Mitchymo Banned???

Status
Not open for further replies.

Mem

Sexy Member
Joined
Jul 4, 2006
Posts
7,912
Media
0
Likes
54
Points
183
Location
FL
Sexuality
99% Gay, 1% Straight
Gender
Male
"Welcome to Fight Club. The first rule of Fight Club is: you do not talk about Fight Club. The second rule of Fight Club is: you DO NOT talk about Fight Club!..."

The tallies of the votes in Mod actions must reach a certain number for the action (ANY action) to occur. Many votes, but ONE result. As Mods, no matter how much we disagreed with an action, we are supposed to stand behind that ONE result. If Mods were allowed to express, "Well, *I* didn't vote for it", then by elimination, it would be easy to find out who DID vote for it, and make them targets. As a bad analogy, in an execution by firing squad, it was sometimes a practice for all of the guns but one, to be loaded with blanks, and randomly distributed. The idea that no one man carried the burden of guilt in the execution. They all carried the same responsibility in the matter. As Mods, we're supposed to buck up to that same idea. Even if we hate the decision, it's done by an approved percentage, so we agree to stand by the decision together. When you become a former Mod, you're supposed to maintain discretion on matters from your tenure.

Some may call you a hypocrite. You were always against the Mods, but once you are accepted you change and are a team player. Selling out for so little really, shows weak character.

I admire Mitchy, Mr. Snakey and others for walking away rather than letting the Mod duties change who they are.

I also admire the ones who stay and don't let it change them.
 
Last edited:
7

798686

Guest
Mitchy was a long time member, and his personality and behavior were no secret to the Mods here, yet I understood that they "recruited" him for the Mod position, yet BAN him when he excercises the behavior he was known for.
Going by what's been written (by Mitch and others) he decided to step down as a mod. It also seems like he was banned for talking about private stuff - not for exercising the behaviour he was known for?

I've got a cool idea tho - maybe we can re-ban Patchos and swap her for Mitchy? :biggrin1: (sorry P)
 

helgaleena

Sexy Member
Joined
Sep 8, 2006
Posts
5,475
Media
7
Likes
43
Points
193
Location
Wisconsin USA
Sexuality
50% Straight, 50% Gay
Gender
Female
Just because it shows the person is online does not mean they can post. They are free to read, like anyone else on the net.

I am heartened that his name is still here at all. That means he might be unbanned someday.
 

ManlyBanisters

Sexy Member
Joined
Mar 19, 2007
Posts
12,253
Media
0
Likes
58
Points
183
Just because it shows the person is online does not mean they can post. They are free to read, like anyone else on the net.

I am heartened that his name is still here at all. That means he might be unbanned someday.

But when you are banned you can't log in, h. At all. Can't even read the site unregistered until you clear cookies.

There's a light....(Over at the Frankenstein place).....

There's a li-hi-hi-hi-hii-i-i-iiiight (burning in the fire place)... :smile:
 

HazelGod

Sexy Member
Joined
Dec 11, 2006
Posts
7,154
Media
1
Likes
31
Points
183
Location
The Other Side of the Pillow
Sexuality
99% Straight, 1% Gay
Gender
Male
The decision to remove him was based on his having crossed the line in discussing the voting of the team. If faith is lost in a member of the team, or ex member of the team to the point where confidential information is being posted on the main forum, there is no other choice but to remove said member.

The mod forum contains reports, PMs and emails sent to us by members both former and current, many of which contain personal information of those members and members they are discussing. It would be wholly irresponsible to knowingly leave someone on the board who has shown that he can't be trusted...

Indy, I've long respected your levelheadedness and tendency for reason, but I must say this is stupid. Again, you all collectively need to pull your heads from out your own asses and gain some sense of perspective on what you're doing here. No choice but to remove said member? Who are you kidding? You have all the power imaginable on this site to use your own intelligence and evaluate circumstances individually and determine appropriate action accordingly.

