Fair play generally at LPSG

[Spoogesicle]

Hold me...

Is that an open invitation?

 

[vinny_spiruccino]

Is that an open invitation?

Not to you. Yours would be suck me...

 

[Wonderboy]

If you don't get fairplay in the real world how can you expect it on here where members aren't vetted and anyone could be anyone? Nobody has to be nice to anybody. But you shouldn't get worked up about it. In the same way you shouldn't get upset about your endowment, it cannot be changed, you have no impact on it. (other posters, or the size of your cock)

There is no need for this thread. Complaining is futile really. Exactly how much help is a thread like this doing?

 

[DC_DEEP]

Just as an aside... Stronzo, the two moderators that have a problem with me are definitely NOT (I'm guessing from your posts) the ones you think. Actually, I don't think one of them is still active on the board. But no matter.

I've done nothing to violate the ToS, so as far as I'm concerned, I'm safe. Hell, even when I didn't violate the ToS, two of the mods gave me a bargeload of shit. (If I've talked to you on the phone or in person, you aren't one of those two, so we are cool....) But no matter.

The weather sure has been hot here in the DC area, and I'm fighting an almost losing battle against bugs in my garden. I refuse to use strong, manufactured chemicals to fight them - I don't use anything that would give me pause in consuming trace amounts. All natural here. Plain old cider vinegar is a better weed killer than Roundup; a tea steeped from a cigar kills insects most effectively.

The painting I've been working on is almost finished. I'll be glad to get it off my easel and start something new. Anyone care to pose?

 

[AlteredEgo]

Stronzo, I ask you to forgive another slight breech of our agreement. I tried to refrain from responding here, but cannot. I promise it will be painless and respectful.

Perhaps what this thread is missing is illustration, your concrete proof. I think I may understand why you have chosen to make no such illustration, but I do not see how you will be taken seriously enough by some, clearly understood by others, unless you do.

I now return you to our mutually agreed upon silence.

 

[B_Stronzo]

OK, so this is quite telling about which personality type I am. I skimmed your lengthy, well thought out, and articulate post - and honed in on this. These words are like music to my ears; like the sweet aroma of cookies baking; like mommy's kisses....

I love you vinny. I just do.

Just as an aside... Stronzo, the two moderators that have a problem with me are definitely NOT (I'm guessing from your posts) the ones you think.

Yes. I was aware they weren't the same two.

Stronzo, I ask you to forgive another slight breech of our agreement. I tried to refrain from responding here, but cannot. I promise it will be painless and respectful.

Thanks BBS. I appreciate that kindness.

Perhaps what this thread is missing is illustration, your concrete proof.

Those with whom I take issue have all the 'concrete proof' required. The rest of my thread is based in general opinion.

I think I may understand why you have chosen to make no such illustration, but I do not see how you will be taken seriously enough by some, clearly understood by others, unless you do.

I've been taken entirely seriously by those who've chosen to see my intent without bias. I'm happy with that.

I now return you to our mutually agreed upon silence.

When did we actually 'mutually agree' upon a silence? I know you said you'd 'ignore' me. But that's the most I recall.

 

[AlteredEgo]

As for the bulk of your response to me, I'm sure you know what is best. I assure you I say this without sarcasm. It is a sincere sentiment.

When did we actually 'mutually agree' upon a silence? I know you said you'd 'ignore' me. But that's the most I recall.

I began my own wall of silence where you were concerned before the thread containing this post existed, or was even thought of. In it you said we'd part company. (Excuse my liberal editing here.)

...and she and I simply take our strong opinions and respectfully part company.


...There's my peace offering.

I continue to abide by it, except where I think nothing will get further disturbed between us, like here, and one other thread a while back.

 

[Lex]

More revisionist history.

First Webster was bullied away (yes he took hits but in the end, he violated TOS). And let's not forget that he was a previosuly banned member t begin with--a mistake the owner has told us not to make again (since we begged Rob_E to allow him back--oh yeah, I think that was ME --mean, biased me--who went to bat for Webster/Canadea).

Now there was never a truce.

Here is where he offers his apology.

Here is where Bronx first says she won't really accept it as is.

Here is where he insists that she, in fact, accept it.

This is not an attack. Facts are facts. What said was what was said. You (Stronzo) deny many things you say and do after the fact (calling this truce in messages to me and here, thinking and saying Bronx was Zora, going off on people). I am simply trying to illustrate why you may feel bias against you.

How can you discern even application of rules around things if we can't agree on what even happened?

 

[B_Stronzo]

This isn't a sparring match Lex.

