My Sig (and probably those of others)

[dong20]

Ah, but look more carefully at what I said, though. The first four infractions in the ToS are not all age-related, although they are account-related:

• Use of an account by any person under 18 years of age.
• Falsification of one's date of birth.
• Use of more than one account by the same person.
• Use by more than one person of the same account.

Someone banned for violating Section 2a would not necessarily be an underage user.

I did, and the items 1 and 2 are entirely age related, the first especially and likely goes hand in hand with 1...!! But the reason I commented was because I'm unconvinced that wrapping items 3 and 4 up along with 1 and 2 would fly. If it does then it's moot, if not then it may work.

Personally I'd go go with items 1,2 and 4. Item 3 is deserving of explcit explanation IMHO as is suggests a more suspect motive than underage curiosity. I'm sure the groupings could be shuffled better if necessary.

 

[mindseye]

My sig was never deleted... which is funny, because with the neon green and large type-face, I figured mine would've been more obvious... Someone else said there's was deleted as well. I wonder why only some where deleted and some were not? I have since changed mine... it's still the same link, just... edited.

Y'all did notice that Rob asked nicely to remove the link, right?

Put yourself in Rob's shoes for a moment: You're hearing complaints that his evil flying monkeys are out of control and "should ALL be removed"; in fact, the complainers are clandestinely voting on which one to oust first*, and you know that any reduction in the moderator duties will increase your workload personally.

So you post a message that says, in effect, "I'm aware of the situation. Would you remove your links?" When the complainers aren't willing to meet you halfway -- even on such a minor request -- well, how seriously would you take them?

If it were me, I'd take it as a sign that the complainers had as little respect for me as they do for my evil flying monkeys, and I'd take that as a sign that the problem isn't really with the EFM's after all.

-----------------
*Psst, vote for Mindseye. HickBoy just has a hot temper, while Mindseye's rotten to the core.

 

[IntoxicatingToxin]

Y'all did notice that Rob asked nicely to remove the link, right?

Put yourself in Rob's shoes for a moment: You're hearing complaints that his evil flying monkeys are out of control and "should ALL be removed"; in fact, the complainers are clandestinely voting on which one to oust first*, and you know that any reduction in the moderator duties will increase your workload personally.

So you post a message that says, in effect, "I'm aware of the situation. Would you remove your links?" When the complainers aren't willing to meet you halfway -- even on such a minor request -- well, how seriously would you take them?

If it were me, I'd take it as a sign that the complainers had as little respect for me as they do for my evil flying monkeys, and I'd take that as a sign that the problem isn't really with the EFM's after all.

-----------------
*Psst, vote for Mindseye. HickBoy just has a hot temper, while Mindseye's rotten to the core.

Any person on LPSG who has read my threads knows that I don't lack respect for anyone. Hell, I don't even lack respect for Rob_E.

 

[B_Hickboy]

*sane and reasonable prose snipped*

I'd explain my reasons, but then I don't really owe anyone such an explaination, do I?

You're catching on.

 

[HazelGod]

You're hearing complaints that his evil flying monkeys are out of control and "should ALL be removed"; in fact, the complainers are clandestinely voting on which one to oust first

That characterization is a bit paranoid and hypocritical, wouldn't you agree? There's nothing secret going on over there...it's all out in the open.

Which, incidentally, is all that is being asked for here as well.

 

[Lex]

Y'all did notice that Rob asked nicely to remove the link, right?

Put yourself in Rob's shoes for a moment: You're hearing complaints that his evil flying monkeys are out of control and "should ALL be removed"; in fact, the complainers are clandestinely voting on which one to oust first*, and you know that any reduction in the moderator duties will increase your workload personally.

So you post a message that says, in effect, "I'm aware of the situation. Would you remove your links?" When the complainers aren't willing to meet you halfway -- even on such a minor request -- well, how seriously would you take them?

If it were me, I'd take it as a sign that the complainers had as little respect for me as they do for my evil flying monkeys, and I'd take that as a sign that the problem isn't really with the EFM's after all.