Confidential information publicly exposed, indeed...what a crock. :rolleyes: That bullshit rationalization sounds exactly like what it is. In full disclosure, I tend to think mitchymo was pretty much a whiny douche who posted far too many insipid "questions" about things that are patently obvious to those of us born with the ability to use more than half our brains...but this tripe about his being untrustworthy with the super-duper ultra-mega secret information stores you moderators are privy to is utterly laughable. The only "secret" he revealed is...shock! horror!...there is disagreement amongst the moderator team.

You lot really need to get over yourselves. You aren't the Secret Service, tasked with guarding the president, and you aren't the Rosicrucians keeping the mystic secrets of the universe. Deflate your heads, get down off your high horses, and come back to the realization that you're moderators of a handful of discussion forums on a web site centered around large penes. Nothing more.


As a bad analogy, in an execution by firing squad...
As Mods, we're supposed to buck up to that same idea. Even if we hate the decision, it's done by an approved percentage, so we agree to stand by the decision together. When you become a former Mod, you're supposed to maintain discretion on matters from your tenure.

Horrid analogy, actually...there's certainly nothing even approaching the gravity of life and death about this website. The notion of totalitarian governing solidarity went out of vogue centuries ago, by the way. It's a fundamentally flawed and inherently stupid notion that nobody with any modicum of critical reason can be expected to believe.

A much better analogy for your function is that of an appellate court. You are tasked with interpreting actions and behaviors with respect to established policy...and from the lowest district courts all the way up to the Supreme, there is no expectation to maintain any illusion of solidarity amongst the justices. Each is expected to evaluate arguments independently to arrive at his decision, and each often pens his own opinions whether it concurs with or dissents from the collective majority. To expect the moderators here to maintain a façade of unity in thought and action is unrealistically stupid, and to expect the membership to believe in such a charade insults their general level of intelligence as thinking individuals.

All of you need to learn from your mistakes and those around you...get over the completely unwarranted sense of importance you've assigned to both yourselves and to this place, and stop trying to police the expressive content of the membership.
 

B_dxjnorto

Expert Member
Joined
Apr 22, 2006
Posts
6,876
Media
0
Likes
206
Points
193
Location
Southwest U.S.
Sexuality
69% Gay, 31% Straight
Gender
Male
there is no expectation to maintain any illusion of solidarity amongst the justices. Each is expected to evaluate arguments independently to arrive at his decision,... All of you need to learn from your mistakes and those around you.
The Lord giveth.
In full disclosure, I tend to think mitchymo was pretty much a whiny douche who posted far too many insipid "questions" about things that are patently obvious to those of us born with the ability to use more than half our brains.
And the Lord taketh away.
 

D_Jared Padalicki

Account Disabled
Joined
Mar 8, 2008
Posts
7,709
Media
0
Likes
164
Points
133
Novice, you know that I do and have always liked and respected you, but I want to point out that as a Mod, publicly, he DID respect the code of "stand by the decision", and to my knowledge never publicly disagreed with it.

Admin wants to warn him? Fine!

Banning? Poor decision :tdown:

someone needs to swallow their pride and admit that they made a quick judgement mistake

Good answer
 

Northland

Sexy Member
Joined
Oct 22, 2007
Posts
5,924
Media
0
Likes
39
Points
123
Sexuality
No Response
http://www.lpsg.org/2639507-post471.html

Dear Pecker,

I don't understand. And I thought you were so welcoming... :sad:

I have been thinking hard on it too, as well as combing Mithcy's last posts for things that might be falsehoods, and came up only with mere opinions. Your post says he said something untrue about the mods, or at least implies that.

A permanent banning makes his opinions seem more like fact than otherwise. If I were a mod, I would let him back in the moment he asks... because otherwise, it makes the mods look Very biased.
Nobody really has an understanding of it and Pecker is remaining disgustingly silent through all of this.

It shows him as being online right now, but the "banned" banner is still showing under his name.
It's because they are weasels and I don't mean like the garden weasel tool.


A few weeks ago, I noticed that the light was on by Jason_els, he had died a few weeks before. When I questioned them, they said they were in the process of closing his account- what? Reading his mail, checking for any comments from members against them? It would not surprise me in the least if the same happened here. If you have messages and want them saved, place them in a safe site away from here. Make a copy and send it to your e-mail for storage.

