I already know what you think. We'll just have to disagree.
Yup, I am cool with agreeing to disagree
me too.
I didn't say "the rest of us", now did I? I said "any number of other members here"
I maintain that quite a few others have held these same high standards you now hold as fairly unique to Richard, Duke, and maybe one or two others. In *my* opinion, just as Richard, in *your* opinion, is braindead (btw, that's a fine assumption to boost your argument with; what is this, a playground?).
No you didn't. I just wanted to make sure I understood you more clearly. 
Fair enough.
Playground? Well I2 is fun. 
Nah. I could have searched for a better description admittedly but I think as a shorthand descriptor it does OK.
Or boobs, or nekkid pics, or just about anything a member might choose to post outside the fora more suited for the adult content. The difference is that blocking avatars by ignoring that member (pun intended) is trivial while blocking misplaced nudes is not.
Nudes, big fucking peters avatars, etc, are a nuisance but they can be blocked. Flooding cannot. Do you wish to take action against every occurrence of adult content outside their dedicated fora? Should we sinbin or blabberize the fuckers responsible? What are you saying?
What I am saying is that the actions of Duke and Richard in my estimation are as close to the same thing and that the irritation factor of their behaviour and the impact on members is similar and of similar consequence.
It is also not in isolation of one incidence nor even in isolation to other crappy behaviour towards members about their kids or their parenting that he has toyed with or what not.
The irritation factor is just about the same, yes. I was sufficiently annoyed by Richard's avatar to block him.
However, the avatar did not stop anyone from technically being able to read or reply to the thread. Duke's links were numerous enough to do that. That is the difference. Not the irritation factor, not the annoyance and not the (lack of) maturity in quite a few of their posts.
Now, I can try to explain this differently, a few replies down the road, but will it make you change your mind? I don't think so. I also don't think it actually matters.
Let me ask you a question, in all honesty: do you think we should always blabberize or sinbin a member who by one means or another "floods" the board, including here both the kind you are talking about and the kind I am? Or do you think we shouldn't?
And I'm not trying to provoke you in this instance, I'm simply interested. It hadn't crossed my mind to consider it when the TOS isn't violated or a thread not made unusable. The rest of you might want to reply, but preferably in another thread.
Jumping on people against every occurrence? Nah. I think I2 would be fine against the occasional occurrence and I don't actually remember anyone up in arms about that. Can you? (You have been here much longer than I. Maybe you can recall a time).
A few occasions early on, when Kevv wanted to post nudes.
Are you trying to tell me that you don't see the difference? That one behaviour, while a nuisance, doesn't actually stop anyone from using the board, but another makes it bloody hard?
You of course remember when he initially changed his avatar that everyone was scrambling and did not know how to ignore or block or whatever and was caught flatfooted. People were speaking in terms of not risking exposure of Richard's cock on their computer and how to minimise the impact and did not know how to effectively block/ignore/whatever whilst no ruining their experience of the board. Others rallied as to how to get him to stop and pleading with him to stop, saying that ignoring was not a solution, others telling how to block the avatar alone and others saying that was no good....
As far as an argument for him not stopping people as to making it bloody hard I think the difference between the two is marginal at best. I have no idea whether anyone did stop using the board on the basis of this or whether others held off and got the solution from others that fitted them or whether they logged off and checked back t a later stage in hope that Ricktard decided to change it back.
I don't know either, but I do know that people ignored him.
As I say the difference is that bloody marginal as to basically in my view be akin to the same.
Because again, Richard did not make the board unreadable, he was just being a nuisance.
Please see above
I did. The difference is a technical one. One made threads physically unusable, the other made them a nuisance without ignoring the perpetrator.
Nobody is sinbinned or blabberized because s/he is aiming for a moral high ground, real or perceived.
Nope. I know this. I would be permanently blabberised because I am a grumpy, arrogant, opinionated old man
You are no more grumpy than I am.
However, again I don't think he JUST took a moral high ground on this and I think I have explained this well enough
I already know you consider it to be so. I don't, and I think there is an important difference.
Again agree to disagree on this point
Really? Are you trying to dictate what arguments I may or may not use here? Man, get used to being disappointed.
Hell no. Use whatever arguments you like. In fact you could say "My board, my rules, my decisions. Piss off Les"
Never crossed my mind. I'm trying to explain my views and my actions, not shove them down your throat.
Does you a lot of credit that you don't.
