Why I should be given Admin status

[mc]

quoted because we changed pages:

Why Matt Cross shouldn't be given admin status:


1.

Even if I don't want to bed down with a girl at first meeting, once I see her playing footbag, it will, more often than not, make a part of me want to fuck her (take that as you will).

If racism is not tolerated on the forum then neither should sexism. I talked to all the shredita's I know about this comment, and all were offended by it.

2.

DO NOT PURCHASE BAGS FROM CALE MCCOY.

I paid him for a bag in JANUARY and he has not found a way to send it to me, even until now.

He is UNRELIABLE. He has not responded to several requests to get in gear and send me the bag, and he has gone back on at least three promises to send me the bag!

Things like these should be taken care of via PM. I don't know if Matt sent a PM or not as I didn't get involved. But someone who wants to be a mod should not partake in slander and defamation.

3. Anyone starting a thread about how they should be a mod, In my opinion does not deserve to be a mob. Especially when they are nearly demanding it.

I like Matt (unless he is staring at my while stroking his hair). I think he is a good guy and a very knowledgeable player. But someone who is so opinionated at generally a people pleaser would not make decisions that would better the forum, they would better his personal agenda.

Don't take this personally Matt. I still like you and hope this doesn't damage our friendship. But you were asking for it.

Please weigh in with your opinions. Vicious Matt-hate is strongly encouraged.

My 1972 penny with a Lincoln misprint on his forehead (2 cents)

Meh.

If people are not doing honest business, then they deserve to have their business practices exposed. I see no harm in that comment.

Similarly, attraction is not sexist, no matter how some people may feel about Matt's statement on his change in perspective as he observes people. It may have offended some people, but not everything on the internet is agreeable and respectable. Worded differently most people would agree with the concept of his statement.

Having an admin that is on the site, participates in the forums, and can be responsive doesn't seem like a horrible idea.

what cam said ^

and furthermore:

1. to all those shreditas who are offended by that statement, and Zach:

- You're offended by the truth. Sorry if that statement is too out front, but it's a statement about me, not about women. There's nothing sexist about it at all. If you really are so blind that you think that it's some kind of indication that I have an extreme, sexist view of women footbaggers, and some extreme, sexist attraction to women footbaggers over non-footbagger women, then you are COMPLETELY out of touch with myself, and the men you are playing with. I ASSURE you, the VAST majority of straight (or otherwise attracted to women) footbag-playing males are more turned on by you than the average woman, because playing footbag is a sign of two things -

thing 1: You're into a weird fringe artsy athletic thing *that I happen to love* that takes a lot of effort for no immediate payoff, which means that you're probably an intense, creative, dedicated individual (which is a rare, wonderful thing in either sex), and I don't see how you can think that that is unattractive to anyone in their right mind - I am attracted to males who play footbag for the EXACT SAME REASONS, I just don't happen to be as inclined to want a physical side to the relationship.

thing 2: This weird fringe artsy athletic thing has probably given you a nice, lean, sexy body, and I don't see how you can think that that is unattractive to anyone in their right mind, especially to someone who obviously desires to have a similar lean, sexy body like your own.

By the way, Zach, did you happen to frame the question as "Are you offended by this statement?" or "Do you think this is sexist?"

I bet you did. Let's assume you did for a second - don't you think that that may have indicated to the person who received that question to think "I will probably be offended by this"? Is there a possibility that you presented what I said as "something sexist that you won't like" before you even presented it?

Even if you didn't, sex is a hot-button issue, and a man being public while admitting that he likes sex is sure to draw an uneducated, unconsidered feeling of "offense" from many people who are prone to uneducated, unconsidered feelings (which are lots of people). Read what I said - what is sexist about it?

How about this, what if we removed the word "women" and replaced it with "people towards whom I feel sexual attraction" - anything offensive there? Because those two terms are interchangeable in this circumstance.

SORRY EVERYONE, I LOVE FOOTBAG, AND IF YOU LOVE FOOTBAG TOO, IT MAKES ME ATTRACTED TO YOU.

ri-fucking-diculous. SERIOUSLY.

By the way, I hope the last person who brought this up to me reads this, and takes everything I've just said personally. You know who you are.