If on the other hand, the account was open for a time so mitchymo could gather his items (photos, pms which meant something to him) then it would benefit the moderators to so indicate.

Back to disgraceful moderator actions: (no names or genders will be listed, to maintain the moderator privacy)

Some months back, I had sent a pm to a moderator. I waited several days, no response, sent a second pm, waited, no response.

I then opened a thread in the Q&A (where you must be a registered and signed on member to be viewing)asking about a PM and why I hadn't received a response. Days passed, the moderator responded, various members threw in their comments, some not good. There was even a snide comment from a moderator (not the one I'd been trying to get hold of), which is important when placed in context of the chain of events which happened after.

The moderator and I apologized, they for the delay, myself for not having waited and then being snippy. That was resolved on September 1, 2009. Days later on September 7, 2009 I received the following from a moderator- mind you this was 6 days later!

"Dear Northland.

Following on from your thread regarding not receiving a reply to a PM from a Moderator I am writing to tell you that it was not well received by the Moderating team.

There could have been many reasons why you did not receive a quick reply and there are many ways in which you could have dealt with it. To our minds you chose to deal with in a way that was the most destructive. What you did was very demeaning to that Moderator and you afforded her no benefit of the doubt whatsoever.

This is not an official warning but more of a heads up from the team. The thread in question will be removed.

(Moderator's Name)"

I responded to the moderator,

"Well (Moderator's Name) here's the thing-

A)I never named the moderator. Right there I was sparing any specifuc moderator of being held up for examination and/or rants or raves on them. This alone runs contrary to your statement that I afforded them no benefit of the doubt whatsoever. If that had been the case, I would have given the moderator's name.
B)The moderator in question, saw the message, sent a PM and we interacted on it and resolved the matter to our satisfaction. The moderator in question also responded within the thread indicating what the situation was.

C)Several days later, someone chose to revive the thread. (here's the oddity, an offensive thread, which would soon warrant me a 'heads up' had been kept open)

D)At that time one moderator chose to make light of my question, saying that the moderators were all drunk. Again, the matter had been resolved between me and the moderator I had spoken of. It was even indicated by the moderator earlier in the thread. The moderator comments after the matter had been resolved showed a juvenile behavior which is just as disruptive to the board as anything I had written.

E)I added a post to let all know the matter had been resolved and that I had approached the matter in an inappropriate manner.

F)The thread was then closed.

G)The thread has now been completely removed. The removal does many things:

1)It helps all moderators to not have to look at something which so greatly offends them.

2)It takes away from (the mod in question) who showed grace by stepping forward letting all know what had happened. By pulling the thread, people will not be given the privalege of seeing how graciously they comported themself.

3)It removed the opportunity for membership to read my response and apology; which, is at least as much of an affront to me, as you found the thread to be to you and the rest of the management team.Lastly (Moderator's Name) I am also-as you can see-submitting a copy of my response to you, to (the moderator I initially had attempted contacting and subsequently resolved in a respectful manner the issue)as well.


So, we have weasels for moderators and admins (some, not all, and I mention no names). They allow a thread to fester and accumulate remarks, they allow the person (me and the moderator) to resolve the matter, apologize and move on, then they wait several days, send a message of 'heads up' not a 'warning'. They allow their own team to make snide remarks 'moderators were all drunk' and be disruptive.

I to this day, wonder why, if the thread was so offensive, a moderator (not the one I initially contacted or the one who sent me a 'heads up') had plopped and pooped their nonsense within the (according to them) offensive thread.

Similar to the matters of racism and just about everything else here, 2 faced hypocrisy. 2 sets of rules, applied differently according to who you are and how they feel about you. Of the current team of moderators, 2 have been offensive verbally, made racist content snipes at members and been out and out weasels. The Admins, I have had less interaction with, and a couple of current moderators have been respectful of members. It's not all of the people up there, but there are some bad tomatoes destroying the crops.

Tread carefully, aware always that the team really doesn't give a fuck about the TOS, and many apply it according to whim.
 

