The banning of Josey Wales

[A Voice]

This comment five days ago: http://debatebothsides.com/showthread.php?p=751237&highlight=female+relatives+Lefty#post751237
Your immediate female relatives were not victims, Lefty, just ask them and drop my name - but don't tell them where I'm at because some of them think I still owe them money!!!

You are really not very good at anything but making hotdogs are you?

and this one 2 days ago
http://debatebothsides.com/showthread.php?p=753255&highlight=degenerate+leeches#post753255

No you obviously don't, you fuckin' whackjob!!

All you want to do is make it look ugly with your ridiculous and baseless conspiracy theories and uncommon loathing of our homeland.

Don't paint yourself as a patriot you fuckin' loon, you are nothing more than a disillusioned victim looking to blame your country for your obvious failures on this planet.

If you really "give a damn" about this country you should help rid it of degenerate leeches like yourself by blowing your own fuckin' head off! Hell I'd even help ya!!

That's insulting family members and making threats.

Normally this would be done in private but Josey Wales doesn't receive private messages so it ends up here. This has not been addressed earlier as the infractions were just reported.

Josey Wales, you get 5 days off for rule violations.

A Voice

[Dingo]

AV, based on the present standard I understand your banning. However I prefer my altered standard.

1. A serious threat to commit harm against members or their families or living public figures or gross abuse against family members are not permitted.

In this case I think it would have fallen below the standard for banning. What I see above essentially amounts to a punk bad assed exchange from both sides. I don't see any victims here and my sense of the blowing the brains out comment was in terms of assisting in suicide.

Open forums are not really made for nice society. Yeah, we can moderate some of the extremes but otherwise it's let fly. However I understand under present rules you had to do what you had to do.

[Blaze Manly]

I think he should have been banned for impersonating a military man. Or for impersonating a Human Being.

When and if he returns, I challenge him to a debate on military strategy. The loser has to do the winner's laundry for three decades.

[JackTheReaper]

I think he should have been banned for impersonating a military man. Or for impersonating a Human Being.
LOL! What a knee slapper! Fits the frootloop to a "T".......:D

[Mike]

This comment five days ago: http://debatebothsides.com/showthread.php?p=751237&highlight=female+relatives+Lefty#post751237


and this one 2 days ago
http://debatebothsides.com/showthread.php?p=753255&highlight=degenerate+leeches#post753255


That's insulting family members and making threats.

Normally this would be done in private but Josey Wales doesn't receive private messages so it ends up here. This has not been addressed earlier as the infractions were just reported.

Josey Wales, you get 5 days off for rule violations.

A VoiceI just have to shake my head over that...

Lib, you know better than that...

Get some spine, Lib. This is plain bullcrap.

[Lib]

I just have to shake my head over that...

Lib, you know better than that...

Get some spine, Lib. This is plain bullcrap.

[T]he last several weeks have thoroughly convinced me that DBS is no longer a place for me, either as a moderator or as a poster.... I withdraw as a moderator, irrevocably, and as of this instant...

I have sent the following PM to "Administration", but their promptness might best receive a little urging from you.

Aasun and Robb...
I need to withdraw as a "super moderator" of DBS, effective as soon as you can make it occur. I will no longer function in that capacity, and it'll be to everyone's benefit if the "privileges" assigned to me are promptly deleted.

You made a choice and burned your bridges. So butt out and buzz off already.

[dewey189]

This is plain bullcrap.I agree. Josey can be extraordinarily irritating, but if he had posted these comments to me I wouldn't have considered them threating to my family or to me.

[Mike]

I just have to shake my head over that...

Lib, you know better than that...

Get some spine, Lib. This is plain bullcrap.to repeat...

You made a choice and burned your bridges. So butt out and buzz off already.the "moderating" privileges should be gone...but I'm still a registered member of this forum, even though (currently) tha lady can't ban me. Mark it...when she can, she will...

If you read Dewey's post above, you'll know I'm not just blowing smoke. The lady is berserk with power, and it's NOT going to get better unless the brakes are -- in some way -- put on.

[Kuni]

to repeat...

the "moderating" privileges should be gone...but I'm still a registered member of this forum, even though (currently) tha lady can't ban me. Mark it...when she can, she will...

If you read Dewey's post above, you'll know I'm not just blowing smoke. The lady is berserk with power, and it's NOT going to get better unless the brakes are -- in some way -- put on.Berserk?

