fuck Him.

We don't need an overseer.

[Trance Gemini]

Simon has proven through his actions that he is consistent and objective and I believe that he could make a terrific contribution to the Mod team if he will accept the responsibility.

[Dev]

Fuck him in general, Trance. I don't hear him getting on checkers or
Jerry for their lies, so he's obviously unqualified. He's not an
honest person. That's been proven. He failed. He probably blames us
for his failure to be an honest person, but that just proves my point.

> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

[checkers]

On Dec 7, 4:58 am, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> Fuck him in general, Trance. I don't hear him getting on checkers or
> Jerry for their lies, so he's obviously unqualified. He's not an
> honest person. That's been proven. He failed. He probably blames us
> for his failure to be an honest person, but that just proves my point.

chx
let us assume just for the sake of trying to justify your argument
that some do lie. what can Allan say about it? what can anybody do
about it. lying is immoral and unethical but it does not break a rule.
the liar is more than a piece of shit but there is nothing anyone can
do.

you used this argument as a measure for Allan being unqualified. why?
you lied here, TG lied here. most of the posters lied here. simply
calling me a liar makes you a liar because there are no lies from me.
the problem with yous are that when i disagree you call this a lie. it
took me a long while to understand your 'lie' logic.

i am balanced and consistent and always look at a problem from all
possible angles before making a decision. i also weigh other factors
available to me. when i am still not sure, i will get opinions on the
subject. then i will attempt to solve the problem. now look how you
judged Allan on a lie scenario. you did not even attempt to find the
real Allen there. same for TG, she does not remember the real chx she
once knew. she just remembers the chx she aggravated. if she wants to
she will remember me. she chooses not to because i don't fit into her
new image.

take all the recent bannings. i bet not one moderator bothered to go
into AvC history to check past bannings to use as a guide for the
present banning. this is what one does to be consistent. in fact this
is what i did and i found discrepancies and now you know why i made so
much noise. nothing matched up with the history of AvC...zero, nada.
the bannings did not even measure up to TG's own sticky.

...and then you call Allan unqualified??? may i remind the mods that
say this of theists. this group ran relatively smooth in the hands of
two theists (at the time) with minimum bans. the present moderators
had more bannings in three months compared to the 2 year reign of the
theists. the mods in Raps time made one ban (TU) that i feel was not
quite fair because Keith manipulated the text. all the latest ones are
completely unfair...even biased. i would say they resemble a witchhunt
and this is seen in the reaction with Tertullian, Jerry etc. you are
spending all your energy trying to find a mistake by them for the
purpose of a ban. why?

you have spammers and impersonators flooding and disrupting the group
and ignore it blatantly, even encouraging it.

some facts;

chx; full address was posted - no ban on Mr X (addresses ARE breaking
Google rules)

unknown member; name of a CEO was posted - Wanderer ban (names of
people not against Google rules)

Keith; free hanging text; TU accused of impersonation. Keith
manipulated text and TH banned (in any event, this should be referred
to Google)

chx; direct forged name above text; 3 posters impersonating chx - no
ban (should be reported to Google)

Liam; altered a name; Woodbridge says 'lima' changed his name - Liam
banned (what the fuck) also 'thought' to be wanderer. as woodbridge
says, he change my name hahaha. this is highly controversial and
biased.

as i say, i can only work on what i have. woodbridge posted this 3
times i know of in different topics.

Rap warned members several times on using any text resembling what are
in the rules as <<<this>>> ect. before banning them if a poster
repeats the same garbage 3 times, Rap warned that member. here we see
the same garbage posted umpteen time by two members AND they are
encouraged to continue. they even get 5 stars by atheist standards for
doing it. now this is bias big time. you moderators are blatantly
applying rules to one group and allowing your own group free reign.

now i ask how the fuck can you claim we are to be untrusted and
inconsistent and liars when YOU are the guilty as seen here. this is
why you are paranoid of having theists on board.

i believe i may be the only balanced member here unless others can
stand up and make their voices heard to show there are more HONEST
members.

[checkers]

chx
i have to agree with you here. there cannot be a part time moderator.
so this eliminates Allan then.
so we are still left with 2 , Brock and Bob. if one of them withdraws
then I, chx, will volunteer. i believe it will be best if two theists
are moderators for the sake of peace. i am happy with nominating Brock
and Bob.

[Old Nick]

chx
I yuk yuk nominate myself har har

[rappoccio]

Well, if he decides to abide by the charge of the group, there has
only been precedence that volunteers get to kill spam. Yay. I don't
know how much we want to change that tradition. If we don't get into
another Jake/mpsoxx situation (where a mod tried to kill the entire
group), then we should follow some policy for this that we set up.

[rappoccio]

This is absolutely true. I would say anyone that wants to be a
moderator has to actually moderate. That should be an obvious
condition.

[rappoccio]

Not long. Maybe a half hour of killing spam, but that was when I was
actually a moderator, and it was just myself and OldMan. Now we have a
lot of people. Dev is right in saying they don't actually need help,
but going by precedent, there was always an unspoken situation that
there was at least one of each "side" as mods. I am simply trying to
get rid of the drama here by removing any appearance of bias.

Hell, I'm not even a mod anymore, just voicing a possible solution :)

[checkers]

On Dec 7, 11:42 am, Old Nick <christopher.te...@gmail.com> wrote:
> chx
> I yuk yuk nominate myself har har

like the saying goes. if you have nothing to say, leave it unsaid.

> > and Bob.- Hide quoted text -

[Treebeard]

On Dec 6, 9:02 pm, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 6, 8:52 pm, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>
> > And I'll state again, Allan is garbage and just because he's a theist
> > doesn't mean we need an affirmative action program to ignore that.
> > simon is a proven liar, but at least he's shown something of an
> > interest in applying consistent standards to theists and atheists with
> > regards to this group's moderation on this thread. Allan only led the
> > rats into the cluster that started this completely pointless mess,
> > based entirely on thetard lies. Fuck him. He's no better than checkers
> > or Jerry. He's shit.
>
> I object to Allan's attitude.
>
> He's still saying he's not willing to do any of the grunt work

No, I'm simply stating a fact about the world; I post and am on the
group far less often that you and Dev, at least, are. I'm also on at
times where I have limited time to look for spam. It is therefore
unlikely that I will be doing a lot of spam removal, because you guys
will get there first.

For example, you posted yesterday during the day and evening. I did
not (I was studying for an exam). I will likely not post at all after
this morning today either. Or tomorrow (my exam is tomorrow), except
maybe a little in the morning. So I'll only get back to even logging
on fully Tuesday (which also looks bad because of extra, weather-
related issues). How much more spam will you remove than me?

but
> he's be there like some fucking overseer to "make sure we're doing the
> right thing".

This is a complete misinterpretation of what I said (certainly in this
thread). I said that I would be able to support the moderators in
their decisions by being in full possession of the facts, and being
able to therefore say "They made the right decision". As it stands
now, I can't do that because I don't know the circumstances. Say that
someone is banned for posting personal information, and they post
somewhere else or someone posts for them that they did no such thing.
Can I defend the moderators' decision? Not honestly; I have no clue
what was done or who is not telling the truth. And I'm not trusting
ANYONE blindly, and knowing that no one would or should trust my
stating that it was a valid ban since I don't have the facts.

If I had the facts, I could defend the moderators properly -- which
was the intent of my volunteering, as I flat-out stated.

>
> Has there been any doubt?
>
> He keeps claiming that he agreed with the banning and then keeps
> waffling with bullshit like this implying that we didn't do the right
> thing and therefore require supervision.

You certainly seem to require a theist with knowledge fully-defending
your positions, which is what I volunteered for. If you don't think
that's more valuable than removing spam, that's your decision.

>
> During the entire Checkers debacle he went along with Checkers lies
> and instead of even trying to make an effort to calm things down he
> actually kept things heated up.

I'm sorry, but I have my own opinions, and am under no obligation to
stay silent about things I disagree with. And I gave you --
repeatedly -- statements that you merely had to agree to to get me to
shut up, most of which revolved around "I was right to do it even if
it isn't stated explicitly in the policy". That you refused to even
admit that it wasn't in the policy was the problem, not my complaints.

At any rate, I would argue that what happened in that situation proves
that I SHOULD be a moderator:

Chx argued that Wanderer should not have been banned for posting
personal information. I stated that he was wrong -- repeatedly -- and
that posting personal information is serious enough to warrant a ban.

Later, Chx talked about warnings. I agreed that warnings would be
nice, but pointed out that in this case it would be difficult to do so
since the moderators cannot be here all the time and the person could
simply go ahead and post the information again, potentially causing
harm.

One of my initial comments was that we should, perhaps, refer all
Google TOS violations to Google except for those explicitly stated in
the policy, because we are not qualified to judge Google's TOS. I
discovered later that that is indeed actually IN the policy.

The "big stink" was that I stated that banning on the basis of posting
personal information -- though correct -- was not explicitly mentioned
in the policy and probably should be if it was going to be a bannable
offense. In response, I got the reply that it was bannable because it
had the "same consequences" as spoofing and pwning. I pointed out
that we needed a line drawn on that because some people could argue
that posts like Brock's -- which Dev has defended -- could be -- and
have been argued to be -- have the same effect as spamming and
therefore also bannable as spamming, and also that that statement was
not itself in the policy. I followed up the long argument with a calm
statement asking if it SHOULD be added to the policy, which got little
traction one way or the other.

