The Pink List

[Moonglow]

This forum was built on pink people. Most of the regulars that support this forum hope to see those pink people again.

Only if they have a control measure, like an inflatable butt plug that can be inflated with every infraction...

 

[Derideo_Te]

Who needs vulgarities? The English language has so many varied and interesting ways to communicate what you feel about someone. We can even do it with images if we prefer.

So when it comes to wanting to let someone know that they were endowed with less than optimal reproductive attachments the approach to take is one that effectively communicates the message without lowering oneself to the same level.

In addition there are secondary benefits. Your posts are not boring and the mods won't be looking at you askance!

That is just my 2 cents worth!

For example, instead of saying they have a tiny dick, you can just tell them their reproductive attachments are so insignificant, they can barely be measured with a microscope.

Less swearing that way but still effective.

I prefer the phraseology: Overcompensating for a Short Cumming.

Not up to the job at hand?

 

[Moonglow]

I'm astonished not to have ever been "pink."


I attribut it to my swave and deboner character, and never spell checking my posts.

It is probably the moustache....heh

.

It's the eyes.


Saved his ass more than once.

What did you save it for???

 

[Moonglow]

For example, instead of saying they have a tiny dick, you can just tell them their reproductive attachments are so insignificant, they can barely be measured with a microscope.

Less swearing that way but still effective.

I prefer the phraseology: Overcompensating for a Short Cumming.

Not up to the job at hand?

Never stopped the Japanese....

 

[AVG-JOE]

Let them all back.




I mean, then I won't be wondering who's who and I can taunt them.

That's what makes you 'Ropey', junior.

​

 

[AVG-JOE]

USMB is a great place with some epic discussions and some interesting humans. I signed up here in April, and this is the longest I have lasted on a message board in recent times without being permabanned. One site permabanned me in less than 24 hours. Several in about a week.

This one time on another board, I said that some mental illnesses could be overcome with Willpower. One guy launched a crusade against me because supposedly his brother died from taking my advice. Eventually led to my current IP address being banned for eternity.

On another site, I compiled a list of the creative methods God used to kill people in the Old Testament, and once I reached the New Testament, questioned whether or not the death of Jesus was suicide. Permanent ban.

Two sites banned me for discussing the sensation of taking human life in the military while "serving your country". Immediate forever-ban.

I have discussed all these things with people on USMB and only received intelligent discussion in return. I really respect USMB for it. Although my posts at times seem controversial, or inflamitory, or provocative... and although I have been falsely labeled by some to be a troll, fraud, Satanic mastermind, etc... I enjoy this site and have no intentions of joining the Legion of the Pink... however inevitable that it might seem...


Note to mods!: The rules said not to discuss bans but I assumed that you only meant bans from this site... Please delete this post if I was wrong :-(

It's cool with me...

Interesting, actually.

 

[Ropey]

Let them all back.




I mean, then I won't be wondering who's who and I can taunt them.

That's what makes you 'Ropey', junior.

​

And saving their asses because of their eyes is what makes you average, junior.

 

[westwall]

Suggestion.

Maybe the modulators and or the Administrators could put up a thread explaining the basis for the banning of some members. Maybe it could be a public post lacking the tools to allow any of the non modulators and non Adminsitrators to comment on the "rulings."

This could serve some good purposes.

For example, if I were to ever say something critical of some other member of the USMB posting community using some choice terms -- and maybe doing it improperly in the "politics" forum -- and I know that's highly unlikely, but for the sake of the discussion, let's say "hypothetically" -- it is possible that one of the modulators might consign me and my posting privileges to the Village of the BANNED for a period of time.

In that case, my username would suddenly turn to a shade of pink. But nobody would neces-scarily know why. A modulator posting the reason in the suggested thread could clear that up for anyone interested in knowing what happened to me. BUT ...

it could also serve the educational purpose of advising all the others of the consequences of doing something as horrid as that.

win win.

is mostly subjective. Lack of transparency in the process protects the mods from having to endlessly defend their actions. I suppose that's fair, after all USMB isn't billed as a democratic institution.