Since when has the definition of ‘defaming’ in Rule #1 (i.e. insulting, slandering, denigrating, disparaging, offending etc.), which he clearly engaged in, changed?


And we now find out he had a second Nic: http://www.debatebothsides.com/showthread.php?t=55318

Annd was posting under his second Nic while banned: http://www.debatebothsides.com/search.php?searchid=289744

And all he got was a warning when his second Nic was pointed out. Some “berserk” that is. He’s getting all kinds of slack there.

[Josey Wales]

Berserk?

Since when has the definition of ‘defaming’ in Rule #1 (i.e. insulting, slandering, denigrating, disparaging, offending etc.), which he clearly engaged in, changed?


And we now find out he had a second Nic: http://www.debatebothsides.com/showthread.php?t=55318

Annd was posting under his second Nic while banned: http://www.debatebothsides.com/search.php?searchid=289744

And all he got was a warning when his second Nic was pointed out. Some “berserk” that is. He’s getting all kinds of slack there.

Fuck off Kunt, you whiny little bitch!
What are you the teacher's pet around here?
Go tattle on someone else, Sally!
I don't have a second ID, Dickhead!
And that will be proven, so again, just FUCK OFF!

[Mike]

Berserk?

Since when has the definition of ‘defaming’ in Rule #1 (i.e. insulting, slandering, denigrating, disparaging, offending etc.), which he clearly engaged in, changed?


And we now find out he had a second Nic: http://www.debatebothsides.com/showthread.php?t=55318

Annd was posting under his second Nic while banned: http://www.debatebothsides.com/search.php?searchid=289744

And all he got was a warning when his second Nic was pointed out. Some “berserk” that is. He’s getting all kinds of slack there. Kuni, Dewey is on your side of the aisle...she's never been anything other than a responsible, level-headed poster. Read her comments above.

I'm not addressing the issue of "multiple identities"...I don't know that that issue has been established. From what I read here, the conclusion is premature.

"moderating" is the act of maintaining a safe environment for posting. This isn't a convent, nor a monastery. If anyone is looking for absolute "civility" they'd better look elsewhere, eh? She (aV) stretches the definition of "threats" and the definition of "insulting", to the point of "insulting our intelligence"

She's made a pretty thorough investigation of what a moderator can and can't do...fine and dandy...but then she regales the rubes here with...
Josey Wales doesn't receive private messages so it ends up here. when she knows damned well that a private email addy is available to every moderator of the board. If she'd wanted to contact him privately, she could have done so at her pleasure. That doesn't mean she's lying...but it does mean she's warping the truth to convince people of her righteousness in this matter...

PS I note that Josie HASN'T suffered the banning she said she was assigning to him. Think about that a bit. I think it means that my comment to Lib had at least a little effect...or if not MY comment, maybe he's come to his senses a bit regarding aV.

[JackTheReaper]

I agree. Josey can be extraordinarily irritating, but if he had posted these comments to me I wouldn't have considered them threating to my family or to me.
For once we part, Dew.

"I'll shoot you in the head" speech is ugly, disgusting and LITERALLY makes me sick to my stomach.

I hate screaming fire in a theatre, threatening people with guns, killing people with guns, physically/verbally/emotionally hurting others, shouting nigger, queer, jew, all that sickness. Sorry. I'm a grown up man, but I won't take it. I shouldn't have to hear it, that is. And I'm glad that the few DBS rules covering this total shit are here and being enforced. Were it up to me, the first time I heard putrid speech like this, it would be the last. Then, they'd never cross my DBS threshhold again. Ever.

These honestly disturbed haters are lucky they only got 3-5 days, if you ask me.

[A Voice]

Kuni, Dewey is on your side of the aisle...she's never been anything other than a responsible, level-headed poster. Read her comments above.

I'm not addressing the issue of "multiple identities"...I don't know that that issue has been established. From what I read here, the conclusion is premature.

"moderating" is the act of maintaining a safe environment for posting. This isn't a convent, nor a monastery. If anyone is looking for absolute "civility" they'd better look elsewhere, eh? She (aV) stretches the definition of "threats" and the definition of "insulting", to the point of "insulting our intelligence"

She's made a pretty thorough investigation of what a moderator can and can't do...fine and dandy...but then she regales the rubes here with...
when she knows damned well that a private email addy is available to every moderator of the board. If she'd wanted to contact him privately, she could have done so at her pleasure. That doesn't mean she's lying...but it does mean she's warping the truth to convince people of her righteousness in this matter...

