Whether it's your first Bonnaroo or you’re a music festival veteran, we welcome you to Inforoo.
Here you'll find info about artists, rumors, camping tips, and the infamous Roo Clues. Have a look around then create an account and join in the fun. See you at Bonnaroo!!
You are certainly are entitled to your opinion. We do appreciate it.
Don't patronize him. You don't appreciate it.
I most certainly am not patronizing him or anybody else. I do appreciate people voicing their opinions on matters, no matter if I agree with them or not.
Post by zenmastermatt on May 2, 2014 14:34:55 GMT -5
Until reading through this thread I thought that it was just understood throughout the inforoo community that if you were to use swear words you just used Ann Coulter instead. I guess not.
I don't know the appropriate thread for this question, and I have tried to find the answer myself but with no luck. How does one turn off the filter?
I most certainly am not patronizing him or anybody else. I do appreciate people voicing their opinions on matters, no matter if I agree with them or not.
Next time you might consider getting people's opinions first then, rather than running off a long time poster THEN getting people's opinions. Wait, that's not what you guys did either, you ran off a long time poster, said nothing, and waited for someone like me to cause a stink about it THEN got people's opinions on the matter.
Until reading through this thread I thought that it was just understood throughout the inforoo community that if you were to use swear words you just used Ann Coulter instead. I guess not.
I don't know the appropriate thread for this question, and I have tried to find the answer myself but with no luck. How does one turn off the filter?
I find it interesting that only men seem to be voicing their opinion on the use of the word and throwing c-word around like candy. I'm glad everyone's missed the point
I most certainly am not patronizing him or anybody else. I do appreciate people voicing their opinions on matters, no matter if I agree with them or not.
Next time you might consider getting people's opinions first then, rather than running off a long time poster THEN getting people's opinions. Wait, that's not what you guys did either, you ran off a long time poster, said nothing, and waited for someone like me to cause a stink about it THEN got people's opinions on the matter.
We did not run anybody off. The suspension was a direct result of his actions. He is welcome back in two weeks, if he chooses.
We do not take a vote of users before we make a decision on what to do when a poster clearly violates the rules.
I find it interesting that only men seem to be voicing their opinion on the use of the word and throwing c-word around like candy. I'm glad everyone's missed the point
For the record....I have a vagina and that particular word doesn't bother me. Just throwing that out there.
Next time you might consider getting people's opinions first then, rather than running off a long time poster THEN getting people's opinions. Wait, that's not what you guys did either, you ran off a long time poster, said nothing, and waited for someone like me to cause a stink about it THEN got people's opinions on the matter.
We did not run anybody off. The suspension was a direct result of his actions. He is welcome back in two weeks, if he chooses.
We do not take a vote of users before we make a decision on what to do when a poster clearly violates the rules.
Well, when the rule he violated was "not being nice," I think you're incorrect to say there can ever a clear violation. Especially since the first post made it sound like if he had apologized publicly rather than privately he wouldn't have been suspended a second time (is that in the rules somewhere, btw?).
Next time you might consider getting people's opinions first then, rather than running off a long time poster THEN getting people's opinions. Wait, that's not what you guys did either, you ran off a long time poster, said nothing, and waited for someone like me to cause a stink about it THEN got people's opinions on the matter.
We did not run anybody off. The suspension was a direct result of his actions. He is welcome back in two weeks, if he chooses.
We do not take a vote of users before we make a decision on what to do when a poster clearly violates the rules.
I think it was pretty obvious. He basically ran through a list of "Let me tell you about yourself"
Mods are like the Obama administration. They are both never wrong and God forbid you disagree.
I am not sure if we have ever stated we are never wrong, at least I have never said that. There are some things I wish I would have done differently or said differently in the past, but that is expected in a 10 year run. I have never discouraged anybody from disagreeing with me or anything we do as mods.
I find it interesting that only men seem to be voicing their opinion on the use of the word and throwing c-word around like candy. I'm glad everyone's missed the point
For the record....I have a vagina and that particular word doesn't bother me. Just throwing that out there.
Ya, but it also relays a specific insult of being uptight and other stereotypes of uppity-ness. It's a shitty term and flanz used it in his relative speak - now people are saying it just to be provocative. Well it's not - it's just irritating
Mods are like the Obama administration. They are both never wrong and God forbid you disagree.
I am not sure if we have ever stated we are never wrong, at least I have never said that. There are some things I wish I would have done differently or said differently in the past, but that is expected in a 10 year run. I have never discouraged anybody from disagreeing with me or anything we do as mods.
Mods are like the Obama administration. They are both never wrong and God forbid you disagree.
I am not sure if we have ever stated we are never wrong, at least I have never said that. There are some things I wish I would have done differently or said differently in the past, but that is expected in a 10 year run. I have never discouraged anybody from disagreeing with me or anything we do as mods.
Your not sure ? But I respect that you admit that there are some things you would do different. I would still vote you out though.
Until reading through this thread I thought that it was just understood throughout the inforoo community that if you were to use swear words you just used Ann Coulter instead. I guess not.
I don't know the appropriate thread for this question, and I have tried to find the answer myself but with no luck. How does one turn off the filter?
Post by problem dog on May 2, 2014 14:56:26 GMT -5
As a rule, I don't like referring to women as cunts. But it's fucking ridiculous to punish a user on this forum for using a word that isn't barred by an filter. If you have an issue with the word "cunt," keep it banned. Most of us just wanted to get rid of the filter so we could speak the way we do in real life, and post band names like Fuck Buttons and War on Drugs without them showing up all wonky and shit. And also so we wouldn't be subjected to idiot Rooster in-jokes like "corn" (LOL SO FUNNY). I don't think anybody would have cared if you lifted the filter and said we still wouldn't be allowed to post "cunt" or "fag" or any other word deemed too extreme for the forum.
