07 Jun, 2010, Asylumius wrote in the 81st comment:
Votes: 0
David Haley said:
"THEY CAME FIRST for the Communists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist.

THEN THEY CAME for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist.

THEN THEY CAME for the Jews,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.

THEN THEY CAME for me
and by that time no one was left to speak up."


Really? Drama queen much? Did you borrow that card from Samson or do you have your own?
07 Jun, 2010, Cratylus wrote in the 82nd comment:
Votes: 0
Asylumius said:
David Haley said:
"THEY CAME FIRST for the Communists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist.

THEN THEY CAME for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist.

THEN THEY CAME for the Jews,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.

THEN THEY CAME for me
and by that time no one was left to speak up."


Really? Drama queen much? Did you borrow that card from Samson or do you have your own?


Double hostile. Would this get you banned on IMC2?

-Crat
07 Jun, 2010, Asylumius wrote in the 83rd comment:
Votes: 0
Cratylus said:
Asylumius said:
David Haley said:
"THEY CAME FIRST for the Communists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist.

THEN THEY CAME for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist.

THEN THEY CAME for the Jews,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.

THEN THEY CAME for me
and by that time no one was left to speak up."


Really? Drama queen much? Did you borrow that card from Samson or do you have your own?


Double hostile. Would this get you banned on IMC2?

-Crat


Who knows. Luckily this isn't IMC2 and therefore my actions here have zero implications on IMC2, and vice versa. :biggrin:
08 Jun, 2010, Lobotomy wrote in the 84th comment:
Votes: 0
So, to keep harping on the issue, how about adding an opt-out for the IMC chat box already? :mad:
08 Jun, 2010, Kline wrote in the 85th comment:
Votes: 0
Lobotomy said:
So, to keep harping on the issue, how about adding an opt-out for the IMC chat box already? :mad:


You already have a few, listed in no particular order.

* Stop using the site
* Filter via AdBlock
* Filter via Noscript
* Filter via thing Tyche linked (sorry too lazy to dig up the name from his post)
08 Jun, 2010, Lobotomy wrote in the 86th comment:
Votes: 0
kline said:
* Stop using the site

I will eventually, again, but I figured I'd at least try and appeal to reason a few more times before it comes to that.

kline said:
* Filter via AdBlock
* Filter via Noscript
* Filter via thing Tyche linked (sorry too lazy to dig up the name from his post)

Why is it that the reaction to my request is that I'm somehow asking the Mudbytes admins to build a solid-gold and diamond-encrusted stairway to the fucking moon? It's a tiny, miniscule configuration option that can't possibly take any more than a mere fraction of the time and effort that the entire IMC chatbox took to create and that should have been added from the very beginning anyways. Are Davion and Kiasyn really that helpless without Samson around?
08 Jun, 2010, Igabod wrote in the 87th comment:
Votes: 0
I personally am amazed that after 3 days of not being on here we have 10 more pages of shit than when I left. And the funniest thing is, this shit isn't even related to the main topic of the original post. All this shit about Crat being banned on IMC is a completely different conversation and should thus be moved into it's own thread. The topic of discussion in this thread is the IMC window on the front page, which has already been fixed at least partially. Any further discussion on this thread should be dedicated to how we could improve this new feature, not on whether or not Crat should have been banned yet again.

Hey moderators, isn't it part of your job to recognize thread derailments and create new threads then move unrelated posts into the correct threads? This is one huge clusterfuck of thread derailment and needs some immediate moderator attention.
08 Jun, 2010, flumpy wrote in the 88th comment:
Votes: 0
It was Davion who mentioned the cratban on here, no one else brought it up afaicr.

I simply responded.

I think the thread only got derailed for a couple of posts* and looks like its back on topic now.



*ok, quite a few more than I remember… Must've missed a few ;)
08 Jun, 2010, Igabod wrote in the 89th comment:
Votes: 0
Lets put it this way, the largest percentage of things on the last 10 pages are related to "poor moderation/admin behavior" and "cratban 2010" there are maybe a few which relate to the topic at hand but those are easilly lost in all this clutter. I think my call for moderator action is still warranted here.
08 Jun, 2010, Koron wrote in the 90th comment:
Votes: 0
Lobotomy said:
Why is it that the reaction to my request is that I'm somehow asking the Mudbytes admins to build a solid-gold and diamond-encrusted stairway to the fucking moon? It's a tiny, miniscule configuration option that can't possibly take any more than a mere fraction of the time and effort that the entire IMC chatbox took to create and that should have been added from the very beginning anyways.

This.

Seriously, it would take probably the same amount of effort for an admin type to code this change into the site officially as it would for one user to go and pull it out locally. (Hell, you could probably assign that task to someone who's never touched code and they could still manage it within the week.) It makes more sense to make the change server side so we don't have to deal with answering the "how I remove chatbox kthx?" questions.
08 Jun, 2010, Koron wrote in the 91st comment:
Votes: 0
Igabod said:
Hey moderators, isn't it part of your job to recognize thread derailments and create new threads then move unrelated posts into the correct threads? This is one huge clusterfuck of thread derailment and needs some immediate moderator attention.