PS I note that Josie HASN'T suffered the banning she said she was assigning to him. Think about that a bit. I think it means that my comment to Lib had at least a little effect...or if not MY comment, maybe he's come to his senses a bit regarding aV.
Both Josey Wales and "Krypto" email addy's do not work and they cannot be contacted by me or anybody else. Believe me, I even tried from my email program instead of from my browser which opens me up to certain security risks. I would prefer to talk to people quietly and calmly, but this poster has made that impossible.

Just because a poster screams loudly that he did not break this rule. Guilty people often plead "not guilty". Screaming it loudly doesn't mean squat.

JW/Krypto could've tried logic - like he posts from a public workstation - that would certainly supply reasonable doubt. He didn't and the ruling stands.

He's been given more than the 24 hours I told him. We have bent over backwards to accomodate him.

Krypto will be permanently banned and Josey Wales gets a week off for posting under multiple log-ins.

A Voice

[JackTheReaper]

She (aV) stretches the definition of "threats" and the definition of "insulting", to the point of "insulting our intelligence"
Hey Mike. Now that we're talking turkey, tell me, you banned me once for "insulting someone's family". Yes, I took it like I man (without pissing and moaning like schoolyard bullies like Tayken or Josie Wales) because I understood the rule.

But you never once showed me the courtesy of letting me apologize for it in lieu of getting banned. But I took it anyway.

Now, it seems you're dissing aV here because she not only banned Wales for insulting someone else's family, but also for MAKING DEATH THREATS. Seems I remember something about making death threats a US FELONY (ever hear of such, friend?), www or not?

Say then, why is it OK for me to get banned forthwith by you (wouldn't be because YOU don't like your political opposites like me, would it?:mad:) but aV is catching hell from you for banning guys with far worse crap than I've ever done, even after giving them a chance for her to reason with them first before she bans them?

I'd say you're noodle is a little undercooked here Mike. And that's saying it politely. You wouldn't want to hear me phrase it the way I REALLY want to phrase it, bud!:)

[A Voice]

I agree. Josey can be extraordinarily irritating, but if he had posted these comments to me I wouldn't have considered them threating to my family or to me.

Small problem, Dewey, it doesn't matter if you feel threated, it matters if the poster feels threatened. With all the focus on me lately I am not running into situations to punish people randomly. Someone contacted the moderators and asked for help.

Josey crossed the line - twice - and a poster complained. Upon investigation I had to agree with the wronged party. That's what the job is.

A Voice

[Kuni]

Kuni, Dewey is on your side of the aisle...she's never been anything other than a responsible, level-headed poster. Read her comments above.

I'm not addressing the issue of "multiple identities"...I don't know that that issue has been established. From what I read here, the conclusion is premature.

"moderating" is the act of maintaining a safe environment for posting. This isn't a convent, nor a monastery. If anyone is looking for absolute "civility" they'd better look elsewhere, eh? She (aV) stretches the definition of "threats" and the definition of "insulting", to the point of "insulting our intelligence"You were discussing “berserk” and I was pointing out that slack was being cut. The latter would preclude the former.

And I’m still waiting for you to address that. Whether, or not, Dewey is on my side of the tracks is not relevant to the point I raised.


She's made a pretty thorough investigation of what a moderator can and can't do...fine and dandy...but then she regales the rubes here with...

when she knows damned well that a private email addy is available to every moderator of the board. If she'd wanted to contact him privately, she could have done so at her pleasure. That doesn't mean she's lying...but it does mean she's warping the truth to convince people of her righteousness in this matter...

PS I note that Josie HASN'T suffered the banning she said she was assigning to him. Think about that a bit. I think it means that my comment to Lib had at least a little effect...or if not MY comment, maybe he's come to his senses a bit regarding aV.It would appear that, that issue has been responded to by A Voice already; but why didn’t YOU try to send him an E-Mail first to prove, to use your words, that “If she'd wanted to contact him privately, she could have done so” instead of ‘regaling the rubes here’ by trying to imply she was/is lying?

[Kuni]

Fuck off Kunt, you whiny little bitch!
What are you the teacher's pet around here?
Go tattle on someone else, Sally!
I don't have a second ID, Dickhead!
And that will be proven, so again, just FUCK OFF!Tattling what? This is not some secret; and the facts are visible and out in the open already.

Some Tards on the fringe get suspended and we all have to listen to real whiners go on and fucking on and on about it.

