INTENSITY²
Start here => What's your crime? Basic Discussion => Topic started by: Nomaken on June 04, 2006, 07:51:41 AM
-
Some admins have been altering peoples settings. Some harmless, but it could be used against some members. I suggested that people should have an option they select in their profile that tells admins whether they are allowed to mess around with members settings, because some cute changes could be fun, but an invasion of privacy to some people. But Mcjagger believes that admins should not be "limited" from changing peoples settings if they want. So do you think that peoples settings should be protected from change by default or no? And this has nothing to do with changes that are made that are necessary, like somebody has a link to a kiddie porn site in their sig, just changes that are superlative like avatar, sig, karma, ect.
-
what the fuck is with all this discussion lately about limiting what others can do. worry about your fucking self.
how dare you try to limit what i can do. how would you like it if your avatar really pissed me off and i made a new rule. how about if i just start making exceptions to what you can say, or how you can say it.
do you hate freedom?
why do you write with correct grammar?
because you can!
why do you excercise your right to speak freely here?
because you can!
Why do you challenge the actions of the administrators?
because you can!
Why do dogs lick their balls?
because they can!
from tim to time: why do adminstrators change users settings in a non harmful way?
because we can?
why are you trying to limit my abilities?
*i kept using myself as an example, because i cannot speak for the other administrators, jusyt like i do not think you have a right to speak for me or insinuate your will over me. (which leads to the generic response).
but i am not talking about simply exerting will over another, people are always exerting their will. what i am talking about is consciously and willfully having a desire to take away what another has the ability to do. limiting abilities.
your a sheep.
-
whilst i agree with the idea of not limiting another's abilities, mcj, can you not see that that is exactly what is happening in what nomaken describes? by farting about with member's settings, you're limiting their ability to choose, and to maintain, their own settings.
and "non-harmful" is a subjective opinion - how do you know members won't find it difficult to deal with their avatar changing, etc., etc.? i certainly would - my avatar is, in part, an expression of me, and i wouldn't want anyone else to choose one for me which i didn't agree to.
anyway, what's with all this "if I made a new rule"? i thought intensity2 wasn't a dictatorship? hmmm?
-
your big words are harming my ego. should we limit you to a vocabulary of a 12 year old?
-
whilst i agree with the idea of not limiting another's abilities, mcj, can you not see that that is exactly what is happening in what nomaken describes?? ?by farting about with member's settings, you're limiting their ability to choose, and to maintain, their own settings.
and "non-harmful" is a subjective opinion - how do you know members won't find it difficult to deal with their avatar changing, etc., etc.?? i certainly would - my avatar is, in part, an expression of me, and i wouldn't want anyone else to choose one for me which i didn't agree to.
anyway, what's with all this "if I made a new rule"?? i thought intensity2 wasn't a dictatorship?? hmmm?
*i kept using myself as an example, because i cannot speak for the other administrators, jusyt like i do not think you have a right to speak for me or insinuate your will over me. (which leads to the generic response).
but i am not talking about simply exerting will over another, people are always exerting their will. what i am talking about is consciously and willfully having a desire to take away what another has the ability to do. limiting abilities.
your a sheep.
why would you ask questions that were already answered.
you didn't really read, did you?
-
mcj, what the fuck are you on about?
and why am i suddenly a sheep? have you been infected by Happeh Virus, or something?
as for my vocabulary - sorry if it makes me difficult to understand. and, in answer to your post inthe peanut gallery (which i can't answer there), yes, i do speak like that in real life, but only when i get the chance, which is rare - i'm used to having to reframe my language with most people, especially when i'm in schools, and my uni students are always asking me to explain words and concepts, etc.
unless i concentrate, i just speak how i think.
-
good.
i act by who i am. tough shit for me and my insecurities over how smart you are. and tough shit to you that i can change your signature and you cant change mine.
we all have choices to make. i am glad that you choose to talk down to me, it makes me feel more comfortable.
will my choices extend the same courtesy to you? will i or will i not change your avatar? have I?
-
Let the admins do whatever they want, then hold them accountable for it and vote them out if they're being a tosser.
-
good.
i act by who i am. tough shit for me and my insecurities over how smart you are. and tough shit to you that i can change your signature and you cant change mine.
we all have choices to make. i am glad that you choose to talk down to me, it makes me feel more comfortable.
will my choices extend the same courtesy to you? will i or will i not change your avatar? have I?
as i recall, intensity1 was about not having to curb our language so as not to upset people. does that not apply to me, too?
i'm sorry you feel i'm talking down to you, as that isn't my intent. but i'd like to know why you're so pissed off about all this - the reaction doesn't seem to fit with the situation, to my mind.
as for changing my avatar: why would you want to?
and peter - if it's going to be so upsetting for mcj, i agree.
