How to Opt Into Pranks--The Please Prank Me List

[Calandale]

I'm not saying that you're in some clique (although I find it interesting that you would ask me that since you were also using the 'groups' argument), what I am saying is that you are usually in the group that shouts the loudest when it comes to WC discussions and that uses practically every tactic to show just how much you dislike the opinions of those who disagree (and by this I'm not just talking about arguing your own point of view- I'm talking about writing off people's arguments completely because of who they are, I'm talking about those of you that decide they're going to smite someone they disagree with every hour on the hour just to show just how much people dislike their point of view,etc).

i'm usually too lazy to engage in anything like this. i've done it with scrap when he had already started doing the same to me.

I'd count emoticon yawns, and complaints of shit stirring,
without any explanation within this.

[Calandale]

Ya gonna lick up that cream?

which one?

ALL of it.

well i am an assfairy. might as well. *slurpslurp*

You know how to make me happy.

[Calandale]

How is it not bullying for an administrator to abuse his abilities as administrator to repeatedly prank someone who has asked him to stop to the point that there are several people who are intimidated into not speaking out against it for fear of painting a big red target on their backs, but bullying for someone to speak out against an administrator abusing his admin status in that way, and if they do, dismissing their concerns with comments like, "grow some skin" or "leave Intensity if you can't handle it," Purposeful Insanity?

The anti prank list is JUST such a target though.
I'll tell you what, I like speaking out, and love
having a target. Anyone who wants me to
speak out against someone for a prank, just
PM me, and I'll tie the poor prankster up in
so much vebiage, that they'll not have time to
prank. 

[Calandale]

You have prohibited their rights to voice their opinions by repeatedly pranking people who have asked you to stop, Peaguy.

I don't see why they can't say things.

And you never said that you were going to refuse to respect the rights of people who asked you to stop pranking them while you were running for administrator.

'Twas clear as daylight. He was the only candidate,
who seemed to make NO indication that he'd temper
his pranks, IIRC (though hadron may have said something
similar - I seem to remember him qualifying his answer).

Pranking someone once for a joke is one thing, but continuing to abuse your abilities as administrator to prank them repeatedly after they have asked you to stop or even gone to the lengths to put their names on a "don't prank me" list is another.  One is high spirited fun while the other one is bullying, IMO.

Perhaps. But there are many ways of bullying.
Some could easily argue that a person in a position
of authority, making some statements that Odeon
makes, is a form of bullying - which is why I make sure
to pin him down that 'tis only his opinion. Some could
say that someone in such a position, making an anti-prank
list, is doing just that - again, why we hammer out that it
actually has no authority; if I had posted such a list, no one
would have worried at all.

[Calandale]

I was afraid that it was going to be a striptease.

 

I was HOPING. 

[Callaway]

You have prohibited their rights to voice their opinions by repeatedly pranking people who have asked you to stop, Peaguy.

I don't see why they can't say things.

Some people might feel that way, but others would be intimidated because they would be afraid of only being bulllied worse for speaking out. 

It's the same reason that kids often don't tell a teacher when they are being bullied in school, because it often only makes the bullying worse.

It never occurred to me to tell a teacher or the bus driver when it was happening to me or my brothers, because I was certain that it would only make it worse.

My school district had elementary school childen riding buses with high school students who were bullies. 

Can you imagine what it felt like for little children, first, second, third and fourth graders to be bullied by high school students, who were all teenagers?

Both my brothers had speech impediments and of course I stuck out like a sore thumb because of my ASD type issues, so we all received special attention from the big bullies.

Pranking someone once for a joke is one thing, but continuing to abuse your abilities as administrator to prank them repeatedly after they have asked you to stop or even gone to the lengths to put their names on a "don't prank me" list is another.  One is high spirited fun while the other one is bullying, IMO.

Perhaps. But there are many ways of bullying.
Some could easily argue that a person in a position
of authority, making some statements that Odeon
makes, is a form of bullying - which is why I make sure
to pin him down that 'tis only his opinion. Some could
say that someone in such a position, making an anti-prank
list, is doing just that - again, why we hammer out that it
actually has no authority; if I had posted such a list, no one
would have worried at all.

I think that the same thing happened when I made the polls to see if the rest of the WC wanted more options than just the one for WC entry.

From my point of view, I was just doing something that any other World Council member could do, but I can see that some others saw it differently.

When you made extra impeachment polls for all the administrators, nobody even batted an eyelash, as far as I could see.

I was afraid that it was going to be a striptease.

 

I was HOPING. 

 

I didn't know you had special feelings for Peaguy, Calandale.

 

[Calandale]

It never occurred to me to tell a teacher or the bus driver when it was happening to me or my brothers, because I was certain that it would only make it worse.