Read below how a real man handles a suspension:

Hey Mike. Now that we're talking turkey, tell me, you banned me once for "insulting someone's family". Yes, I took it like I man (without pissing and moaning like schoolyard bullies like Tayken or Josie Wales) because I understood the rule.

[Mike]

You were discussing “berserk” and I was pointing out that slack was being cut. The latter would preclude the former.

And I’m still waiting for you to address that. Whether, or not, Dewey is on my side of the tracks is not relevant to the point I raised.


It would appear that, that issue has been responded to by A Voice already; but why didn’t YOU try to send him an E-Mail first to prove, to use your words, that “If she'd wanted to contact him privately, she could have done so” instead of ‘regaling the rubes here’ by trying to imply she was/is lying?She knows that the email is a matter of record, and is available on the moderating console...Why should I bother trying to contact him? You're doing the "hop scotch" on the issue.

Now, lets consider "slack"...Obviously Josie isn't being cut any...she doesn't like him.

Here's a partial list of folks who she claims are using "alter egos", and their deleted supposedly second posting names...
Brujo...supposedly Bubba...
Cabby...supposedly Bubba...
Jefferson...Supposedly Bubba...
Jewish Justice...Supposedly WMM
Krypto...Supposedly Josey Wales...
No. 5...supposedly tayken

Notice anything missing there, Kuni?

In case it isn't occurring to you, let me tell you what's missing...

Its Fair and Balanced...

Has she bothered to check the latest incarnation of FB, here? Has she banned him? Nope.

I know (and so do you) that FB is currently posting here using a different log-in.

Wouldn't you think that a fair and impartial moderator would look to both sides? Once you've actually looked at the issue, Kuni, you might come up with a different conclusion...

PS...Kuni, I just noticed that today is "lefty2"'s birthday...you don't supposed that lefty2 is an alterego...naw...couldn't be...er...could it?

PPS...Somewhere I have a rather complete list of the various log-in used by FB. It's an impressive list. About two or so years ago I sent it to FB when he was tooting about how he could get away with virtually anything...

Unless he's a rather nasty poster from the right, named Josey...

[Mike]

Hey Mike. Now that we're talking turkey, tell me, you banned me once for "insulting someone's family". Yes, I took it like I man (without pissing and moaning like schoolyard bullies like Tayken or Josie Wales) because I understood the rule.

But you never once showed me the courtesy of letting me apologize for it in lieu of getting banned. But I took it anyway.

Now, it seems you're dissing aV here because she not only banned Wales for insulting someone else's family, but also for MAKING DEATH THREATS. Seems I remember something about making death threats a US FELONY (ever hear of such, friend?), www or not?

Say then, why is it OK for me to get banned forthwith by you (wouldn't be because YOU don't like your political opposites like me, would it?:mad:) but aV is catching hell from you for banning guys with far worse crap than I've ever done, even after giving them a chance for her to reason with them first before she bans them?

I'd say you're noodle is a little undercooked here Mike. And that's saying it politely. You wouldn't want to hear me phrase it the way I REALLY want to phrase it, bud!:)

Making death threats? Might want to post a link to that, Jack. Seems beauty is in the eye of the beholder on that one...

NO, Jack...I've never considered the political stand on a poster when moderating has been an issue. I don't honestly recall the incident you're talking about.

Read the post immediately above this one...

Incidentally, Jack...if you think that I have used politics as a measure of the applicability of justice, you might want to check with Lib, to see if he concurs...in fact, Jack, I challenge you to do so, rather than dropping insinuations here.

[dewey189]

Small problem, Dewey, it doesn't matter if you feel threated, it matters if the poster feels threatened. Josey crossed the line - twice - and a poster complained. Upon investigation I had to agree with the wronged party. That's what the job is.This is a tough place. It always has been and it always will be. If you allow the most thin-skinned people among us to define the meaning of the word "threat" for the rest of us, you'll hasten the demise of the forum. It's as simple as that.

[Mike]

This is a tough place. It always has been and it always will be. If you allow the most thin-skinned people among us to define the meaning of the word "threat" for the rest of us, you'll hasten the demise of the forum. It's as simple as that. Absolutely correct, and right on the money...

It's as simple as that...

[Tim]

I guess this is the standard for banning a poster: (From A Voice aka Sam the bartender) Small problem, Dewey, it doesn't matter if you feel threated, it matters if the poster feels threatened.