-
I'm not going to vote on this one- everytime I express an opinion on the running of the site I get bitched at for it so I'm not going to bother anymore.
-
Huh? I thought the purpose of this site, in part, was bitching. Why take it seriously?
-
Haven't I read in several forums how a (not to be named) admin. on a (not to be named) forum was screwing around with people's settings/posts/sigs, etc.??????? I don't get why this discussion is taking place here???? ??? Maybe I'm taking this too serious and literally???????
McJagger are you having a bad day and feeling peevish? Where the littlest thing sets you off?? I have those days, more times than I can count!
-
Huh? I thought the purpose of this site, in part, was bitching. Why take it seriously?
Yes it is and I don't generally take the bitching seriously- but last time I discussed admin privilages I was accused of trying to take over control of the site- so I'm not getting involved with that subject again.
-
I think members' setting shouldn't be protected, because screwing around with them stirs up trouble and leads to people talking about it, and stirring up trouble here is a good thing.
Our primary method of enforcement on other issues is to publically out the dicks as dicks, so why shouldn't that apply here also?
-
I think members' setting shouldn't be protected, because screwing around with them stirs up trouble and leads to people talking about it, and stirring up trouble here is a good thing.
Our primary method of enforcement on other issues is to publically out the dicks as dicks, so why shouldn't that apply here also?
Interesting perspective, I never even thought about that, but, it makes a fairly decent amount of sense! BUT, do you want the kind of ENDLESS controversy that a (never to be named) admin. on a (never to be named) certain forum has generated.
But you bring up a damn good point, either that or the wine I just drank has my brain in a weird place! :P
-
It's the wine. I've just read a couple of your other recent posts. :P
I figure even endless controversy is better than a dead board. And besides, if we got our hands on some more real controversy, it would be easy enough to put aside a half-assed attempt at controversy like this issue.
-
It's the wine. I've just read a couple of your other recent posts. :P
I figure even endless controversy is better than a dead board. And besides, if we got our hands on some more real controversy, it would be easy enough to put aside a half-assed attempt at controversy like this issue.
Do you see it as just an attempt at controversy then rather than an issue that actually concerns someone?
-
Ouch.
Yes - I was thinking that no one could be that seriously bothered by it. I mean, I'm sure Nomaken meant what he said in his original post, and didn't just post it for shits. But I figured surely there were bigger things in the world to be worried about.
I'm open to being proved wrong, though.
-
It's the wine. I've just read a couple of your other recent posts. :P
I figure even endless controversy is better than a dead board. And besides, if we got our hands on some more real controversy, it would be easy enough to put aside a half-assed attempt at controversy like this issue.
Well the wine wore off, so your making sense! As for the other posts, thats my brain going into overdrive and partially post-whoreishness! :P
-
I am trying to limit your abilities because they aren't fair. What good is freedom unless all people are free equally? Oh, so i'm free to do what I want, but your more free to do what you want than I am because youre an admin? All animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others. There are only 2 ways to make it fair. Either make everyone admins, or prevent admins from having that freedom.
-
Actually, that makes some sense.
By the way, I'm not an admin here. (Am I? I was in the world council for a while, but that got dissolved and I don't think anyone ever gave me admin access.)
-
I think that, in a practical sense, admins need to have the ABILITY to effect these changes in case there is like a kiddie porn link or something, and, as a result, they will always be fucking around with member's information whether they are "supposed to" or not, under the guise that it is the "spirit of intesnity." I voted that they need this admin access because I can't imagine all ofthem adhering to a nonenforced rule for all of eternity.
-
i would like a show of hands from the people who have been abused by any person from the administration team and that were outright offended by it.
-
Not I, and I didn't mean to imply that I had. I just have some doubt in your impulse-control issues as far as not tweaking the admiin stuff here and there even if it's "forbidden."
-
I think a rule could be made that allows admins to makes absolutely necessary changes but restricts them from making superlative changes. I think it is perfectly reasonable if there is just an option in their profile that they could select which would prohibit admins from making superlative changes just as a matter of respect, but necessary changes wouldn't be restricted.
-
I could see giving the admin, the ability to get rid of links (as PMSElle pointed out) to porn or kiddie porn! But, I'm not going to lose any sleep about this issue either!
-
I think a rule could be made that allows admins to makes absolutely necessary changes but restricts them from making superlative changes.? I think it is perfectly reasonable if there is just an option in their profile that they could select which would prohibit admins from making superlative changes just as a matter of respect, but necessary changes wouldn't be restricted.
I would like to impose a rule about gang bullying people who demonstrate AS traits, but i won't.
i think it is also important that we? write several rules in fact which tells you all exactly how you are allowed to act.