-----------------
*Psst, vote for Mindseye. HickBoy just has a hot temper, while Mindseye's rotten to the core.

I removed the link yesterday. Then, I found from Hickboy that ANY mods CAN in fact edit ANYone's signature, which means that your statement that "I feel confident that no one on staff altered your sig" can not stand as is. In fact, SOMEone on staff altered a few people's sigs. What are you all so afraid of? You need to do something about it. But no.

You now know that to be the case and what do you do? Try to make me the bad guy for not keeping my sig changed. That is JUST like you trying to pick a fight with me over my posting arliss' PM when every other member had done it (posted an annoying PM) with no such fanfare from you.

Add that to the fact that (a) although you all know this to be the case and no one spoke out in that regard and (b) there is no ToS violation in that regard, I put it back out of priniciple. If you find that something you said is not true (like I did when we found banned people were not notified) the least you could do it ADMIT it.

So, go ahead and ban me for having a sig you do not like or for spamming the board with another website. or because you feel like it--you updated the ToS to make that point. I am sure it will go over as well at the ban on BD. Maybe better.

From the time I was a mod, I shared with you what I found to be people's perceptions of specifically, you and Pecker. From that time, you have simply ignored them while insisting that its the members and not you that are the problem. They have you all wrong, you implied. Or that you don't care--when in fact, you DO care. If you did not care, you would not be reading polls on other sites about you.

Sure--it's your game and you led the making of the rules. It's your ball. You can have it. Just don't be surprised when the kids go play somewhere else when given the chance. It's rather hard to play baseball with a team of 6 or 7.

And yes, I would remove all mods--not because you are equally bad--but because, the OVERALL CONCEPT has been a failure. Yes, I would remove my friends from their positions because I feel so strongly about the inadequacy of the system as a whole. See?

 

[mindseye]

Dude, if I called you a "shameless Negro", would you put me on ignore, too?

 

[Lex]

If I could ignore a Moderator or Co-Admin, I would have done so long ago.

Stop mentioning me as if I am the sum total of the problem and I might stop looking down and bending over to talk in your general direction.

I can't ignore you; you can ignore me. What's your excuse?

 

[rob_just_rob]

Let's see...

Most views on ass pic in my gallery: 1161
Price per month for Gold Membership: $60
Average price per day for Gold Membership: $2
1161 x 2.00 = $2,322.00

Since I freely posted these pics and haven't seen a dime of the profit, it's a safe bet i've paid my dues to have my say here, no?

I'd say it's a very safe bet that you've paid your dues to have your say here. However, it's not a particularly safe bet that having paid your dues will make a scrap of difference. At the risk of sounding like an insurrectionist, I think the only way we're going to see any kind of changes here is by voting with our feet.

On a sidenote - nice ass, MB. If I were ever to pay $60 for a gold membership, yours would be the first gallery I viewed unthumbnailed. :redface:

(And no, that's still not a PM :wink: )

 

[kalipygian]

In banning an underage person, it could simply be stated that it was for falsification of date of birth. If that is too revealing, (and it doesn't seem like it to me) it could be stated that it was due to falsification of registration information.

The request by Rob_E regarding the link to the other site was in the singular, it was addressed specifically to Lex. It was not in the plural. I do not consider that anyone else was being addressed. It is therefore not reasonable to complain of any other member having it. (in loco Pythia)

I will commit to a $60. donation to support the site's operation if reasonable reforms are instituted. (I had a year's membership, which lapsed recently) As I said in the 'Is LPSG Worth $60.' thread, I would not pay that just to view larger pix in the gallery. The community is worth supporting, and it is not a financial concern to me.

Despite the attitude of contempt by some of the moderators to the members. (they have certainly been putting their feet in their mouths)

 

[D_Herin_Ghan]

Isn't this a .org website, and a SUPPORT GROUP? Aren't support groups a public service and free? FFS, how can you argue that you have no say in which way a support group goes if you don't pay?