All I have to do to get someone banned is to "feel" threatened by what they say to me or about me. It matters not that the average or "reasonable" poster would not "feel" threatened - only that I "feel" that way.

Please clarify - is this the standard? If it is, get ready for a lot of complaints.

[Kuni]

She knows that the email is a matter of record, and is available on the moderating console...Why should I bother trying to contact him? You're doing the "hop scotch" on the issue. Why don't you "hop scotch" over to the 'moderating console' and PROVE your accusation that they can be contacted via E-Mail before posting claims that a Mod is lying before continuing to post unproven slander. That's why!

Notice anything missing there, Kuni? Yes I notice that none of those secondary names, with the exception of one, have been used to post with regularly while posting under their primary Nic.

And also I notice that none of those Nic’s was used to post with, when one of the users primary Nic was under suspension.

[A Voice]

This is a tough place. It always has been and it always will be. If you allow the most thin-skinned people among us to define the meaning of the word "threat" for the rest of us, you'll hasten the demise of the forum. It's as simple as that.

Not at all. Someone complains and I investigate the claim. If the claim has merit it is acted on. Often my answer to the complaintent is "sorry, close but no cigar." I have not and will not simply take any poster words that a rule has been breeched.

1.Threatening or wishing harm against other posters or their families, insulting or defaming a poster's family members or referring to them unacceptably to the poster, or threatening or plotting against public figures, are not permitted.

Your immediate female relatives were not victims, Lefty, just ask them and drop my name - but don't tell them where I'm at because some of them think I still owe them money!!!

No you obviously don't, you fuckin' whackjob!!

All you want to do is make it look ugly with your ridiculous and baseless conspiracy theories and uncommon loathing of our homeland.

Don't paint yourself as a patriot you fuckin' loon, you are nothing more than a disillusioned victim looking to blame your country for your obvious failures on this planet.

If you really "give a damn" about this country you should help rid it of degenerate leeches like yourself by blowing your own fuckin' head off! Hell I'd even help ya!!

I think the complaint had merit. So did the complaintent.

[Dingo]

This is a tough place. It always has been and it always will be. If you allow the most thin-skinned people among us to define the meaning of the word "threat" for the rest of us, you'll hasten the demise of the forum. It's as simple as that.

Dewey as the rules are written A Voice's ban was pretty much a slam dunk. As I hope that rule will be written in the future when the revision comes through it would definitely be over reaching.

The rules are the guide.

[A Voice]

Kuni, Dewey is on your side of the aisle...she's never been anything other than a responsible, level-headed poster. Read her comments above.

I'm not addressing the issue of "multiple identities"...I don't know that that issue has been established. From what I read here, the conclusion is premature.

"moderating" is the act of maintaining a safe environment for posting. This isn't a convent, nor a monastery. If anyone is looking for absolute "civility" they'd better look elsewhere, eh? She (aV) stretches the definition of "threats" and the definition of "insulting", to the point of "insulting our intelligence"

She's made a pretty thorough investigation of what a moderator can and can't do...fine and dandy...but then she regales the rubes here with...
when she knows damned well that a private email addy is available to every moderator of the board. If she'd wanted to contact him privately, she could have done so at her pleasure. That doesn't mean she's lying...but it does mean she's warping the truth to convince people of her righteousness in this matter...

PS I note that Josie HASN'T suffered the banning she said she was assigning to him. Think about that a bit. I think it means that my comment to Lib had at least a little effect...or if not MY comment, maybe he's come to his senses a bit regarding aV.
I always leave open the possibility that I made a mistake. So just in case I failed to try both email addys for Josey Wales/Krypto I tried to email them again from my private mail program this morning - both addy's were rejected. In this case there is and was NO WAY to contact the poster in question privately.

I won't be holding my breath for your apology.

I gave the Josie/Krypto 24 hours to decide on which member-name he wanted to keep. He failed to responed so he gets to keep Josey, with one week off, and Krypto is permanently banned.

A Voice.

[A Voice]

Dewey as the rules are written A Voice's ban was pretty much a slam dunk. As I hope that rule will be written in the future when the revision comes through it would definitely be over reaching.

The rules are the guide.

exactly.

[dewey189]

Dewey as the rules are written A Voice's ban was pretty much a slam dunk. There are posters who write comments that are clearly "threatening or plotting against public figures", including Bush and Cheney but they are not banned. A rule has to be evenly applied or it's meaningless. I hope that rule will be written in the future when the revision comes through it would definitely be over reaching.Yes it would, hence the need for revision, but there are times when it's perfectly acceptable to ignore existing policies if they aren't working during the time frame new policies are being worked out. Now is one of those times.