I'm inclined to suggest that it isn't. Each one of us can do this without moderator intervention. There's a "spawn" button at the top of every post. If you feel the current thread has been irreparably derailed, why not spawn a new one that can go back to being more on-topic?
08 Jun, 2010, Confuto wrote in the 92nd comment:
Votes: 0
Igabod said:
Hey moderators, isn't it part of your job to recognize thread derailments and create new threads then move unrelated posts into the correct threads? This is one huge clusterfuck of thread derailment and needs some immediate moderator attention.


This request relies on two assumptions:
a) That the mods visit the forums.
b) That they care.
That these assumptions are flawed should be self-evident.
08 Jun, 2010, Runter wrote in the 93rd comment:
Votes: 0
Quote
Double hostile. Would this get you banned on IMC2?


Only if the comments are directed at administration.
08 Jun, 2010, Orrin wrote in the 94th comment:
Votes: 0
I've tried to split this as best I can. The new thread is here.

Regarding the complaints about not splitting the thread, I can only speak for myself and not the other mods of course, but while I visit the forum every day I don't always read through every thread. If you want to request a thread be split or some other moderator action it's probably best to send a PM rather than post in the thread as I'll automatically give those more attention.
08 Jun, 2010, Igabod wrote in the 95th comment:
Votes: 0
Koron said:
Igabod said:
Hey moderators, isn't it part of your job to recognize thread derailments and create new threads then move unrelated posts into the correct threads? This is one huge clusterfuck of thread derailment and needs some immediate moderator attention.

I'm inclined to suggest that it isn't. Each one of us can do this without moderator intervention. There's a "spawn" button at the top of every post. If you feel the current thread has been irreparably derailed, why not spawn a new one that can go back to being more on-topic?


Ah, my mistake. I wasn't quite fully aware of the spawn button. I mean, I see it all the time but I never actually put any thought into what it does. Thanks for informing me, I'll make use of it if I see any need in the future. This doesn't remove and relocate the posts in question though does it? If not then it doesn't quite serve the purpose I had in mind.
08 Jun, 2010, shasarak wrote in the 96th comment:
Votes: 0
quixadhal said:
There's one slight difference. Shasarak targeted his offensiveness directly at me. Thus, *I* am the only one who has any right to be offended. That's my choice. If anyone else is offended, they should stick their fingers in their ears and sing Ting-a-ling-a-loo, because it wasn't aimed at them.

Well, that's obviously quite wrong. :tongue:

To see why, think in terms of physical rather than emotional injury. If I beat you up, would you suggest that it is totally inappropriate for anyone other than you to intervene or even pay attention to what is happening, simply because they are not the target of my attack? And does it make a significant difference whether I hit you over the head with a tree-branch or a baton?

Of course an emotional or verbal assault is likely to be much less damaging than a physical one, but the difference is quantitative rather than qualitative: there is still an intent to cause harm; what the attacker has done or said is still morally wrong; it makes relatively little difference which verbal instrument is used to cause the upset; and for bystanders to intervene (assuming they can do so without significant risk to themselves) is not merely acceptable but actively desirable.

The fact that any particular word is used does not, in itself, justify intervention; but if the intent of the person who uses a particular word is to cause upset, it is similarly quite right that others should intervene to prevent a reoccurrence.

To extend the analogy, if I cause you harm through negligence rather than intentionally (for example, by driving too fast after having drunk half a bottle of vodka) then even though I did not set out to harm you, it is quite right that others should intervene to prevent me from driving in this manner, even if they themselves were not directly injured as a consequence. In the same way, if I am engaging in behaviour which is likely to cause significant upset in other people, it may very well be justified for others to intervene, even they themselves are not harmed.

Of course, a balance needs to be struck. It is probably not reasonable to ban anyone from ever driving at any time on the grounds that they might hurt someone - the negative consequences of that decision would (arguably) outweigh the benefits. However, it is entirely reasonable to assess, under various different circumstances, what the risk of causing injury is, and implement rules or laws which prevent or restrict driving by varying degrees under those conditions. For example, it is probably reasonable to have laws against drink-driving; for at least some roads to have legally-enforced speed limits; and for the speed-limit to vary depending on the type of road. (I think a speed limit of 20mph is residential areas would be very reasonable; a speed-limit of 20mph on a Formula One race-track would not be).

Similarly, there is a balance to be struck when it comes to policing Internet postings. It is entirely appropriate for certain forms of language to be restricted in certain areas, depending on who is likely to be reading it, and on how inconvenient the restriction is to the area's primary function. It is unlikely that banning the use of the word "nipple" would be a wise decision in a forum dedicated to breast-feeding; the "loss" of the word would be less significant in a forum dedicated to playing dominoes; and different audiences are more or less likely to be upset by different things, and it is right for the rules should reflect that.

As I said, there is a balance to be struck, and often offending a minority may well be preferable to the supression of free expression; but if you don't care at all about whether or not people are upset by what you do and say, that means you're an unpleasant, uncaring person.
08 Jun, 2010, Cratylus wrote in the 97th comment:
Votes: 0
In any case, programmatic nannifying appears suboptimally implemented.

-Crat
08 Jun, 2010, quixadhal wrote in the 98th comment:
Votes: 0
I had a nice long reply typed in, and then I remembered that I said I wasn't going to feed the drama llama any more, because they're getting fat and it's not healthy.

Yes, I called you guys fat. Be offended if you like. :devil:
80.0/98