 

[mindseye]

The request by Rob_E regarding the link to the other site was in the singular, it was addressed specifically to Lex. It was not in the plural. I do not consider that anyone else was being addressed. It is therefore not reasonable to complain of any other member having it. (in loco Pythia)

So, "However, if the point of his website is to leach members and generally talk about how bad this website is, I really don't think it's fair for me to give him free advertising" is a rationale that applies to Lex but not you?

 

[HazelGod]

So, "However, if the point of his website is to leach members and generally talk about how bad this website is, I really don't think it's fair for me to give him free advertising" is a rationale that applies to Lex but not you?

I believe in the minds of most rational people, this condition would evaluate to be false.

 

[mindseye]

I believe in the minds of most rational people, this condition would evaluate to be false.

May I ask, for example, which other websites are being poached besides this one? How many moderators from other websites are being crucified? Is the banner at the top of the page a rotating banner that will read "The Other eBay" next week?

You're nitpicking, as you did here, rather than responding to the substance of what was said. (Incidentally, I don't see the fact that that site can be viewed as being incompatible with it being clandestine. When we snuck behind the library to smoke and look at Playboys in junior high, we weren't technically hidden, either.)

Isn't this a .org website, and a SUPPORT GROUP? Aren't support groups a public service and free? FFS, how can you argue that you have no say in which way a support group goes if you don't pay?

The .org gTLD has been unrestricted for many years.

 

[Principessa]

Random Thoughts...

I'm bothered by the changing of signatures w/o notifying the member(s)

Is it my imagination or is Lex being attacked in this thread as much if not more so than BD? Is this because he used to be a mod?




Quote:
Originally Posted by kalipygian [URL]http://www.lpsg.org/images36/buttons/viewpost.gif[/URL]
The request by Rob_E regarding the link to the other site was in the singular, it was addressed specifically to Lex. It was not in the plural. I do not consider that anyone else was being addressed. It is therefore not reasonable to complain of any other member having it. (in loco Pythia)

Bullshit. I am rather displeased to see how many people are sporting that other site in their signature. It is in extremely bad taste and bad internet manners. I view it as an intentional slap in the face to Rob E. and those of us who choose not to jump ship.

So, "However, if the point of his website is to leach members and generally talk about how bad this website is, I really don't think it's fair for me to give him free advertising" is a rationale that applies to Lex but not you? I agree with this 110%! That's why as stated above I think it is bad manners for the members who are doing so to continue. And yes for the record, I have seen that other site, I was the one that informed HickBoy and Naughty of it's existence.

 

[HazelGod]

May I ask, for example, which other websites are being poached besides this one? How many moderators from other websites are being crucified? Is the banner at the top of the page a rotating banner that will read "The Other eBay" next week?

You're nitpicking, as you did here, rather than responding to the substance of what was said. (Incidentally, I don't see the fact that that site can be viewed as being incompatible with it being clandestine. When we snuck behind the library to smoke and look at Playboys in junior high, we weren't technically hidden, either.)

After our last exchange, I had rather hoped we'd progessed beyond such pettiness.

I wasn't nitpicking in the post you linked...you used a term that implied the other site was attempting to be secretive. As such is not even remotely the case, the irony was far too rich to pass unremarked. Also, you might want to refrain from making any further education analogies...this last one, as with previous attempts, has proven itself completely misguided. If I have to explain why it doesn't even come close to applying here, then you'll have to accept my apologies for wasting your time and leave it at that.

I also wasn't nitpicking in the last remark...a condition was clearly laid out and I merely remarked that it wasn't likely to be true from most people's point of view. Along with many of the people over there, BD himself has remarked that conversation of LPSG matters were never intended to be the focus of the site. Membership of the sites isn't an either/or proposition, and seeing as how his site has no payment option, it can hardly be deemed a competitive interest from a business perspective. If the staff here wants to force participation to be a one-or-the-other decision, then I suppose that's their prerogative.

Bullshit. I am rather displeased to see how many people are sporting that other site in their signature. It is in extremely bad taste and bad internet manners. I view it as an intentional slap in the face to Rob E. and those of us who choose not to jump ship.

