It's all about me

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
1) Ty is factually incorrect on this point. Deleted content could appear exactly as you posted.

With no "last edited by" tag? I've never noticed that before. Are there more admin edits around here of which we are not aware?

2) As you are clearly aware, both of your posts were nothing less than a deliberate attempt to further confuse the LT community as to the Lawtalkers deletion policy. Talk about despicable.

Our posts were a satire of a specific event, commenting on what may be your deletion policy, which appears to differ from the Lawtakers deletion policy.

If you'd care to debate this further, we can debate this offline so as not to bore the others. Or you can publicly aplogize and I'll not mention this incident again.

[NotFromHere]

Originally posted by bilmore
Huh?

All my dryers are gas.

I've never posted about dryers.

I'm so confused.

All your dryers? How many do you have?

[Replaced_Texan]

Just for clarification purposes, for those that don't follow the PB, yesterday, after a PM discussion with Wonk, I edited one of Wonk's posts on the PB.

I thought, on my own and without having seen any other reactions to the post, that it was potentially threatening to the President, and I responded. Later, I received a PM from a moderator with similar concerns suggesting that the post be considered for deletion. I responded that I'd talk to Wonk.

I sent Wonk a PM asking him if he could soften the language a bit. I did not tell him that I would delete the post and I never really considered deleting the post, though in retrospect, given that I am the admin of lawtalkers, it could have been construed as a "change it or else" PM. I also posted a thread on the admin board asking for input from other admins. Wonk responded via PM with suggested softer language. When I saw Wonk's response, I deleted the admin thread, thinking the issue had been resolved. I thanked him via PM, and I clarified why I was concerned, citing what I thought was applicable statutory language that I had found on my own. I found the language, unfortunately, through having to deal with the Secret Service following up percieved threats to the President and I related that to Wonk. Wonk's follow up PM disputed the applicability of the statute, but he allowed me to use my judgment about whether or not to delete the post if I felt that it may cause harm to the community.

Wonk then amended his earlier statement on the PB in a follow up post.

Seeing his amendment on the PB, I edited "that I would rather see Bush dead than re-elected" to "[that any man who is willing to put my life and the lives of millions of people at risk in order to curry favor with a small but vocal voting bloc deserves to find himself the victim of the sort of poetic justice that would result from him being in the position one day of having his life dependent upon a cure that won't be found in his lifetime for a disease that could have been treated with the appropriate measure of stem cell research.]" and I noted at the bottom that I changed the post to reflect Wonk's own amendment.

If I read things correctly, Wonk just posted that he edited the original post as well, and we may have been editing at the same time.

Then I went to the meeting that I was already late for.

When I came back, I saw that Wonk was objecting to my edit, and I posted that I had thought that he had agreed to the edit, and if that was not the case, he was more than free to change it back.

Anyone who has been following the politics board knows that I am supportive of neither the current administration nor its position on stem cell research. I brought the issue up to Wonk because I saw that two posters (myself and Aloha) independently came to the same conclusion that it was the type of statement that the Secret Service could have an interest in investigating. Our responsive posts were nearly identical, though neither one of us had seen the other's response before posting. I honestly thought I had consent to alter the post, and I would not have done so without that consent.

Obviously, I would have never gotten involved had I not been the moderator of this board, and my PM to Wonk was definitely sent in my capacity as moderator. If I hadn't been late for a meeting, I probably would have tried to get a little more consensus from the other admins and mods on the situation, but I made a judgment call, and clearly it is one that can be disputed.

I take censorship very seriously, and I welcome any comments on how better to handle a situation like this one.

[Pretty Little Flower]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
With no "last edited by" tag? I've never noticed that before. Are there more admin edits around here of which we are not aware?


Our posts were a satire of a specific event, commenting on what may be your deletion policy, which appears to differ from the Lawtakers deletion policy.

If you'd care to debate this further, we can debate this offline so as not to bore the others. Or you can publicly aplogize and I'll not mention this incident again.

I will publicly apologize every member of the FB, past and present, if nobody ever says another word about this insipid subject again.

