SHOUTING FOR THE MODERATOR IV

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

Not all messages are displayed: show all messages (601 of them)

check

― felicity (felicity), Wednesday, 9 July 2003 10:18 (twenty-one years ago) link

Mwah! Mwah! I kiss you!

― kate (kate), Wednesday, 9 July 2003 10:20 (twenty-one years ago) link

Could someone resize or remove the really huge picture I posted on the robot thread? I didn't know it would turn out so big.

― Nicole (Nicole), Wednesday, 9 July 2003 11:22 (twenty-one years ago) link

Okay, moderating out the giant Tom Selleck pic on the Threadkillah! thread was completely unnecessary IMO.

― Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Wednesday, 9 July 2003 19:10 (twenty-one years ago) link

it crashed my machine dan and i'm using broadband

― mark s (mark s), Wednesday, 9 July 2003 19:14 (twenty-one years ago) link

ok now dada is posting photos to every single new thread. this is going to cause major problems for those of us with slow connections. it was funny for a few hours.

― amateurist (amateurist), Wednesday, 9 July 2003 19:15 (twenty-one years ago) link

it was an embed obliterating the entire thread: ie same as if you or i had locked it to "win"

― mark s (mark s), Wednesday, 9 July 2003 19:17 (twenty-one years ago) link

The problem is that Dada is doing something really interesting (I mean, not every post is golden, but overall...) and yet it's formally irksome to... um, to those who have slow connections and can't be arsed to change their setting to "turn images into links", I guess. Does that setting not work or something?

― Chris P (Chris P), Thursday, 10 July 2003 05:54 (twenty-one years ago) link

no offense to either party, but the Dada stuff reminds alot of Custos in rimshot mode

― James Blount (James Blount), Thursday, 10 July 2003 05:55 (twenty-one years ago) link

Chris, I don't want to turn that setting on b/c the average ILx user does not abuse photo posting to warrant this. Why should I miss out on everyone else's photos b/c Dada is completely overkill?

― That Girl (thatgirl), Thursday, 10 July 2003 06:11 (twenty-one years ago) link

but you don't really miss out, you can view any photos you want to by clicking on them. at least has merit as a temporary solution

― ron (ron), Thursday, 10 July 2003 06:28 (twenty-one years ago) link

But how do you know which ones you want to click on??

Many of us occasionally post pics that add to the goodness of a thread. I don't want to be forced to miss out on this occasional pleasant surprise b/c some asshole can't think of anything else to do.

― That Girl (thatgirl), Thursday, 10 July 2003 06:32 (twenty-one years ago) link

don't get me wrong i totally know where yr coming from. as chris points out, dada occasionally posts pics that add to the goodness of threads. (though i'd say the nature of the gimmick will make that less and less the case with each post)

― ron (ron), Thursday, 10 July 2003 06:51 (twenty-one years ago) link

have the brains around here or the isp investigators, etc finally figured out who this person is yet ? ned?

― Vic (Vic), Thursday, 10 July 2003 07:13 (twenty-one years ago) link

Yeah I've had to change my settings to 'turn images into links' which I suppose is no big deal but I feel a little sore about it. I liked seeing the odd picture come up.

― Tim (Tim), Thursday, 10 July 2003 07:39 (twenty-one years ago) link

As Dada is a very new poster, initially there is going to be a huge burst of activity. Probably s/he will settle down into a more regular pattern of posting that will be managable and acceptible to other posters. Give him/her some time, and if this continues to be a problem, then I think we should address it.

Because I've generally been quite pleased with Dada's occasional contributions.

― kate (kate), Thursday, 10 July 2003 07:45 (twenty-one years ago) link

Can someone tell me if "Did anybody else cry at the end of the 25th hour?" has 24 spoilers in it?

― Ed (dali), Thursday, 10 July 2003 10:11 (twenty-one years ago) link

No I surmise that thread's about a cinema film called the 25th Hour.

My understanding of 24 is that a 25th hour would rather spoil the concept. But maybe you were asking about the specific number of "25th Hour" spoilers there are in that thread, in which case the answer is still no, but may be yes later.

I am not a moderator but am happy to provide this service.

― Tim (Tim), Thursday, 10 July 2003 10:17 (twenty-one years ago) link

My feeling on dada is that some of the pics are good contributions, and as someone on a dial-up at home, it's not even the frequency of them that's a problem - it's that some of them are really colossal, like hundreds of times the size of regular pics. I don't want pics that take half an hour to download. Plus the instance on the Threadkiller thread, which was just abusive. If those small-minority cases were eliminated, I would have no problems - though I'd happily live without most of the pics, many of which make no real contribution and aren't intrinsically interesting.

― Martin Skidmore (Martin Skidmore), Thursday, 10 July 2003 10:29 (twenty-one years ago) link

If the ISP is any indication, Dada is a completely new poster. Beyond that, nothing is known.

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Thursday, 10 July 2003 14:30 (twenty-one years ago) link

sigh, mark - "someone"'s whining you're a nazi again

― James Blount (James Blount), Friday, 11 July 2003 14:20 (twenty-one years ago) link

And this time in ALL CAPS!!!! Oh joy.

― kate (kate), Friday, 11 July 2003 14:22 (twenty-one years ago) link

I think it is his way of saying Mark S. is sexxxy.

― Nicole (Nicole), Friday, 11 July 2003 14:23 (twenty-one years ago) link

Songs about women that think they're sensitive/caring but are actually skeevy/misogynist/sexist was a thread that I was waiting to be ruined by him for a long time...

― kate (kate), Friday, 11 July 2003 14:23 (twenty-one years ago) link

man, ilx moderators ain't nothing to fuck with!

