Motion of No Confidence in the Right Hon. Inks

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Wow... I am flattered that I have garnered my own movement.

Dude, you even have your own verb, noun, and interjection.  I got Inked.  Ink that.  What the F[inks] are you doing?

FWIW, I have confidence in you, hoss.  Hang in there.  You might at least admit that Phil won a victory, though.  He really did.  Be honest about it.

Truthfully, there was no fight here.  Once I realized that it wasn't just Phil being Phil, I reopened the thread.  I guess if you call that a victory, then I'll concede that it's a victory.

[Marokai Backbeat]

As always in these moderation discussions I feel like a moderate hero. I don't really like Inks as a mod, but it has nothing to do with wanting to gut the moderating system, him posting a PM in retaliation for someone posting an out of context excerpt from a PM is hardly a violation worth worrying about, and I always feel uncomfortable with these stupid "movements" about getting rid of mods by some sort of internet-revolution. I just believe in a reasonably strict but consistent and clear moderating system. The terms of service shouldn't be a living, breathing document that is enforced differently depending on the moderator unless there are extreme circumstances (such as the current state of the 2012 board).

So, whatever, no, I do not have confidence in Inks, but not because I'm a trouble maker (I've been infracted one time in my entire time on the forum), and not because I think people should be "able to make personal attacks without impunity" (this isn't a slugfest, it's a political forum, if you want to fight take it somewhere else), but because I strongly, strongly dislike it when moderators just pull some sort of rule out of their ass, or have some God-like view of what they want to shape the forum into (like Mikado with his bizarre Something Awful-esque visions of mob rule).

Rule enforcement isn't something that should be arbitrary or based around picking on the weakest member of the group to toughen them up. Where I feel bad for Inks is that he isn't at fault for the way the rules are written, he's just a symptom of the larger problem, which is the continued confusion over whether or not the Terms of Service actually matters. It's the word of God and should be taken deathly seriously one day, the next day it's a loose "guideline" for how to moderate.

I suppose I'm just rambling about things now. No, I don't have confidence in Ink's moderating. Nor do I in Mikado's (or AndrewCT's) moderating, for that matter. Nor do I really even understand what people moderate based on these days. Moderation went into crackdown mode a couple years back to deal with a severe case of trolls infesting the boards, and once the immediate problem was eliminated, we stayed in crackdown mode. We need moderation, but we should cool our jets a little bit. We certainly, at least, don't need more mods. We just need a few different, sensible ones.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Sorry for being so predictable but... I completely agree with Marokai.

[Badger]

Speaking as a mod who rarely infracts (NYJew's recent tirades being an exception), I support Inks.

[SUSAN CRUSHBONE]

Wow... I am flattered that I have garnered my own movement.

Dude, you even have your own verb, noun, and interjection.  I got Inked.  Ink that.  What the F[inks] are you doing?

FWIW, I have confidence in you, hoss.  Hang in there.  You might at least admit that Phil won a victory, though.  He really did.  Be honest about it.

Truthfully, there was no fight here.  Once I realized that it wasn't just Phil being Phil, I reopened the thread.  I guess if you call that a victory, then I'll concede that it's a victory.

You mean the whole argument with which you derailed the MANIC after the fact wasn't a "fight"?

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Wow... I am flattered that I have garnered my own movement.

Dude, you even have your own verb, noun, and interjection.  I got Inked.  Ink that.  What the F[inks] are you doing?

FWIW, I have confidence in you, hoss.  Hang in there.  You might at least admit that Phil won a victory, though.  He really did.  Be honest about it.

Truthfully, there was no fight here.  Once I realized that it wasn't just Phil being Phil, I reopened the thread.  I guess if you call that a victory, then I'll concede that it's a victory.

You mean the whole argument with which you derailed the MANIC after the fact wasn't a "fight"?

I locked the thread. Phil complained.  Phil was the only one who complained.  I thought Phil was just being Phil.  I went to class.  I saw more than just Phil wanted it unlocked.  I unlocked the thread.

If you consider that to be a "fight", then I'll agree that he won the fight.

[Keystone Phil]

I thought Phil was just being Phil. 

that moderators can make personal attacks.