Same here. I'd just take it, until I finally exploded.

I think that the same thing happened when I made the polls to see if the rest of the WC wanted more options than just the one for WC entry.

From my point of view, I was just doing something that any other World Council member could do, but I can see that some others saw it differently.

PRECISELY. I would have complained about certain aspects
anyhow (certainly the menu one, as that seems so counter-
intuitive, but also aspect of subversion of a prior poll, to some
extent), but your position made it look like you were invalidating
the poll that I put up. It's the primary problem with being in a position
of power - NOT intimidating when you are exercising rights everyone
else has. Pretty much what I harped on MrMark and QM about, at WP.

When you made extra impeachment polls for all the administrators, nobody even batted an eyelash, as far as I could see.

The only one that was iffy, was the third one for you. And that was because
pea had failed TWICE to make one which seemed a coherent poll. The others
were jokes, but properly formed.

I didn't know you had special feelings for Peaguy, Calandale.

 

I love watching him pwn himself.

[purposefulinsanity]

I disagree that no-one would have worried at all if the anti-prank list had been made by an non-staff member. The same issues would have been brought up because even if its clear such a request from a member is not going to be enforced the issues about it being a target list, it giving people a false sense of security, etc would still have been there. 



I do agree that when an admin makes some kind of blunt statement that could be interpreted as some kind of declaration or carries out an action, such as the posting of 'improved' polls it does seem to be official in some way (even though the staff member in question didn't mean it that way).  I think the solution may be that such things are clearly labeled as 'unofficial' just so that people can distinguish between actions carried out as an ordinary member and the more official actions/statements a staff member sometimes has to make.

[Calandale]

 

[Callaway]

I disagree that no-one would have worried at all if the anti-prank list had been made by an non-staff member. The same issues would have been brought up because even if its clear such a request from a member is not going to be enforced the issues about it being a target list, it giving people a false sense of security, etc would still have been there. 



I do agree that when an admin makes some kind of blunt statement that could be interpreted as some kind of declaration or carries out an action, such as the posting of 'improved' polls it does seem to be official in some way (even though the staff member in question didn't mean it that way).  I think the solution may be that such things are clearly labeled as 'unofficial' just so that people can distinguish between actions carried out as an ordinary member and the more official actions/statements a staff member sometimes has to make.

It might be easier to just label something when it actually is official, rather than the other way around, since it almost never happens.

Don't people sometimes say So-and-so as Admin, or Webmonkey or Big Stick Waving Guy to denote "official" actions?

[Calandale]

Sensible, so long as everyone is ABSOLUTELY
clear about this. And nothing without some
sort of official imprimatur is to be taken as law.

[purposefulinsanity]

Yeah it probably would be easier- but I think it will take a lot of time for people to get that ingrained in their thinking, since official announcements are so rare.   I think its just human nature for people to assume, often incorrectly, that those in power are trying to assert their authority and since a fair few of us almost automatically think 'fuck authority' it can irritate people even if there's no real reason to be irritated. 

[Scrapheap]

........ free speech isn't--or shouldn't be, at least--about bullying or about some group mentality where it's ok to tell the dissenting voice to grow some skin, stop being such a grumpy old man, or whatever, because you belong to a group that's loud enough.

I'd listen to your own advice on this one.

[Scrapheap]

The thing that gets me about your point of view on this Odeon is that you think its all fair free speech when you call someone a little boy or a cunt or write off someone's real views as them just shit stirring, but its a problem to tell someone to stop being such a grumpy old man or to tell them that Intensity isn't the place for sensitive types.  Its all fair free speech if someone has the piss taken out of them constantly because of their difficulties in communication (btw- I'm thinking of both Flo and Calandale here), but its wrong to take the piss out of people that don't see the funny side to the pranks.  Its hypocritical imo.

The real issue is that Intensity is not, and never has been the place for those who need protecting from any kind of ridicule, and introducing quasi-rules is not really addressing this issue. 

Why do you get to be the one that decides when free speech suddenly becomes bullying?  In a lot of the discussions that take place in the WC you belong to the group that's the loudest, with the constant no other comment  " 's" that add nothing to the debate but make it clear to anyone that dares to argue with the status quo that you don't like their opinion, and the various takes on the dismissive 'nobby no mates is whining again' comments.  That seems just as much, if not more so, an attempt to silence those who disagree than the pranks do. Why is that not bullying then?

QFT 

[Scrapheap]

............... I'm talking about writing off people's arguments completely because of who they are, I'm talking about those of you that decide they're going to smite someone they disagree with every hour on the hour just to show just how much people dislike their point of view,etc).  Silencing the dissenting voice was something you said you considered bullying in your previous post,

QFT 

odeon is a fucking hypocritical ass in this regard