Karma reasons for concrete message

Message

Mooby



    Posts: 1189
  • Darwins +71/-24

She was very insulting too and made lots of false accusations.
Like I said, Maggie is Maggie.

Quote
Anyway, once in a while we see this conflict between the two forums and don't fully understand why it actually happens - we know what has happened and the reasons for it, yet see little point in it - at the very least I don't see much point to it (I can't speak on behalf of everybody else).
I don't think it's really that hard to understand.  There's a lot of bad blood going back to WWGHA1, early ATT, and early WWGHA2, and that was a large part of what inspired the original IGI creators to make their own forum.  (Fun trivia: its precursor was the parody site "Stink Stank").  A lot of the involved members are still active on IGI, and a lot of the members they had problems with are still active on WWGHA.

I was never part of that drama, but I've certainly heard a lot about it.  The bickering was spilling onto WWGHA1 before the walls came crumbling down, and after the mass exodus to ATT the ban stories started to roll in.  I opted to stick with WWGHA, and watched thread after thread sprout up by banned members from ATT who came back bewildered, frustrated, and angry.  I still haven't forgotten the one thread where it was revealed that two mentally challenged members had been banned in the same day.  And just last year I heard from a reliable source how they watched one of those mentally challenged members be "teased" and "laughed at" behind closed doors on WWGHA1.

And then, of course, there are the many individual stories of members who felt mistreated over the years not related to that early drama.  You see, when anti-WWGHA sentiment shows up on IGI, very rarely is it from someone who hasn't been here.  Nearly every single post is from someone who tried this forum and came away with bad memories.  Now, you can write off some of the above as exaggeration or hearsay, and I fully admit that I was not a first-hand witness to most of it, but my point is that this isn't just one or two pissed off parties poisoning the well.  There are an awful lot of people who have had an awful lot of problems with this site, which is why it baffles me that you would make a comment like that.

Not baffled that you personally don't see a point in it, of course.  Moreso baffled in the overall message of what you're saying.  Imagine someone telling a black man, "Anyway, once in a while we see this conflict between the two races and don't fully understand why it actually happens - we know what has happened and the reasons for it, yet see little point in it - at the very least I don't see much point to it (I can't speak on behalf of everybody else)."  The point is that it's easy for one side to slight a group of people and then say, "My bad!" and expect them to get over it.  It's a lot harder for the other side to ever trust them again, especially when the offending parties are still in charge.

So yeah, that probably has a lot to do with it.

Quote
Unfortunately, we get some bad rep from theists we've ended up banning (and probably atheists we've banned too)...but then you kinda expect that. Somebody who's banned isn't going to go around telling people how great the forum is.
I don't know the level of familiarity you have with regards to the stuff I described above, but it sounds like you don't fully grasp the nuances of some of the tensions underlying this sentiment.

Quote
I was a moderator when you were banned (Moderator B01) and I remember the thread in the admin section and the decision wasn't sudden.
Perhaps not for you.  For all I know, the thread was a mile long and started the day I returned from my posting hiatus (which would have made it a 3 month decision).  However, the only time I can ever remember being addressed by a moderator in my four years on WWGHA to that point (2 on WWGHA1, 2 on WWGHA2) was the same day I was banned.  Maybe there were other times that I've forgotten; I don't know, my memory isn't perfect.  But from my point of view, it was pretty damn sudden.  Especially since I was warned I was headed for an ER thread and then signed on to find out that this was skipped in favor of just permanently banning me.  Apparently the ER could not contain the awesomeness of the Moo.

Up until that point, I had spent a lot of my time trying to help other theists get out of the ER by behaving "appropriately," even when I didn't agree about why they were in there.  Frankly, when I returned from my hiatus I was shocked at how efficient the system had become at banning "problem" theists.  WWGHA always had a very anti-Christian sentiment, but this was the first time (that I'd seen, anyways) that it had developed rules that could be enforced subjectively to ban anyone who didn't play the atheists' game.  And I saw it happen again and again.

Of course, the post that got me banned came about because I thought that a mod was abusing their privileges in-thread.  So I looked to see if there were any posted guidelines on what mods could and couldn't use their mod privileges for in-thread.  There were, and what I saw appeared to be in pretty clear violation of it.  I pointed this out to a good-standing, atheist poster on here, and they agreed.  I then looked to see if I had any recourse, and saw a post that spelled out to what extent a member could challenge a staff member in-thread, and built my post accordingly.  (I don't know if those posts are still around now, and I'm too lazy to look.)  I ran it by that same atheist friend before posting, and was told that it was completely reasonable.  We were both pretty shocked when I signed on the next day to a perma-ban for a rule that didn't even exist (and still doesn't, except in the ER, which I never went to.)

Quote
IMO the best forums I've visited work by that mechanic, because it allows a moderator to deal with disruptive situation that's not technically against the rules if you were to use any legal interpretation. It doesn't suit everybody or every forum's goals and that's fine, you can't please everyone.
Well, that's all well and good.  In the future I will keep in mind that when I see a thread that specifically says, "You can do x as long as you don't do y," it means that doing x while avoiding y is lawyering.  That should steer us clear of any problems, right?

Quote
So welcome back to the forums. I hope it works out for you and hope to see all of us getting along.
Well, from what I've heard things have changed around here a bit.  If it's still moderated pretty much the same way then I'll probably get banned again at some point.  I don't have any particular attachments here, so there's nothing holding me back from speaking my mind if I think something smells funny.  If I get banned, I get banned.  Until then, I'll just amuse myself as I've been doing so far.

BTW, thanks to Gnu and you for turning this silly thread into a serious one.  I bet this reply alone has gotten me a fresh new thread in the admin forum.  Yippie!
Changed Change Reason Date
Brakeman Maggie is indefensable - you're doubletalking May 28, 2012, 10:05:47 AM