Why does this prove that I would make a good moderator? Because I
don't take sides, and simply look at the facts as presented. I
opposed BOTH Chx AND TG over issues where I thought they were wrong,
and didn't simply blindly support TG to "calm things down". As a
moderator, I'd do the same thing; say what I think and what I think is
correct. Do things properly and I'll support the moderators all the
time.

The only issue would be that I will be a stickler for the rules. To
me, the policy DOES state what moderators can and can't do, and anyone
who says that they only follow them "voluntarily" is missing the
point: if you want to be a moderator, you follow the rules. If a
situation comes up that isn't covered, you take action and then update
the rules -- as I have suggested in the past.

>
> He was completely two-faced about the entire thing.

No, I was completely HONEST about the entire thing; I sided with no
one but simply advocated the positions that I thought were right.

>
> Either he takes on the full Mod responsibilities like all of us do or
> Fuck Him.

I stated that I would indeed take on the responsibilities, but pointed
out that it would likely not come into play much due to time
constraints.

[Trance Gemini]

On Sat, Dec 6, 2008 at 9:58 PM, Dev <thede...@fastmail.fm> wrote:

Fuck him in general, Trance. I don't hear him getting on checkers or
Jerry for their lies, so he's obviously unqualified. He's not an
honest person. That's been proven. He failed. He probably blames us
for his failure to be an honest person, but that just proves my point.

These guys have deluded themselves so much all they can go is engage in self congratulation about how "perfect" they and just continue to lie (so much for biblical humility and the ten commandments - they can't even follow their own doctrine).

On several recent threads Chx has gotten so caught up in his lies that he has contradicted himself from one post to the next.

First he claims that he doesn't have a problem with the previous moderators then in another post he turns around and starts trashing them for being biased.

This is just one thread I'm referring. There are many threads where he has done this and changed his story from post to post within the same thread.

Then he posts these long diatribes about what a saint he is and how moral he is and how he just wants, ironically, consistency. Something he's incapable of displaying.

Now, he knows that Rapp is handling things and yet he still can't shut up.

Why? Because he's not actually interested in resolving any problems.

He's just a fucking Drama Queen and malicious liar who goes on rants.

If he doesn't like it here he should leave.

I think a lot of us are getting quite fed up with his incessant whining and malicious lies.

[Trance Gemini]

On Sun, Dec 7, 2008 at 4:22 AM, checkers <mkon...@telkomsa.net> wrote:

chx
i have to agree with you here. there cannot be a part time moderator.
so this eliminates Allan then.
so we are still left with 2 , Brock and Bob. if one of them withdraws
then I, chx, will volunteer. i believe it will be best if two theists
are moderators for the sake of peace. i am happy with nominating Brock
and Bob.

In other word, Chx is going to continue to with his malicious lies and temper tantrums until he gets what we wants based on his delusional paranoia that the Moderators are "out to get him".

Of course the fact that he's still here and hasn't been banned escapes him.

This statement of course will incite Chx to maliciously lie and claim that he is being threatened.

He willfully ignores the point that's being made which is that we are being unbiased by not banning because he's such a stinking, nasty piece of shit.

For the record. I don't agree to having malicious liars and unethical assholes like Chx on the Moderator board.

I am completely opposed to Chx SELF-nomination.

And I'm quite sure that Dev, Dag and BlueSci, the rest of the Moderator Board will agree with me on this one.

 

[Trance Gemini]

On Sun, Dec 7, 2008 at 7:13 AM, Treebeard <allan_c_...@yahoo.ca> wrote:

On Dec 6, 9:02 pm, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 6, 8:52 pm, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>
> > And I'll state again, Allan is garbage and just because he's a theist
> > doesn't mean we need an affirmative action program to ignore that.
> > simon is a proven liar, but at least he's shown something of an
> > interest in applying consistent standards to theists and atheists with
> > regards to this group's moderation on this thread. Allan only led the
> > rats into the cluster that started this completely pointless mess,
> > based entirely on thetard lies. Fuck him. He's no better than checkers
> > or Jerry. He's shit.
>
> I object to Allan's attitude.
>
> He's still saying he's not willing to do any of the grunt work

No, I'm simply stating a fact about the world; I post and am on the
group far less often that you and Dev, at least, are.  I'm also on at
times where I have limited time to look for spam.  It is therefore
unlikely that I will be doing a lot of spam removal, because you guys
will get there first.

Nope. This is in line with your original proposal.

You see yourself as some sort of "ombudsman" but you don't even do that.

In the Chx situation you kept things riled up for a long time instead of intervening to calm things down.

We don't need Mods who are going to behave like that.

 

For example, you posted yesterday during the day and evening.  I did
not (I was studying for an exam).  I will likely not post at all after
this morning today either.  Or tomorrow (my exam is tomorrow), except
maybe a little in the morning.  So I'll only get back to even logging
on fully Tuesday (which also looks bad because of extra, weather-
related issues).  How much more spam will you remove than me?

It's your attitude that's the problem and I was quite clear about that.

Like I said we don't need an overseer who refuses to step in and calm things down and instead does the exact opposite.

We need Mods who are capable of being objective when it comes to these decisions.

You proved yourself incapable of that in the Chx situation.

 

 but
> he's be there like some fucking overseer to "make sure we're doing the
> right thing".

This is a complete misinterpretation of what I said (certainly in this
thread).  I said that I would be able to support the moderators in
their decisions by being in full possession of the facts, and being
able to therefore say "They made the right decision".  

Thank you. That is exactly what I said you said.

Who the fuck made you judge and jury.

We don't need some fucking arrogant asshole who thinks he can sit there and make pious judgments on the positions we take.

We need a Mod who cares, is involved, has standards and ethics and will apply those to the decisions made by the Team as an integrated member of the Team.

Simon has that and OM has that. You have proved to us that you don't.

And the following is exactly why you SHOULDN"T be a Mod.

Every step of the way you have catered to Chx extremely Malicious Lies.

You have made no effort to investigate whether he's lying or not before you jumped on his sleazy bandwagon.

In fact without any investigation whatsoever, you have perpetuated his lies and enabled his lying.

A Responsible Moderator would never have acted in the way that you did in this situation.

[Treebeard]

On Dec 7, 7:38 am, "Trance Gemini" <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sun, Dec 7, 2008 at 7:13 AM, Treebeard <allan_c_cybuls...@yahoo.ca>wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Dec 6, 9:02 pm, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Dec 6, 8:52 pm, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>
> > > > And I'll state again, Allan is garbage and just because he's a theist
> > > > doesn't mean we need an affirmative action program to ignore that.
> > > > simon is a proven liar, but at least he's shown something of an
> > > > interest in applying consistent standards to theists and atheists with
> > > > regards to this group's moderation on this thread. Allan only led the
> > > > rats into the cluster that started this completely pointless mess,
> > > > based entirely on thetard lies. Fuck him. He's no better than checkers
> > > > or Jerry. He's shit.
>
> > > I object to Allan's attitude.
>
> > > He's still saying he's not willing to do any of the grunt work
>
> > No, I'm simply stating a fact about the world; I post and am on the
> > group far less often that you and Dev, at least, are. I'm also on at
> > times where I have limited time to look for spam. It is therefore
> > unlikely that I will be doing a lot of spam removal, because you guys
> > will get there first.
>
> Nope. This is in line with your original proposal.
>
> You see yourself as some sort of "ombudsman" but you don't even do that.
>
> In the Chx situation you kept things riled up for a long time instead of
> intervening to calm things down.
>
> We don't need Mods who are going to behave like that.

You have no clue what an "ombudsman" does. Hint: it isn't "blindly
support the moderators". It's stating what you think is correct based
on the facts. If by the facts the moderator is wrong -- and you were
absolutely wrong in stating that your rationalizations were in the
policy -- saying so is what an ombudsman would be REQUIRED to do ...
even if that keeps things "riled up" because the moderator refuses to
accept the facts, or defend their actions.

See, ombudsmen are supposed to be neutral, and support no one but the
truth.

>
>
>
> > For example, you posted yesterday during the day and evening. I did
> > not (I was studying for an exam). I will likely not post at all after
> > this morning today either. Or tomorrow (my exam is tomorrow), except
> > maybe a little in the morning. So I'll only get back to even logging
> > on fully Tuesday (which also looks bad because of extra, weather-
> > related issues). How much more spam will you remove than me?
>
> It's your attitude that's the problem and I was quite clear about that.
>
> Like I said we don't need an overseer who refuses to step in and calm things
> down and instead does the exact opposite.

I simply pointed out the facts: what you did wasn't actually in the
policy, and asked you to support your justifications.

It only got riled up because you refused to do any such thing, and
instead resorted to unsupported allegations such as my wanting to
support a "buddy" that most of my interactions with had been negative.

>
> We need Mods who are capable of being objective when it comes to these
> decisions.
>
> You proved yourself incapable of that in the Chx situation.

Sorry, by the facts if ANYONE proved themselves incapable of that, it
was you, by refusing to provide proof of your justifications and
instead resorting to personal attacks.