― James Blount (James Blount), Friday, 11 July 2003 14:24 (twenty-one years ago) link

congrats congrats I am in awe

― James Blount (James Blount), Friday, 11 July 2003 14:24 (twenty-one years ago) link

kate - open sesame!

― James Blount (James Blount), Friday, 11 July 2003 14:25 (twenty-one years ago) link

meanwhile, ilx moderators: engage!

― James Blount (James Blount), Friday, 11 July 2003 14:25 (twenty-one years ago) link

Is that what that was about? Ah dearie me.

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Friday, 11 July 2003 14:27 (twenty-one years ago) link

yeah, he's posting all over all kinds a threads now - see here.

― James Blount (James Blount), Friday, 11 July 2003 14:30 (twenty-one years ago) link

(I would like to opine that if the original thread had been left alone rather than deleted, the progressively uglier ones wouldn't have happened.)

― Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Friday, 11 July 2003 14:46 (twenty-one years ago) link

so what now?

― Jody Beth Rosen (Jody Beth Rosen), Friday, 11 July 2003 14:50 (twenty-one years ago) link

(they haven't gotten progressively uglier have they?)(I didn't see the original - too fast for me! - but the successors have been identical no?)

― James Blount (James Blount), Friday, 11 July 2003 14:50 (twenty-one years ago) link

they looked pretty identical to me

― Jody Beth Rosen (Jody Beth Rosen), Friday, 11 July 2003 14:51 (twenty-one years ago) link

(JBR: follow mark's lead. at his signal, unleash hell.)

― James Blount (James Blount), Friday, 11 July 2003 14:52 (twenty-one years ago) link

It's an identical message on about 10 threads. If we kill one, we really need to kill them all. (And yes, I fully support killing them all.)

― kate (kate), Friday, 11 July 2003 14:52 (twenty-one years ago) link

(me too. use 'search' option to initiate 'kitchen light: cockroach scurry')

― James Blount (James Blount), Friday, 11 July 2003 14:54 (twenty-one years ago) link

Kate is james hetfield shockah!

― Nicole (Nicole), Friday, 11 July 2003 14:54 (twenty-one years ago) link

The latest incarnation of the thread which was deleted started making personal swipes at specific posters.

The whole situation bothers me because I base a good amount of my schtick on hyperbolic filth and while I don't think Spooner is particularly funny or anything I do have to wonder why it seems like I can get away with it but he can't.

― Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Friday, 11 July 2003 14:55 (twenty-one years ago) link

(I would like to disagree with Dan. Hi Dan!)

― Tim (Tim), Friday, 11 July 2003 14:55 (twenty-one years ago) link

James has fluffier sideburns.

Dan: because you are friendly and Spooner is evil.

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Friday, 11 July 2003 14:56 (twenty-one years ago) link

Oh I was disagreeing with Dan's previous comment not that one. I think Ned's right although sideburn talk confuses me.

― Tim (Tim), Friday, 11 July 2003 14:58 (twenty-one years ago) link

We've been through this before with regards to my own occasional filth.

-Posters such as Dan, myself, etc. are capable of occasional filth in bursts of funniness, yet it is not the ONLY schtick that we ever contribute to the board. We are members of the community, we don't just drop in to provoke posters like little boys pulling the wings off of flies
-Posters such as Dan, myself, etc. (except for a few regrettable drunken or emotional outbursts) generally DON'T insult or personally attack other posters

I can't really quantify or qualify the difference, but there is a difference. Perhaps simple the fact that the behaviour of and moderation of posters like Spooner makes us THINK about what we are doing, rather than just continuing it blindly.

― kate (kate), Friday, 11 July 2003 14:59 (twenty-one years ago) link

MAYBE U SHOULD ASK OTHER POSTERS WHO USE THESE BOARDS IF THEY WANT A THREAD DELETED BEFORE U ACTUALLY DELETE IT

― sean g, Friday, 11 July 2003 15:01 (twenty-one years ago) link

Grow up, "Sean".

― Nicole (Nicole), Friday, 11 July 2003 15:03 (twenty-one years ago) link

So Tim, you think if we hadn't ignored the original Gwyenth thread, he still would have posted two others titled "Return of the Gwyneth thread" with nasty comments in them and then posted "Return of the Gwyneth thread" in all-caps to eight others?

Also, while filth is predominantly what Spooner has offered, it isn't the only thing he's offered. (James's search shows that.)

I'm not complaining about being in the ILX clique, mind you; it's just that I never really thought of one actually existing and I generally like to try to talk to everyone. (This is how the online me is markedly different from the real-life me.)

― Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Friday, 11 July 2003 15:03 (twenty-one years ago) link

Sean, why are you shouting? The rules of the boards are quite clear and grossly distended rehearsals of the "delete" / "don't delete" argument will only ever be boring.

Dan: he'd have said something else just as tedious and I think as a kind of sign of boundaries of acceptability deletion is a good thing in that case.

― Tim (Tim), Friday, 11 July 2003 15:05 (twenty-one years ago) link

Dan - you think he wouldn't have? this is someone who clearly WILL NOT BE IGNORED < / glenn close>

― James Blount (James Blount), Friday, 11 July 2003 15:07 (twenty-one years ago) link

do we need to rehash mark s' dictum everytime or do we need to rehash the preface pseudo-free speech discussion first?

― James Blount (James Blount), Friday, 11 July 2003 15:08 (twenty-one years ago) link

James B OTM - use the search function and revive the 9000 old threads about free speech on a private forum if you want. Meanwhile the mods will and should delete anything this tosser posts.

― Tico Tico (Tico Tico), Friday, 11 July 2003 15:12 (twenty-one years ago) link

Skipping 501 messages at this point... Click here if you want to load them all.

This thread has been locked by an administrator

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.