[Dingo]

There are posters who write comments that are clearly "threatening or plotting against public figures", including Bush and Cheney but they are not banned.
Well personal harm is implied there and if a poster is pubically talking about doing personal harm to the president or vice president then they are compromising the board, perhaps legally, and if the matter was brought to the attention of a moderator I would expect the moderator to take the appropriate action.

A rule has to be evenly applied or it's meaningless.
No possible way around here you are going to get perfect equity. A moderator does the best they can.

Yes it would, hence the need for revision, but there are times when it's perfectly acceptable to ignore existing policies if they aren't working during the time frame new policies are being worked out. Now is one of those times.
But we don't know what those new policies are. I was just suggesting a hypothetical new rule. In the mean time it seems odd to criticize a moderator for upholding standing policy.

[Mister B]

Well personal harm is implied there and if a poster is pubically talking about doing personal harm .


How does somebody talk pubically?

And does it cause any harm?


Just kiddin'.

[Dingo]

How does somebody talk pubically?
Oops didn't catch that. I was thinking publically vs. the correct publicly.

Not cool. Thanks.

[Mike]

I always leave open the possibility that I made a mistake. So just in case I failed to try both email addys for Josey Wales/Krypto I tried to email them again from my private mail program this morning - both addy's were rejected. In this case there is and was NO WAY to contact the poster in question privately.

I won't be holding my breath for your apology.

I gave the Josie/Krypto 24 hours to decide on which member-name he wanted to keep. He failed to responed so he gets to keep Josey, with one week off, and Krypto is permanently banned.

A Voice.Since you haven't definitively established they're the same, what good does that do?

The AOL address for Josey rejects (its an old addy, so not unusual, under the circumstances)...the MSN addy for Krypto is valid. I haven't received an answer but that doesn't invalidate the address. With that in mind, why should I be offering you an apology? You've evidently ripped into two posters that you haven't established are the same person, and acted against them both.

Now, about the posting names that FB is using...Is it just those posters you don't like that get the axe? Please don't insult everyone's intelligence that you don't know that FB has more than one "nik"...

Are you intending to take action against both FB and his alter-ego, and if so, when?

[Islanders_for_the_cup_04]

Since you haven't definitively established they're the same, what good does that do?

The AOL address for Josey rejects (its an old addy, so not unusual, under the circumstances)...the MSN addy for Krypto is valid. I haven't received an answer but that doesn't invalidate the address. With that in mind, why should I be offering you an apology? You've evidently ripped into two posters that you haven't established are the same person, and acted against them both.

Now, about the posting names that FB is using...Is it just those posters you don't like that get the axe? Please don't insult everyone's intelligence that you don't know that FB has more than one "nik"...

Are you intending to take action against both FB and his alter-ego, and if so, when?

Speaking of bias.

I wonder if you are using the same criteria for Trent/Progressive. FBWC and Trent both switched IDs. I see no mention of Trent in your gripe where you are trying to establish bias.

Then again here we have Mike who quit as moderator and is releasing IP info to the board. Perhaps FBWC doesn't want it known that he's using another ID after dumping the other one.

I suppose next your going to complain about how the rules aren't applyed to all posters while dissemenating priveledged mod info when you are no longer a mod.

Explain to me who has the agenda here?

[Mike]

Speaking of bias.

I wonder if you are using the same criteria for Trent/Progressive. FBWC and Trent both switched IDs. I see no mention of Trent in your gripe where you are trying to establish bias.

Then again here we have Mike who quit as moderator and is releasing IP info to the board. Perhaps FBWC doesn't want it known that he's using another ID after dumping the other one.

I suppose next your going to complain about how the rules aren't applyed to all posters while dissemenating priveledged mod info when you are no longer a mod.

Explain to me who has the agenda here?That's absolutely false...I didn't divulge anyone's IP and you know it.

If you don't know that FB is posting here under another nik, you're reinforced concrete from the neck up... In point of fact he's boasted about it on HC and defied people to name the new "personage"

Trent/Progressive? How would you know that? Tell us in detail...

[Islanders_for_the_cup_04]

That's absolutely false...I didn't divulge anyone's IP and you know it.

If you don't know that FB is posting here under another nik, you're reinforced concrete from the neck up... In point of fact he's boasted about it on HC and defied people to name the new "personage"

Trent/Progressive? How would you know that? Tell us in detail...

