Zone1 who is the most outrageous liberal moderator? Why are there no conservative moderators?

I was referencing it in terms of ''you support my position on performing a maude action with regard to this content I want to perform a maude action on and I'll support your maude action action with regard to that content that you want to perform a maude action on'' scenario
Because that's precisely how it goes down.
.

A mutual agreement within a quid pro quo condition ... Based on immediate desires of either party at an Executive level in a Collective ...
Is not, and will never be, a proper respect for agreed upon universal standards or proper policy ... :thup:

I am not interested in how things are ... I am interested in seeing them change ... And I will apply pressure when necessary.
That's how things get done when you are not satisfied with how they currently exist.

.
 
.


It is too easy for the staff to assume you simply have an axe to grind ... Based in your own perceptions of fairness.
Often in these instances any logic you may provide, will be summarily ignored under the auspices of a personal conflict.


.

Forgot to touch on this. While projecting the illusion that someone may have an axe to grind or that there is some personal conflict involved in someone's logic in questioning something certainly is a fairly common defense mechanism invoked to avoid accepting responsibility or any accountability, or perhaps even in the interest of soliciting support in the hope that others in a given faction may accept the projected charge of having an axe to grind to be true and therefore proceed to attack the person who dared to ask in synergy, it is none the less also a product of human nature as much as it may be and often is purely strategic.

Man is a mixture of good and evil, naturally speaking. I'm not validating the strategy. Quite the opposite, in fact. But more so acknowledging that the strategy itself exists and is often invoked with fair consideration to the relevance of human nature.

At times, however, both phenomenon enter the playing field simultaneously, which is particylarly egregious. With consideration to that particular factor, I'll yield, in the interest of, as you'd mentioned, touching on it in a more generic manner.
 
Last edited:
I noticed that the Sink Warrior is now closing threads (in the FZ, no less) and then clarifying the action by taking the initiative to state that ''I am locking as this attacks the few Democrats on this board as well''

The other reason was that ''This thread was reported''

Okay. Well he took the time to clarify to us all that his maude actions are in part because he personally feels that attacks on Democrats (again, in the FZ, no less) are a violation of some sort. Which must be a Sink Warrior modification/amendment to the rule book, I'm assuming, since I haven't seen an announcement made about that anywhere.

But..if a maude feels that it is necessary to invoke unsolicited clarification with regard to why he or she locked a thread in terms of how it affected his or her personal feelings, I, for one, would also expect clarification on what rule was actually broken, rather than just stating that performing a mod action was in part because
"This thread was reported."

Are we closing threads (again, in the FZ, no less) merely because they were reported now?

Seems to me that some folks are getting a little too comfortable being unsupervised and attempts at setting some rather conflicting precedents are being made. Collectivist give and take in terms of what maude actions are taken with regard to what content specifically are not supervision, I'd add) That phenomenon is the root problem! It's why the inconsistency in enforcing the actual rules as they actually are, to favor twisting and bastardizing them in order to placate the feelings of peers in the office thrives.

He's a piss poor mod. Definitely an agenda
 
I do have to admit that I often find myself nonplussed at times by the fornicating national socialists who lack the intestinal fortitude nesessary to reveal themselves as the source of questionable censorship.

It allows the impression of a "United Front" in execution ... And is intentionally ambiguous.
It's the same as attempting to use the excuse of ... "The Mods are allowed to use their own discretion".

That in and itself ... Would speak nothing towards the integrity or worthiness of the Mod's discretion ...
And like the idea of actions taken by an unidentified moderator ...
Is simply a means by which to provide cover, ignore issues, and fail to provide anything of substance to the member ... :thup:
It has been noted here before, but I will reiterate it here again, for those who have forgotten.

When we are responding, or monitoring threads, some of us do not always use the, "warn," feature, which hands out points, and puts notes onto your permanent record. In fact, I rarely do. I had been here for two months before I even handed out my first point. Unless there is really egregious and repetitive trolling and thread derailment, which I see that is being done on purpose, or a person is breaking one of the cardinal rules, I will rarely hit the warn button and put a point on your record. In Zone 2, you are allowed to act like a shit to other members, as long as your post has some content that is unique, and moves the conversation forward.

Now, with that said, as long as you do not make attacks on family, make accusations of pedophilia or beastiality, reveal personal info about another member, etc., if you just troll or your post gets reported for being a butt head, a lot of times, it will just get deleted w/o a warning.

Because of how the software works, we have no option to say WHICH MODS. are deleting or cleaning up threads to keep them on track. In these cases, all we use are the, "delete," feature, and in this, you get that anonymous notification in your inbox.

Follow the rules, keep them on track, and there will be no problems. Now, if you would prefer, you can get a warning and counseling with each and every bit of "censorship," but it will come attached with a warming point, message, and the entire staff will be called into a counseling session on each message, before your inevitable vacation comes due.
 
He's a piss poor mod. Definitely an agenda
Dude I spent all day yesterday bringing a pistol to a carbine match, then recovering from bringing a pistol to a carbine match, and worrying about losing my hearing in one ear when a team mate's sbr
blew my hearing when I was running the timer. Other than enjoying arguing on the internet, that's my agenda.

I specifically noted in the comments other mods were free to open. So all I have to say is :boobies: :cheers2:

Happy New Year Ya Bastads!
 
Now, if you would prefer, you can get a warning and counseling with each and every bit of "censorship," but it will come attached with a warming point, message, and the entire staff will be called into a counseling session on each message, before your inevitable vacation comes due.
.

What I would prefer is that you get rid of the ambiguous software tag ...
Although I thought I made that kind of clear already.

Any additional and possibly unreasonable steps you feel necessary to ensure the members are aware of exactly what happened ...
So, we can avoid any confusion over who is responsible for what ... Are completely up to you.

Not to suggest that what I would prefer is even an option to start with.

.
 
Last edited:
.


Not to suggest that what I would prefer is even an option to start with.

.
Bingo.

I'm not sure it is an option, but then, I'm not administration. Though I do agree with the suggestion, it has been noted before, and irritated many, so, one would make the reasonable assumption that it would have been enabled if anything could be done about it.

I know I've nothing myself to hide.
 
I know I've nothing myself to hide.
We know

220701-flasher-gt.jpg
 
.

That reminds of a message I saw on a chalkboard at a bar one time ... "Staff - 0, Mace - 2"

I couldn't for the life of me figure out where that message was going ...
So, being curious as I am ... I asked the bartender ... He explained it, and it went something like this.

"The Security Staff here had mace to handle any disturbances that had gotten out of hand.
Unfortunately, in the two instances they actually attempted to use the mace, one shot himself with it,
and when the other one on a separate occasion used his, he hit just about everyone in the bar with it, and we had to close down for the night.
They don't carry mace anymore."
... :auiqs.jpg:

.
 
Last edited:
Dude I spent all day yesterday bringing a pistol to a carbine match, then recovering from bringing a pistol to a carbine match, and worrying about losing my hearing in one ear when a team mate's sbr
blew my hearing when I was running the timer. Other than enjoying arguing on the internet, that's my agenda.

I specifically noted in the comments other mods were free to open. So all I have to say is :boobies: :cheers2:

Happy New Year Ya Bastads!

You take it too serious and when you get butthurt you act stupid.

I've made it clear, stop annoying me.and lose your infantile emoticon crap. So childish
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top