There is very little that is subjective and those who are perma banned truly earned it. You folks have no idea how much poo we have to wade through to keep this place operating. We also check in with each other, and even regular bans are almost always discussed before they are implemented.

Bans are our last resort.... They truly are.

 

[Ropey]

Who needs vulgarities? The English language has so many varied and interesting ways to communicate what you feel about someone. We can even do it with images if we prefer.

So when it comes to wanting to let someone know that they were endowed with less than optimal reproductive attachments the approach to take is one that effectively communicates the message without lowering oneself to the same level.

In addition there are secondary benefits. Your posts are not boring and the mods won't be looking at you askance!

That is just my 2 cents worth!

For example, instead of saying they have a tiny dick, you can just tell them their reproductive attachments are so insignificant, they can barely be measured with a microscope.

Less swearing that way but still effective.

I prefer the phraseology: Overcompensating for a Short Cumming.

Roger, but If it was good enough for e-ecummings, who am I to compensate,...

...over?

 

[AVG-JOE]

USMB rocks. Which is why those pink'd want back in. The problem is...did they learn anything from being pink'd and will they just continue on with the same o same o that finally got them that color?

As someone else said..none of us know what made Staff finally have enough. Might have an inkling, but not for SURE, ya know? Maybe what they did was so bad....it can never be forgiven. And for me...I trust Staff to know what is best for themselves and the owners as well. So...if they do relent...or not....I still support them (admin and staff).

Thank you!

We make judgement calls in situations that are rarely black and white. Sometimes it's hard.

We discuss staff action a lot back-stage and nothing is off limits. That's one of the reasons I can still do this. We coach each other. We are also free to act unilaterally in the moment if we feel it necessary but, unlike armed cops on the street, if a Moderator goes off half-cocked, an Administrator can reverse just about anything.


That's why we can serve in both the enforcement and judicial roles, and THAT reduces the virtual paperwork down to 'manageable' with a volunteer staff.

`​

 

[AVG-JOE]

It would be nice if maybe the people on a temp sabbatical were labeled with something other than "banned". Gets kind of confusing not knowing whether or not to reply to one of their posts because don't know if they are coming back or not with that label.

I have only ever been banned from one site and the owner of the site made a very special type of ban status just for me. He banned me, changed my username to banned and blacked out all my posts instead of just deleting them. He was a psycho who thought he was anonymous who started harassing me offsite because I had offended him "personally" so I sleuthed out his real identity and posted it on his site, his rivals' sites, and tweeted it to every single follower of his account.

That's going a bit overboard, ain't it Sameech?

Everyone needs a hobby...​

 

[SmedlyButler]

Suggestion.

Maybe the modulators and or the Administrators could put up a thread explaining the basis for the banning of some members. Maybe it could be a public post lacking the tools to allow any of the non modulators and non Adminsitrators to comment on the "rulings."

This could serve some good purposes.

For example, if I were to ever say something critical of some other member of the USMB posting community using some choice terms -- and maybe doing it improperly in the "politics" forum -- and I know that's highly unlikely, but for the sake of the discussion, let's say "hypothetically" -- it is possible that one of the modulators might consign me and my posting privileges to the Village of the BANNED for a period of time.

In that case, my username would suddenly turn to a shade of pink. But nobody would neces-scarily know why. A modulator posting the reason in the suggested thread could clear that up for anyone interested in knowing what happened to me. BUT ...

it could also serve the educational purpose of advising all the others of the consequences of doing something as horrid as that.

win win.

is mostly subjective. Lack of transparency in the process protects the mods from having to endlessly defend their actions. I suppose that's fair, after all USMB isn't billed as a democratic institution.

There is very little that is subjective and those who are perma banned truly earned it. You folks have no idea how much poo we have to wade through to keep this place operating. We also check in with each other, and even regular bans are almost always discussed before they are implemented.

Bans are our last resort.... They truly are.