Here's the real story: Inks locked the thread because he didn't like it. He told me it violated the ToS. There was an uproar that it was locked so instead of admitting that he locked it for personal reasons or because it violated the ToS (knowing those excuses would create an even bigger uproar), he played innocent. "Oh, I just figured you guys wanted a new one."

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

I thought Phil was just being Phil. 

that moderators can make personal attacks.

Here's the real story: Inks locked the thread because he didn't like it. He told me it violated the ToS. There was an uproar that it was locked so instead of admitting that he locked it for personal reasons or because it violated the ToS (knowing those excuses would create an even bigger uproar), he played innocent. "Oh, I just figured you guys wanted a new one."

That's a blatant lie.  I didn't lock it because it violated the TOS, because the thread, as a whole, did not.

[opebo]

Speaking as a mod who rarely infracts (NYJew's recent tirades being an exception), I support Inks.

Why? 

[Keystone Phil]

I thought Phil was just being Phil.  

that moderators can make personal attacks.

Here's the real story: Inks locked the thread because he didn't like it. He told me it violated the ToS. There was an uproar that it was locked so instead of admitting that he locked it for personal reasons or because it violated the ToS (knowing those excuses would create an even bigger uproar), he played innocent. "Oh, I just figured you guys wanted a new one."

That's a blatant lie.  I didn't lock it because it violated the TOS, because the thread, as a whole, did not.

Inks, you said that my supposed asinine behavior justifies locking threads/violates the ToS and that is why you locked The Institute. That is what you said to me at first. You realized that wasn't going to fly so you came up with some other BS about how you locked it because you thought everyone would want it to end or whatever.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

I thought Phil was just being Phil. 

that moderators can make personal attacks.

Again, it's not a personal attack.  It's true.  It is a PROVEN fact that you overreact to things (the Tinypic incident being a prime example, where you not only overreacted, but you, yet again, ignored the facts of the situation).

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

I thought Phil was just being Phil.  

that moderators can make personal attacks.

Here's the real story: Inks locked the thread because he didn't like it. He told me it violated the ToS. There was an uproar that it was locked so instead of admitting that he locked it for personal reasons or because it violated the ToS (knowing those excuses would create an even bigger uproar), he played innocent. "Oh, I just figured you guys wanted a new one."

That's a blatant lie.  I didn't lock it because it violated the TOS, because the thread, as a whole, did not.

Inks, you said that my supposed asinine behavior justifies locking threads/violates the ToS and that is why you locked The Institute. That is what you said to me at first. You realized that wasn't going to fly so you came up with some other BS about how you locked it because you thought everyone would want it to end or whatever.

No, I didn't.  I said that your behavior and the behavior of others lead me to delete a page worth of material, and at that point, I believed it was such a large dispute as to have compromised the quality of the particular comedy thread, that it was time to lock it like past threads.

[Keystone Phil]

I thought Phil was just being Phil. 

that moderators can make personal attacks.

Again, it's not a personal attack.  It's true.  It is a PROVEN fact that you overreact to things (the Tinypic incident being a prime example, where you not only overreacted, but you, yet again, ignored the facts of the situation).

Facts and opinions, Inks. You clearly don't understand the difference. In your opinion, you thought I was overreacting to The Institute locking! See how that blew up in your face?

[© tweed]

I didn't lock it because it violated the TOS

excuse me?  you have no authority to act in your capacity as a moderator outside the confines of the TOS.  it is your job to enforce the ToS, PERIOD.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

I didn't lock it because it violated the TOS

excuse me?  you have no authority to act in your capacity as a moderator outside the confines of the TOS.  it is your job to enforce the ToS, PERIOD.

And I have admitted that locking the thread was a mistake.

[© tweed]

I didn't lock it because it violated the TOS

excuse me?  you have no authority to act in your capacity as a moderator outside the confines of the TOS.  it is your job to enforce the ToS, PERIOD.

And I have admitted that locking the thread was a mistake.

this does not absolve you of further sanction.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

I thought Phil was just being Phil. 

that moderators can make personal attacks.

Again, it's not a personal attack.  It's true.  It is a PROVEN fact that you overreact to things (the Tinypic incident being a prime example, where you not only overreacted, but you, yet again, ignored the facts of the situation).

