Conquer Club

Examples:

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=87526&p=2029241#p2029241

and

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=175353
















but mostly the first one

I have yet to make up my mind. Nobody else can decide until I am ready.

BBS' thread should be unlocked. It's clearly a joke.

Actually it's clearly mocking the arabic panic stuff, so locking it is kinda sending the wrong message.

nietzsche wrote:

Arab Jesus!!! What would owen say about that???????

Army of GOD wrote:Examples:
https://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewt ... 1#p2029241
and
https://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewt ... 8&t=175353
but mostly the first one

The second example looks to me like another case of a multi coming back here with the explicit intention
of getting other posters in trouble with the moderators (I say this basing it on the presumption that one
of those two multis complained about BBS' post). Lord knows the moderators are perfectly willing to allow
multis to do this.

Haggis_McMutton wrote:BBS' thread should be unlocked. It's clearly a joke.

Actually it's clearly mocking the arabic panic stuff, so locking it is kinda sending the wrong message.

Woodruff wrote:

Army of GOD wrote:Examples:
https://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewt ... 1#p2029241
and
https://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewt ... 8&t=175353
but mostly the first one

The second example looks to me like another case of a multi coming back here with the explicit intention
of getting other posters in trouble with the moderators (I say this basing it on the presumption that one
of those two multis complained about BBS' post). Lord knows the moderators are perfectly willing to allow
multis to do this.

Fuckin A right to both of y'all.


RDS done goof'd big time on this one.

FFS, I speak very basic (Egyptian) Arabic, I study terrorism, and I'm savvy on the up-and-up of such sensitive issues.

It's an unjustifiable lock in my opinion. I sent a (!) thing-a-muh-jig, so we'll see what happens.

Furthermore, there's absolutely no fucking evidence of bigotry in that thread. RDS and the mods should know my stance on Arabs and Islam, and if they don't, then why not ask me to get a more informed judgment? Why do they rely on only their preconceived notions and the well-crafted complaint of a reporter (this is likely to be the case)?

This is completely the result of well-intended yet incompetent moderation, in my opinion. Clearly I'm targeting the recent multis, (which I personally have no problem with), and clearly I've in no way made a thread supporting bigotry. If anything, it mocks the bigotry of the US government in dealing with perceived threats. Do I have to spell out such jokes in an unfunny and dull way?

BBS: Yes...(apparently)...

uh oh, rumbled. i spoke a bit of arabic, knowing that it would unleash BBS's inner islamophobe, and BINGO. reported him for communicating with known terrorist elements.

(or maybe i posted in jest, BBS responded in the same vein and the humourless mods responded in their usual manner. just a theory.)

the only reason i reported you, bishop woodruff, is that you made it so damn easy that it felt rude not to.

iraq lobster wrote:uh oh, rumbled. i spoke a bit of arabic, knowing that it would unleash BBS's inner islamophobe, and BINGO. reported him for communicating with known terrorist elements.

(or maybe i posted in jest, BBS responded in the same vein and the humourless mods responded in their usual manner. just a theory.)

the only reason i reported you, bishop woodruff, is that you made it so damn easy that it felt rude not to.

DRAT! I've blown my cover!

Little did you know, I'm actually an islamophobic terrorist who operates in the true name of Allah, the merciful. All who speak falsely in his name shall perish by the sword, which has been metaphorically interpreted as an explosive device.


Honestly, the underlined speaks depths of wisdom. It is very clever, and I give this user an A+.

BigBallinStalin wrote:

iraq lobster wrote:uh oh, rumbled. i spoke a bit of arabic, knowing that it would unleash BBS's inner islamophobe, and BINGO. reported him for communicating with known terrorist elements.

(or maybe i posted in jest, BBS responded in the same vein and the humourless mods responded in their usual manner. just a theory.)

the only reason i reported you, bishop woodruff, is that you made it so damn easy that it felt rude not to.

DRAT! I've blown my cover!

Little did you know, I'm actually an islamophobic terrorist who operates in the true name of Allah, the merciful. All who speak falsely in his name shall perish by the sword, which has been metaphorically interpreted as an explosive device.


Honestly, the underlined speaks depths of wisdom. It is very clever, and I give this user an A+.

Oh shit, I got screwed by a double agent.

I'd like to clear something up --

There seems to be a belief that if someone is a troll or a multi, then it's presumably ok to troll at them because, well, they're multi's, and it's a joke, right guys?!
This isn't true. Justification for trolling, etc isn't dependent on who's at the end of the stick, and definitely not whether or not you're joking. If you've noticed, BBS is still here, and I would never even dream of banning him for his satirical thread. If I really thought it was bigotry, he wouldn't be here right now.

That said, from a moderator's perspective, we have to think of everyone when looking at threads like that. Satire or not, I'm sure there are other Muslims that use this site, and a thread invoking the stereotype combined with the fact that it was directed at a known troll/multi created a recipe for a lock. Joking about Muslim's being terrorists is a pretty insensitive thing to do, and I stand by the lock.

I appreciate the feedback, though.

