PDA

View Full Version : Re: Do you want to continue the religion debate?



inversekinetix
January 29th, 2008, 05:02 AM
I wouldn't have defined it that way, "amateur" can mean "unskilled" and "sub par", whereas "professional" means "serious about work". Loosely defined here, money isn't a factor.



Do you give infractions to everyone whose opinions aren't in line with your own? How dare you insinuate that I insulted anybody at all, you give the reason for the infraction as

Insulted Other Member(s).


How exactly did I insult anyone in the following?

"To be perfectly honest, I don't see why these kind of threads or the backyard/non technical areas are even in these forums, they serve no purpose in terms of linux or ubuntu. If anything they reduce the credibilty of the whole establishment and add an air of amateurism to the forum. If this is supposed to be the global front for cannonical's linux endeavor I really dont think those kinds of topic are appropriate. Can you imagine what people from large companies must think when they see a bunch of people raving on about irrelevent topics? That coupled with some of the hate/zealotry threads must really damage the image of ubuntu. "


I didn't insult anybody, I merely stated that posts such as:



http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=681323

http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=528687

http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=670810

http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=57494

http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=279939

http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=134147


do nothing to add credibilty to ubuntu, nor do they add to the professional appearance the forums as a whole. I was speaking about the professional appearance of the forum, not about the ability of administration. I really do not understand how you could construe it in such a manner. Do you think the above threads have a professional appearance? would you buy things from a company that had such material on display? would you think that kind of company to be professional? Besides, please do not forget that whilst you and other admin/ops may maintain the site, it would be nothing with out its users. I see you also commented on another users interpretation of amateur and told them it loosely means "unskilled" or "sub par", does that go for all amateur musicians, writers, artists, actors etc etc etc as well?

I'm sure the following people would be thoroughly offended by your definition:

http://www.amateurmusician.co.uk/

http://www.amdram.co.uk/actors.htm

http://www.aabc.us/



i don't think I need to go on do I.


Finally you stated 4 hours ago that you havent slept, other than naps, for 24 hours, that makes 28 now. I don't think a sleep deprived person should be doing any administrative at all. I know my judgement is way off after such lack of sleep.

inversekinetix
January 29th, 2008, 05:16 AM
You know what LaRoza don't even bother responding,

after seeing this

"I'm not being sarcastic, when I say that is who I want to be my president.
If she can do this kind of stuff as just a warmup, I can't wait to see what she'll do to those neocon pricks. They'll play their petty little political games to do more dumb things, like invade Iran or nuke N. Korea. She can corner them and rebrand them as a narrow group of nobodies, just like she did with Obama. She'll practically shoot lightning bolts from her eyes and put them in their place!!

Imagine what would happen if Barack tries to create a healthcare system that doesn't suck. He'll be fighting against every closeminded dipstick on the right, and it'll take a lot of impressive speeches before we see any results. But with Hillary, she'll just eat them for breakfast! She'd rather put babies on spikes before she'd let anybody get the best of her. And that's who I want fighting for my rights!"

which you commented as a user and NOT an admin in

http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=680306

I have absolutely no respect for you. You apply the forum rule on an ad hoc basis and add even more impetus to what i originally said.

p_quarles
January 29th, 2008, 05:16 AM
Moved to the resolution center. If you disagree with a staff member's decision, this is the correct place to enter your objection.

inversekinetix
January 29th, 2008, 05:29 AM
Brilliant i just 5 infraction points for allegedly insulting p_quarles.

I see clearly now,

Insult a staff member = 5 point infraction

Insult a member = 1 point infaction

but why the difference in value?

KiwiNZ
January 29th, 2008, 06:06 AM
I will look into this and get back to you here

KiwiNZ
January 29th, 2008, 06:18 AM
Brilliant i just 5 infraction points for allegedly insulting p_quarles.

I see clearly now,

Insult a staff member = 5 point infraction

Insult a member = 1 point infaction

but why the difference in value?


Staff are volunteers, they put in many hours work in their free time to try and make this forum a great place to visit.
That is why we will give a higher infraction for insulting staff.

inversekinetix
January 29th, 2008, 06:40 AM
Please remove the second post by me in this thread, it was moved together with the first by p_quarles and is another matter for another thread.

matthew
January 29th, 2008, 10:29 AM
See: http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?p=4228474#post4228474

inversekinetix
January 29th, 2008, 11:02 AM
That's exactly what I expected. So basically I am to leave, LaRoza continues his/her biased misuse of authority. Please matthew, do not speak down to me as though i were a child, whether or not that was your intention I do not know but it does come over that way. The simple fact of the matter, which no one has yet to comment on, is that LaRoza issued a baseless infraction. As a member of staff, LaRoza should be one at all times, a clause in the sig does not give one carte blache to enforce rules based on ones personal opinion. At no time did I insult anybody or anything, I merely expressed an opinion that pointless threads and the incessant mocking/bashing of other systems does not add to the forum's professional image, it does the opposite. Had LaRoza made clear in the initial thread (with his/her red text clause) I would have posted my complaint in this forum, as the red text was missing I thought I would respond in the initial thread for other people to see and judge for themselves. p_quarles moved my indignant response to here and thus this begin.