And Webster only violated things by removing his posts (this acc. to you) where others remain after doing same as Alex8 has pointed out on another thread. Please remember how he was forced to retreat since he was made to feel so unpopular. You seem like a dreadful bully just now.

And we all 'deny' things and apply the rules selectively. But I'm not a moderator and I was taken to task by you and yours for that which you allow unbridled in others. That's, in total, the inequity I address. Stop justifying your anger to me. I bear you no ill will.

But more topically, why does an earnest effort to make things better on my part seem to meet with only your rebuttal and acrimony? Please stop doing that which you and several of the other moderators sent me a warning for doing. I can't report you to you or I would. So I'll simply ask that you stop.

I'm not going to do this with you anymore. This thread, again, is an attempt at trying to make things better for everyone. I've included myself as a culprit in times past. I know you're mad at me but you don't need to be any longer.

It's over - that piece of it.

Signed, "he"

 

[dong20]

Given the title of the thread included 'generally' and was clearly intended to be taken in that vein you seem to be the only one searching the 'records' and are a lead voice in specifically making this almost entirely about Stronzo in a decidedly negative tone.

...How can you discern even application of rules around things if we can't agree on what even happened?

Damn straight. The three posts you have made in this thread have to me more a veiled assault than an objective retort, you may not see it that way but that's the nature of bias of course, and I don't exclude myself in that.

I don't think anyone is looking for hearts and flowers or debate club rules here, nor should they reasonably expect absolute impartiality on anyones behalf, Mods included. But is it unreasonable for members to expect at least a visible nod in that direction? To me that's all this thread is about. Not about who loves or doesn't love Stronzo.

There does seem to be a bit of a 'blue funk', to my eyes at least and I know I'm not alone in thinking that. When I joined I commented that I was pleasantly surprised at Ego (great when it's appropriate) generally failing to get in the way of reason, that seems to have been a rather less accurate observation of late. I've not been here that long, so may be expecting too much or perhaps it's cyclical and I'll look like an even bigger ass in a few months.

As far as 'fair play' goes, I get a clear sense that as it's only an online board, who cares, that's fine but all I can add is that if one can devalue people and their opinions here, one can too easily devalue them anywhere.

 

[prepstudinsc]

this thread reminds me of nothing so much as the wheelchair-bound retarded kid i once watched at the chelsea piers in new york. his parent/tardwrangler bought the kid an ice cream cone. the kid studied it intently for about 15 seconds, then suddenly slammed it straight into his left eye socket, and proceeded to scream the fucking place down.

That's so sad...and yet so funny!

 

[prepstudinsc]

I like how I high fived someone and did just what they were bitching about in another thread. Gooooooo hypocrisy!

High five back atcha LOL. There's nothing wrong with being hypocritical once in a while :biggrin1:.

 

[Pecker]

High five back atcha LOL. There's nothing wrong with being hypocritical once in a while :biggrin1:.

You're right, prep, repentance is good for the soul.

 

[naughty]

Is that particular gem found in the gospel according to Saul of Tarsus II?

High five back atcha LOL. There's nothing wrong with being hypocritical once in a while :biggrin1:.

 

[mindseye]

And we all 'deny' things and apply the rules selectively. But I'm not a moderator and I was taken to task by you and yours for that which you allow unbridled in others. That's, in total, the inequity I address. Stop justifying your anger to me. I bear you no ill will.

That which you allow unbridled in others is a euphemism for something that you have so far avoided specifying. And by refusing to identify what it is, other people can't fairly assess whether we're really allowing it "unbridled in others".

So I'll specify it: You were issued a warning for a personal attack which we felt was a breach of acceptable discourse. A full week of debate transpired between the attack and the warning, during which we debated the seriousness of the attack and other potential responses. The warning and its wording were the result of collaboration and compromise on our part, and was accepted by all of the moderators on active duty that week.

Do we allow the occasional unsavory insult in the heat of debate? Yes. Our intent is not to censor the exchange of ideas. In fact, we let you get away recently with "You keep digging and regurgitating your same old shit. . . .Get over yourself. It's old. Big fat yawn. [. . . J]ust shut the fuck up. You're a broken record", in the course of a post which, except for the mean-spirited potty talk, contributed nonetheless to the thread at hand.

Do we allow unbridled personal attacks? Nope. The difference is one of degree. You've made it clear through the messages you've sent us that you disagree with where we "pseudo-intellectual bullies" have drawn the line. That line represents the average of ten different opinions -- in many cases, very different.