>
>
>
> > but
> > > he's be there like some fucking overseer to "make sure we're doing the
> > > right thing".
>
> > This is a complete misinterpretation of what I said (certainly in this
> > thread). I said that I would be able to support the moderators in
> > their decisions by being in full possession of the facts, and being
> > able to therefore say "They made the right decision".
>
> Thank you. That is exactly what I said you said.
>
> Who the fuck made you judge and jury.

It would be no more of a "judge and jury" than any other moderator.
As a theist moderator, what I say could not be considered an example
of atheist bias, since I clearly have none, and so it would work to
calm down such situations. But I am obligated by ethics, standards,
and honesty to state what I really think is the case. So, if I think
that a moderator did the WRONG thing, I am obligated by honesty to say
so.

Do you think that a moderator if they think that the ruling does not
follow the rules should be obligated to say that it does to "calm
things down"?

>
> We don't need some fucking arrogant asshole who thinks he can sit there and
> make pious judgments on the positions we take.
>
> We need a Mod who cares, is involved, has standards and ethics and will
> apply those to the decisions made by the Team as an integrated member of the
> Team.
>
> Simon has that and OM has that. You have proved to us that you don't.

Actually, I proved that I HAD standards and ethics by holding EVERYONE
to them equally. But believe what you wish.

Not at all; I actually objected to his comments and actions more than
yours.

>
> You have made no effort to investigate whether he's lying or not before you
> jumped on his sleazy bandwagon.

Um, my comments had nothing to do with what he said, but with the
quite easily verifiable claim that the policy did not state the
justification you were using to justify your position.

I always stated that I believed that banning for posting personal
information was warranted and not once questioned whether or not
Wanderer had indeed done so.

>
> In fact without any investigation whatsoever, you have perpetuated his lies
> and enabled his lying.

I read the policy. The other thing you insisted I do was search
blindly through past posts looking for a precedent for what you did,
which was your obligation to provide, not mine.

I performed all reasonable investigation required for me to take the
stance I was taking. That you chose to not defend your actions does
not reflect on me.

>
> A Responsible Moderator would never have acted in the way that you did in
> this situation.

I could quite reasonable say the same thing about you in that
situation, since you refused to even provide search terms for the
investigation you insisted I do.

How long are you going to hold this personal grudge against me?

[checkers]

On Dec 7, 2:23 pm, "Trance Gemini" <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sun, Dec 7, 2008 at 4:22 AM, checkers <mkone...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
>
> > chx
> > i have to agree with you here. there cannot be a part time moderator.
> > so this eliminates Allan then.
> > so we are still left with 2 , Brock and Bob. if one of them withdraws
> > then I, chx, will volunteer. i believe it will be best if two theists
> > are moderators for the sake of peace. i am happy with nominating Brock
> > and Bob.
>
> In other word, Chx is going to continue to with his malicious lies and
> temper tantrums until he gets what we wants based on his delusional paranoia
> that the Moderators are "out to get him".
>
> Of course the fact that he's still here and hasn't been banned escapes him.
>
> This statement of course will incite Chx to maliciously lie and claim that
> he is being threatened.
>
> He willfully ignores the point that's being made which is that we are being
> unbiased by not banning because he's such a stinking, nasty piece of shit.
>
> For the record. I don't agree to having malicious liars and unethical
> assholes like Chx on the Moderator board.
>
> I am completely opposed to Chx SELF-nomination.
>
> And I'm quite sure that Dev, Dag and BlueSci, the rest of the Moderator
> Board will agree with me on this one.

chx
wow, i just agreed with what you said and you call me a liar here???
phew!

i am not self nominated. go back in this post, i was nominated by
other theists. now go look at the OP heading. the OP asks for theists
to volunteer, it does not ask others to nominate. i simply just stated
i am available if no one else will come forward. the others are your
first choice, i will be the very last.

[Treebeard]

On Dec 7, 7:53 am, Treebeard <allan_c_cybuls...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
> On Dec 7, 7:38 am, "Trance Gemini" <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> It would be no more of a "judge and jury" than any other moderator.
> As a theist moderator, what I say could not be considered an example
> of atheist bias, since I clearly have none, and so it would work to
> calm down such situations. But I am obligated by ethics, standards,
> and honesty to state what I really think is the case. So, if I think
> that a moderator did the WRONG thing, I am obligated by honesty to say
> so.

And before you say anything, this is not an attempt to state that you
did the wrong thing in banning Wanderer. My comment on that is
specifically the statement below.

[checkers]

On Dec 7, 2:38 pm, "Trance Gemini" <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:

chx
Allan and i have absolutely no connections. we are not related. i do
not belong to his church, i have no church for him to belong to. i
cannot tell him what to say as he is an individual with his own will.
i never hired or appointed him as a personal spokesperson. what he
says comes from his own mind, i have no control over him. we are not
even friends. we just happen to be theists and even that is not the
same.

now write that don't so you don't forget.

> Andromeda- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

[Trance Gemini]

I know what an Ombudsman is. We don't need one.

We need an Objective Theist Mod who participates as a Member of the Team, not some Independant Judge and Jury.

That's your fucking arrogance coming out and the implication is that there is truth to Chx lies.

Even as an Ombudsman you did a lousy job and made no effort whatsoever to get at the Truth of anything.

 

>
>
>
> > For example, you posted yesterday during the day and evening.  I did
> > not (I was studying for an exam).  I will likely not post at all after
> > this morning today either.  Or tomorrow (my exam is tomorrow), except
> > maybe a little in the morning.  So I'll only get back to even logging
> > on fully Tuesday (which also looks bad because of extra, weather-
> > related issues).  How much more spam will you remove than me?
>
> It's your attitude that's the problem and I was quite clear about that.
>
> Like I said we don't need an overseer who refuses to step in and calm things
> down and instead does the exact opposite.

I simply pointed out the facts: what you did wasn't actually in the
policy, and asked you to support your justifications.

It only got riled up because you refused to do any such thing, and
instead resorted to unsupported allegations such as my wanting to
support a "buddy" that most of my interactions with had been negative.

Nonsense. I supported my justifications several times on that thread and if you go back and look you will see that.

I refused to continue posting them forever based on Chx incessant demands and lies.

If you guys chose to ignore what I post that's on your head not mine.

>
> We need Mods who are capable of being objective when it comes to these
> decisions.
>
> You proved yourself incapable of that in the Chx situation.

Sorry, by the facts if ANYONE proved themselves incapable of that, it
was you, by refusing to provide proof of your justifications and
instead resorting to personal attacks.

And that's a blatant lie.

Go back to that thread. They are there in several places.

Since there are three threads that are hundreds of posts long filled with Chx Personal Slanders against me, have fun.

I'm certainly not going to go through the process of finding them now.

However, I'm quite sure there are people on this site who can attest to the fact that they are there and quite clearly stated.

And this is why I won't support you being a Mod.

You won't go back to that thread and you won't investigate and you'll just continue this baseless nonsense based on entirely on Chx malicious lies and drama.

[Trance Gemini]

And let me also just point out that the phony red herring that Chx created about what was or wasn't in the Policy was also explained quite clearly.

The fact that you ignored my explanation and made a federal case out of it implying that there was wrongdoing when there was in fact none by any normal standards shows you are not going to handle this objectively.

[Trance Gemini]

On Sun, Dec 7, 2008 at 8:02 AM, Treebeard <allan_c_...@yahoo.ca> wrote:

On Dec 7, 7:53 am, Treebeard <allan_c_cybuls...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
> On Dec 7, 7:38 am, "Trance Gemini" <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>

> It would be no more of a "judge and jury" than any other moderator.
> As a theist moderator, what I say could not be considered an example
> of atheist bias, since I clearly have none, and so it would work to
> calm down such situations.  But I am obligated by ethics, standards,
> and honesty to state what I really think is the case.  So, if I think
> that a moderator did the WRONG thing, I am obligated by honesty to say
> so.

And before you say anything, this is not an attempt to state that you
did the wrong thing in banning Wanderer.  My comment on that is
specifically the statement below.

This is exactly what you are saying because you continue to imply wrongdoing by your actions.

The following loaded question is doing exactly that.

Just more proof that you are unqualified to be a Mod.

Especially since you know the answer to that question and I'm quite sure you know how I will answer it.

>
> Do you think that a moderator if they think that the ruling does not
> follow the rules should be obligated to say that it does to "calm
> things down"?

No. Of course the fact that this isn't like to occur seems to have escaped you.

Are you aware that the Mod Team discusses bannings before they occur?

Why do you think that it took over 8 hours both times between the time the complaints were received to the time they were acted on? 

Oh Sorry You wouldn't know that would you because you are an irresponsible arrogant asshole who couldn't be bothered to find out.

So, the decision is not made by one Mod and the justification has to be there.

The only time a situation like the above might occur is if one Mod disagreed with the decision of the Team.

Now of course with the "all the recent bannings" according to Chx, which actually in effect consists of ONE because Liam and Wanderer are the same person, I can see why you might think this is such a huge fucking deal.

The last paragraph was sarcarsm by the way.

[Lawrey]

Rapp

Before we rush into anything: OldMan is back can we ask him
he and I have had our differences but I personally trust his
judgment and would not hesitate to recommend him, if he is
willing and able.

