The CC Community

[BigBallinStalin]

You're recent ban BBS, in my opinion, was justified. However, I believe there have been many warnings and bans that weren't justified. I agree the rules and interpretation of them could certainly be clarified and have not been imposed equally in the past.

I guess. I can't see how people perceive the line between acceptable and unacceptable, and that ban still doesn't make that clear. Furthermore, MeDeFe can't even explain that fine line and its ever-changing circumstances. And, those perceptions are subject to change on even the most minute circumstances (e.g. Rds is more sensitive to the use of words like "faggot" and "muslims = X").

Another problem is that I'm a reactive kind of guy. If I see someone causing a bunch of shit, then I'll dash it back at them (e.g. Symmetry). Obviously, Symmetry didn't like that and put on some great theatrics/hysterics, so I got banned for it. So now what?

(1) Should I be an ass and report every instance of him breaking a rule? Pimpdave did that (and most of his reports may have been spurious), but either way, this annoyed the mods, thus contributing to their bias against him (mods aren't impartial).

So what do?

(2) Make a thread showing instances where particular users are baiting, flaming, trolling (the holy trinity)?
Then I may get banned for calling people out on... breaking the rules? (seems likely anyway given that some are effective at theatrics).

(3) Then there's the whole problem of formal and informal rules. Most of us in here have baited, flamed, trolled within the past 3 days, and to me that's not a problem---as long as the frequency is minimal and intentions are good (i.e. the accusations are baseless).

Etc., etc,.

[BigBallinStalin]

What is your ideal form of the CC Community?

What means have you taken in order to actualize this potential, which you may have in mind?

What means have you taken, other than be a moderator for a day, take free premium from it then run away?

I already went over this in GD.

1. I wasn't mod for a day; probably about a week.
2. I didn't know I would retain free premium after dropping out of modding.
3. My expectations on modding were way too high
3a. the required readings were lengthy yet not useful (which might explain why mods behave as they do)
3b. I didn't like being a mod. The status is not fun, I can't "be myself," and I grew easily tired of people throwing hysterics over the most petty things (thus would not be able to mete out punishment in an impartial manner using 100% of my efforts in understanding each case).
4. Therefore, I was not well-suited to remain a mod.

Kudos to me for being able to realize this in less than a week before I made any major mistakes as a mod.


Is that clear?

[Symmetry]

You could always apologise. The ban, as far as I'm aware, was a chance for you to cool down, but you seem to have used it as an opportunity to get more worked up.

[BigBallinStalin]

You could always apologise. The ban, as far as I'm aware, was a chance for you to cool down, but you seem to have used it as an opportunity to get more worked up.

How do you know that I am "more worked up"?

[fadedpsychosis]

You could always apologise. The ban, as far as I'm aware, was a chance for you to cool down, but you seem to have used it as an opportunity to get more worked up.

How do you know that I am "more worked up"?

empirical evidence

[BigBallinStalin]

You could always apologise. The ban, as far as I'm aware, was a chance for you to cool down, but you seem to have used it as an opportunity to get more worked up.

How do you know that I am "more worked up"?

empirical evidence...

that is based on your own interpretation, which
(1) suffers from your particular cognitive bias,
(2) is limited to written communication, and
(3) lacks awareness of the transmitter's intentions and subject meaning.


Symmetry and all of us have this problem. We impose our interpretations on the meaning of other people's words. In other words, we inadvertently presume to know that which we clearly don't.


Also, it's like the case where if you feel cold, you'll perceive that others are as cold as you--even though they aren't. Likewise, if you feel angry from someone's post, it may be the case that you yourself are angry--yet unwittingly you are imposing your anger onto the meaning of others' words, thus distorting reality.*

*(I'm not saying that you right now ITT are doing this. It's the general "you").

[Symmetry]

You could always apologise. The ban, as far as I'm aware, was a chance for you to cool down, but you seem to have used it as an opportunity to get more worked up.

How do you know that I am "more worked up"?

Empirical evidence.

[BigBallinStalin]

You could always apologise. The ban, as far as I'm aware, was a chance for you to cool down, but you seem to have used it as an opportunity to get more worked up.

How do you know that I am "more worked up"?

Empirical evidence.