I said IP info.

Liar!!!!!

[Mike]

I said IP info.

Liar!!!!!I know what you said. Where did I divulge anyone's IP information? Again, tell us in detail...

Calling me a liar without pointing out the lie is your usual hollow job...

[Islanders_for_the_cup_04]

I know what you said. Where did I divulge anyone's IP information? Again, tell us in detail...

Calling me a liar without pointing out the lie is your usual hollow job...

Isn't that what you just did. You claimed that I stated you posted someones IP. I never said that. You have a pea for a brain and it's beginning to show.

You posted this;

Now, about the posting names that FB is using...Is it just those posters you don't like that get the axe? Please don't insult everyone's intelligence that you don't know that FB has more than one "nik"...


So FB is using more than one "nik". Wanna provide proof from Hypercites (Now remember, cross posting from other boards is against the rules. I suppose we should make another exception for Mike Who Is No Longer Mod And Gets To Post Stickies And Release IP Information) that FBWC made that challenge?

Still that is not criteria for you to make such a bold claim without having proof. Are you accusing FBWC of having more than one ID at the current time? You did say he was using more than one.

And again, a point from which you ran from. Where is the criteria you are setting for FBWC? It obviously doesnt apply to Trent/Progressive (I know ignorance is more your game than mine but it's not going to work here).

Mike, your trying to win at this game by playing dumb. It's what you always do. You just got caught with your pants down accusing AVoice of bias when you in fact are the one playing bias. Your criteria which you set to accuse AVoice of bias is non existent as Trent is allowed to post as Progressive.

I'd like to see the post from Hypercrites where FBWC claims to be using more than one ID.

[JackTheReaper]

Making death threats? Might want to post a link to that, Jack. Seems beauty is in the eye of the beholder on that one...
Not that you have any right to demand an explanation to satisfy your own unfounded accusations of my (supposed lying, acc. to you Mike) death threats objections, but here's LINK for you. There are others, but you look them up, I challenge YOU to defend Josie with proof rather than putting the burden of those who dislike his death threats you insinuate are not there---

http://debatebothsides.com/showthread.php?p=753255#post753255
TO DOC MERCER---
No you obviously don't, you fuckin' whackjob!!

All you want to do is make it look ugly with your ridiculous and baseless conspiracy theories and uncommon loathing of our homeland.

Don't paint yourself as a patriot you fuckin' loon, you are nothing more than a disillusioned victim looking to blame your country for your obvious failures on this planet.

If you really "give a damn" about this country you should help rid it of degenerate leeches like yourself by blowing your own fuckin' head off! Hell I'd even help ya!!

[JackTheReaper]

Incidentally, Jack...if you think that I have used politics as a measure of the applicability of justice, you might want to check with Lib, to see if he concurs...in fact, Jack, I challenge you to do so, rather than dropping insinuations here.
Your typical false bravado - bordering on arrogance - is duly noted Mike. Thanks for proving my point about your proven, factual lack of fairness.

aV is a fair moderator. You are in error to point fingers at her when your own intransigence speaks louder than your finger pointing at an individual's genuine fairness which you yourself never seemed to have possessed.

[JackTheReaper]

Since you haven't definitively established they're the same, what good does that do?

The AOL address for Josey rejects (its an old addy, so not unusual, under the circumstances)...the MSN addy for Krypto is valid. I haven't received an answer but that doesn't invalidate the address. With that in mind, why should I be offering you an apology? You've evidently ripped into two posters that you haven't established are the same person, and acted against them both.

Now, about the posting names that FB is using...Is it just those posters you don't like that get the axe? Please don't insult everyone's intelligence that you don't know that FB has more than one "nik"...

Are you intending to take action against both FB and his alter-ego, and if so, when?
Not responding to a reasonable response Mike is a typical BushGOP spin strategy. Folks here are wise to this, so this post fails miserably.

[JackTheReaper]

Speaking of bias.

I wonder if you are using the same criteria for Trent/Progressive. FBWC and Trent both switched IDs. I see no mention of Trent in your gripe where you are trying to establish bias.

Then again here we have Mike who quit as moderator and is releasing IP info to the board. Perhaps FBWC doesn't want it known that he's using another ID after dumping the other one.

I suppose next your going to complain about how the rules aren't applyed to all posters while dissemenating priveledged mod info when you are no longer a mod.