[Trance Gemini]

On Sun, Dec 7, 2008 at 9:16 AM, Lawrey <lawre...@btinternet.com> wrote:

Rapp

Before we rush into anything: OldMan is back can we ask him
he and I have had our differences but I personally trust his
judgment and would not hesitate to recommend him, if he is
willing and able.

He's been asked and he's agreed.

 

On Dec 7, 10:26 am, rappoccio <rappoc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Well, if he decides to abide by the charge of the group, there has
> only been precedence that volunteers get to kill spam. Yay. I don't
> know how much we want to change that tradition. If we don't get into
> another Jake/mpsoxx situation (where a mod tried to kill the entire
> group), then we should follow some policy for this that we set up.
>
> On Dec 6, 11:02 pm, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>
> > Does the asking of this question imply he's an honest person against
> > the facts, or are you just fucking with him?
>
> > On Dec 6, 1:55 pm, rappoccio <rappoc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Dec 6, 12:43 pm, Brock <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Dec 5, 6:32 pm, Jerry <JerryHightower...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > Brock you never swear and spend a fair time here.
>
> > > > > Brock is a good one.
>
> > > > Thanks, Jerry and Checkers, I'd be happy to be a moderator for this
> > > > group.
>
> > > > Regards,
>
> > > > Brock
>
> > > So you agree to abide by the rules of the group as a moderator?

[Treebeard]

On Dec 7, 9:22 am, "Trance Gemini" <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sun, Dec 7, 2008 at 9:16 AM, Lawrey <lawrenc...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
> > Rapp
>
> > Before we rush into anything: OldMan is back can we ask him
> > he and I have had our differences but I personally trust his
> > judgment and would not hesitate to recommend him, if he is
> > willing and able.
>
> He's been asked and he's agreed.

If OldMan returns as a moderator I withdraw my candidacy, since I
would be of little use in that circumstance.

So my withdrawal is pending a post from him stating that he has
returned to the group.

[Treebeard]

On Dec 7, 8:13 am, "Trance Gemini" <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sun, Dec 7, 2008 at 8:09 AM, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com>wrote:

> > You won't go back to that thread and you won't investigate and you'll just
> > continue this baseless nonsense based on entirely on Chx malicious lies and
> > drama.
>
> And let me also just point out that the phony red herring that Chx created
> about what was or wasn't in the Policy was also explained quite clearly.
>
> The fact that you ignored my explanation and made a federal case out of it
> implying that there was wrongdoing when there was in fact none by any normal
> standards shows you are not going to handle this objectively.

Well, let's see:

Banning for posting personal information? Not in the policy.
Banning because the actions are deemed "similar" in consequences to
things that are explicitly stated in the policy? Not in the policy.
Banning on the basis of a Google TOS violation? Explicitly DENIED in
the policy (users are supposed to report them to Google).

So, basically, on the basis of the policy discovered by, you know
READING it, your statements were, in fact, technically not justified
by it. That does not mean that I don't think it was the RIGHT thing
to do, but am simply pointing out that the policy didn't cover that
and getting up on your high horse insisting that it is is nothing more
than a blatant lie.

[Trance Gemini]

I've had this conversation repeatedly for over a fucking month now.

I'm NOT repeating myself again. 

My position was quite clear and spoke to all the questions raised including your "technical" non-issue.

The other Mods agree with what was done and said.

Rapp agrees as well.

And by presenting it the way you do here, despite your claims that you agree with the ban you are again implying wrong doing and contributing to the continuation of this ridiculous charade.

Which is exactly why you should NOT be a Mod.

[Treebeard]

On Dec 7, 8:23 am, "Trance Gemini" <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:

Read my initial reply; I ASSUMED that they did.

>
> Why do you think that it took over 8 hours both times between the time the
> complaints were received to the time they were acted on?
>
> Oh Sorry You wouldn't know that would you because you are an irresponsible
> arrogant asshole who couldn't be bothered to find out.

1) How in the fuck am I supposed to be expected to "find that out"? I
wasn't here when the original post was made, never saw the original
post, and as far as I know have no at least easy to determine when
posts were made or removed. I don't get E-mail from the group so I
have no records that I can use to verify that. How is it being an
irresponsible arrogant asshole for not trying to find out things that
I'm not actually capable of finding out?

2) This is irrelevant anyway; if all moderators were in agreement the
post that I made that stirred things up would never be made, and even
you have to concede that all I did was disagree with your
justifications.

> So, the decision is not made by one Mod and the justification has to be
> there.
>
> The only time a situation like the above might occur is if one Mod disagreed
> with the decision of the Team.
>
> Now of course with the "all the recent bannings" according to Chx, which
> actually in effect consists of ONE because Liam and Wanderer are the same
> person, I can see why you might think this is such a huge fucking deal.
>
> The last paragraph was sarcarsm by the way.

I have never seen the evidence that Liam and Wanderer were the same
person, and Dev's initial response DENIED that he had meant to imply
that; he stated it was because Liam had done the same thing, not that
he WAS Wanderer.

Ultimately, this is precisely WHY this is a big deal. See, when the
justifications are consistent and make sense, reasonable people will
agree with them. But you started originally from "He posted personal
information". Okay, I agree with that. But then when Chx insisted
that Dev does worse by saying that theists should all be brutally
murdered, you dropped that and focussed on the idea that the threat of
getting the person fired is a worse threat than that. I opposed that
bullshit justification. Later, you insisted that what you did was
consistent with the policy. I asked you to show me where it was in
the policy. I re-read the policy to make certain that I wasn't
wrong. Repeatedly. You moved to "it has similar consequences to
spoofing" (and some implied -- and you, happily, denied -- that it WAS
spoofing based on that). I pointed out that nothing in the policy
allows for that and that that reasoning could be applied to useless
posters and posts on the basis that that has the same consequences as
spamming. You ranted, and insisted that you also did it on the basis
of "precedent". I asked you to provide that precedent. You insisted
that I should search for it myself, refusing to defend your own
position.

Now, take Liam (which I have rarely commented on up until now). When
he was banned, some theists (Chx, specifically) demanded to know why.
Dev made a post that could have implied that he and Wanderer were the
same thing. Chx demanded Dev prove that. Dev, to his credit, stated
that he didn't mean to imply that, but that Liam had done THE SAME
THING as Wanderer (posting personal information). Now there are a lot
of comments referring to the ORIGINAL stance, even from moderators who
should know what it was.

My point is that if moderators are going to ban and attempt to support
their positions, they have to be consistent about it. If they cannot
support their claims, that only gives us cause to doubt. And that is
what causes these issues, not my pointing out the bullshit that you're
spouting.

[Trance Gemini]

By asking.

I noted that Chx spewed some slander about how I banned Wanderer immediately.

Did you question it?

No.

You kept referring to "time frames" but not once did you ask me on any of those three threads how long it took for me to ban Wanderer after I received the complaint.

Nor has anyone bothered to ask how long it took between the complaint and the time that Liam was banned.

Why? Because those relevant facts don't support these slanders of moderator abuse.

So much for your interest in the actual Truth.

 

 I
wasn't here when the original post was made, never saw the original
post, and as far as I know have no at least easy to determine when
posts were made or removed.  I don't get E-mail from the group so I
have no records that I can use to verify that.  How is it being an
irresponsible arrogant asshole for not trying to find out things that
I'm not actually capable of finding out?

2) This is irrelevant anyway; if all moderators were in agreement the
post that I made that stirred things up would never be made, and even
you have to concede that all I did was disagree with your
justifications.

Then don't lie and claim that you support the decision.

You clearly don't.

You can't support one without the other.

I will not take responsibility for what other Mods did or didn't do.

My claim was supported and consistent and to say otherwise is a lie.

It doesn't matter whether it's a deliberate lie or not.

The fact is that every step of the way you have shown no interest whatsoever in getting the actual facts and continue to spew the shit that Chx spread and continue to exacerbate what is essentially a non-issue.

And this is why you should NOT be a Mod.

 

[Treebeard]

On Dec 7, 8:09 am, "Trance Gemini" <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sun, Dec 7, 2008 at 7:53 AM, Treebeard <allan_c_cybuls...@yahoo.ca>wrote:

> > > Nope. This is in line with your original proposal.
>
> > > You see yourself as some sort of "ombudsman" but you don't even do that.
>
> > > In the Chx situation you kept things riled up for a long time instead of
> > > intervening to calm things down.
>
> > > We don't need Mods who are going to behave like that.
>
> > You have no clue what an "ombudsman" does. Hint: it isn't "blindly
> > support the moderators". It's stating what you think is correct based
> > on the facts. If by the facts the moderator is wrong -- and you were
> > absolutely wrong in stating that your rationalizations were in the
> > policy -- saying so is what an ombudsman would be REQUIRED to do ...
> > even if that keeps things "riled up" because the moderator refuses to
> > accept the facts, or defend their actions.
>
> > See, ombudsmen are supposed to be neutral, and support no one but the
> > truth.
>
> I know what an Ombudsman is. We don't need one.
> We need an Objective Theist Mod who participates as a Member of the Team,
> not some Independant Judge and Jury.
>
> That's your fucking arrogance coming out and the implication is that there
> is truth to Chx lies.