Facts and opinions, Inks. You clearly don't understand the difference. In your opinion, you thought I was overreacting to The Institute locking! See how that blew up in your face?

Phil, you told argued with me that someone had hacked your Tinypic link AFTER I informed you that Tinypic themselves said what you were describing was impossible.  I'm sorry, but that is an overreaction, and any rational, logical person would agree with me.  You have a history of doing stuff like this.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

I didn't lock it because it violated the TOS

excuse me?  you have no authority to act in your capacity as a moderator outside the confines of the TOS.  it is your job to enforce the ToS, PERIOD.

And I have admitted that locking the thread was a mistake.

this does not absolve you of further sanction.

I didn't say that it does, but you're acting like I'm contesting the issue.  I'm not.

[Keystone Phil]

I thought Phil was just being Phil. 

that moderators can make personal attacks.

Again, it's not a personal attack.  It's true.  It is a PROVEN fact that you overreact to things (the Tinypic incident being a prime example, where you not only overreacted, but you, yet again, ignored the facts of the situation).

Facts and opinions, Inks. You clearly don't understand the difference. In your opinion, you thought I was overreacting to The Institute locking! See how that blew up in your face?

Phil, you told argued with me that someone had hacked your Tinypic link AFTER I informed you that Tinypic themselves said what you were describing was impossible.  I'm sorry, but that is an overreaction, and any rational, logical person would agree with me.  You have a history of doing stuff like this.

And I was overreacting about The Institute, right? Did you not tell me to "stop whining and create a new one?"

[© tweed]

I suspect some would become quite unpopular as they allow chaos to ensue per a laissez faire approach

this is total fearmongering nonsense.  the Forum existed for YEARS with almost NO moderation.  the Moderation system doesn't prevent anything at all, it creates controversy and is nothing but its own structure of power imposed from outside on the Forum.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

I thought Phil was just being Phil. 

that moderators can make personal attacks.

Again, it's not a personal attack.  It's true.  It is a PROVEN fact that you overreact to things (the Tinypic incident being a prime example, where you not only overreacted, but you, yet again, ignored the facts of the situation).

Facts and opinions, Inks. You clearly don't understand the difference. In your opinion, you thought I was overreacting to The Institute locking! See how that blew up in your face?

Phil, you told argued with me that someone had hacked your Tinypic link AFTER I informed you that Tinypic themselves said what you were describing was impossible.  I'm sorry, but that is an overreaction, and any rational, logical person would agree with me.  You have a history of doing stuff like this.

And I was overreacting about The Institute, right? Did you not tell me to "stop whining and create a new one?"

I've already said I THOUGHT that you were.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

I suspect some would become quite unpopular as they allow chaos to ensue per a laissez faire approach

this is total fearmongering nonsense.  the Forum existed for YEARS with almost NO moderation.  the Moderation system doesn't prevent anything at all, it creates controversy and is nothing but its own structure of power imposed from outside on the Forum.

Most of what Tweed says is quite true.  Alcon rarely touched anything but the most egregious stuff on the FC and OT boards.....but the difference now is the system itself (instituted by Dave) is different, but not better.   

[Keystone Phil]

I thought Phil was just being Phil. 

that moderators can make personal attacks.

Again, it's not a personal attack.  It's true.  It is a PROVEN fact that you overreact to things (the Tinypic incident being a prime example, where you not only overreacted, but you, yet again, ignored the facts of the situation).

Facts and opinions, Inks. You clearly don't understand the difference. In your opinion, you thought I was overreacting to The Institute locking! See how that blew up in your face?

Phil, you told argued with me that someone had hacked your Tinypic link AFTER I informed you that Tinypic themselves said what you were describing was impossible.  I'm sorry, but that is an overreaction, and any rational, logical person would agree with me.  You have a history of doing stuff like this.

And I was overreacting about The Institute, right? Did you not tell me to "stop whining and create a new one?"

I've already said I THOUGHT that you were.

Yeah, so much for your facts.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Yeah most people would agree this section was better off under Alcon's far more laissez-faire moderation.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

Yeah most people would agree this section was better off under Alcon's far more laissez-faire moderation.

He might not be so relaxed under this new system......who knows.  Of course the prick decided to get a real life, so we'll never know.