That said is my opinion is that the argument is not a strong one on that particular point and thus "not one to hang your hat on as a sealer argument"
I did not try to make him stay. Show me the post where I tried. I was perfectly fine with deleting him after the mandatory waiting period of one week. He changed his mind before the time was up, just as I thought he would. And just as you and pretty much everybody else thought.
Of course we had not seen him change his mind. We saw him continuing to post like he had not petulantly demanded deletion and over pretty "moral grounds". Listed below is "I still am, unless someone changes my mind. much like congress, i want my record in the statement". So again adding two and two together. He is (was) going to leave because of his moral stance on Admin abuse and his concerns for private personal information with incompetent admin/pranking admin/untrustworthy admin/lying admin/unstable board (or what the fuck else he was on about). He is to leave UNLESS someone changes his mind. He obviously did not get the answers to change his opinion on board security or Callaway for that matter (He would not do a callout on that). Admin did not delete him as he requested and he continued merrily on his way.
Actually he just changed his mind. He's done it before.
I had seen you also reply the following
If he doesn't change his mind, we will delete his account. He asked us to do it.
I really wish you wouldn't, but I know I know. You have to, right?
As long as we agree to deleting accounts when people ask us to, yes.
I did not systamaticlly put 15 people on my ignore list, thats too much of a hassle. i ignore people right under there screename. I like callaway, but the evidence doesnt lie. I supose there could be a glitch, but that would have to be a majore one
So, in closing if i'm wrong i'll eat my words but something fishy is going on here.
Richard, that would be an idiotic prank. There are far funnier ways to prank a member if one really wants to abuse the admin powers.
The real point here, though, is that WE DIDN'T DO IT.
So the above says to me that you are replying to rage that it is unfortunate that you have to delete him. (Am I right in assuming the "yes" at the end of this sentence is in response to both you "wishing you would not" and "you having to"? That is certainly my reading). Days later after the deletion request is in you are pandering to the guy again by stating you did not do anything.
You misread my response. I simply said that as long as we have that one-week rule, we are bound by it. I was thinking about the technical issues we sometimes have--every time we do delete a member, it messes up a few database tables because SMF isn't all that tidy. I have been thinking about disallowing member deletion and said as much in Site Direction.
As for replying "WE DIDN'T DO IT", well, that was out of anger because Richard wouldn't believe us. It pissed me off.
Hell he wants gone, calls Admin liars, asks for the unprovable as much as he is doing in the latest callout thread against Callaway and yes I call this explaining yourself again as pandering to him to induce him to stay. It is what he wants.
There was no pandering. You are reading things into my posts that aren't there.
But maybe because I doesn't see what is exchanged privately and I don't know other's mindsets, it is possible that Richard was having a lend of you and wanted attention and had no real problem but wanted to upset the apple cart a little. Maybe he figured on the time between the request for deletion, and the actual deletion happening, that he was fixing to save face on board by not admitting his, "Fix/explain this or I will leave" moral stance was unresolved. Maybe he wanted to back down without looking publicly like he had backed down from the "or I will leave bit". Maybe his "unless someone changes my mind", again, was not a requirement in actuality. Maybe your "yes" in the question to Rage was not in respect to it being a shame but just in relation to the deletion itself. Maybe your "We didn't do it" proclamation was not as my reading inferred a last ditch effort to make him see reason and stay but rather an exasperated vent.
It was a vent all right, a pissed off one. I don't particularly like being accused of lying or having my friends being accused of it, and Richard pissed me off.
Just did not stack up that way in my reading especially in respect to the conviction of his want to leave and your agreeing to delete him ...and then him simply seeming to be here and the issues obviously unresolved.
I or another admin would have deleted him but he changed his mind.
He changed his mind and told us so, but afaik, he didn't post it. Which one of the above quotes proves that I tried to make him stay, in your opinion?
Oh I see I need proof? No I don't. I need a decent reason to see a favouritism or a discrepancy of treatment. As of when or why do I need specific proof over this. You are trying to dictate the terms again.
Er, no. I'm trying to make things clear. I'm trying to understand what you ask of me and what you are saying.
Wrong. I ignored the whole thing, fully prepared to delete him, but he changed his mind before the week was up.
OK. Did not look that way to me, but sure. Look to me like you were not just ignoring it.
Fair enough. My venting isn't the same as ignoring the issue. But I wasn't trying to change his mind or anything.
wrong. i'm going to say this one time only, for the sake of me not having to explain myself over and over again.