2. That is neither slanderous, nor defamatory. First off, it is IMPOSSIBLE that it could be slander, because slander is spoken, not written. Second off, it's not defamatory because I didn't call him names and I didn't lie. I gave a suggestion; a warning to other users about his business practices.

Get your definitions straight before you go around labeling people with words that you don't understand - There is a difference between "defamatory" and "hard-handed".

ALSO, I tried to take care of this via PM, at least 3 or 4 times, over the last 5 months, and Cale won't tell you any differently. Apparently polite, infrequent, numerous friendly responses were not enough to get him to send me the bag I paid for, so I resorted to public lambasting of a kid who I happen to think is a nice guy, but just can't seem to get his ass to a post office.

3. What if such a person has a lot of good reasons? What does self-nomination have to do with reasoning or validity?

Also, this thread is in NO WAY a demand, it's an argument. It's also an argument that I am completely comfortable with losing, as long as SOMEONE steps up and gets involved (and I've clearly stated that already in this thread in posts that you have clearly not read).

If people are demanded by anything, I want it to be their own sense of reason, and NOT ME. Who am I to make a demand? and by the way, what degree of demanding do you think will accomplish my goal? Do you think that I think that demanding will accomplish my goal?

ONCE AGAIN, looks like you haven't read this thread, and it looks like you don't have your definitions straight.

----------------


okay, quote time.

"But someone who is so opinionated at generally a people pleaser would not make decisions that would better the forum, they would better his personal agenda."

I understand this to mean:

"But someone who is so opinionated at Cale (who is generally a people pleaser) would not make decisions that would better the forum, they would better his personal agenda."

unbelievable. I guess you're assuming that that was my first method of reconciling an unpleasant situation with another footbagger? It was not, as I just explained.

is this your logic?

"Severe public response to a nice guy = only serves his own agenda"

AGAIN, ridiculous.

Have we met? Who do you think I am?

So, anything else?

Like I said, more Matt-hate, please. I like admitting to it and bettering myself when it's accurate, and I LOOOOVE blowing it out of the water when it's completely based on Zach's imagination.

[Jeremy]

Some very quick thoughts (under the pump at work).

1. My last two posts in this topic were not helpful. Sorry. I was very drunk when I made the first and very hungover when I made the second. To explain to Erik - the first post was just me parodying something Nathan said about me and Ian 'King Monkey Pritchard' discussing this same issue. He said that we were the problem because we talked so much without doing anything.

2. I find your comment about "the truth" interesting. One of my biggest gripes with moderation decisions over the the last few years has been the censorship of people talking about real things occurring in the world - in particular I recall a post in a topic called "what's the worst thing you've ever done" involving I guess what you'd call a sexual assault and talking about the issue in some Jewish sects of removing foreskins of babies by sucking the skin off with the mouth after it's been cut (sorry for the way that sounds), resulting in a number of babies in the USA catching syphilis. These are obviously not nice subjects to talk about, but they are also real things and I am completely and totally opposed to censorship of that kind of discussion. While the mods who made those decisions are no longer mods, how do you - Matt Cross - feel about this issue?

3. You essentially asked people to make character assassinations if they opposed you being an admin, and I thought that was a very good move and was the main reason that made me think it could be ok and not oppose the decision. However your response just now makes me lean (very very slightly) towards not wanting you to be an admin. I really think if you're serious about this you should be responding only on the criticisms regardless of how meaningful they are in an objective and civil manner. I'm not sure you did that.

4. Cale is one of my biggest critics, but I think it was a mistake posting that attack on him. Not that it should have any bearing on whether you're a mod or not. It's just a mistake because it makes it far less likely to ever get your bag. I've had many problems with stitchers over the years - like having to wait about 8 months for some bags, but by remaining understanding and friendly with the people involved I've not only got my bags, but got extra free gifts as well, and when the bags have finally arrived it's been even more exciting because of the long wait (and some of those bags were really sweet).
Certainly though, if you were an admin I'd expect you to no longer make such attacks anyway, or at least not in the manner that you did. It's unfair to expect you to behave as if you're in a position of authority before you are, but I hope you're prepared to change your behaviour, and you recognise that you don't always respond in a manner that is inductive to civil conversations. I am fully aware that I don't do this either and I'm not in a position of authority or have any desires to be. One of the many reasons for this was because I hated censoring myself, but also felt and still feel that it's necessary.