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=179401&view=unread#p3917438

[Symmetry]

You could always apologise. The ban, as far as I'm aware, was a chance for you to cool down, but you seem to have used it as an opportunity to get more worked up.

How do you know that I am "more worked up"?

Empirical evidence.

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=179401&start=15#p3917409

Yup. Empirical evidence.

[BigBallinStalin]

You could always apologise. The ban, as far as I'm aware, was a chance for you to cool down, but you seem to have used it as an opportunity to get more worked up.

How do you know that I am "more worked up"?

Empirical evidence.

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=179401&start=15#p3917409

Yup. Empirical evidence.

By failing to back your claims, thanks for admitting that you don't know that I am "more worked up."

So, what was the purpose this allegation, Symmetry? Whatever could it be?

[fadedpsychosis]

You could always apologise. The ban, as far as I'm aware, was a chance for you to cool down, but you seem to have used it as an opportunity to get more worked up.

How do you know that I am "more worked up"?

empirical evidence...

that is based on your own interpretation, which
(1) suffers from your particular cognitive bias,
(2) is limited to written communication, and
(3) lacks awareness of the transmitter's intentions and subject meaning.


Symmetry and all of us have this problem. We impose our interpretations on the meaning of other people's words. In other words, we inadvertently presume to know that which we clearly don't.


Also, it's like the case where if you feel cold, you'll perceive that others are as cold as you--even though they aren't. Likewise, if you feel angry from someone's post, it may be the case that you yourself are angry--yet unwittingly you are imposing your anger onto the meaning of others' words, thus distorting reality.*

*(I'm not saying that you right now ITT are doing this. It's the general "you").

funny, I was just digging through my old logic and philosophy textbooks on those very topics...

while all 3 points are true, I meant it in that the evidence suggests that you are more worked up than normal, not that it is necessarily conclusive of anything. you do seem to be posting in a slightly more heated manner than normal, but as you pointed out this could merely be my own interpretation

[BigBallinStalin]

You could always apologise. The ban, as far as I'm aware, was a chance for you to cool down, but you seem to have used it as an opportunity to get more worked up.

How do you know that I am "more worked up"?

empirical evidence...

that is based on your own interpretation, which
(1) suffers from your particular cognitive bias,
(2) is limited to written communication, and
(3) lacks awareness of the transmitter's intentions and subject meaning.


Symmetry and all of us have this problem. We impose our interpretations on the meaning of other people's words. In other words, we inadvertently presume to know that which we clearly don't.


Also, it's like the case where if you feel cold, you'll perceive that others are as cold as you--even though they aren't. Likewise, if you feel angry from someone's post, it may be the case that you yourself are angry--yet unwittingly you are imposing your anger onto the meaning of others' words, thus distorting reality.*

*(I'm not saying that you right now ITT are doing this. It's the general "you").

funny, I was just digging through my old logic and philosophy textbooks on those very topics...

while all 3 points are true, I meant it in that the evidence suggests that you are more worked up than normal, not that it is necessarily conclusive of anything. you do seem to be posting in a slightly more heated manner than normal, but as you pointed out this could merely be my own interpretation

The evidence "suggests" that because meaning is subjective. Anyone can mistakenly twist anyone's meaning of the others' words into something else. The conclusion is that you and Sym have no idea--which isn't necessarily a bad thing; it's just something I'm pointing out. Perhaps, the issue ITT is sensitive, so people are going to feel more alarmed about it, thus things seem to be more heated than normal. etc., etc.,

In order to avoid this problem, I used to post more facial expression pics, but it takes too long, and the emoticons fail to capture my meaning clearly.



slowly but surely
moving in for the kill
feet don't fail me now


*(that pic doesn't portray my feelings; it's more of a joke within a joke for me. Imagine a soundtrack of that "feet don't fail me now" song as the movie portrays Vikings marching, pillaging, killing, and raping. It may give the scene some much needed levity!).

[Symmetry]

You could always apologise. The ban, as far as I'm aware, was a chance for you to cool down, but you seem to have used it as an opportunity to get more worked up.

How do you know that I am "more worked up"?

empirical evidence...

that is based on your own interpretation, which
(1) suffers from your particular cognitive bias,
(2) is limited to written communication, and
(3) lacks awareness of the transmitter's intentions and subject meaning.