See my above.

Nobody has suggested that anyone jump ship. Many are quite content participating in both arenas.

 

[kalipygian]

So, "However, if the point of his website is to leach members and generally talk about how bad this website is, I really don't think it's fair for me to give him free advertising" is a rationale that applies to Lex but not you?

Dissappointing that the constructive suggestions in the first and third paragraph of my post were ignored.

Go back to page one and read the owner's post, it is specifically addressed to one person. Your quote "if it is the point . . ." states a possibility, not an absolute. Certainly something can be expanded by you to apply to more people, but that is not in the origonal.

It is perfectly obvious that people there care very much about this community. Many are putting a lot of effort into trying to save it. Some there have been driven to the conclusion that trying to save this site is a hopeless cause, because of intransigence. Some one needs to accept that there is more to it than just themself. Being determined to persist in that behavior is doing it much more harm by alienating people than anything on the other website.

 

[kalipygian]

Random Thoughts...

I'm bothered by the changing of signatures w/o notifying the member(s)

Is it my imagination or is Lex being attacked in this thread as much if not more so than BD? Is this because he used to be a mod?






Quote:
Originally Posted by kalipygian http://www.lpsg.org/et-cetera-et-cetera/57230-my-sig-probably-those-others-6.html#post942758http://www.lpsg.org/images36/buttons/viewpost.gif
The request by Rob_E regarding the link to the other site was in the singular, it was addressed specifically to Lex. It was not in the plural. I do not consider that anyone else was being addressed. It is therefore not reasonable to complain of any other member having it. (in loco Pythia)

Bullshit. I am rather displeased to see how many people are sporting that other site in their signature. It is in extremely bad taste and bad internet manners. I view it as an intentional slap in the face to Rob E. and those of us who choose not to jump ship.

So, "However, if the point of his website is to leach members and generally talk about how bad this website is, I really don't think it's fair for me to give him free advertising" is a rationale that applies to Lex but not you? I agree with this 110%! That's why as stated above I think it is bad manners for the members who are doing so to continue. And yes for the record, I have seen that other site, I was the one that informed HickBoy and Naughty of it's existence.

Generally, I think you are a very decent person, on this occasion, I think your thought process is a bit muddled.

Curious you are jumping in and alienating people who have had some regard for you.

 

[mindseye]

I also wasn't nitpicking in the last remark...a condition was clearly laid out and I merely remarked that it wasn't likely to be true from most people's point of view. Along with many of the people over there, BD himself has remarked that conversation of LPSG matters were never intended to be the focus of the site.

Try to be just a little objective about this -- say you're a first-time visitor to that site, haven't even registered yet. You see the banner appropriates the name of this forum, and the very first board is devoted to griping about this forum.

You go in and read that first board -- the owner, BD, calls members of LPSG "maggots", and talks about "notching up the pressure". Even with the names he's using: "trouble" at the mill; "failure" analysis; he's telescoped a particular conclusion and point of view. Has he indulged even a single dissenter in his echo chamber?

But say you decide to bypass the first "trouble at the mill" board and see what the rest of the board has to offer? You'd find these other threads:

• Change a letter
• This or That?
• Three Word Game
• Kill This Thread
• Stay off da Subject

Any of those sound familiar?

You make the quantitative claim that "most" people would not see the point of that site as an LPSG protest site, and I disagree strongly. He claims he didn't intend it to come across that way, yet he's an active contributor to each of the characteristics of the board which make it appear to come across that way.

Despite his claimed intentions, his board fails the duck test.

 

[Principessa]

Generally, I think you are a very decent person, on this occasion, I think your thought process is a bit muddled.
I think this whole thing has become quite muddled. I keep waiting for a finite or at least definitive answer/solution and there doesn't seem to be one.
Curious you are jumping in and alienating people who have had some regard for you.
Jumping in? I've been here from the begining of this debacle. Trust me I have already been alienated and dissed in this thread by those I hold in some regard.