I dont want to be around people that are biased twords one set of parts, unfair, close minded, have flock mentality, jelouse of what I have, dont know a good thing when they see it, (there kids are in the room or boss is looking over there shoulders)
I would like to be freinds with people that are open minded, fair, unbiased, know a good thing when they see it, arent jelouse of what i have, and dont run off a cliff with the rest of the lemars
So if i dont hit you back now you know.
I still don't understand your point. Maybe you wouldn't care if kids or the boss happen to see one part or the other, but some of us do. It has *nothing* to do with bias, envy, unfairness, etc, and all to do with common sense. It's fairly easy to stay clear of the more explicit threads when you know that someone could watch but a lot harder to avoid an avatar.
And that goes for both sets of private parts. There's a reason they are called private, you know.
If that makes me close-minded in your book, then so be it. I can live with that.
You also said you found it curious elsewhere.
I thought that and the protestation mentioned showed a little more than simply ignoring it. Again my reading and that is what it did and does look like, to me.
I think this was before he was leaving, wasn't it? I think he hadn't asked us to delete his account yet, although it was moving towards that. Be that as it may, I was ignoring the threats he implied here, of him leaving. I did not try to make him stay. I tried to explain what bothered me about the avatars.
What would you suggest we do with the other members posting an occasional nude outside the sex fora? Should we start moderating the board? Should we just ignore those because you don't consider the posters to be braindead or retarded? Why are they allowed to dictate the way we can view the board?
If you want some credibility here, speak out against every such occurrence, against every nude, against every image posted by any member, placed outside where you would expect to find it.
See, this is where your logic fails. You are advocating a solution where you treat members differently depending on what you think of them. I'm not sure if this is a conscious strategy on your part or not, but I think it's pretty blatant.
There's been a lot of nudes posted in the wrong fora, some of which were far more in your face than Richard's avatar, but just as in Richard's case, I didn't do anything except avoiding the thread or ignoring the poster. They didn't stop anyone from viewing the thread, they only made it a nuisance.
Gee Odeon there is a lot in the above to respond to. 
Now how about I attack it in no particular order?
Now I guess firstly whilst being accused I guess of faulty logic my accuser jumps into a slippery slope of showing my to have Richard avatar of him playing with himself as being the same as the occasional nude posted outside of where we would expect it.
OK let's start there and see whether perhaps not consciously I may be an avid closeted anti-porn advocate or whatever it is that you are trying to infer.
I'm not trying to infer anything, I'm highlighting what I see as an inconsistency on your part.
I post about 4 posts a day. Richard about 7 posts a day. All averages of course and some days are more or less. We are both active posters. Le's say that an active poster was to post a porn or self porn image or whatever outside the "designated area".
A one off. Meh
How about 10 such images (a days worth of posts?) that is a nusiance and a pain in the arse. Right?
Is that what we are talking about? That would meet your definitions if I read it right.
No, you are still missing my point. My "definition" concerns when the images,
whatever they may be, slow down the board to such a degree that people with slow connections can no longer read the thread, NOT if somebody posts nudes. It's a technical concern and a free speech concern; the perpetrator is saying that he is doing this so that it won't be
technically possible for you to read the flooded thread.
If that ten nuisances rule was true, then Lit would have been guilty a hundred times over. And a couple of other posters who I remember posting gay porn to piss someone off (can't be arsed to look up those atm, sorry). But they weren't blabberized or sinbinned, even though I was a lot more pissed off than in the case of our friend Duke. They made the threads a nuisance and a problem to read, but they didn't technically stop anyone from anything.
Is that what Richard did? No it wasn't. How many times was this image duplicated on the board? OK now compare this posting outside of designated areas to spamming porn images on the board.
My contention is that it was not once or twice or ten. Not twenty. Richard has over 11 000 posts. How many times was this image duplicated outside of the designated areas, Odeon? Was it in fact around about 10 000 times give or take?
But to be able to read and post in *any* thread where he had posted was only a matter of ignoring the guy. No such luck with Duke.
I don't agree with you at all. I see the point you are trying to make but I disagree with that point strongly because of the reasons I've outlined in this post and in the previous ones, but either you haven't understood mine or you are simply too stubborn to admit that you do see the difference.
Well, that or you just don't see the words "unusable" or "nuisance" in the same way as I do.
Now let's have a look at the rest of your argument.
I have to according to your logic speak out about every occurrence of nudes outside the designated areas to have a credible argument? No I don't. That is rather bizarre and perhaps a little insulting to suggest so. If someone was to in the example of doing the 10 posts a day I might say something on a thread on the 5th or 6th or 10th time, "C'mon mate, can't you just post that in the sex forums?"