Mem

Sexy Member
Joined
Jul 4, 2006
Posts
7,912
Media
0
Likes
54
Points
183
Location
FL
Sexuality
99% Gay, 1% Straight
Gender
Male
I've never been a member of a site with a bigger revolving door in the Mod forum.

None of the original Mods from when I joined this place are still Mods. Only Rob E and Pecker are still here.

Something is wrong here. A site this big should have at least 20 Mods. Most other sites that I post at have huge Mod to member ratio and this drama never happens there.
 

funnyguy

Cherished Member
Joined
Aug 21, 2007
Posts
884
Media
1
Likes
264
Points
208
Location
California
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
I shall miss Mitchymo and am still baffled by the ban. Is the "Inner Sanctum" of the mods so serious that they must always be in unanimity? I am discouraged if our chosen leaders must always agree and be in unison on ALL matters--OR ELSE!

I came to this forum precisely because people expressed differing views and most of them were tolerated. It gets raucous on some hot button ideas/posts. But for the most part the name calling is kept to a minimum-as it should be. I think when things calm down, maybe-just maybe, the mods will resume their moderation (isn't that what they are there to do in our behalf?)

Take your time, Mods, think it over in calmer circumstances and then reconsider removing the ban. Thank you.
 

Jason

Superior Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Aug 26, 2004
Posts
15,639
Media
62
Likes
5,013
Points
433
Location
London (Greater London, England)
Verification
View
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
I've read through this thread, and I still don't really understand why Mitch was banned - or encouraged to jump, or whatever it was that happened. However whatever the details it was a choice of the moderators. It might have been a right decision or a wrong one, but they have responsibility for it.

In effect we have an action by Mitch (not fully understood by members) discussed in camera by the moderators and leading to a decision, the rationale for which is not explained. In effect the moderators are saying "trust us".

The moderators have every right to act in this way. But that doesn't mean they have to act in this way. Maybe there is a better way forward. Many organisations have the concept of the grain of sand on the management team - someone whose actions are a bit weird and whacky, but who saves the team from banal mediocrity.

I have a thought that maybe Mitch was acting from a UK world view and that the UK view is at odds with the mainly US views of this board. For example in the UK we now have a Freedom of Information Act which substantially reduces the legality of any secrecy. If this site were registered in the UK every member could (on payment of a very small fee, usually waived) demand to know what information is held on them, including copies of all emails etcetera written about them. From a UK perspective the idea of the moderators having confidential discussions easily conflicts with both the spirit and the letter of the Freedom of Informaton Act. I've no idea whether Mitch knows anyting about this as such, but I'm pretty sure that he will have heard about freedom of information in the workplace from his own experience or that of friends and colleagues. From a UK perspective the very concept of the moderators holding some sort of "confidential" discussion about an individual is wrong - wrong in law. In UK schools everything teachers write between themselves about a pupil can be accessed by that pupil's parents through a freedom of information request. Certainly in the UK moderators' discussion about banning a member could not be a "secret", and Mitch could not be criticised for revealing something which is not confidential in the first place.

I think we've got a US/UK cultural and legal conflict here. I know this board operates under US law, but maybe it could apply a bit of cultural sensitivity. The US legal system and US way of doing things suits the US - not the whole world. Curiously the mods decision to ban/push Mitch might be right under US norms but wrong under UK norms.

Is this site dedicated to supporting large cocks worldwide, or only American large cocks?
 

novice_btm

Superior Member
Gold
Joined
Feb 25, 2006
Posts
9,891
Media
18
Likes
4,559
Points
358
Location
Los Angeles (California, United States)
Sexuality
Unsure
Gender
Male
The only ones that take this place too seriously are the Mod/Amdin team.
That's a little rich coming from someone who brags about having every Mod and Admin (save ONE, :wink:), on your friends list, and rushes to add them, the second a new one is appointed.

You are either lying or wrong. I do not brag about having Mods or Admins on my friends list. I do not add new ones the second they are appointed.
Really? Huh, I must be wrong then. :rolleyes: Or...
Now I can't continue my record of having all the Mods on my friends list because I know that one of them will reject my request.

Either way, Congrats to all.


.
 