-rd

shut up rds

rdsrds2120 wrote:I'd like to clear something up --

There seems to be a belief that if someone is a troll or a multi, then it's presumably ok to troll at them because, well, they're multi's, and it's a joke, right guys?!
This isn't true. Justification for trolling, etc isn't dependent on who's at the end of the stick, and definitely not whether or not you're joking. If you've noticed,

Well, umayyad seemed to acknowledge the joke and respond in kind within the thread. So you'd be hard pressed to call it trolling if both parties acknowledge it's a joke.

BBS is still here, and I would never even dream of banning him for his satirical thread. If I really thought it was bigotry, he wouldn't be here right now.

That said, from a moderator's perspective, we have to think of everyone when looking at threads like that. Satire or not, I'm sure there are other Muslims that use this site, and a thread invoking the stereotype combined with the fact that it was directed at a known troll/multi created a recipe for a lock. Joking about Muslim's being terrorists is a pretty insensitive thing to do, and I stand by the lock.

Eh, I still think it should have been let up (same way as pedophile catholicism threads should be let up), but if you'd posted this logic in the thread to start with I probably wouldn't have bothered to even comment on it.
In the thread you seemed to indicate you thought the OP was actually bigoted. I think that's what got people a little irked, cause it clearly isn't.

rdsrds2120 wrote:I'd like to clear something up --

There seems to be a belief that if someone is a troll or a multi, then it's presumably ok to troll at them because, well, they're multi's, and it's a joke, right guys?!
This isn't true. Justification for trolling, etc isn't dependent on who's at the end of the stick, and definitely not whether or not you're joking. If you've noticed, BBS is still here, and I would never even dream of banning him for his satirical thread. If I really thought it was bigotry, he wouldn't be here right now.

That said, from a moderator's perspective, we have to think of everyone when looking at threads like that. Satire or not, I'm sure there are other Muslims that use this site, and a thread invoking the stereotype combined with the fact that it was directed at a known troll/multi created a recipe for a lock. Joking about Muslim's being terrorists is a pretty insensitive thing to do, and I stand by the lock.

I appreciate the feedback, though.

-rd

Hey, next time I say, "ALL MUSLIMS ARE TERRORISTS," then you'll have a good reason to lock the thread.


That thread is clearly directed at 3 users. And since we can admit that, then how is a joke thread directed at three specific individuals somehow directed at All Muslims? It isn't, and you know this; therefore, that thread can't be bigotry. (so the bigotry reason is incorrect, and I hope you can admit that).

Besides, "Upgrayedd" isn't a Muslim name, so if you wish to be logically consistent, then you should also say, "the OP clearly is using a stereotype encompassing all black people and labeling them as terrorists!" Of course, that would be silly because it's false--as is your argument against the thread.


Joking about Muslim's being terrorists is a pretty insensitive thing to do, and I stand by the lock.

It's directed at two multis with Arabic names. The third is Upgrayedd, who is a black pimp from the movie Idiocracy. Therefore, that thread can't be a joke about all Muslims being terrorists--unless you want to argue that 3 multis with 2 Arabic names and 1 with a fictional black pimp's name must equal All Muslims. Clearly, you're misconstruing things.

Besides, how about you be consistent with this reasoning? Making a joke thread about Creationists being idiots, or Mormons being a disease, or President/candidates being dumb/saviors, or liberals/conservatives being jerks, etc., etc., can all be construed as "insensitive," so be consistent and lock at least of half the threads in this forum. Hey, "from a moderator's perspective, we have to think of everyone when looking at threads like that," so get to it, and start locking insensitive threads.



Justification for trolling, etc isn't dependent on who's at the end of the stick, and definitely not whether or not you're joking

It actually is, which explains why so much trolling and flaming in the forum are actually acceptable to the users involved, which is why the mods won't enforce such rules. Therefore, you're statement is completely false.

People troll and flame each other here all the time, and it's even done in good humor. It definitely does matter "who's at the end of the stick" and "whether one is joking." Otherwise, you should be consistent and lock threads whenever someone trolls anyone--regardless of the person being trolled and his/her intentions, which are the very reasons for your locking my thread. So why not be consistent? Why make us guess when you're going to lock or warn someone?

But you won't do this because the rules aren't clear, and your power is highly discretionary. Therefore, we get dumb instances of moderation which locks threads or bans users unnecessarily. Then, you can back pedal and justify your actions as in line with the vague rules. Then, this highlights how inconsistent moderation actually is, so the reasons for moderation become irrational or arbitrary.


It's "whenever I feel like it" moderation, so don't bullshit us. Just say, "I'm locking this cuz like whatever." As I've shown, my thread can't be bigoted, and the target of one's thread and the OP's intentions do matter; otherwise, you'll have to bullshit us about how being inconsistent is good thing and how enforcing vague rules arbitrarily is great. Just unlock my thread, and I'll spare you embarassing you and the Mod team,

Please, just unlock my thread, and I'll stop embarrassing you.

I've been so moved by your post...that nothing. You're not embarrassing me, nor can you. Tear apart the rules any which way you like, I'm indifferent.

You're right, being a mod is overly discretionary, but taking what I say and merely saying "THAT'S NOT TRUE, RDS!" isn't going to change what's happened.