That implication is yours, not mine. I had very specific issues that
I wanted addressed; if there is any reference to them from Chx, he
stole them from me.

>
> Even as an Ombudsman you did a lousy job and made no effort whatsoever to
> get at the Truth of anything.

I made repeated attempts to ask you to provide the "precedents" you
followed, or a reference in the policy. I read the policy
repeatedly. I made all reasonable efforts to determine if you were
correct. You, however, refused to justify your comments.

>
>
>
> > > > For example, you posted yesterday during the day and evening. I did
> > > > not (I was studying for an exam). I will likely not post at all after
> > > > this morning today either. Or tomorrow (my exam is tomorrow), except
> > > > maybe a little in the morning. So I'll only get back to even logging
> > > > on fully Tuesday (which also looks bad because of extra, weather-
> > > > related issues). How much more spam will you remove than me?
>
> > > It's your attitude that's the problem and I was quite clear about that.
>
> > > Like I said we don't need an overseer who refuses to step in and calm
> > things
> > > down and instead does the exact opposite.
>
> > I simply pointed out the facts: what you did wasn't actually in the
> > policy, and asked you to support your justifications.
>
> > It only got riled up because you refused to do any such thing, and
> > instead resorted to unsupported allegations such as my wanting to
> > support a "buddy" that most of my interactions with had been negative.
>
> Nonsense. I supported my justifications several times on that thread and if
> you go back and look you will see that.
>
> I refused to continue posting them forever based on Chx incessant demands
> and lies.
>
> If you guys chose to ignore what I post that's on your head not mine.

I asked for very specific details that you had not provided in that
thread. In short, you STATED that things were a certain way, and I
asked that you PROVE it. You continued to repeat your statements with
no proof.

You were wrong.

>
>
>
> > > We need Mods who are capable of being objective when it comes to these
> > > decisions.
>
> > > You proved yourself incapable of that in the Chx situation.
>
> > Sorry, by the facts if ANYONE proved themselves incapable of that, it
> > was you, by refusing to provide proof of your justifications and
> > instead resorting to personal attacks.
>
> And that's a blatant lie.
>
> Go back to that thread. They are there in several places.

Go back to that thread yourself. You never answered my two main
questions of proof of it being in the policy or being established by
precedent.

>
> Since there are three threads that are hundreds of posts long filled with
> Chx Personal Slanders against me, have fun.
>
> I'm certainly not going to go through the process of finding them now.
>
> However, I'm quite sure there are people on this site who can attest to the
> fact that they are there and quite clearly stated.
>
> And this is why I won't support you being a Mod.
>
> You won't go back to that thread and you won't investigate and you'll just
> continue this baseless nonsense based on entirely on Chx malicious lies and
> drama.

I have no more need to go back to that thread than you do. I know
what I read and what I intended, and you never answered it. In fact,
you insisted that I should search for the precedents myself.

You are lying.

[Treebeard]

On Dec 7, 9:45 am, "Trance Gemini" <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:

Then why the fuck do you keep bringing it up by accusing me of lying
and having no ethics and no standards and not being objective? Do you
expect to simply take your defamation and lies?

>
> My position was quite clear and spoke to all the questions raised including
> your "technical" non-issue.

You ... never .. proved ... it.

>
> The other Mods agree with what was done and said.
>
> Rapp agrees as well.

Rapp, do you claim that what TG did was stated in the policy or that
TG provided the precedents that she claims to have used to justify her
taking the action she did?

That's what's at stake here, not banning because of posting personal
information.

>
> And by presenting it the way you do here, despite your claims that you agree
> with the ban you are again implying wrong doing and contributing to the
> continuation of this ridiculous charade.
>
> Which is exactly why you should NOT be a Mod.

But insisting that I am not objective and refusing to address utterly
ridiculous claims you made is NOT contributing to it?

Is it that you can lie about me and I am not allowed to defend myself,
or else I'd be a bad moderator?

[Trance Gemini]

Bullshit. And if you think you're going to provoke me into going back to that thread and find the information that you should have read and registered in the first place you can forget it.

The fact is that you handled it badly.

The fact is that you refuse to ever admit you're wrong. Ever. Even when the facts are blatantly staring you in the face.

You made no effort to get the facts.

I provided a clear and supported explanation which was to the satisfaction of everyone except you, Chx and Brock.

Not a single other person had a problem with it.

You were two faced about the entire thing.

You can't agree with a decision without agreeing with the justification for it.

That's sheer nonsense and the basis for why I say you're lying.

 

[Trance Gemini]

You are the one who keeps bringing it up and have been for weeks now.

I brought it up this time simply in the context of why I object to you being a Mod.

You're the one who wanted to revisit the entire thing again.

Sorry not interested.

If you refuse to get it, I can't help you.

 

>
> My position was quite clear and spoke to all the questions raised including
> your "technical" non-issue.

You ... never .. proved ... it.

And I state unequivically that I did and that it's clear in the thread.

And like I said it was a non-issue which Chx fabricated to exacerbate his sleazy little drama.

The fact that you picked up on Chx's fabrication and made a federal case out of it shows exactly how insincere you were from the beginning.

You were not looking for the truth.

You were looking for something that you could use to support and justify Chx behavior.

Sorry, Allen that's what YOUR actions showed.

 

>
> The other Mods agree with what was done and said.
>
> Rapp agrees as well.

Rapp, do you claim that what TG did was stated in the policy or that
TG provided the precedents that she claims to have used to justify her
taking the action she did?

That's what's at stake here, not banning because of posting personal
information.

>
> And by presenting it the way you do here, despite your claims that you agree
> with the ban you are again implying wrong doing and contributing to the
> continuation of this ridiculous charade.
>
> Which is exactly why you should NOT be a Mod.

But insisting that I am not objective and refusing to address utterly
ridiculous claims you made is NOT contributing to it?

I have made no claims whatsoever. I have simply defended myself against the slanders made by others.

And provided my personal assessment of your behavior.

 

Is it that you can lie about me and I am not allowed to defend myself,
or else I'd be  a bad moderator?

[Treebeard]

On Dec 7, 9:57 am, "Trance Gemini" <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:

How is that verifying a story? Remember, you accused me of believing
Chx without checking out his story, but am I supposed to believe you
without checking out yours?

>
> I noted that Chx spewed some slander about how I banned Wanderer
> immediately.
>
> Did you question it?
>
> No.

I didn't even fucking read it. If you had banned him immediately, it
would have changed my position not one bit.

> You kept referring to "time frames" but not once did you ask me on any of
> those three threads how long it took for me to ban Wanderer after I received
> the complaint.

I never fucking mentioned "time frames" once, especially not in that
context. Prove that I did or admit that you're a fucking liar.

> Nor has anyone bothered to ask how long it took between the complaint and
> the time that Liam was banned.

I don't care. It could have been immediate or three fucking days
later for all I care.

> Why? Because those relevant facts don't support these slanders of moderator
> abuse.

No, because it is irrelevant to what I care about.

> So much for your interest in the actual Truth.

Yes, I don't care about utterly irrelevant and invalid claims. I must
be evil.

Note that I pointed out to Chx just recently that clearly posted
imitations are not actionable. That's an issue that ACTUALLY FUCKING
MATTERS, and I supported the moderators. But you don't give a shit
about any of that because if I don't agree with every fucking word
that comes out of your mouth I have to be opposed to the moderators
and claiming that we have moderator abuse.

You're letting emotional mechanisms affect your judgement, ranting at
me because you're upset about being challenged instead of working for
a compromise that would allow things to calm down.

> > I
> > wasn't here when the original post was made, never saw the original
> > post, and as far as I know have no at least easy to determine when
> > posts were made or removed. I don't get E-mail from the group so I
> > have no records that I can use to verify that. How is it being an
> > irresponsible arrogant asshole for not trying to find out things that
> > I'm not actually capable of finding out?
>
> > 2) This is irrelevant anyway; if all moderators were in agreement the
> > post that I made that stirred things up would never be made, and even
> > you have to concede that all I did was disagree with your
> > justifications.
>
> Then don't lie and claim that you support the decision.

I do. I think that your bullshit justifications beyond "He posted
personal information and that's bad" are bullshit.

> You clearly don't.
>
> You can't support one without the other.

And this is just another symptom of the your inferior reasoning
abilities.

Someone can clearly do the right thing for the wrong reasons. I don't
know what your reasons are anymore through your bullshit.

Except that you stated that in these cases the moderators confer and
give the reasons, so your statement of what the reasons were should,
in fact, be an indication of what they really were. That's the point,
and what you missed.

> My claim was supported and consistent and to say otherwise is a lie.
>
> It doesn't matter whether it's a deliberate lie or not.

There is no such thing as a lie that is not deliberate.

> The fact is that every step of the way you have shown no interest whatsoever
> in getting the actual facts and continue to spew the shit that Chx spread
> and continue to exacerbate what is essentially a non-issue.
>
> And this is why you should NOT be a Mod.

If I should not be a mod, neither should you.

[Trance Gemini]

Okay. I'm done. I'm not going to continue in a Flame War with you.

To summarize.

1. I supported my position at the time clearly several times on three threads which contained nearly a thousand posts which consisted of mostly personal slanders directed at me and nothing else.

2. If you're too lazy to go back to that thread and find the information you clearly "missed" that is not my problem and I will not do it for you.

