y u globalignore

• Kazuni wrote on 2012-01-04 05:13
  Sexism and continuous bashing of a staff member all in one post.
  
  Really, you'd think after criticizing everyone else's behavior you'd look back on your own words.
  
  Also, being your so called "role models" can also become problematic, as if the staff becomes too friendly with a particular group of members, others will start crying about favoritism.
• Yoorah wrote on 2012-01-04 05:26
  LMAO @ sexism remark. That was obviously a joke, and I told myself I would die laughing if someone actually took that part seriously and called me out on it, despite me going out of my way to make it sound excessively silly and not serious etc. lolol
  
  Being a role model and becoming too friendly with "a particular group of members" (?) are not mutually inclusive. That makes no sense, yo!
  Role models != favouritism.
• RebeccaBlack wrote on 2012-01-04 06:43

  Quote from Yoorah;721318:

  If a large chunk of the community is acting poorly, then a large chunk of the community needs to be taught to behave better. Otherwise, they'll do the same the next time they find someone to pick on.

  
  While I don't agree with every single thing from either side of this argument, I have to say that I agree completely with this.
  
  TA has essentially said that the person being discussed earlier is a troll, and if that's the case, then the person should be banned solely for trolling rather than for anything else. They shouldn't be looked at as an "annoying" person or anything... but a rulebreaker who deserves the same punishment as other rulebreakers. In other words, if it's going to be argued that they're just trolling on purpose, there's no reason for them not to be bunched together with everyone else. That sort of makes this argument pointless.
• Helix wrote on 2012-01-04 07:08
  Never knew of global ignore till today. I like this way of ban.
• Kazuni wrote on 2012-01-04 07:38

  Quote from Yoorah;721388:

  LMAO @ sexism remark. That was obviously a joke, and I told myself I would die laughing if someone actually took that part seriously and called me out on it, despite me going out of my way to make it sound excessively silly and not serious etc. lolol
  
  Being a role model and becoming too friendly with "a particular group of members" (?) are not mutually inclusive. That makes no sense, yo!
  Role models != favouritism.

  
  
  It doesn't matter whether it was a joke or not, overall, your behavior in this thread is rather over the line. Calling out the staff and openly bashing members of the staff isn't allowed, and you don't seem to take that into consideration at all when posting. Crude jokes and straight out flaming is hardly appropriate.
  
  After seeing your attitude towards the whole issue, I hardly think you're at a deserving position to be making snarky remarks about TA or any of the rest of us. She does more work than you know, and is a valuable member of the team.
  
  Also, at your comment about a large chunk of the community needing to be taught to behave better, well, they have been. Whether you see it or not is really no concern to us, but action has been taken against people who behave inappropriately, whether provoked or not.
  
  On that note, I'd like to add that right now, you are well within the category of members needing to be taught to behave better.
• Hazeri wrote on 2012-01-04 16:02

  Quote from Kazuni;721365:

  Sexism and continuous bashing of a staff member all in one post.
  
  Really, you'd think after criticizing everyone else's behavior you'd look back on your own words.
  
  Also, being your so called "role models" can also become problematic, as if the staff becomes too friendly with a particular group of members, others will start crying about favoritism.

  
  But there have been cases on favouritism in the past, and even know you can tell there's some of that here and there. No, I cannot prove it, thus I won't discuss it any further, but the feeling is there.
  
  And I happen to agree with Yoorah on most of his points TA, so you might want to consider thinking before you post such broad generalizations. I just don't feel comfortable with the idea of admins "vaporizing" people, it can be 1, there can be 4, maybe half the forum, don't care, I detest this function and I would like to have the option of being asked if I want to ignore people on the GI list.
• Cucurbita wrote on 2012-01-04 19:23

  Quote from Kazuni;721537:

  It doesn't matter whether it was a joke or not, overall, your behavior in this thread is rather over the line. Calling out the staff and openly bashing members of the staff isn't allowed, and you don't seem to take that into consideration at all when posting. Crude jokes and straight out flaming is hardly appropriate.
  
  After seeing your attitude towards the whole issue, I hardly think you're at a deserving position to be making snarky remarks about TA or any of the rest of us. She does more work than you know, and is a valuable member of the team.
  
  Also, at your comment about a large chunk of the community needing to be taught to behave better, well, they have been. Whether you see it or not is really no concern to us, but action has been taken against people who behave inappropriately, whether provoked or not.
  
  On that note, I'd like to add that right now, you are well within the category of members needing to be taught to behave better.

  
  
  This is a load of crap.
  
  The whole thing is being seriously escalated beyond what it normally is and what it needs to be.
  