Furthermore, the user who was called a cunt was dribbling shit posts all over the board. That fucking Mingle Single thread is a sweaty, pathetic pit of desperation that has ruined Recent Posts as means of browsing this forum. Flanzo ripped on a poster who needed to be told that her posts were dogshit.
Finally, Phyre Fest: if you weren't such a touchy little cunt about the website where you repost Inforoo rumors, nobody would care enough to make fun of you.
Settle down, errybody. He came out from his suspension swinging - it was like a 'suicide by cop' thing; to me, it appeared that he was gunning for a fight.
We did not run anybody off. The suspension was a direct result of his actions. He is welcome back in two weeks, if he chooses.
We do not take a vote of users before we make a decision on what to do when a poster clearly violates the rules.
Well, when the rule he violated was "not being nice," I think you're incorrect to say there can ever a clear violation. Especially since the first post made it sound like if he had apologized publicly rather than privately he wouldn't have been suspended a second time (is that in the rules somewhere, btw?).
I believe if you re read or remember what was said, not only to our mod, but to other members it pretty clearly violated "No flaming, obscenity, or otherwise being rude. Treat people the way you would want to be treated. Just because it's the internet does not give anyone the excuse to insult other members" Of course, violating this rule does not automatically result in a two week suspension. It does however after warnings and a one week suspension.
I voiced my concern on the wording of that part as well. That was not the intent, a public apology would not have stopped the two week suspension, in accordance with guidelines we established. As far as I know, he was aware of that. Although I had no conversation with him throughout the process.
Well, when the rule he violated was "not being nice," I think you're incorrect to say there can ever a clear violation. Especially since the first post made it sound like if he had apologized publicly rather than privately he wouldn't have been suspended a second time (is that in the rules somewhere, btw?).
I believe if you re read or remember what was said, not only to our mod, but to other members it pretty clearly violated "No flaming, obscenity, or otherwise being rude. Treat people the way you would want to be treated. Just because it's the internet does not give anyone the excuse to insult other members" Of course, violating this rule does not automatically result in a two week suspension. It does however after warnings and a one week suspension.
I voiced my concern on the wording of that part as well. That was not the intent, a public apology would not have stopped the two week suspension, in accordance with guidelines we established. As far as I know, he was aware of that. Although I had no conversation with him throughout the process.
So reasonableness has nothing to do the violation, but apparently becomes relevant in punishment?
Well, when the rule he violated was "not being nice," I think you're incorrect to say there can ever a clear violation. Especially since the first post made it sound like if he had apologized publicly rather than privately he wouldn't have been suspended a second time (is that in the rules somewhere, btw?).
I believe if you re read or remember what was said, not only to our mod, but to other members it pretty clearly violated "No flaming, obscenity, or otherwise being rude. Treat people the way you would want to be treated. Just because it's the internet does not give anyone the excuse to insult other members" Of course, violating this rule does not automatically result in a two week suspension. It does however after warnings and a one week suspension.
I voiced my concern on the wording of that part as well. That was not the intent, a public apology would not have stopped the two week suspension, in accordance with guidelines we established. As far as I know, he was aware of that. Although I had no conversation with him throughout the process.
As far as you know ? So maybe your just speculating.
I am not sure if we have ever stated we are never wrong, at least I have never said that. There are some things I wish I would have done differently or said differently in the past, but that is expected in a 10 year run. I have never discouraged anybody from disagreeing with me or anything we do as mods.
Your not sure ? But I respect that you admit that there are some things you would do different. I would still vote you out though.
No I am not 100 percent sure...as I have 10 years of posts floating around here.
I guess it is a good thing this is not Survivor, or I may would be out of a job.
I believe if you re read or remember what was said, not only to our mod, but to other members it pretty clearly violated "No flaming, obscenity, or otherwise being rude. Treat people the way you would want to be treated. Just because it's the internet does not give anyone the excuse to insult other members" Of course, violating this rule does not automatically result in a two week suspension. It does however after warnings and a one week suspension.
I voiced my concern on the wording of that part as well. That was not the intent, a public apology would not have stopped the two week suspension, in accordance with guidelines we established. As far as I know, he was aware of that. Although I had no conversation with him throughout the process.
As far as you know ? So maybe your just speculating.
As far as I know, meaning I did not have a conversation with him saying that if he made a public apology there would be no ban. It was never an option as far a I was concerned. But I hesitate to say with 100 percent certainty that it was NEVER discussed with him because I did nit talk to him. I know how things we say are often dug up to provide a great "gotcha" moment. As they should, so I try to be as deliberate as I can be with what I tell you or anybody else. Stating what I know for sure and prefacing things that I am no 100 percent sure about with "as far as I know"
Well, when the rule he violated was "not being nice," I think you're incorrect to say there can ever a clear violation. Especially since the first post made it sound like if he had apologized publicly rather than privately he wouldn't have been suspended a second time (is that in the rules somewhere, btw?).
I believe if you re read or remember what was said, not only to our mod, but to other members it pretty clearly violated "No flaming, obscenity, or otherwise being rude. Treat people the way you would want to be treated. Just because it's the internet does not give anyone the excuse to insult other members" Of course, violating this rule does not automatically result in a two week suspension. It does however after warnings and a one week suspension.
I voiced my concern on the wording of that part as well. That was not the intent, a public apology would not have stopped the two week suspension, in accordance with guidelines we established. As far as I know, he was aware of that. Although I had no conversation with him throughout the process.
I propose amending the rules. The first one should be "We're all adults, so act like it." That shouldn't mean "If you cross the line in something you say and regret it, tough shit, sincerely trying to work that out with the person won't help."