3. My objection has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that we disagree. 

I disagree with people regularly on this site without this kind of drama because they are sincere and honest. I have stated many times publicly on this site that there's nothing wrong with accepting the fact that people disagree on certain issues.

That alone proves that your statement that I'm objecting because I disagree cannot be supported by you or anyone else. It's nothing but a smear.

Perhaps you should look at how you handle disagreement like your "No Debate" list where you refuse to talk to people for whatever concocted reason.

Or your need to be Right and Never admit a mistake or even acknowledge the possibility that you might be Wrong.

4. My objection has everything to do with the way that you handled the situation from beginning to end.

[Treebeard]

On Dec 7, 10:33 am, "Trance Gemini" <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Okay. I'm done. I'm not going to continue in a Flame War with you.
> To summarize.
>
> 1. I supported my position at the time clearly several times on three
> threads which contained nearly a thousand posts which consisted of mostly
> personal slanders directed at me and nothing else.

Your position, not your justification. And it changed repeatedly (you
did not mention precedent at the beginning, for example).

>
> 2. If you're too lazy to go back to that thread and find the information you
> clearly "missed" that is not my problem and I will not do it for you.

You didn't provide it in the first place.

>
> 3. My objection has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that we
> disagree.
>
> I disagree with people regularly on this site without this kind of drama
> because they are sincere and honest. I have stated many times publicly on
> this site that there's nothing wrong with accepting the fact that people
> disagree on certain issues.
>
> That alone proves that your statement that I'm objecting because I disagree
> cannot be supported by you or anyone else. It's nothing but a smear.

No, it is the truth since the only difference between you and me on
this issue is that we disagree over whether the justifications were
proven.

In short, because I disagree with you over this, you are insisting
that I'm a liar.

>
> Perhaps you should look at how you handle disagreement like your "No Debate"
> list where you refuse to talk to people for whatever concocted reason.

I refuse to reply to people when I don't think that discussing things
with them will lead anywhere. That is my right, and to bring that up
is most disingenuous.

Note that the only people still on that list are Dev and Neil Kelsey.
Neil said at one point that he would assume that he knows my
motivations better than myself because I'm a theist. Need I say more?

And since all discussions with Dev result in him simply
misrepresenting my position and advocating for my death, I don't need
to say much about him either.

>
> Or your need to be Right and Never admit a mistake or even acknowledge the
> possibility that you might be Wrong.

I admit my mistakes and that I might be wrong.

>
> 4. My objection has everything to do with the way that you handled the
> situation from beginning to end.

That is not in question. What is in question over whether you're
right about that. And you aren't.

> ...
>
> read more »

[Treebeard]

On Dec 7, 10:16 am, "Trance Gemini" <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sun, Dec 7, 2008 at 10:09 AM, Treebeard <allan_c_cybuls...@yahoo.ca>wrote:

> > > I've had this conversation repeatedly for over a fucking month now.
>
> > > I'm NOT repeating myself again.
>
> > Then why the fuck do you keep bringing it up by accusing me of lying
> > and having no ethics and no standards and not being objective? Do you
> > expect to simply take your defamation and lies?
>
> You are the one who keeps bringing it up and have been for weeks now.
>
> I brought it up this time simply in the context of why I object to you being
> a Mod.
>
> You're the one who wanted to revisit the entire thing again.

Um, you brought it up as a reason that I shouldn't be a moderator, and
I'm wrong for wanting to defend myself against your charges when I
expressed that I did want to be a moderator?

Have you gone completely insane?

> Sorry not interested.
>
> If you refuse to get it, I can't help you.

And since it is clear that we don't agree on our interpretations, why
are you justified on insisting on yours as if it was fact?

>
>
> > > My position was quite clear and spoke to all the questions raised
> > including
> > > your "technical" non-issue.
>
> > You ... never .. proved ... it.
>
> And I state unequivically that I did and that it's clear in the thread.

You did not provide a link to the precedents that you stated you
followed. The justifications you used are not in the policy, and you
never provided an interpretation that would justify it.

You did not prove it.

> And like I said it was a non-issue which Chx fabricated to exacerbate his
> sleazy little drama.

I brought the issue up, TG. I checked, and he was right: it isn't in
there. But we all knew that, right? So you cited precedent. I asked
for the example. You demanded I look it up myself. That's totally
unwarranted.

If anyone can find a post where you did post links to the precedents
that supported your position, I will admit that I'm wrong.

> The fact that you picked up on Chx's fabrication and made a federal case out
> of it shows exactly how insincere you were from the beginning.
>
> You were not looking for the truth.
>
> You were looking for something that you could use to support and justify Chx
> behavior.
>
> Sorry, Allen that's what YOUR actions showed.

Bullshit. You're living in a fantasy world.

> > > And by presenting it the way you do here, despite your claims that you
> > agree
> > > with the ban you are again implying wrong doing and contributing to the
> > > continuation of this ridiculous charade.
>
> > > Which is exactly why you should NOT be a Mod.
>
> > But insisting that I am not objective and refusing to address utterly
> > ridiculous claims you made is NOT contributing to it?
>
> I have made no claims whatsoever. I have simply defended myself against the
> slanders made by others.

You claimed that I was doing it to support my buddy Wanderer. Now you
are claiming that I am doing it to support Chx whom I have challenged
on his claims against the moderators far more than support. You are
the one slandering me, not the other way around.

[Treebeard]

On Dec 7, 10:10 am, "Trance Gemini" <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sun, Dec 7, 2008 at 10:06 AM, Treebeard <allan_c_cybuls...@yahoo.ca>wrote:

> > > And this is why I won't support you being a Mod.
>
> > > You won't go back to that thread and you won't investigate and you'll
> > just
> > > continue this baseless nonsense based on entirely on Chx malicious lies
> > and
> > > drama.
>
> > I have no more need to go back to that thread than you do. I know
> > what I read and what I intended, and you never answered it. In fact,
> > you insisted that I should search for the precedents myself.
>
> > You are lying.
>
> Bullshit. And if you think you're going to provoke me into going back to
> that thread and find the information that you should have read and
> registered in the first place you can forget it.

Now, why would you be so insistent that you won't do that? After all,
if you did that wouldn't it either prove your case completely -- if I
still objected -- or get me to shut up?

Perhaps it's because the information just ain't there?

> The fact is that you handled it badly.
>
> The fact is that you refuse to ever admit you're wrong. Ever. Even when the
> facts are blatantly staring you in the face.

I have done so in the past. Even the issue with Answer_42 involved my
admitting that I was wrong about the Immaculate Conception -- to
Medusa, not him, which exacerbated the problem.

> You made no effort to get the facts.

By not searching all the archives for God knows what. How
unreasonable of me.

I read the policy statement repeatedly.

> I provided a clear and supported explanation which was to the satisfaction
> of everyone except you, Chx and Brock.

I agree with the "he posted personal information". I disagreed with
the spinned bullshit that you invented to justify beyond that.

> Not a single other person had a problem with it.
>
> You were two faced about the entire thing.
>
> You can't agree with a decision without agreeing with the justification for
> it.

I agreed with the action, but not your bullshit.

[Answer_42]

On 7 déc, 04:16, checkers <mkone...@telkomsa.net> wrote:

> chx; direct forged name above text; 3 posters impersonating chx - no
> ban (should be reported to Google)

Actually, it was 6 posters last time I checked.
Now, enough crying, you big baby.

Tell you what, you report me to Google and make sure I can follow what
happens with them.
If Google agrees with you that what I did is against some Google
rules, they will ban me.
Fair enough.

Now, since you are so sure you are right and only pretend that you are
not reporting me, and the others, for some obscure reason, I will ask,
however, that if Google thinks you are full of shit and confirms that
what I did is NOT against any Google rules, you leave the group on
your own accord and never come back.

If you agree to this deal, and if it comes to the time you have to
leave and refuse to do so, the mods will have the right to ban you.

How is that?
Put your fucking money where your dirty mouth is.

If you refuse, then shut the fuck up about this whole "Mummy, they are
making fun of me" business, shut the fuck up about moderating (Since
it will prove that you actually do not know what you are talking
about) and shut the fuck up about previous bans (Since it will also
show you do not have enough judgement to pas comments on pass bans).

Deal?

> i believe i may be the only balanced member here unless others can

Balanced? You are nothing but a degenerate asshole.

> stand up and make their voices heard to show there are more HONEST
> members.

Somebody like you who twice makes fun of people who share their
problems with mental health issues has no morals, people without
morals cannot be trusted to be honest.
___________________________________
It was the craving to be a one and only people which impelled the
ancient Hebrews to invent a one and only God whose one and only people
they were to be.
-- Eric Hoffer

[checkers]

chx

Treebeard, this is where i want to get on this bus. my name was
implicated and i have the right to defend myself. i'll give comment
from the top

On Dec 7, 5:09 pm, Treebeard <allan_c_cybuls...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
> On Dec 7, 9:45 am, "Trance Gemini" <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sun, Dec 7, 2008 at 9:35 AM, Treebeard <allan_c_cybuls...@yahoo.ca>wrote:
>
> > > On Dec 7, 8:13 am, "Trance Gemini" <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > On Sun, Dec 7, 2008 at 8:09 AM, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com
> > > >wrote:
>
> > > > > You won't go back to that thread and you won't investigate and you'll
> > > just
> > > > > continue this baseless nonsense based on entirely on Chx malicious lies
> > > and
> > > > > drama.

chx
my comments are based on facts
show the lies or stop lying yourself.

this is a simple concept. you prove that i lie and then i am a liar.
if you call me a liar and cannot show the lie, it makes you the liar
for calling me a liar.
simple concept, yea!