It would also be important to figure out exactly what any one person has as an ability that no one else has and limit them.? after all, we just want a level playing field.? and i want these limited especially when there is no evidence that these people have abused their special ability.
matter of fact, since we are on the subject of limiting, lets make sweeping changes and limit everybodies freedoms here, since no one has abused them yet.? we just want to make sure that no one will.
-
I would like to impose a rule about gang bullying people who demonstrate AS traits, but i won't.
Since most of the people on here show AS traits if you actually look how do you decide who needs 'protecting'??
-
i didn't say that i'd decide who needs 'protecting.'
i said that id like to impose a rule against gang bullying.
i also stated that i wouldn't. the mob may bully anybody that they choose, and they do. ANd it seems like it is a survival of the fittest also. the weaker members are the ones who seem to get gang bullied. or the members who show the most defined AS traits. or even the most dillusional seem to get gang bullied.
mostly its the ones with the least amount of communication ability. as the mob works its way up, from the bottom of the pecking order (or social ability), i would suspect that my time would be soon.
therefore i want to stop it before it happens to me.
see.
-
but i must justify why.
i think that as long as we are imposing rules, why stop at the corrupt elite who obviously are running amok. the mob is the same. they must be stopped.
so as long as everybody is agredd that we need to start imposing rules, i say, "lets be even more excessive and impose a shitload of em."
-
Not I, and I didn't mean to imply that I had.? I just have some doubt in your impulse-control issues as far as not tweaking the admiin stuff here and there even if it's "forbidden."
you want honesty?
i would do it one hundred times more often, if i was told that i couldn't.
here is an example:
remember how i was supposed to debate vivi about how intensity would reopen and establish ground rules.
here is what i did:
i got all beligerant and said some very offensive stuff, on purpose.? i crossed my own threshhold.? why?? i wanted to establish that we (I? community) will not be told how to behave.? remember neuroman said it was like a locker room in there?? That was by design. you say we cannot, then we do it to prove that we can.
I lost a friend and Intensity lost the connection with the neurolands, because i refused to allow any of you to be limited by what you can do.
Ozy, the reason i am so pissy about all this is because of how fucking hard i have foughten for some people to have the ability to be themselves, they want to take away my ability to be myself.? presumably in appreciation.
if anyone cares to limit me or my abilities i have two words:
Fuck Off.
If you don't like it, vote with your feet.? i will not conform or be held in check.? and i support your right to not conform as well.? be yourselves.? If yourselves are a bunch of crybaby pussies who are afraid of an avatar prank, then i don't belong here.? although i like pussy, i don't like that variety telling me how to behave.
and i really hate the idea of someone or some people imposing rules on others.
i still haven't seen the McJaggers Success thread yet.
-
Comment:
I really don't see admin abilities as an issue, simply because it boils down to one thing - trust. With responsibility comes a trust issue. Regardless of what artificial limits you place on what admins can and can't do, the question remains whether or not you trust them to act in the best interests of the site, and not to abuse their authority. And there will always be people willing to see ill intent where none exists. For these reasons I don't favour restriction on what admins can and cannot do.
Please note I am not muddling this with the issue of sockpuppets, anyone can abuse sockpuppets. the only issue there is whether or not we berate members publicly for abusing them, or remove the duplicates' ability to give their controller several potential votes/karma uses. I don't give much of a toss really, the proposal I made seemed like a reasonable compromise to me. Meh.
What would you see as gang bullying, McJagger? Just curious. I hope my actions don't fall into that category - I've certainly been piling on Happeh a lot lately (because I think he's asked for it, frankly. which is the whole point of having to own your words and back them up).
-
i have been gang bullied and so has happeh and postperson. the three of us have asked for it, IMO.
fluorescent and RobertN have been gang bullied.
Quirky carla was but she is crafty and made three new friends from her experience.
i have seen PMS Elle gang bullied.
these are to name a few. And i was using it as an example. people may join the mob and gang bully if they wish to. i won't be the person preaching to limit others.
-
I think we need some rules, since people are often inclined to abuse their power, like Peegai did just now.
-
Why do we need rules when we can just kick people out by consensus?
-
then cast your vote that we should be limited.
next we will begin imposing more elaborate rules for the entire community.
we will draft a living TOS.
and eventually we will be just like our nieghbors.
is that what you all want. ?then vote it in. ?its all up to you. ?but i'll be damned if i allow you to limit me without retaliation. ?you cant simply take from me without losing something yourself.
and why is this a one man battle. ?why can't anybody else chime in on the side of freedom?
-
Why do we need rules when we can just kick people out by consensus?
yes, you un-ablers are not doing your duty. If you are under the thumb of some tyrannical leader. Vote my ass out.
the democratic process still works.
