Who's the meanest user in The Cellar?
 

Or who tries to be?

Feel free to nominate yourself.

I am *pokes you in the eye*

If there was a 100% agreed vote to ban someone, though no one could really put their finger on why that person should be banned... would a dog walk home at midnight?

We struck down evil with the mighty sword of teamwork and the hammer of not bickering.

How's that?

The KEY is the 'not bickering' part.

Everyone has their own idea of who sucks. Let it be.

I don't bicker. I just wonder why certain people just don't want to get along.

Maybe it's because they're sick of seeing that god damn animated signature line. :eyebrow:

Damn, they have quite a short fuse.

I AM!!!:rattat: :shotgun: :vomitblu:

No you aren't...you only think you are

jordon was calling for violence against gay people. i vote for him.

I'll second that :rar:

they need love, not violence.....

todays motto.... don't turn your back on your Gay friends....

...because if you do turn your back on them, you are giving them a free shot at your asshole...:smack:

*goes to change signiture to: "It's only an internet commune :doit:*

yes thankyou shocker, that was the joke :right:

...then 100% of those people could utilize the "Ignore List" and the campaign would be 100% effective. Problem solved. I know Steve asked this before, and nobody really wanted to talk about it, if I recall correctly, although I could be wrong, but aren't "ignoring" and "banning" redundant? An "ignore" is just like a "ban" for the person who decides to implement it, and it doesn't have any spillover for unwilling or unknowing participants.

Remember, these are just thoughts and observations, you don't have to "teach me a lesson" in your reply.

Oh, and obvious bots like the "ciagaretter" should get the axe, obviously.

Not quite.

Traffic on the board needs to be monitored for legal reasons...(kiddie porn etc.) so not everyone can use ignore...but there' still crap even a moderator shouldn't have to wade through, or is so offensive thet each and every user shouldn't have to look at a goatse or similar in order to discover that it's gross.

Also, some traffic is abusive of system resources...spambots, etc.

Sure, there is obvious stuff, but might that be a slippery slope?

If we use what is accepted by society as acceptable or not, as a yardstick to measure offensiveness, then at one point would a post about people of different races drinking out of the same water fountain have been banned? What about a post about people of the same gender having sexual relations? These are overly-dramatic examples, but, if you see what I mean, isn't offensiveness, at some point, relative, and where do you draw the line? It's a tightrope walk.

Offensiveness (or what's also been described here as "intolerably annoying", if memory serves) is of course a completely subjective judgement. We've been happy with how UT has managed it so far...and he's been doing it for a long time now. I know he's found it to be a tightrope walk at times.

I think UTs even-handedness and reasonable and fair judgement about such things is a key value proposition of The Cellar, and likely the central reason it has survived as long as it has.

So if you're in favor of a completely objective standard (something I consider mythical, but that's just my opinion), you should probably start your own board that implements one...where you can no doubt listen to such objections from others about your own style. Given how many free blogging engines there are, that's fairly easy on the "no-brainer" scale.

Of course then the task becomes attracting eyeballs, which brings us back to that "key value proposition" business again, and one reason attention whores get such rough treatment when they decide exploit the success of The Cellar to implement their own personal "Tragedy of the Commons".

The tragedy of the commons is a phrase used to refer to a class of phenomena that involve a conflict for resources between individual interests and the common good. The term derives originally from a parable published by William Forster Lloyd who was Drummond Professor at Oxford and a Fellow of the Royal Society, in his 1833 book on population. It was then popularized and extended by Garrett Hardin in his 1968 Science essay "The Tragedy of the Commons". See also the related real-world event of the 'Enclosure of the commons', and its attendant social problems, which may have inspired the content of the parable. The opposite situation to a tragedy of the commons is sometimes referred to as a tragedy of the anticommons.

I don't envy his position. That was implied in my post.


I'm not, and that's a huge "if" . . .

Of course it's mythical. Doubting the existence of a objectively measured subjective concept carries more weight than just one person's opinion - such a measurement flies in the face of reason!

. . . back to that huge "if" . . .
Based on any actual statements ever made by me, why would you think I should want to I start my own board? When have I complained about this one?


I was really dealing with this more on a theoretical level. You know, a discussion of ideas, as opposed to a pissing contest.

But I guess you can... ...for whatever flaots your boat.

Some people assume from actions (or posts) of another, that they "know" who they are dealing with.

Question: Does anybody know what the time-window is for making an edit? I just went back in ^^^up there^^^ to correct a spelling error that I missed in the first read-through, and now it looks like I changed my mind about the content, which I didn't.

I don't know, but it still says "flaot".

Damnit! That's what I went in for! But when it got to a "reason for edit" screen I tried to back out, but the "last edited" message showed up anyway. I don't want to be a late-editor.