>
> > > > And let me also just point out that the phony red herring that Chx
> > > created
> > > > about what was or wasn't in the Policy was also explained quite clearly.

chx
just go read the policy and yes, even the TG sticky. the rules are
clear

this issue is not about what Wanderer did. it is about the policy and
how it is applied to situations. to say he was banned is one thing. to
say he was banned according to the policy is another issue and this
is where the dabate is...the policy.

>
> > > > The fact that you ignored my explanation and made a federal case out of
> > > it
> > > > implying that there was wrongdoing when there was in fact none by any
> > > normal
> > > > standards shows you are not going to handle this objectively.
>
> > > Well, let's see:
>
> > > Banning for posting personal information?  Not in the policy.
> > > Banning because the actions are deemed "similar" in consequences to
> > > things that are explicitly stated in the policy?  Not in the policy.
> > > Banning on the basis of a Google TOS violation?  Explicitly DENIED in
> > > the policy (users are supposed to report them to Google).

chx
there are three references to the AvC rules and numerous times points
were reiterated by Oldman and Rap in the 2 years i am here. all these
repeat the same tune. Moderators only remove spam and ban the
spammers.

Google Groups TOS must be reported to Google as they are more
qualified to deal with it. use this responsably

here a claim was made that AvC history on banning was made as well...a
blatant lie i can proove. if my offer of the 'history' was accepted
the rest of the posts and topic threads would never have occured! all
this shit would have ended there and then.

> > > So, basically, on the basis of the policy discovered by, you know
> > > READING it, your statements were, in fact, technically not justified
> > > by it.  That does not mean that I don't think it was the RIGHT thing
> > > to do, but am simply pointing out that the policy didn't cover that
> > > and getting up on your high horse insisting that it is is nothing more
> > > than a blatant lie.
>
> > I've had this conversation repeatedly for over a fucking month now.
>
> > I'm NOT repeating myself again.
>
> Then why the fuck do you keep bringing it up by accusing me of lying
> and having no ethics and no standards and not being objective?  Do you
> expect to simply take your defamation and lies?

chx
no reference asked for on all the issues were ever produced to this
day. disagreeing is not lies or defamation. actual lies can lead to
defamation. she always throw this line when she cannot produce
evidence i/we ask for.

> > My position was quite clear and spoke to all the questions raised including
> > your "technical" non-issue.
>
> You ... never .. proved ... it.
>
>
>
> > The other Mods agree with what was done and said.

chx
i have a problem with this statement. just go read the first post of
Wanderers ban post. Dev only heard of it after wanderer was banned. BS
comment further down is simply, ignore posters and they will go away.
an email was sent to Dag yo.

> > Rapp agrees as well.

chx
with what does he agree? are you saying you consulted him before you
banned Wanderer?? but you did not consult the present moderators??
strange!

> Rapp, do you claim that what TG did was stated in the policy or that
> TG provided the precedents that she claims to have used to justify her
> taking the action she did?
>
> That's what's at stake here, not banning because of posting personal
> information.
>
>
>
> > And by presenting it the way you do here, despite your claims that you agree
> > with the ban you are again implying wrong doing and contributing to the
> > continuation of this ridiculous charade.
>
> > Which is exactly why you should NOT be a Mod.
>
> But insisting that I am not objective and refusing to address utterly
> ridiculous claims you made is NOT contributing to it?
>
> Is it that you can lie about me and I am not allowed to defend myself,

> or else I'd be  a bad moderator?- Hide quoted text -

chx
i encountered this same problem in another thread. this is why i am
boarding this bus.

[Dev]

I'm ignoring most of checkers's posts right now. What, does anyone
seriously think that he seriously thinks he's making legitimate points
and trying to help? One thing I'd like to see Allan acknowledge is
that checkers is just trolling and lying for fun. It's obvious, so he
might as well admit it.

On Dec 7, 5:15 am, "Trance Gemini" <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 6, 2008 at 9:58 PM, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>
> > Fuck him in general, Trance. I don't hear him getting on checkers or
> > Jerry for their lies, so he's obviously unqualified. He's not an
> > honest person. That's been proven. He failed. He probably blames us
> > for his failure to be an honest person, but that just proves my point.
>
> These guys have deluded themselves so much all they can go is engage in self
> congratulation about how "perfect" they and just continue to lie (so much
> for biblical humility and the ten commandments - they can't even follow
> their own doctrine).
>
> On several recent threads Chx has gotten so caught up in his lies that he
> has contradicted himself from one post to the next.
>
> First he claims that he doesn't have a problem with the previous moderators
> then in another post he turns around and starts trashing them for being
> biased.
>
> This is just one thread I'm referring. There are many threads where he has
> done this and changed his story from post to post within the same thread.
>
> Then he posts these long diatribes about what a saint he is and how moral he
> is and how he just wants, ironically, consistency. Something he's incapable
> of displaying.
>
> Now, he knows that Rapp is handling things and yet he still can't shut up.
>
> Why? Because he's not actually interested in resolving any problems.
>
> He's just a fucking Drama Queen and malicious liar who goes on rants.
>
> If he doesn't like it here he should leave.
>
> I think a lot of us are getting quite fed up with his incessant whining and
> malicious lies.

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Dec 6, 7:02 pm, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Dec 6, 8:52 pm, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>
> > > > And I'll state again, Allan is garbage and just because he's a theist
> > > > doesn't mean we need an affirmative action program to ignore that.
> > > > simon is a proven liar, but at least he's shown something of an
> > > > interest in applying consistent standards to theists and atheists with
> > > > regards to this group's moderation on this thread. Allan only led the
> > > > rats into the cluster that started this completely pointless mess,
> > > > based entirely on thetard lies. Fuck him. He's no better than checkers
> > > > or Jerry. He's shit.
>
> > > I object to Allan's attitude.
>

> > > He's still saying he's not willing to do any of the grunt work but

> > > he's be there like some fucking overseer to "make sure we're doing the
> > > right thing".
>

> > > Has there been any doubt?
>
> > > He keeps claiming that he agreed with the banning and then keeps
> > > waffling with bullshit like this implying that we didn't do the right
> > > thing and therefore require supervision.
>

> > > During the entire Checkers debacle he went along with Checkers lies
> > > and instead of even trying to make an effort to calm things down he
> > > actually kept things heated up.
>

> > > He was completely two-faced about the entire thing.
>

> > > Either he takes on the full Mod responsibilities like all of us do or
> > > Fuck Him.
>

> > > We don't need an overseer.

>
> > > > On Dec 6, 1:55 pm, rappoccio <rappoc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>

> > > > > On Dec 6, 5:48 am, Treebeard <allan_c_cybuls...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Dec 5, 4:47 pm, rappoccio <rappoc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > In my position as "Moderator Emeritus", I'd like to pose a
> > question.
>
> > > > > > > With all the recent mod-bashing from several theists on this
> > board,
> > > > > > > are there any theists who actually WANT to be the designated
> > spam-
> > > > > > > killers for a while?
>
> > > > > > > For a long time it was myself and OldMan. Then we retired, and
> > the
> > > > > > > current crew stepped up. The only reason there are no theist mods
> > is
> > > > > > > because none have volunteered. That's it. No conspiracy. No
> > blocking
> > > > > > > out. Nothing.
>
> > > > > > > So is there anyone here that is willing to step up and help kill
> > spam,
> > > > > > > if you all think it's such a glorious and powerful position? (I
> > can
> > > > > > > assure you it is neither glorious nor powerful... more like a
> > constant
> > > > > > > pain in the ass).
>
> > > > > > > The current moderators should also weigh in with their opinions.
> > I
> > > > > > > think they'd love to see a theist here who can moderate
> > effectively,
> > > > > > > just so they don't have to hear a daily thread about how crappy a
> > job
> > > > > > > they're doing since no theists want to do it.
>
> > > > > > In this latest situation, I actually did state that I would accept
> > > > > > being a moderator.  At first, the comment was more basically to
> > have a
> > > > > > theist moderator to ensure that theists felt that bans were fair,
> > so
> > > > > > that the theist moderator could say "I saw that, and yes, it was
> > valid
> > > > > > to ban them".  That idea didn't seem to fly with the other
> > moderators,
> > > > > > but I did comment that I would be a moderator after that regardless
> > of
> > > > > > that stance, and it was ignored.
>
> > > > > > I am still unlikely to do a lot of spam removal due to time
> > > > > > constraints, but at least I would be available to support moderator
> > > > > > decisions while being in possession of all the facts (I assume that
> > > > > > moderators do not arbitrarily make moderation decisions).
>
> > > > > I apologize for that, I missed it. If you want the job, so far as I'm
> > > > > concerned, you've got my thumbs up.- Hide quoted text -

>
> > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>

> > > - Show quoted text -
>

> --
> Witchy Woman, AvC Anti-Spam Brigade. AA Wolf Pack Member #7
> "Change is the only constant in the universe. Fear its' constant companion.
> Overcoming fear is the key to unlocking its' gifts." --Trance Gemini,

> Andromeda- Hide quoted text -
>

[checkers]

chx
why should i even consider dealing with you. i prefer debating with
you and i enjoy the victories more.