5. Is this conversation even necessary? I thought Colin was going to become the admin?

6. Regarding Colin - what is left to be discussed or decided upon? My opinion is you should go ahead and call Mike or use your backdoor keys or whatever and make it happen - right now as soon as you read this. It's not like it would be difficult to go back to how things are if there is a lot of opposition, unless Colin is actually a power hungry reptilian trying to conquer the world, although that would be cool too.

7. Anz I would love to explain how and why law works and is necessary in any society but if you really want answers to that you should create a new topic because I'm sure it would be long and meaningless for most people, even though in many ways it's relevant to almost every aspect of their lives.

8. I'm opposed to banning Kyle Hewitt. I supported it initially but his behaviour since that topic started has been great and I think that's the best outcome we could possibly achieve. I don't mind tolerating the odd offence and most of what he does in his 'bad phases' is easy to ignore and meaningless anyway. Banning people should be a last resort, and I think in this case it's not a problem. When I think back to other people I've wanted banned from this forum, I think in hindsight I was wrong and I'm glad they weren't banned - at least of the ones that are still here. Kyle will probably have a "lapse" and that will lead to a reignition of this discussion so I understand the reasons for wanting him banned now or when that happens, but he may not and I think it doesn't really hurt anybody that much to at least wait and see if he does have a lapse or not. He is a teenager, so he'll almost certainly grow up at some point anyway (if he hasn't already).

9. This was about 200 times longer than I intended.

edit; Fixed hilarious spelling of "conquer."

[mc]

numbers match Jeremy's post

1.

2. I'm not sure which comment I made about the truth - but, to answer,

[edit - maybe you mean about my offensive truthfulness that Zach referenced? Just for clarification I wasn't suggesting that I hadn't been offensive. I was suggesting that I had not been sexist.]

I also oppose that kind of censorship, and I would advocate an opt-in, disclaimer-featuring Discussion forum for that kind of discussion for registered users only. Anyone who is not a user, or who is not willing to click a box disclaiming offense regarding such issues, or who is unable to contain significant non-footbag-related discussion WITHIN the forum for said discussion can be expected to go elsewhere to discuss that kind of thing.

3. I see what you're saying, and I did indeed invite Zach's post, clearly and willingly. However, if someone's going to come at me with such baseless and flawed analyses, I cannot be expected to disclude extreme incredulity from my possible (probable) responses to posts like Zach's, so please make future decisions about me with that in mind.

4. If it's just a mistake because it makes it far less likely to ever get my bag, then I'd like you to know that it's more important to me that the public read that information and don't patronize a bad businessman (if indeed Cale remains as such; when he promises me that the bag has been sent, I'm going to edit that post to say nothing), than it is for me to receive the bag.

Secondly, if I were an admin, I'd still make a similar post. It was in no way an attack. It was a recommendation / warning to the bag buying public. I posted facts, and I don't see why you would expect me not to publicize that kind of information. If someone went to Denny's, and they got the worst service and the worst toast of their life, it's totally within reason that they let others know about their bad service and bad toast.

5. Yeah, what happened with that?

6. If Colin asks me to, I will. I have Mike's number.

7.

8. I think his behavior has improved as well, and if it continues as such, then I don't plan on pressing the banishment issue. I only brought up all that stuff because Dyalan seemed to be implying that my reasoning about Kyle was way off base, and by inference, so would be the logic I would apply to non-bureaucratic decision-making in the future.

9.

[Jeremy]

Thanks Matt, you've responded to my statements well.

Regarding point 4. It's more the way you say it then what you say. You could easily have got the same point across in your complaint by simply describing what had happened to you without making and statements about if people should buy bags off Cale or not and how reliable he is. Something like this;

"I am very disappointed at the moment because I paid for a bag from Cale McCoy in January and I have not received it this much time later. I've also found communicating with him very difficult - he has not responded to a number of my messages and has made three promises to send me the bag that have not eventuated."