Explain to me who has the agenda here?
I don't want to be seen as dumping on Mike, but I can't let this one pass. Mike can't help himself. He blares the speck in others' eyes to hide the moat in his own. Typical right wing spin.........

[A Voice]

Since you haven't definitively established they're the same, what good does that do?

The AOL address for Josey rejects (its an old addy, so not unusual, under the circumstances)...the MSN addy for Krypto is valid. I haven't received an answer but that doesn't invalidate the address. With that in mind, why should I be offering you an apology? You've evidently ripped into two posters that you haven't established are the same person, and acted against them both.

Now, about the posting names that FB is using...Is it just those posters you don't like that get the axe? Please don't insult everyone's intelligence that you don't know that FB has more than one "nik"...

Are you intending to take action against both FB and his alter-ego, and if so, when?

<sigh>

Yes, Mike, I emailed both addys, both were rejected. There is no way for me to contact this person other than publically.

They are the same person, they use the EXACT same IP address, not one or two numbers off - the exact same IP address.

Trent and FBWC contacted the Mods and have informed us of their ID changes. As long as they are only using one at a time and the mods are informed I see no violations of the rules. If you do, please be so kind as to show it.

I almost contacted FBWC at HC and offered to let him come over and say something about Sam when we found out about his death without ID penalty. Then I thought that would be showing favoritism so I did not do it.

A Voice

[A Voice]

There are posters who write comments that are clearly "threatening or plotting against public figures", including Bush and Cheney but they are not banned. A rule has to be evenly applied or it's meaningless.
Mods can't possibly read the entire board. If someone wants to point out a death threat against a public figure I'll look into it.

Yes it would, hence the need for revision, but there are times when it's perfectly acceptable to ignore existing policies if they aren't working during the time frame new policies are being worked out. Now is one of those times.
Ignore existing policies . . . that would go over brilliantly with some of my "fans"

I will enforce the standing policies, if the policies change I will enforce the new ones.

[dewey189]

Mods can't possibly read the entire board. If someone wants to point out a death threat against a public figure I'll look into it.I'm definitely not the kind of person who would do that, A Voice, but I understand one mod can't keep up with this crazy place! Ignore existing policies . . . that would go over brilliantly with some of my "fans". I will enforce the standing policies, if the policies change I will enforce the new ones.I understand that as well. I was reminded of a situation at work where a policy we thought was simply awesome turned out to be really crappy, and rather than wait until we could get together to fix it, we decided to ignore it in the short term. It was a humbling experience, but not necessarily the right thing to do here. Particularly now!!! You are SO right about the "fans"!

[Mike]

The evidence, IMO, is conclusive...

Josey and Krypto are one and the same individual. The banning of Krypto permanently, and the temporary ban of Josey are proper actions....

Consider this a "tendered" apology on this issue.

[A Voice]

The evidence, IMO, is conclusive...

Josey and Krypto are one and the same individual. The banning of Krypto permanently, and the temporary ban of Josey are proper actions....

Consider this a "tendered" apology on this issue.

Thank you.

[Mike]

Thank you.You'd be quite incorrect if you assume that my comment amounts to applause for your general approach to moderating. You obviously don't give a damn what anyone thinks, and evidently you spend hours daily searching for criminal activities and miscreants of all sorts. Taking actions and "investigating"...;)

If you "moderated" 90% less, the board would still run just fine...unless, of course, you expect the place to resemble a slightly upscale tea-room...

It occurs to me, here, that you're "conflicted" a bit on the "tea-room" notion. If you wanted it that way you probably wouldn't -- in your official capacity -- tell a poster here to..."fuck off, asshole", or to tell another "moderator" to "bite me"...

Makes for interesting "facets" of your personality...

[Tayken]

You'd be quite incorrect if you assume that my comment amounts to applause for your general approach to moderating. You obviously don't give a damn what anyone thinks, and evidently you spend hours daily searching for criminal activities and miscreants of all sorts. Taking actions and "investigating"...;)

If you "moderated" 90% less, the board would still run just fine...unless, of course, you expect the place to resemble a slightly upscale tea-room...

It occurs to me, here, that you're "conflicted" a bit on the "tea-room" notion. If you wanted it that way you probably wouldn't -- in your official capacity -- tell a poster here to..."fuck off, asshole", or to tell another "moderator" to "bite me"...

Makes for interesting "facets" of your personality...

I've begun to wonder how in the world did this site run for so many years without Voice's aggressive moderation?