Symmetry and all of us have this problem. We impose our interpretations on the meaning of other people's words. In other words, we inadvertently presume to know that which we clearly don't.


Also, it's like the case where if you feel cold, you'll perceive that others are as cold as you--even though they aren't. Likewise, if you feel angry from someone's post, it may be the case that you yourself are angry--yet unwittingly you are imposing your anger onto the meaning of others' words, thus distorting reality.*

*(I'm not saying that you right now ITT are doing this. It's the general "you").

funny, I was just digging through my old logic and philosophy textbooks on those very topics...

while all 3 points are true, I meant it in that the evidence suggests that you are more worked up than normal, not that it is necessarily conclusive of anything. you do seem to be posting in a slightly more heated manner than normal, but as you pointed out this could merely be my own interpretation

The evidence "suggests" that because meaning is subjective. Anyone can mistakenly twist anyone's meaning of the others' words into something else. The conclusion is that you and Sym have no idea--which isn't necessarily a bad thing; it's just something I'm pointing out. Perhaps, the issue ITT is sensitive, so people are going to feel more alarmed about it, thus things seem to be more heated than normal. etc., etc.,

In order to avoid this problem, I used to post more facial expression pics, but it takes too long, and the emoticons fail to capture my meaning clearly.



slowly but surely
moving in for the kill
feet don't fail me now


*(that pic doesn't portray my feelings; it's more of a joke within a joke for me. Imagine a soundtrack of that "feet don't fail me now" song as the movie portrays Vikings marching, pillaging, killing, and raping. It may give the scene some much needed levity!).

To be clear, his de facto facial expression pic was:



Apparently people take trollconmics more seriously if it's not appended to the end.

[BigBallinStalin]

To be clear, his de facto facial expression pic was:



Apparently people take trollconmics more seriously if it's not appended to the end.

So, since the above post is false, should Symmetry be banned for baiting?


I meant what I say, and I provide my reasoning for it while addressing all questions here. So far, Sym dodges my questions, and based on the lack of response here, it's pretty clear what Sym's intentions are.



Should he banned for trolling?

[fadedpsychosis]

To be clear, his de facto facial expression pic was:



Apparently people take trollconmics more seriously if it's not appended to the end.

So, since the above post is false, should Symmetry be banned for baiting?


I meant what I say, and I provide my reasoning for it while addressing all questions here. So far, Sym dodges my questions, and based on the lack of response here, it's pretty clear what Sym's intentions are.



Should he banned for trolling?

could this post and others in this thread be counted as troll baiting? you yourself have already stated the rules are biased, so you do everything you can to show him in a negative light? all I've seen so far is circular baiting which puts both of you (and probably me as well) in full equal shares in the blame

[nietzsche]

If I had a dime for every time Symmetry asked someone to apologize to him!!!!

I had like 1 dollar

[MeDeFe]

Sometimes I ban people for a day or three when they break the rules.

Perhaps you should ban yourself for baiting?

Been there, done that.
I didn't get a t-shirt, though.

Apparently, you're not willing to hear any criticism. Lemme know when you're done picking up the scattered chess pieces.

I'm not quite sure I understand. Isn't "been there, done that" (with an optional "got the t-shirt") a common expression for saying that you have experience with something another person is talking about? I was trying to convey that I really did ban myself for baiting once.

[Funkyterrance]

Sometimes I ban people for a day or three when they break the rules.

Perhaps you should ban yourself for baiting?

Been there, done that.
I didn't get a t-shirt, though.

Apparently, you're not willing to hear any criticism. Lemme know when you're done picking up the scattered chess pieces.

I'm not quite sure I understand. Isn't "been there, done that" (with an optional "got the t-shirt") a common expression for saying that you have experience with something another person is talking about? I was trying to convey that I really did ban myself for baiting once.

Duly noted, but do you ban yourself every time you bait? I should think a mod would be set to a higher standard than your run-of-the-mill player.

[Nola_Lifer]

To be clear, his de facto facial expression pic was:



Apparently people take trollconmics more seriously if it's not appended to the end.

So, since the above post is false, should Symmetry be banned for baiting?


I meant what I say, and I provide my reasoning for it while addressing all questions here. So far, Sym dodges my questions, and based on the lack of response here, it's pretty clear what Sym's intentions are.