You'd still be conveying the same information, but in a more appropriate manner. You don't need to tell people not to buy bags from him, you merely saying that won't have any impact, but they'll certainly make decisions based on the information you give them about why you think they shouldn't. I also think you should try to never use capitals, at least in serious posts.

edit; Also more importantly - Colin should put his hand up right now, as soon as he reads this, if he's still prepared to become the admin, and then Matt can call Mike today and make it happen by the end of the week. Don't wait for people to discuss this further. They've had the time to comment and haven't.

[Colin]

Hey folks. I expect I'll be given admin rights sometime over the next few days after I'm given a primer in 'how to not accidentally destroy the forum'.

When it goes through, I'll make a topic in here.

[dyalander]

8. I think his behavior has improved as well, and if it continues as such, then I don't plan on pressing the banishment issue. I only brought up all that stuff because Dyalan seemed to be implying that my reasoning about Kyle was way off base, and by inference, so would be the logic I would apply to non-bureaucratic decision-making in the future.

Its not way off base - but it is still an over-reaction to the reality of the problem which has never become unmanageable - if the mods were more active the problem would be even less. Banning has not yet become necessary - the best option is for us (mods) to conitunue to monitor the situation and when it gets out of hand then act quickly and decisively. Users can assist by endevouring not to unecessaruly inflame the situation and istead PMing one of us if we haven't already picked it up - because in a number of the situations Matt mentioned I seem to remember other users contributing, and to simply blame the one user and ban him would be an over-reaction. There are poeple who object to us waiting till it gets out of hand, they argue that it's too late then - but I disagree - we can't go punishing people before the event.

My other point is that he has been the only major issue that has been raised recently in regard to poor modding, now if you yourself are saying that it not really that bad - what's the big emergency, we don't need to ban anyone we just need to get to problem posts quicker. I'm not convinced this thread will contribute to making that happen. Colin becoming an admin might, but only because it is a mark of that he is willing to become more involved and pick up the slack left by the rest of us, there's nothing in the change in status that will really make that big a difference - he'll still be able to move threads and posts and Pm people jsut the same as before.

[Kyle Hewitt]

xfd my name was said so many times it made me feel efamous

also i felt awesome when jeremy said he doesnt want me b7


edit:

i dont think matt should be given admin rights in any instance due to the fact that he left his mod job before because he was drinking and the pressures he was feeling from everyone in footbag. you had the chance before and you left it because you were drinking and cracked and you shouldnt be able to try again just because you think this place needs a revolution.

[mc]

there is a difference between doing something while drinking, and doing something because of drinking. I guarantee that an instance of David wagging his finger at me as he scolds me for not being the bigger man while the smaller men are rocking the boat would be upsetting to me under any circumstance.

did I mention drinking? yes. Was I drunk? no. I'd had 2-3 beers that night, and done a considerable walk from the bar to the apartment between my final beer and getting on modified. Kyle, I'm going to guess you've drank that much at some point in your life. Did it turn you into some kind of raving lunatic? it didn't turn me into one, and I'm guessing the same for you.

also, are there a lot of people reading this thread who don't understand that *it's not that I want the job of being a more involved admin, it's that I want such an admin to exist*? and furthermore, that it looks like we're well on our way to having such an admin?

You guys can keep taking shots at me if you want, and I'll keep responding to them because this is fun for me, but as far as I'm concerned, the point is moot, and I've accomplished my goal. Colin has stepped up. Someone else is taking the job, and that is way more appealing to me than actually doing the job myself.

[Kyle Hewitt]

i dont mean to take shots at you matt but from what i heard it seems like that was a big part of you turning in your card and from what i can remember is that you really couldnt take the pressure of being the "bad" guy of modified as a mod

[mc]

Well, that was a long while ago. David responded to me in exactly the same way in the Ban Kyle Permanently thread as he did a few years ago right before I resigned my position. Please refer to how I responded to him in the BKP thread for a considerably more recent example of how I responded under those circumstances you mentioned (being the bad guy).

Valid commentary, though. I hope this more recent example changes your perception.

The best part about Colin being admin is that I can keep going on being the bad guy, and I don't have to answer to anyone or anyone's expectations. I feel like I can get more done from this side of the fence.

[Kyle Hewitt]

colin is a hottie