JK!!! I actually love all the drama! I am trying to decide whose camp I am in. I know almost nothing about the underlying hoo haa (except it has something to do with Tax Wonk wanting Bush to die), so I feel like my decision will be unencumbered by all the she said-she said, and will thus be more pure. But, WARNING - if you are going to PM me to solicit my efforts for your camp, DO NOT DO SO VIA PM. The admins can and do read all of our PMs and they will immediately report our convo to the other side and/or take even more Draconian measures. In the meantime, I have to go back and read the last 2 gazillion or so posts as it seems like, after a fairly dull period this morning, the FB is on FIRE with controversy and really realy hurt feelings and that just causes the posts to multiply like horned up rabbits on Viagra.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

In further clarification, SS posted something on this board a while back, which post disappeared. If I understand correctly, every admin and moderator denies have deleted it, while SS, applying Occam's Razor in a logical way and for reasons involving the content of the post, believes Slave deleted it.

Now, I suggest that we have a new contest involving the posting of pictures of Olympic beach volleyball. Best one gets a prize, or at least my eternal gratitude.

And I'm sorry about those Bulgarian fatties. I don't know what I was thinking.

[SlaveNoMore]

Shape Shifter
With no "last edited by" tag? I've never noticed that before. Are there more admin edits around here of which we are not aware?

Probably, but 99.9% of them are to fix code errors

Our posts were a satire of a specific event, commenting on what may be your deletion policy, which appears to differ from the Lawtakers deletion policy.

If you'd care to debate this further, we can debate this offline so as not to bore the others. Or you can publicly aplogize and I'll not mention this incident again.

If you feel the tenor of my warning was overly severe, then I will apologize for the severity.

I do not apologize for making it clear that posts which are designed to appear as if the Admins are deleting content will not be tolerated.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
I do not apologize for making it clear that posts which are designed to appear as if the Admins are deleting content will not be tolerated.

I will second this.

[Pretty Little Flower]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
Just for clarification purposes, for those that don't follow the FB, yesterday, after a PM discussion with Wonk, I edited one of Wonk's posts on the PB.

I thought, on my own and without having seen any other reactions to the post, that it was potentially threatening to the President, and I responded. Later, I received a PM from a moderator with similar concerns suggesting that the post be considered for deletion. I responded that I'd talk to Wonk.

I sent Wonk a PM asking him if he could soften the language a bit. I did not tell him that I would delete the post and I never really considered deleting the post, though in retrospect, given that I am the admin of lawtalkers, it could have been construed as a "change it or else" PM. I also posted a thread on the admin board asking for input from other admins. Wonk responded via PM with suggested softer language. When I saw Wonk's response, I deleted the admin thread, thinking the issue had been resolved. I thanked him via PM, and I clarified why I was concerned, citing what I thought was applicable statutory language that I had found on my own. I found the language, unfortunately, through having to deal with the Secret Service following up percieved threats to the President and I related that to Wonk. Wonk's follow up PM disputed the applicability of the statute, but he allowed me to use my judgment about whether or not to delete the post if I felt that it may cause harm to the community.

Wonk then amended his earlier statement on the PB in a follow up post.

Seeing his amendment on the PB, I edited "that I would rather see Bush dead than re-elected" to "[that any man who is willing to put my life and the lives of millions of people at risk in order to curry favor with a small but vocal voting bloc deserves to find himself the victim of the sort of poetic justice that would result from him being in the position one day of having his life dependent upon a cure that won't be found in his lifetime for a disease that could have been treated with the appropriate measure of stem cell research.]" and I noted at the bottom that I changed the post to reflect Wonk's own amendment.

If I read things correctly, Wonk just posted that he edited the original post as well, and we may have been editing at the same time.

Then I went to the meeting that I was already late for.

When I came back, I saw that Wonk was objecting to my edit, and I posted that I had thought that he had agreed to the edit, and if that was not the case, he was more than free to change it back.

Anyone who has been following the politics board knows that I am supportive of neither the current administration nor its position on stem cell research. I brought the issue up to Wonk because I saw that two posters (myself and Aloha) independently came to the same conclusion that it was the type of statement that the Secret Service could have an interest in investigating. Our responsive posts were nearly identical, though neither one of us had seen the other's response before posting. I honestly thought I had consent to alter the post, and I would not have done so without that consent.