Theory and ideas arise from experience with the real world, and sooner or later they encounter it again on the output side. Some folks believe there's some sort of separation between what happens online and "the real world". In fact all of what happens online happens in "the real world"; online is a subset of reality, not distinct from it...which makes slogans like "it's only a message board" ring kinda hollow to some ears.

"Flying in the face of reason" isn't exactly a strong argument, since different people reason differently..."reasonable" is no more absolute than "offensive" is. I was trying to allow for the possibilty that your questioning the subjectivity of moderating judgements actually had a purpose beyond seeing your words in print.

And if you don't distinguish between debate and "a pissing contest", then you'll probably be dissatisfied with The Cellar.

pissing contest

1. a dispute that's a matter of one side's claims or bluster against the other's; a word feud; bickering; belly bumping. Contrary to some definitions, women are quite capable of(although usually less inclined to) "hold their own" in a pissing contest, which could morph into a shirt-shredding cat fight

"Meanest" user doesn't have to be a bad thing. It can just mean someone who always wins their fights. This isn't boxing, this is streetfighting, yo.
[/tough]

mmmmmmmm...

belly bumping....

So far, your assumptions about me have been wrong. But, I think you do it on purpose. You know, cherry-picking an arguable interpretation with the express purpose of crafting a vicious reply? You know, what you always do, every time you post? So, I think you know your assumptions are incorrect. You do it on purpose. If you enjoy doing that, then fire away! I'm not being sarcastic, I hope you're enjoying yourself. just don't start to blur the line between what I actually post and the bizarre twists you put on it.

Most of the time I find Wikipedia definitions higher quality than Urban Dictionary....unless you usually look up terms like "Cleveland Steamer".

Of course now some twit will claim that pointing that out is a "pissing contest".

:::crickets chirping:::

If there's a large difference difference between "an arguable interpretation" and "what you actually meant" (which is different from "what [you] actually post"...there's that subjectivity thing again) then you probably need to express yourself more precicely. It is called debate, after all.

But I don't see any point with "discussing the idea" of moderation being subjective if there's no alternative; one might as well "discuss the idea" of the water being wet. What possible conclusion could be reached about such a thing?

But when I suggested what I saw as the possible venue for an alternative (or even a reductio ad absurdam type of couterexample), you got all upset about my craftily and viciously accusing you of a desire to do such a henious thing. What a bizarre twist indeed.

See?

"Lissen! I didn't put a bullet in the furnace...and stop talking about my mother!" -- Bill Cosby

:corn:

It's just a discussion of ideas, not an attempt to reach a conclusion to a problem, simply a discussion. You explore the subject form different angles, and occasionally new connections are made, new ideas or new subjects are hatched. It's not a contest, it's not a battle for dominance.

I think I do a decent job. You may disagree, and that's a good thing, because I welcome constructive criticism. But at some point, a completely subjective point, criticism ceases to be constructive and becomes an end in itself. My perception of that point, as applies here, is such that every time you post, Maggie, you seem to be making an effort to find fault, with no real agenda other than posturing yourself into a dominant position. I keep mentioning this because I find it fascinating. Care to comment? Or not?

Not to be confused with criticism for its own sake. :-)

okay, that's funny

:::stumbles around, searching in vain for clever response:::

I think if someone else has read the post it will say edited, it will if they've posted for sure. Why did you try to "back out" rather than just continuing? :confused:

There are plenty of people who just love to argue, doesn't matter what the subject is. But when, from the moment they arrive, the majority of their contribution is to argue about the NATURE OR STRUCTURE of arguing, discrimination, moderating a forum, or any other thing which existed before they graced us with their presence, then it's a mind fuck for your own amusement rather than any meaningful attempt to know anybody or share observations. And then claim people are being mean if they stomp on your balloon instead of play with you. But that's fine, go ahead, Flint. This is kinda fun. Maggie was always really good at making mincemeat :yum:

I'm trying to follow the plot but it's impossible.

I'm probably not here enough to really know anymore, but when I was here every freakin' day (January 2001-June 2005), Radar was King of the Assholes. But I suspect that much of his schtick is an act. Maggie could be pretty bad too, but then she was gone for quite some time, plus I think she means well more often than not. And then there was Dave...man, no one could put a pimple on his ass.

LJ can come across as a total dick, but I think he's more of a playbaby than anything. I don't think he's a bad guy...like Maggie, he means well more often than not. He just likes to stir up shit.

As a whole, Hubris Boy is probably the most ornery SOB we have here. He rules, except for the fact that he worships Margaret Thatcher. :)

Being an example of the "start your own board" concept. :-)
Y'all at least are substantial enough to have taken a fair number of eyeballs with you (not that they left here; it's not completely a zero-sum phenomenon) on the strength of your own cred as an Interesting Person.