(that it must be highly subjective) on Flac's comment re: "INTENSE and sometime COMBATIVE discussions about enforcement". I would've thought well defined criteria for the action wouldn't require much discussion, let alone of "INTENSE and COMBATIVE" nature. But hey, what do I know, I've been around here for about 6 mos. and I still only have a vague idea of what might get one pinked, and I've seen people post the most vile, ugly lies and not suffer any consequence.

 

[flacaltenn]

1) No Discussing infractions, bans, banned members, or specific moderator actions or duties on the open boards.

2) User Titles:
Keep it Civil.
Using the term "Banned" is prohibited in User Titles.

The prohibition on discussing bans, banned members is to prevent the intense DRAMA of opening up poster's infraction histories for discussion, comparison and general mocking.

That would be crueler than putting folks in public stocks and taunting them for days. Moderation keeps good records of our actions and there is INTENSE and sometime COMBATIVE discussions about enforcement. We all come from the USMB Community and attempt to work in a very open and collaborative process amongst the staff.

If you are curious about the process or have issues with the enforcements, PM a Mod or two or three and ask questions.

keep the motives of that action opaque it's usually to protect themselves from negative reaction, not to protect the person affected. In my personal observations at least.

The rule is there LARGELY to prevent any awesome celebrations or troublesome whining whilst the person is not present to defend themselves. And when they return (if they return) we take away that which would be used as a opportunistic club to malign them. Just like in real life --- they served their time. The PROCESS is very discussable. That's why this thread was reopened.

Our resident legal beagle Clayton nailed it on page 1. By the time someone reaches a serious ban --- most EVERYONE that's interacted with them should KNOW why they were banned. It's a Captain Obvious situation.. If it's a big surprise to everyone --- MAYBE --- we screwed up..

 

[Coyote]

is mostly subjective. Lack of transparency in the process protects the mods from having to endlessly defend their actions. I suppose that's fair, after all USMB isn't billed as a democratic institution.

There is very little that is subjective and those who are perma banned truly earned it. You folks have no idea how much poo we have to wade through to keep this place operating. We also check in with each other, and even regular bans are almost always discussed before they are implemented.

Bans are our last resort.... They truly are.

(that it must be highly subjective) on Flac's comment re: "INTENSE and sometime COMBATIVE discussions about enforcement". I would've thought well defined criteria for the action wouldn't require much discussion, let alone of "INTENSE and COMBATIVE" nature. But hey, what do I know, I've been around here for about 6 mos. and I still only have a vague idea of what might get one pinked, and I've seen people post the most vile, ugly lies and not suffer any consequence.

That's because lying is not against the rules, nor is being a racist, butthead, scumwaffle or moron.

 

[Ropey]

^Unless those things fall into breaking of the real rules.

 

[flacaltenn]

is mostly subjective. Lack of transparency in the process protects the mods from having to endlessly defend their actions. I suppose that's fair, after all USMB isn't billed as a democratic institution.

There is very little that is subjective and those who are perma banned truly earned it. You folks have no idea how much poo we have to wade through to keep this place operating. We also check in with each other, and even regular bans are almost always discussed before they are implemented.

Bans are our last resort.... They truly are.

(that it must be highly subjective) on Flac's comment re: "INTENSE and sometime COMBATIVE discussions about enforcement". I would've thought well defined criteria for the action wouldn't require much discussion, let alone of "INTENSE and COMBATIVE" nature. But hey, what do I know, I've been around here for about 6 mos. and I still only have a vague idea of what might get one pinked, and I've seen people post the most vile, ugly lies and not suffer any consequence.

Intense and Combative -- when it has to be. But ALWAYS with respect and the best interests of the community.. It's a serious decision to remove someone who has been a part of the party for years. And every condemned person needs an advocate. By the time
the situation arrives there, mods have often spent a bunch of time trying to counsel and reach problem posters. So there are emotions attached.

and I still only have a vague idea of what might get one pinked, and I've seen people post the most vile, ugly lies and not suffer any consequence.