Obviously, I would have never gotten involved had I not been the moderator of this board, and my PM to Wonk was definitely sent in my capacity as moderator. If I hadn't been late for a meeting, I probably would have tried to get a little more consensus from the other admins and mods on the situation, but I made a judgment call, and clearly it is one that can be disputed.

I take censorship very seriously, and I welcome any comments on how better to handle a situation like this one.

Wow, that was wordy. I tried to get through it, but nodded off after the part where you said you were going to be posting it for clarification purposes, or something like that. Anyhoo, I'm not so sure that I am in your camp. I aspire to be in a camp that more highly values brevity. No offense, because you know that, in my mind, you are tied with all the other admins for best admin ever!

[ABBAKiss]

Originally posted by Pretty Little Flower
Wow, that was wordy. I tried to get through it, but nodded off after the part where you said you were going to be posting it for clarification purposes, or something like that. Anyhoo, I'm not so sure that I am in your camp. I aspire to be in a camp that more highly values brevity. No offense, because you know that, in my mind, you are tied with all the other admins for best admin ever!

I am in band camp.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by Pretty Little Flower
Wow, that was wordy. I tried to get through it, but nodded off after the part where you said you were going to be posting it for clarification purposes, or something like that. Anyhoo, I'm not so sure that I am in your camp. I aspire to be in a camp that more highly values brevity. No offense, because you know that, in my mind, you are tied with all the other admins for best admin ever!

Aww, thanks. From now on, I will aspire towards brevity.

[Pretty Little Flower]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
I do not apologize for making it clear that posts which are designed to appear as if the Admins are deleting content will not be tolerated.

Yes, stand firm!

I AM IN THE SLAVE CAMP! I AM AGAINST SHAPE SHIFTER! I HAVE ALWAYS BEEN AGAINST SHAPE SHIFTER! SHAPE SHIFTER HAS ALWAYS BEEN THE ENEMY OF OCEANA!

[NoMoreSlave]

Originally posted by Pretty Little Flower
I will publicly apologize every member of the FB, past and present, if nobody ever says another word about this insipid subject again.

JK!!! I actually love all the drama! I am trying to decide whose camp I am in. I know almost nothing about the underlying hoo haa (except it has something to do with Tax Wonk wanting Bush to die), so I feel like my decision will be unencumbered by all the she said-she said, and will thus be more pure. But, WARNING - if you are going to PM me to solicit my efforts for your camp, DO NOT DO SO VIA PM. The admins can and do read all of our PMs and they will immediately report our convo to the other side and/or take even more Draconian measures. In the meantime, I have to go back and read the last 2 gazillion or so posts as it seems like, after a fairly dull period this morning, the FB is on FIRE with controversy and really realy hurt feelings and that just causes the posts to multiply like horned up rabbits on Viagra.

Congrats on your first funny post since I started botoxing, Don't keep up the good work unless Slave resigns or is reprimanded or canned.

[NoMoreSlave]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Probably, but 99.9% of them are to fix code errors



If you feel the tenor of my warning was overly severe, then I will apologize for the severity.

I do not apologize for making it clear that posts which are designed to appear as if the Admins are deleting content will not be tolerated.

This is passive-aggressive, S2ed. Dont accept it. and further it doesnot apologize for the deletion of your post.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Pretty Little Flower
I'm not so sure that I am in your camp. I aspire to be in a camp that more highly values brevity.

don't be stupid, or act out of "what's right." this is an opportunity for you to get stuff (swag to you)!

right now, especially since I was there when the fight happened, they're both offering me alot.

slave has promised he'll say I donated money for September if I take his side-

SS and Penske say they'll start mentioning me in posts like they like me- instant credibility.

All this, and I'm mostly on ignore lists- imagine what someone as popular as you can get?

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
If you feel the tenor of my warning was overly severe, then I will apologize for the severity.

In other words:

Daddy still loves you. Come to Daddy.