Also, as I said, regardless of who it's directed at, other people browse the site. Borderline/satirical bigoted statements (note: not implying you're a bigot) are frowned upon in satire. The hardest part about being a moderator is that I don't browse the whole site 24/7 and end up seeing every post, so we seem even more inconsistent. I understand this problem and try to resolve it, and don't mind taking the heat when something falls through the cracks.

I still don't know what you're really upset about, though. You a) didn't receive any disciplinary measures and b) are making a tirade out of a simple lock. You're getting way too hyped about this, man.

Then again, I guess that's what the internet's for....

-rd

FIGHT THE SYSTEM MAAAANNNNN ITS DRAGING YOU DOOOOWWWWWN

Lootifer wrote:FIGHT THE SYSTEM MAAAANNNNN ITS DRAGING YOU DOOOOWWWWWN

RRAAAHAHAHHAHAHAAAAAHHH!!!!

rdsrds2120 wrote:

Lootifer wrote:FIGHT THE SYSTEM MAAAANNNNN ITS DRAGING YOU DOOOOWWWWWN

RRAAAHAHAHHAHAHAAAAAHHH!!!!

Y U BAN DIBBUN RDS?

For being a pooh pooh head I heard; new amendment to the CC fine print I think you'll find.

rdsrds2120 wrote:I've been so moved by your post...that nothing. You're not embarrassing me, nor can you. Tear apart the rules any which way you like, I'm indifferent.

You're right, being a mod is overly discretionary, but taking what I say and merely saying "THAT'S NOT TRUE, RDS!" isn't going to change what's happened.

Of course it won't. I can prove to everyone that your entire reasoning is flawed, but it won't matter because you and the mods don't have to be logical. Ultimately, they enforce law arbitrarily, which is the most reckless and foolish way to moderate. Nevertheless, the only effective means for us to hold the mods accountable is by calling out their bullshit.

As long as I can show that your position is a bunch of bullshit, then I'm completely correct in calling it bullshit. Unlike numerous mods, I'm concerned about doing the right thing, being honest with others and with myself, and seeking the truth. Many mods fail to exemplify these standards--which is apparent with their shifting tactics to justify their bullshit, their failure to adhere to any logical standards after a short criticism from the accused, etc.

rdsrds2120 wrote:Also, as I said, regardless of who it's directed at, other people browse the site. Borderline/satirical bigoted statements (note: not implying you're a bigot) are frowned upon in satire. The hardest part about being a moderator is that I don't browse the whole site 24/7 and end up seeing every post, so we seem even more inconsistent. I understand this problem and try to resolve it, and don't mind taking the heat when something falls through the cracks.

-rd

I can't argue against sloppy and ever shifting reasoning. First, it was "BIGOTRY!!," then it was "MISCONSTRUED AS BIGOTRY EVEN THOUGH IT ISN"T BIGOTRY BUT LIKE WAHTEVER!" with a side order of "insensitive" and "intentions and targeted users don't matter even though they clearly do."

Now, it's "well I don't have enough time to do a good job as moderator." And, "honestly, you're right; I don't apply my reasoning consistently because the law is enforced arbitrarily"; therefore, "the lock is justified and will remain."


It is clear to everyone that your position sits atop one giant and rapidly expanding pile of steaming bullshit.



What's even funnier is that anyone can point out that a moderator's allegations are false, and that the mod's reasoning is inconsistent and arbitrary; however, since the mod is too prideful, he/she will almost always fail to admit that a mistake was made on their part. It's called power-tripping, and you're well on your trip to PowerLand, baby.

I still don't know what you're really upset about, though. You a) didn't receive any disciplinary measures and b) are making a tirade out of a simple lock. You're getting way too hyped about this, man.

"I'm perfectly calm, dude."

I'll call you out on your bullshit whenever I see it and and in whatever form it may be. It doesn't matter who you or the mods are bullshitting because hardly anyone deserves the consequences made from foolish and reckless decision-making of any mod. Make threats via PM, belittle the seriousness of your mistake, and make as many excuses as you like, but I'm here for the Users, and the Users are what matter.








Well, that was fun. I hope everyone enjoyed themselves. This concludes Act I: Shit Gets Real. Act 2 may take a more lulz approach until the mistakes are acknowledged, accusations of bigotry are forgiven, and the thread is unlocked.

HAH! Dont make me laugh, you're about as William Wallace as Romney would make a good prez.

Lootifer wrote:HAH! Dont make me laugh, you're about as William Wallace as Romney would make a good prez.

Ah, the traitorous cavalry chieftain makes a joke. My good man, you're a Communist, and Communists are always wrong.

BigBallinStalin wrote:

Lootifer wrote:HAH! Dont make me laugh, you're about as William Wallace as Romney would make a good prez.

Ah, the traitorous cavalry chieftain makes a joke. My good man, you're a Communist, and Communists are always wrong.

THAT SHOT ACCROSS THE BOW OF THE MOTHERLAND WILL NOT GO UNNOTICED YOU SCURVY SHIESTER!

PREPARE FOR WARFARE!

rds needs to get laid