Rap has a far better deal than your stupid little brain can concoct

i'd rather make a deal with your signature, you can pay me a $100 a
month for using it. har!

[Treebeard]

On Dec 7, 11:38 am, checkers <mkone...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
> chx
>
> Treebeard, this is where i want to get on this bus. my name was
> implicated and i have the right to defend myself. i'll give comment
> from the top

This is what I have to say in general (by popular demand):

I think that your claims of moderator bias are overblown and not
justified. In general, we haven't seen a lot of actual justified
events that would signify that theists get banned where atheists
wouldn't.

That being said, a lot of the reactions to your and other posts seem
to indicate rationalization instead of actual reasoning, and
justifications invented after the fact due to the unwillingness of the
parties involved to simply stand on the rules or issues. The
accusations of lying are getting tossed around far too freely as
well. In short, when pressed, the moderators are reacting angrily
instead of rationally, undermining their cases and giving some minor
cause for doubt. I mean, we had two moderators state that they only
followed the rules voluntarily and didn't actually HAVE to; that's not
something that inspires confidence even taking it as a notion that
they could do bad things due to the power they technically hold.

Ultimately, the constant accusations of moderator bias are
unjustified, but the over-the-top defenses against those accusations
must be taken into consideration as well.

[Dev]

You are so full of shit, Allan.

[Trance Gemini]

On Sun, Dec 7, 2008 at 11:43 AM, Dev <thede...@fastmail.fm> wrote:

I'm ignoring most of checkers's posts right now. What, does anyone
seriously think that he seriously thinks he's making legitimate points
and trying to help? One thing I'd like to see Allan acknowledge is
that checkers is just trolling and lying for fun. It's obvious, so he
might as well admit it.

It's ridiculous. It's been going on for over a month now and he just continues to lie and then denies lying which is another lie.

He's really just a nasty piece of shit.

If I went along with this I would be spending literally hours every day trying to prove his lies and defend my statements.

He *IS* a troll and a Drama Queen and all he does is disrupt this site.

That is and has been (since I've been here) his major "contribution".

All he wants is attention. 

He likes to provoke people with his lies, then nail himself to his cross to play the little victim, then pat himself on the back because he's so "moral" (according to his complete lack of standards) and we're all just shit.

 

I have no respect for him whatsoever and he doesn't deserve any acknowledgment.

Anyone who wants to give him credence is as a much of a crackpot as he is and is just encouraging and enabling him in trolling.

[Trance Gemini]

On Sun, Dec 7, 2008 at 12:25 PM, Dev <thede...@fastmail.fm> wrote:

You are so full of shit, Allan.

This is called Waffling and refusing to take a position.

[Trance Gemini]

On Sun, Dec 7, 2008 at 12:28 PM, Trance Gemini <trance...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Sun, Dec 7, 2008 at 12:25 PM, Dev <thede...@fastmail.fm> wrote:

You are so full of shit, Allan.

This is called Waffling and refusing to take a position.

And note that there has been no objection whatsoever to the blatant and malicious harassment that Chx subjected me to by starting 3 Threads containing almost a thousand posts most of which contained absolutely nothing but malicious personal slanders against me which when confronted and asked to support could not be supported.

[Treebeard]

On Dec 7, 12:28 pm, "Trance Gemini" <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sun, Dec 7, 2008 at 12:25 PM, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>
> > You are so full of shit, Allan.
>
> This is called Waffling and refusing to take a position.

And why, if my interpretations are valid, is that a bad thing?

Again, I'm on no one's side. This is my view of how things look.
There is nothing wrong with joining with one side or the other if one
can see the various viewpoints involved.

Seems that that sort of thing is what weak atheism is about: if one
has insufficient evidence, believe nothing.

[checkers]

On Dec 7, 6:43 pm, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> I'm ignoring most of checkers's posts right now. What, does anyone
> seriously think that he seriously thinks he's making legitimate points
> and trying to help? One thing I'd like to see Allan acknowledge is
> that checkers is just trolling and lying for fun. It's obvious, so he
> might as well admit it.

chx
Dev, if there is something to salvage then ignoring is the wrong
approach. i have stepped back a few times for the sake of peace. i
just cannot step back when i am accused of lying. you know i don't
lie, your lie page shows this.

this whole debacle was set off by things said so you being a
moderator, i extend the same offer of the link to see why i claim
moderators being inconsistent. i will send it to you in your capacity
as moderator only. are you interested?...um, that's if it was not
deleted by now. i have a copy in my own files.

i acted on what i believed to be from fact and not just to bash
moderators. anyway it was to the mods and not the person. if the
person acts irresponsible as a mod then we have an unqualified mod. so
if the member lies when acting as mods, then they as mods should not
be there.

[Treebeard]

On Dec 7, 12:31 pm, "Trance Gemini" <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 7, 2008 at 12:28 PM, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com>wrote:

>
>
>
> > On Sun, Dec 7, 2008 at 12:25 PM, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>
> >> You are so full of shit, Allan.
>
> > This is called Waffling and refusing to take a position.
>
> And note that there has been no objection whatsoever to the blatant and
> malicious harassment that Chx subjected me to by starting 3 Threads

This is a lie that has been disproven before: Chx might have started
one of those threads. Dev started at least one.

> containing almost a thousand posts most of which contained absolutely
> nothing but malicious personal slanders against me which when confronted and
> asked to support could not be supported.

The problem is that in those threads you posted similar slanders about
me that you never supported either. You aren't any better off than he
is there.

See, this is precisely my point. Chx didn't really have a case for
saying that there was moderator bias, but when legitimate questions
are met with personal attacks the moderators do not come off as being
any better.

[Treebeard]

On Dec 7, 12:38 pm, Treebeard <allan_c_cybuls...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
> On Dec 7, 12:28 pm, "Trance Gemini" <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Sun, Dec 7, 2008 at 12:25 PM, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>
> > > You are so full of shit, Allan.
>
> > This is called Waffling and refusing to take a position.
>
> And why, if my interpretations are valid, is that a bad thing?
>
> Again, I'm on no one's side. This is my view of how things look.

> There is nothing wrong with not joining with one side or the other if one
^^^

> can see the various viewpoints involved.

Corrected by adding in the missing not.

[Trance Gemini]

On Sun, Dec 7, 2008 at 12:38 PM, Treebeard <allan_c_...@yahoo.ca> wrote:

On Dec 7, 12:28 pm, "Trance Gemini" <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sun, Dec 7, 2008 at 12:25 PM, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>
> > You are so full of shit, Allan.
>
> This is called Waffling and refusing to take a position.

And why, if my interpretations are valid, is that a bad thing?

Because they're not valid.

You are just too chickenshit to take a position.

 

Again, I'm on no one's side.  This is my view of how things look.
There is nothing wrong with joining with one side or the other if one
can see the various viewpoints involved.

Bullshit. You are fence-sitter.

[Dev]

Bullshit. I started a thread where I dissected it--Allan makes his
position _very_ clear underneath the disingenuous language. He thinks
it's wrong for atheists to correct lies levelled against them with
facts, period.

On Dec 7, 10:28 am, "Trance Gemini" <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Andromeda- Hide quoted text -
>

[Trance Gemini]

On Sun, Dec 7, 2008 at 12:40 PM, Treebeard <allan_c_...@yahoo.ca> wrote:

On Dec 7, 12:31 pm, "Trance Gemini" <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 7, 2008 at 12:28 PM, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com>wrote:

>
>
>
> > On Sun, Dec 7, 2008 at 12:25 PM, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>
> >> You are so full of shit, Allan.
>
> > This is called Waffling and refusing to take a position.
>
> And note that there has been no objection whatsoever to the blatant and
> malicious harassment that Chx subjected me to by starting 3 Threads

This is a lie that has been disproven before: Chx might have started
one of those threads.  Dev started at least one.

This is a lie. Chx started 3. Dev started one about you.

 

> containing almost a thousand posts most of which contained absolutely
> nothing but malicious personal slanders against me which when confronted and
> asked to support could not be supported.

The problem is that in those threads you posted similar slanders about
me that you never supported either.  You aren't any better off than he
is there.

In one thread and for several posts I got angry and called you on what you were doing. 

I didn't start 3 Threads with almost a thousand posts that ran for weeks slandering you in almost every post.

There's a big difference and this is the problem.

You appear to be incapable of differentiating these types of things.

And this is a HUGE problem.

 

See, this is precisely my point.  Chx didn't really have a case for
saying that there was moderator bias, but when legitimate questions
are met with personal attacks the moderators do not come off as being
any better.

Chx had no business doing what he did and you went along with it without opening your mouth once to object.

That is not the act of an objective person.

And as above, you can't seem to be able to differentiate between me writing a few posts criticizing you and directly in response to what you said and Chx starting Three Threads with nearly a thousand posts most of which will filled with malicious personal slanders and lies against me.

 

Most normal people can see the difference between the two.

Why can't you?