And Namoken i changed your poll because your poll answers lead to bias.
-
Why do we need rules when we can just kick people out by consensus?
yes, you un-ablers are not doing your duty.? If you are under the thumb of some tyrannical leader.? Vote my ass out.
the democratic process still works.
And Namoken i changed your poll because your poll answers lead to bias.
And yet you didn't let us revote with the new... uh... "unbiased"... options available.
-
Why do we need rules when we can just kick people out by consensus?
yes, you un-ablers are not doing your duty. If you are under the thumb of some tyrannical leader. Vote my ass out.
the democratic process still works.
Don't tell me what to do. I'm currently have no objection to your continued position as admin, so why would I vote you out? Although I disagree with your actions sometimes, it's not sufficient to outweight the excellent job you do, and I don't know of anyone better suited to it.
-
Why do we need rules when we can just kick people out by consensus?
yes, you un-ablers are not doing your duty.? If you are under the thumb of some tyrannical leader.? Vote my ass out.
the democratic process still works.
And Namoken i changed your poll because your poll answers lead to bias.
And yet you didn't let us revote with the new... uh... "unbiased"... options available.
or a better way of approaching that would be to ask if i locked the poll.
not to my knowledge.
i will look now.
-
nope, new votes have been cast.
-
think what was meant was could people switch their vote to a new option. fixed now to allow change of vote. :)
-
oops.
:-[
-
Why do we need rules when we can just kick people out by consensus?
yes, you un-ablers are not doing your duty.? If you are under the thumb of some tyrannical leader.? Vote my ass out.
the democratic process still works.
Don't tell me what to do.? I'm currently have no objection to your continued position as admin, so why would I vote you out?? Although I disagree with your actions sometimes, it's not sufficient to outweight the excellent job you do, and I don't know of anyone better suited to it.
the photo of fluorescent is back.
it was a snap decision.
didn't you read his response? i thought you had done him in. there needed to be a cooling off period so we could get a chance to massage the situation. we do have some responsibilities. and the major one is to make sure that some members do not go over the deep end.
peter my lad, what will i ever do with you.
tsk tsk /shakes head/
-
if anyone cares to limit me or my abilities i have two words:
Fuck Off.
If you don't like it, vote with your feet. i will not conform or be held in check. and i support your right to not conform as well. be yourselves.
well, this sounds hypocritical to me mcj, seeing as how you've recently gone on about the way i speak, which is limiting my abilities, and trying to enforce your rules on me.
what about paedophiles' right to abuse children? what about dictators' right to torture and murder people who disagree with them? what about a government's right to boot you out of a job with no redundancy pay?
load of fucking piffle.
-
the load of piffle is everything i have used in every post has been an example only. i have repeated several times over that i don't care to limit what you can do.
i would hope that you would be responsible, but that's your choice.
you would hope that i would act responsible, but thats my choice.
furthermore i asked a clear concrete question for a show of hands from anybody who has been abused by an administrator.
NADA.
that sounds to me like i have been responsible.
nope it doesn't sound like hipocricy on my part. it sounds like selective hearing on yours.
piffle fuck-load.
-
i am finding it difficult to form my opinion on this subject because i really don't mind, either way.
all i can say is that i won't ever use my admin abilities for "evil" purposes because i want the community to respect my judgement. i think i worry too much about what others think of me.
i think it is fair to say that Peegai has more balls than i (in more ways than one, i presume). :laugh:
-
nope it doesn't sound like hipocricy on my part. it sounds like selective hearing on yours.
piffle fuck-load.
not hypocrisy? when you'd rather die than take away people's freedoms, and yet wish to deny me the right to speak in the way i find easiest? look again, mcj.
and i have no idea what that last bit is supposed to mean.
-
me either, but it sounded good coming out
-
Where the fuck did all those other options come from?
-
McJagger changed your poll options because he thought they led to bias. Here:
Why do we need rules when we can just kick people out by consensus?
yes, you un-ablers are not doing your duty.? If you are under the thumb of some tyrannical leader.? Vote my ass out.
the democratic process still works.
And Namoken i changed your poll because your poll answers lead to bias.
-
Not quite there, but getting dangerously close to raising my hand on "been abused by any person from the administration team that were outright offended by it."
I brought this issue up because of the POTENTIAL danger it posed, not because I had been affected, oh well, now i've got that going for me.
-
This whole thread is one big steaming pile of shit, of the male bovine kind!
For the record I removed my vote and left it in the toilet where it will have more effect!
-
There, just changed my vote to members settings should be the least of our worries.
-
Shouldnt this thread be in the voting booth? As for my opinion, i hate both kinds- self rightous baying mobs and egotistic narcissist admins. >:( >:(