Should he banned for trolling?

could this post and others in this thread be counted as troll baiting? you yourself have already stated the rules are biased, so you do everything you can to show him in a negative light? all I've seen so far is circular baiting which puts both of you (and probably me as well) in full equal shares in the blame

I think the point is that Sym bitched about BBS and not Sym is doing the same shit to BBS. Now what is the BigBallinShitheadallin suppose to do. Complain? Bait? Write a nice letter to the mods telling them that he is being picked on? Should he act like a little bitch whine and complain then ask for an apology?

[muy_thaiguy]

The more things change, the more they stay the same. In other words, yet another temporarily banned poster comes back and demands that the mods explain themselves for banning him, and to top it off, he's one of the older posters.

[oss spy]

You're recent ban BBS, in my opinion, was justified. However, I believe there have been many warnings and bans that weren't justified. I agree the rules and interpretation of them could certainly be clarified and have not been imposed equally in the past.

I guess. I can't see how people perceive the line between acceptable and unacceptable, and that ban still doesn't make that clear. Furthermore, MeDeFe can't even explain that fine line and its ever-changing circumstances. And, those perceptions are subject to change on even the most minute circumstances (e.g. Rds is more sensitive to the use of words like "faggot" and "muslims = X").

Another problem is that I'm a reactive kind of guy. If I see someone causing a bunch of shit, then I'll dash it back at them (e.g. Symmetry). Obviously, Symmetry didn't like that and put on some great theatrics/hysterics, so I got banned for it. So now what?

(1) Should I be an ass and report every instance of him breaking a rule? Pimpdave did that (and most of his reports may have been spurious), but either way, this annoyed the mods, thus contributing to their bias against him (mods aren't impartial).

So what do?

(2) Make a thread showing instances where particular users are baiting, flaming, trolling (the holy trinity)?
Then I may get banned for calling people out on... breaking the rules? (seems likely anyway given that some are effective at theatrics).

(3) Then there's the whole problem of formal and informal rules. Most of us in here have baited, flamed, trolled within the past 3 days, and to me that's not a problem---as long as the frequency is minimal and intentions are good (i.e. the accusations are baseless).

Etc., etc,.

I wasn't on your side before, but I certainly am now. I've been in your position before (and doing the exact same thing) on other forums and it's quite the mess. Thanks for making a better post than most other CC users.

[thegreekdog]

You're recent ban BBS, in my opinion, was justified. However, I believe there have been many warnings and bans that weren't justified. I agree the rules and interpretation of them could certainly be clarified and have not been imposed equally in the past.

I guess. I can't see how people perceive the line between acceptable and unacceptable, and that ban still doesn't make that clear. Furthermore, MeDeFe can't even explain that fine line and its ever-changing circumstances. And, those perceptions are subject to change on even the most minute circumstances (e.g. Rds is more sensitive to the use of words like "faggot" and "muslims = X").

Another problem is that I'm a reactive kind of guy. If I see someone causing a bunch of shit, then I'll dash it back at them (e.g. Symmetry). Obviously, Symmetry didn't like that and put on some great theatrics/hysterics, so I got banned for it. So now what?

(1) Should I be an ass and report every instance of him breaking a rule? Pimpdave did that (and most of his reports may have been spurious), but either way, this annoyed the mods, thus contributing to their bias against him (mods aren't impartial).

So what do?

(2) Make a thread showing instances where particular users are baiting, flaming, trolling (the holy trinity)?
Then I may get banned for calling people out on... breaking the rules? (seems likely anyway given that some are effective at theatrics).

(3) Then there's the whole problem of formal and informal rules. Most of us in here have baited, flamed, trolled within the past 3 days, and to me that's not a problem---as long as the frequency is minimal and intentions are good (i.e. the accusations are baseless).

Etc., etc,.

What is your ultimate goal? If your goal is to have more enjoyment of the forums, I don't think I can answer that question since I don't know what you would enjoy (I suppose I could guess).

If your goal is not to get banned again, I can offer you some pretty sound advice (see below). If you had informed me, prior to doing so, that you were going to create a thread asking users to choose between saving Symmetry's life and cake, I would have told you that (1) Symmetry would have complained to any and all parties willing or unwilling to listen and (2) You would have been banned for flaming/baiting/trolling.