D_Tim McGnaw

Account Disabled
Joined
Aug 30, 2009
Posts
5,420
Media
0
Likes
110
Points
133
"Pecker is correct in stating that Mitchy broke no ToS by stating that he was uncomfortable on the team however he did break the moderator rules by discussing how others voted and his own interpretation of their reasons, which by all accounts are incorrect.

The decision to remove him was based on his having crossed the line in discussing the voting of the team. If faith is lost in a member of the team, or ex member of the team to the point where confidential information is being posted on the main forum, there is no other choice but to remove said member.

The mod forum contains reports, PMs and emails sent to us by members both former and current, many of which contain personal information of those members and members they are discussing. It would be wholly irresponsible to knowingly leave someone on the board who has shown that he can't be trusted knowing that two weeks down the line when x member annoys/upsets them, they could be next in line to have all of their mod dealings discussed openly with the membership, including things like full real names, places of work, names of relatives and the like.

The rules regarding confidentiality are well known, he knew there would be consequences for breaking those rules."



What he said. A deal's a deal, Mitchymo's revelations about how many mods voted for a certain banning proved he couldn't be trusted with confidential information, all of you who're screeching about his ban would be screeching just as loudly if a mod or former mod decided to announce a member's private and sensitive information.
 
Last edited:

Northland

Sexy Member
Joined
Oct 22, 2007
Posts
5,924
Media
0
Likes
39
Points
123
Sexuality
No Response
What he said. A deal's a deal, Mitchymo's revelations about how many mods voted for a certain banning proved he couldn't be trusted with confidential information, all of you who're screetching about his ban would be screetching just as loudly if a mod decided to announce a member's private and sensitive information.

Repent all ye sinners! Repent! And on the 4th day The Lord banned the squealers and saw that it wasn't near as good as hoped for, Selah!



Jesus, Mary and Joseph! He didn't mention names he explained a situation.

A big problem here is because there's been more of the 2 sets of rules (see my post at the bottom of the previous page for even more) and it at least appears that some are given more space than others. The former moderator story does not work when we had prepstudinsc making similar remarks, not regarding his involvement on the Principessa thread since he was no longer a mod at the time; but, inconsistant actions throughout. Mitchymo may have been crossing a line, again did he really know it? Further his statements showed that the moderators are in a fix, having interaction difficulties.


Let me go find an appropriate scripture to apply to this matter. A bright red ribbon for anyone who can find it first!
 

Mem

Sexy Member
Joined
Jul 4, 2006
Posts
7,912
Media
0
Likes
54
Points
183
Location
FL
Sexuality
99% Gay, 1% Straight
Gender
Male
Really? Huh, I must be wrong then. :rolleyes: Or...



.

If it wasn't for you I would continue to keep the Mods on my friends list and brag about it. :biggrin1: It was too hard to keep up with all the new Mods joining anyway. If you can't see that the statement I made about the Mods was tongue in cheek I feel bad for you.

PS one of your very close friends here requested me as a friend a while back. I accepted. He must have found out that you and I were at odds with each other and has broken the friendship.

It really is too bad that we have such animosity. If you were not the kind of person to hold a lifelong grudge things might be different. I know that people like you here and in person, and some people like me here and so do some of the people who have met me in person.

HazelGod and I get along just fine nowadays and I would have never believed it if anyone had told me that a year ago.

I have made amends with several people here. Those like NJQT whose personality would never jive with mine, online, I chose to stay away from.

I even had a disagreement with Mitchymo earlier in this thread, but I feel that his banning was harsh and unwarranted.
 
Last edited:

Mem

Sexy Member
Joined
Jul 4, 2006
Posts
7,912
Media
0
Likes
54
Points
183
Location
FL
Sexuality
99% Gay, 1% Straight
Gender
Male
Good point! Or, perhaps I should've said, "Well, obviously!" Since he's gone from being a Mod suck-up, to bashing them generally, and their every move. :wink:

Please tell me what Mod I sucked up to, or ask them to come forward.

Name any and all former Mod/Admin and I will tell you how if I get along with them or not online.

I don't bash them, I just criticize their actions when I think they did something wrong.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.