I still don't understand what I did wrong to begin with.

matthew
January 29th, 2008, 11:23 AM
That's exactly what I expected. So basically I am to leave, LaRoza continues his/her biased misuse of authority. Please matthew, do not speak down to me as though i were a child, whether or not that was your intention I do not know but it does come over that way. The simple fact of the matter, which no one has yet to comment on, is that LaRoza issued a baseless infraction. As a member of staff, LaRoza should be one at all times, a clause in the sig does not give one carte blache to enforce rules based on ones personal opinion. At no time did I insult anybody or anything, I merely expressed an opinion that pointless threads and the incessant mocking/bashing of other systems does not add to the forum's professional image, it does the opposite. Had LaRoza made clear in the initial thread (with his/her red text clause) I would have posted my complaint in this forum, as the red text was missing I thought I would respond in the initial thread for other people to see and judge for themselves. p_quarles moved my indignant response to here and thus this begin.

I still don't understand what I did wrong to begin with.This is a much more reasonable post, and one I am happy to respond to.

I have reversed the original infraction by LaRoza. I agree that it wasn't necessary. I have also commented about it in the staff forum. I think what happened is that LaRoza is taking the new position very seriously, but is still learning the subtleties. Please forgive the overzealous moderation of a young staff member who really wants to do a good job (and I believe is doing a good job overall, and will do an even better job in the future).

I am going to leave the 5 point infraction for insulting a staff member intact. Your forums permissions are not affected by its existence, you can still post and browse as usual. Let's call it a reminder to please be polite and use more gentle words. Staff are people too, all of whom are volunteers who love this community and want to help it. Sometimes we blow it. When we do, if the error is pointed out in a way that does not offend us as people or make us feel attacked or defensive, it is far easier to own up to the mistake and we will correct it with pleasure.

Does that seem like a reasonable outcome? Do I still need to respond in the other threads, or will this be satisfactory?

inversekinetix
January 29th, 2008, 11:25 AM
Actually you know what, don't waste anymore of your time on it, let LaRoza run amock.

I suggest you read all the posts by him/her in

http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=680456&page=4

"I am a bit more serious now.

The forum got a flurry of spam posts and I searched, issued infraction, and jailed each one. It took longer than I hoped. I then got a bit angry then issued an infraction for wasting my time, worth 15 points. Because this poster already had 150, I figured it didn't matter.

(The custom infraction is called "Wasting LaRoza's Time")"



putting a christian in charge of a religious thread is a really bad idea, unfair to everyone. The above quote is horrendous. There are certainly more issues at work here than just my alleged passive agression. looks like someone is high on power.

matthew
January 29th, 2008, 11:33 AM
Actually you know what, don't waste anymore of your time on it, let LaRoza run amock.This is what I mean. What sort of response do you expect to receive from a statement like that? A positive one? Starting your post like this only enflames tensions.

I have already stated that LaRoza is young and still learning the ropes. This is part of learning, making mistakes and figuring out what they are and how to not repeat them.

What more do you want?

In all seriousness, do not post in this manner again. It is counter productive. State your case without all the hyperbole, and please read the replies without coloring them with your frustrations. Then, please reply calmly and logically.

matthew
January 29th, 2008, 12:20 PM
Rather than reply to the above, the user chose to put the following in his signature, which has now been removed.

i've never seen such a cliquey forum before. sad that the rules are applied in such a biased manner. watch out, some staff members are completely random in there application of CoC.He was asked via private message to please change it and chose not to do so.

This behavior, along with a number of other issues that have been dealt with behind the scenes, do not reflect the values of our forum community and so, regretfully, the user has been banned.

thats not quite true
January 29th, 2008, 12:44 PM
Please matthew do not twist the truth.

Rather than reply to the above, the user chose to put the following in his signature, which has now been removed.
Quote:
i've never seen such a cliquey forum before. sad that the rules are applied in such a biased manner. watch out, some staff members are completely random in there application of CoC.
He was asked via private message to please change it and chose not to do so.

This behavior, along with a number of other issues that have been dealt with behind the scenes, do not reflect the values of our forum community and so, regretfully, the user has been banned.



What actually happened is:

1. I disabled PMs and mail.
2. I removed all my personal details.
3. I reset the mail address.
4. I changed my sig
5. I entered a random password to effectively lock the account.

If "dealt with behind the scenes" refers to me leaving the forum of my own accord then you are sadly mistaken. In the time it took for my sig to be updated I would have been hitting the reset button to change the password and log out. But have it your way, if it makes you feel to maintain your image then lie.

matthew
January 29th, 2008, 02:52 PM
Either way. If you prefer to say you quit, that's fine. I wish you well.

I'm merging this in with the previous thread as it isn't really a new topic.

LaRoza
January 29th, 2008, 07:55 PM
I agree, I was way too hasty and over zealous in issuing the infraction against OP.

Sorry, lack of sleep and other distractions made me jump the gun on that one.

I resolve to not make that mistake again.