But, Starry Sky, syc! What are you doing up at 4am on a Saturday? :-)

It's amusing to note that some folks who complained the loudest about "don't tell me how to post" are so full of advice for others on that very topic...:-)

Between a FT job, an occasional PT job, school and spending time with April, I barely have time to devote to my own board much less here! :)

Starting my own board was mainly a vehicle for writing the Manifestos after UT and I had our falling out 2 years ago. We're cool now (at least I think we are), but I like the Manifestos being on their own.

I had just gotten home from my brother's house. My mom's 50th birthday party is today, and we were finalizing shit for that.

what's a playbaby? is that like a mouthbreather? I do come across as a dick sometimes, but it's only in response to the insufferable behaviour of those around me. dick is in the eye of the beholder, anyway. when you think i'm being a dick, some others may think i'm saying something that needed to be said.

oh, and.....
cock

Nah...you like to fuck around and fuck with people. "Playbaby" is not an insult.

True, but so is insufferable behavior.

What are you, British now? It's behavior, you tard! :)

Internet communities............The safety valve for those too polite or to timid to rant in public. The tendency is to be that bit less tolerant of your antithesis and a bit more forthright in your opinions. I've barely been at this forum a couple of weeks, not long enough to assign character analyses to any of the regulars, but I guess if I stay long enough, I will. When I do, I might end up focussing my pent up frustrations on one lucky member, or I may end up spreading a thin layer of dull negativity over a wide audience. I've yet to meet anyone who can piss on all and sundry with any degree of enthusiasm and venom and still retain their membership on a board. And I really don't think I want to. Forums are interesting enough places without wasting time on vendettas and grandstanding.

@ Billybob, anthithesis? I've never heard that word before.


I joined because I thought I found Nirvana or something. Then_______showed up.:P :)

*runs*


ok, all kidding aside. I don't think it is grandstanding when someone is being made to defend a point.

It is granstanding when someone dosn't have a point.

Hey, I was answering Flint's thread, not expounding on my personal philosophy of posting. What you did to me before was try to tell ME how to post about something I knew more about than you. So then when that didn't work you tried to take the discussion into another area. I replied that I had said what I had to say and if you wanted to go anywhere else you could go without me. Even if Switzerland is not your forte, I am fully aware and acknowledge that you know more about everything else in the entire Universe and all alternate universes than I do and therefore I have no intention of getting myself into a position to become your roadkill. So get back on the track, I'm much too soft for you to sharpen your claws on :rolleyes:

Well I am NOT going to vote for LJ because I am going to give him the benefit of the doubt.


I also think this thread topic is a cry for help.

Really? Cry for help? Not just shit-stirring? :haha:

Why are the assumptions wrong?
How do you know she does it on purpose?
Don't we all cherry picK?
How do you know it is with deliberate attempt at being vicious?
Don't you think vicious is a word that could have been left out? It dosn't add anything objective. What is vicious to you?
Why would you assume she knows her assumptions are incorrect?
Why do you say Bizarre? How is it bizarre? It dosn't help the reader understand anything to use emotionally charged adjectives like bizarre and vicious.

It seems as though you too cherry pick information but no one has called them bizarre or vicious so.....I think that is the mean thing to do to a person is reduce things to what seems to be insults.


Just my opinion that probably should have been left unsaid. We shall she.[* edit= we shall see.]

Perhaps. I don't know. You see, I could be making false assumptions too. I didn't know he was a shit stirrer but I don't really know him.


About shit stirring. One could say my last post was shit stirring but then when things confuse me I just HAVE TO ask why.


I just wanna know this one thing.....

Nor was I referring to you. Methinks the Tonchi doth protest too much. The wicked flee when no man pursueth. :-)

I mean the topic of the thread is a question that can only be responded to one of two ways, except for hijacks and asides.
1- Claiming the honor(?) for ones own.
2- Name(attack, criticize, etc) someone else, presumably with examples of them being mean, usually forcing them to defend themselves and others to choose sides.
That strikes me as shit-stirring. :cool:

"What man says to Ginger (dog or internet user): This that and the other" What Ginger hears: Blah blah blah blah"

People who argue or debate for the sake of hearing themselves is a real waste of time in my book.


*goes to plant flowers in garden*

"It's so unfair and mean for you to cherry-pick; my arguments don't survive close inspection. They just have to look good when I type them."

Sorry kids, but the techniques that got you a passing grade from the TA in Freshman Comp may not hold up as well in the real world.

I think I'd take your word for almost anything Bruce.

lots of respect in my book.

In the Far Side cartoon (which caused the invention of the term "Larson's Dog Effect" in the field of user interface design) Ginger actually can hear her name in between the "blahs".
Too bad I can't find an image of it...but I did find the next evolution in human-canine communication:
http://startitup.org/larson.jpg

Ginger probably can't make subject and verb agree in number either, though. :-)