I'm pretty sure you're more intelligent than I am so I'm also fairly sure that you already knew what was going to happen when you posted that thread. I think it's fairly easy to stay on the right side of the rules. And I think you know how to do that. If others are looking at this thread for guidance on how to stay on the right side of the rules and not get banned, the best advice I can give is to think about what you've typed before you hit submit and determine whether what you're about to post can be a bannable offense. I've been around since 2008 and I've never received so much as a warning, even though I post multiple times a day nearly every day. And the only reason that has happened is because when I get angry or frustrated, I don't give in to the temptation. If you want to give in to the temptation, more power to you, but you're probably going to get some sort of disciplinary action. I've had this same sort of discussion with multiple users when I was a moderator and it rarely works, so I post this with no anticipation of anyone taking it seriously who doesn't already use the same strategy with respect to their posts.

[Funkyterrance]

You're recent ban BBS, in my opinion, was justified. However, I believe there have been many warnings and bans that weren't justified. I agree the rules and interpretation of them could certainly be clarified and have not been imposed equally in the past.

I guess. I can't see how people perceive the line between acceptable and unacceptable, and that ban still doesn't make that clear. Furthermore, MeDeFe can't even explain that fine line and its ever-changing circumstances. And, those perceptions are subject to change on even the most minute circumstances (e.g. Rds is more sensitive to the use of words like "faggot" and "muslims = X").

Another problem is that I'm a reactive kind of guy. If I see someone causing a bunch of shit, then I'll dash it back at them (e.g. Symmetry). Obviously, Symmetry didn't like that and put on some great theatrics/hysterics, so I got banned for it. So now what?

(1) Should I be an ass and report every instance of him breaking a rule? Pimpdave did that (and most of his reports may have been spurious), but either way, this annoyed the mods, thus contributing to their bias against him (mods aren't impartial).

So what do?

(2) Make a thread showing instances where particular users are baiting, flaming, trolling (the holy trinity)?
Then I may get banned for calling people out on... breaking the rules? (seems likely anyway given that some are effective at theatrics).

(3) Then there's the whole problem of formal and informal rules. Most of us in here have baited, flamed, trolled within the past 3 days, and to me that's not a problem---as long as the frequency is minimal and intentions are good (i.e. the accusations are baseless).

Etc., etc,.

BBS, I think that you have proved your point to anyone who will ever be able to even see it. That being said, I would appreciate if you didn't get yourself banned since I enjoy your posts. Won't someone think of the children?

[BigBallinStalin]

To be clear, his de facto facial expression pic was:



Apparently people take trollconmics more seriously if it's not appended to the end.

So, since the above post is false, should Symmetry be banned for baiting?


I meant what I say, and I provide my reasoning for it while addressing all questions here. So far, Sym dodges my questions, and based on the lack of response here, it's pretty clear what Sym's intentions are.



Should he banned for trolling?

could this post and others in this thread be counted as troll baiting? you yourself have already stated the rules are biased, so you do everything you can to show him in a negative light? all I've seen so far is circular baiting which puts both of you (and probably me as well) in full equal shares in the blame

So, I can't ask questions, logically defend my position, and provide evidence? Somehow that's trolling?

Doesn't make sense, man.

Yet, notice how I simply asked Symmetry a few questions, how he dodges, and then how he retorts with posts that very much resemble trolling (since we've already narrowed down the other possibilities). He exhibits a predictable pattern, and it need not be instigated by trolling because as I have shown a simple question + reasonable defense gets Sym on edge almost every time. He'll simply resort to trolling, and the mods will very likely do nothing about it.

[BigBallinStalin]

Sometimes I ban people for a day or three when they break the rules.

Perhaps you should ban yourself for baiting?

Been there, done that.
I didn't get a t-shirt, though.

Apparently, you're not willing to hear any criticism. Lemme know when you're done picking up the scattered chess pieces.

I'm not quite sure I understand. Isn't "been there, done that" (with an optional "got the t-shirt") a common expression for saying that you have experience with something another person is talking about? I was trying to convey that I really did ban myself for baiting once.

Perhaps I should give equally flippant posts?

Would that be optimal?