What folks DON'T SEE -- is the warnings, infractions, and PMs that go out PRIOR to a ban. The LARGEST misconception about the ban process is that if you witness something awful on the board and that poster is not IMMEDIATELY pinked --- Moderation let it slide. Couldn't be further from the truth. Probably 5 to 10 of those warnings go out every day. Nobody sees them but the culprits themselves. If you get a bunch of those in a short period of time -- you can figure on a good chance of getting pinked the next time. Just don't collect a lot of them every year (or month).

Folks also falsely assume that we didn't act on reports or violations because it's still there 15 minutes later. It might take a couple hours to find and clear all the current issues. If you go back later --- you might see a clue that action was taken. Someday soon -- you'll be dealing with a self-driving, poorly socialized GoogleBot without a need to eat or sleep and not ole FlaCalTenn.. And Message Board justice will be AWESOME, VIOLENT and IMMEDIATE !!!! Might even ticket you before you press Submit Post..

We DON'T judge truth or lies, don't restrict content or language (check your local forum rules for exceptions ) .. So if you get NAILED --- it was likely for the WAY you participated or skimped on debate, -- not your opinion or your version of truth/lies.

 

[Ernie S.]

Suggestion.

Maybe the modulators and or the Administrators could put up a thread explaining the basis for the banning of some members. Maybe it could be a public post lacking the tools to allow any of the non modulators and non Adminsitrators to comment on the "rulings."

This could serve some good purposes.

For example, if I were to ever say something critical of some other member of the USMB posting community using some choice terms -- and maybe doing it improperly in the "politics" forum -- and I know that's highly unlikely, but for the sake of the discussion, let's say "hypothetically" -- it is possible that one of the modulators might consign me and my posting privileges to the Village of the BANNED for a period of time.

In that case, my username would suddenly turn to a shade of pink. But nobody would neces-scarily know why. A modulator posting the reason in the suggested thread could clear that up for anyone interested in knowing what happened to me. BUT ...

it could also serve the educational purpose of advising all the others of the consequences of doing something as horrid as that.

win win.

is mostly subjective. Lack of transparency in the process protects the mods from having to endlessly defend their actions. I suppose that's fair, after all USMB isn't billed as a democratic institution.

But it should be objective, not subjective. Everyone here has one or 2 or a dozen people they can't stand. Hell, some of my friends here can't handle other friends or call me an idiot for not respecting their friends... Point is, the mods and Admins are people too and subject to prejudices.
If I piss off the wrong person, he/she can permaban me on a whim.
A list of the banned with reasons and duration for the banishment would give the membership the opportunity to shout BULLSHIT!!!! if they saw an action taken for personal reasons.

Nope! USMB is not a democracy. Ultimate power is entrusted to a small group of people who's names are printed in different colored ink, but red and blue ink doesn't make you any less human or any less bound by the established rules.

Maybe a panel of members, nine, let's say, who could hear appeals and rule on bans longer than a week or 10 days.

And yes, I'd support reinstating all of the currently permabanned that are not gone for the 2nd or 3rd time. Yes even TDM. Hell, I'd even vote to return the late poet. It's a shame that isn't possible.

 

[sameech]

That's going a bit overboard, ain't it Sameech?

Perhaps but his psycho OCD ass was chasing me all over the internet harassing me. He thought he was the master at being anonymous and could do whatever he wanted to other people. It was a teachable moment for both us. I learned to vary my screen names/logins/registration email addresses and he learned that all those little factoids that you drop in thousands of posts add up to actionable information if you piss someone off enough to sort through them.

 

[Coyote]

^Unless those things fall into breaking of the real rules.

oh I so have to have that gif as my next avatar


...except we coyotes eat rabbits....

 

[Ernie S.]

Let them all back.




I mean, then I won't be wondering who's who and I can taunt them.

That's what makes you 'Ropey', junior.

​

I wonder if he ever gets confused and taunts his own socks.