I think you are intentionally being obtuse and I don't think you believe that I or others would do more. Why was Richard's avatar viewed so strong and so negatively? 10 000+ images throughout the board.
Clear difference.
None. While a nuisance, avatars are easy to block and they don't stop anyone from reading or replying, just as those select few nudes posted in the wrong places do not stop anyone. They just make it a risk and a nuisance to read where others can see what's on your screen.
Here you are reacting only against one kind of nuisance, not the other.
Were anyone else to do this you can beat your arse I would respond to this.
If Callaway were to decide that her or another vagina as an avatar was pretty good value I would be just as disagreeable and similarly would not respect her brushing it off (not saying she would because she is a respectful person and has a brain in her head.) Were Parts to say an avatar of someone's arsehole were fair game I would call that out too.
Fair enough, and I would agree. Where we would differ is in what actions we might consider. Me, I'd just ignore them.
Now how about you take what you know of me (and you have known me a while) have a think and denounce that I would. Or perhaps drop the inference that the only reason I (and others if you like) had an issue was because it was Richard.
OK--you are right there. That is an inference I shouldn't have made.
I still don't understand your point. Maybe you wouldn't care if kids or the boss happen to see one part or the other, but some of us do. It has *nothing* to do with bias, envy, unfairness, etc, and all to do with common sense. It's fairly easy to stay clear of the more explicit threads when you know that someone could watch but a lot harder to avoid an avatar.
And that goes for both sets of private parts. There's a reason they are called private, you know.
If that makes me close-minded in your book, then so be it. I can live with that.
Oh yeah I am guessing from this quote you know EXACTLY what I am talking about here
Pretty much like me, then. Which is why I called you out.
Fair call
That same argument can be used about you. Aren't you saying that I'm being inconsistent with my actions because I happen to like Richard? That just isn't the case, no matter how you want to make it so by repeating it.
Hell Odeon, it may or may not be. I am by my nature reactive. It is not to say that I am emotionally invested. I see and agree and post as such. I disagree and I post as such. I have no problem in backing myself up or explaining myself nor apologising if i consider myself wrong. I don't see a personal investment with any of this.
And neither do I, beyond the fact that my RSI is acting up from the excessive editing of this post.
I don't "want to make it so". I "see" that this was/is how it looks like to me and I state it. No need to beat around the bush or subtle context here. Straight up and honest. Whether you may have me this way or not.
I think I did, but in spite of not providing links or any proof, I'm still waiting.
IMO, your calling Richard braindead, retard, etc, in your posts, in this context, the one where we discuss Duke's punishment and where you compare the two, would imply that being a retard, ugly, etc, is enough. I'm happy to be wrong here, but if that's the case then what ARE you saying? And besides, I asked a question (see your own quote, above).
What worries me is this:
It just pisses me off having Richard be a dick to no lesser degree and cheer on Duke's sinbinning and/or blabbering whilst everyone has to pander to his unchecked douchebaggery.
I get it. You don't like the guy and you are pissed because he is cheering when Duke gets punished for flooding the board. Yes, I didn't like it either, but no matter how much a dick he was when doing it, he wasn't flooding the board.
Yes the Douchebaggery in question was the issue not the being Richard. Personality grating, but no real issue. Behaviour? Different story.
The reason that I have not been on Duke's case lately, and let's not forget I have in the past, is simply that Duke has not been (OK until the spam episode that I missed completely) been more than he is personality wise. Richard has been being a douchebag. A completely unrepentant forum fucking douchebag. Effectively posting 10 000 images throughout the forum of himself wanking. But it is within the rules you say and no biggie and far different from Duke's spam project (that he responded to as a result of the non-censoring of Richard).
Not sure how it began, tbh.
Now you can say I am unreasonable or over sensitive or picking on Richard or a good many other things, but as above I simply contest this.
I think that I have very valid reasons to assert what I have and think that my reasoning and my logic is sound and fine.
Having listened, I agree. I think your logic is sound, except in places mostly concerning those misplaced nudes. No biggie and I'm not that bothered tbh.
I'm simply saying that I believe my logic to be equally sound but different from yours. That is to say, my grounds for action are different from yours. I do think that about the only time we need to act, outside anything concerning the TOS, is when people try to restrict the freedoms of others. And that is what, in my view, happened when Duke flooded Richard's threads.
Should we go for another round before judgement?