You've explicitly accused us in this thread of bias without an honest accounting of the events that led to this accusation, then expressed disdain towards Lex for standing his ground and defending himself. As I see it, you intend this to be a thread where you're free to malign us, and we just have to bend over and take it. I'm calling you out for this double-standard.

 

[B_Stronzo]

Thanks. High time. There only exists a 'double standard' in application of your rules. And I don't hold all the mods responsible. I just want you guys to answer for biased behavior no differently than (you imply) the standard to which you'd hold the rest of us.

I was hoping you'd own it finally. The rules apply to all or to none and it's precisely the reason I initiated the "fair play" thread.

Now I'll post the warning so we're entirely up to speed Heath not simply my reaction to it:

Hello --

It has fallen on me to send you this notice:

After discussion by, and upon consensus of a majority of, the moderators, we are sending you this warning based on your post from July 11 which is quoted below.

Instead of challenging her words and ideas, you've crossed the line by attacking the intrinsic worth of the poster as a person. Calling someone 'infinitely unlikeable' and 'an asshole', for example, doesn't address any points the poster has raised, any ideas she's espoused, or any particular characteristics of her posting style. These phrases are just wholesale denigration of another person, and outside our standards for acceptable conduct.

In addition, this particular attack seemed to come of nowhere and was not a response to a post by BronxBombshell.

In this post, you once again expressed your intent to ignore her in the future. On behalf of the moderators, we expect you to succeed in doing so.

Heath (on behalf of the moderators)

Now then; "Assess away"

'Potty talk'?? You're joking. I've seen "fucktard" here as a matter of course nearly daily! Are you serious??

For a recent recounting of similar epithets see the boasting nature of just such comments in a thread where one of your "own" posted about his favorite insult:

http://www.lpsg.org/et-cetera-et-cetera/30791-insults-give-your-best-shot.html

Here's a sampling:

Cuntface Fucktard remains one of my all time favorites.

'potty mouth' indeed........



I'd suggest you ask the same of all posters you'd demand of me - including your moderators.

Let's have a real discussion of 'attacking intrinsic worth' and not leave out a one of us. Not a one.

 

[Pecker]

What ill wind is that which blows?

It is no wind but the fart of the frilled cuntface fucktard. Fetid it settles o'er the board.

 

[mindseye]

I'll stipulate that the warning above is quoted accurately. Attached to the warning, though, was the entire content of the post which earned the warning ("we are sending you this warning based on your post from July 11 which is quoted below.") You've omitted that part from the letter I sent you. At first, I suspected that was a deliberate effort to be evasive about your role in the affair, but upon further reflection, I've decided that you were being considerate in not repeating the attack, for which I thank you.

You once accused me of homophobia because I didn't agree with you that a joke Jay Leno told on his show constituted a "silent holocaust" upon gay people. (And really, how could a joke told out loud be part of a silent anything?) At that time, I considered you to have a poorly defined sense of scale -- a joke and a holocaust are not even close to the same order of magnitude.

Your attitude here strengthens my belief that you have no sense of scale. What made your attack offensive wasn't the presence or absence of any specific word like 'fucktard', but the sheer magnitude of it. You went on for several screen pages to abuse the poster, and with no other point but to abuse the poster. It was ugly enough, taken as a whole, that people not parties to your conflict reported it to us anyway.

You've since exhibited several examples of unkind two-word phrases, and even a few whole sentences, that we've allowed to stand. To you, this is evidence of our bias; I don't find them persuasive.

The thread you've linked to celebrates target-less insults, not directed at any other person. What comparison are you trying to make, exactly?

 

[madame_zora]

I just want to know how you could claim to be my friend, then behind my back start a rumor that I was Bronxbombshell. When I talked to you on the phone, you said it wasn't you who said it, it was someone else. "You never thought of me as anything other than a strong woman". I accepted that, because I hadn't memorised every word on the thread, but later I went back and read it. Guess what? You had admitting it WAS you at the beginning, just as I thought.

Why would you start a rumor like that about a friend, then lie to them about doing it when confronted? Did you think I'm too stupid to read? I mean, it's an insult. Why, after doing that, would you think for a moment I'd care about YOUR feelings? Why should I?

Haven't I devoted thousands of words to your little problem recently, didn't I try? You know I keep PMs, do you really think I'm going to let you paint yourself a victim after this irrational behavior?

What the hell goes on in your mind?

 

[DC_DEEP]

Ok, now I know I can't call anyone "cuntface fucktard." Is "fuckface cunttard" acceptable?

MadameZ, next time we talk on the phone, can we drop the personal-life-conversations and politics, and just talk dirty? By the way, what are you wearing?