  

  Quote from Hazeri;721835:

  But there have been cases on favouritism in the past, and even know you can tell there's some of that here and there. No, I cannot prove it, thus I won't discuss it any further, but the feeling is there.

  
  
  I can sure as hell tell you there is DEfavoritism in this thread when Yoorah is being called out for sexism jokes during a discussion where his opinions and views disagree with the moderators in Bean Rua while there is sexism jokes rampant all over the rest of the site and they're A-OK.
• Claudia wrote on 2012-01-04 20:52
  I thought the woman joke (AIMED AT ME) was hilarious.
  
  Carry on, y'all.
  
  

  Quote from Kollin;722244:

  I am amazed that the staff was so easily provoked by [S]this troll[/S] Yoorah and actually trying to debate with someone this thick-headed that refuses to see the point of view of others and announcing their view as the only correct one.

  
  
  >Yoorah is thick-headed
  >Yoorah thinks his way is the only correct way
  
  ok
  
  oh my, time travel & doublepost
• Claudia wrote on 2012-01-04 21:07

  Quote from Kollin;722244:

  I am amazed that the staff was so easily provoked by [S]this troll[/S] Yoorah and actually trying to debate with someone this thick-headed that refuses to see the point of view of others and announcing their view as the only correct one.

  
  
  >Yoorah is thick-headed
  >Yoorah thinks his way is the correct way
  
  ok
• Kollin wrote on 2012-01-04 21:08
  I am amazed that the staff was so easily provoked by [S]this troll[/S] Yoorah and actually trying to debate with someone this thick-headed that refuses to see the point of view of others and announcing their view as the only correct one.
• Kollin wrote on 2012-01-04 21:11

  Quote from Claudia;722248:

  >Yoorah is thick-headed
  >Yoorah thinks his way is the only correct way
  
  ok
  
  oh my, time travel & doublepost

  
  
  Time travel indeed. Been happening recently on the forums, wonder whats up with that.
  
  Simply stating my amazement that the staff fell for the bait so easily.
• Adelynn wrote on 2012-01-04 21:17
  Personally I'm open to the idea that both sides may be going about this discussion in the wrong way.
  
  Sexist joke rubbed me the wrong way, especially in a serious discussion like this.
  However, there's also:
  
  

  Quote from Cucurbita;722072:

  I can sure as hell tell you there is DEfavoritism in this thread when Yoorah is being called out for sexism jokes during a discussion where his opinions and views disagree with the moderators in Bean Rua while there is sexism jokes rampant all over the rest of the site and they're A-OK.

  
  
  Which also bothers me, but since staff members have posted in threads with those and let them slide I just assumed they were fine with it so that would stay there.
• Time wrote on 2012-01-04 22:04
  Calmmmm downnn everyone...Everyone here is just trying to get their point across, I used to complain about how the staff should inform us of bans before I was on the staff, and before I understood why that was a bad idea. I understand how frustrating it is to be a non-staff member trying to talk to the people who run the forum, but also I realize how much time and effort is put into every decision by the staff, they do everything for the benefit of the forum they just are trying to keep everything in check, I didnt think I was fit to be on the staff because I didnt feel I could put in enough time or effort and couldnt actually contribute enough due to how much time is put into decisions, so I understand how frustrated the staff must be with this thread and trying to argue their point. So please everyone, realize the other side is just as frustrated as you are, and calm down, theres no need to be so up in arms about this...
  
  Regular members here, realize the staff could have just locked this thread and declined to explain themselves in the first place, but they are trying to talk to you, so stop attacking them, really, they are doing their best to explain things to you.
  
  Staff members, I know you guys are putting a lot of time into this thread, and are probably talking about it elsewhere, and I doubt any of you really want to deal with it, but yeah, I dunno, tone it down a little bit...
• Yoorah wrote on 2012-01-05 00:12

  Quote from Kazuni;721537:

  It doesn't matter whether it was a joke or not, overall, your behavior in this thread is rather over the line. Calling out the staff and openly bashing members of the staff isn't allowed, and you don't seem to take that into consideration at all when posting. Crude jokes and straight out flaming is hardly appropriate.
  
  After seeing your attitude towards the whole issue, I hardly think you're at a deserving position to be making snarky remarks about TA or any of the rest of us. She does more work than you know, and is a valuable member of the team.
  
  Also, at your comment about a large chunk of the community needing to be taught to behave better, well, they have been. Whether you see it or not is really no concern to us, but action has been taken against people who behave inappropriately, whether provoked or not.
  
  On that note, I'd like to add that right now, you are well within the category of members needing to be taught to behave better.

  
  I hate being mean to you, as you're generally more rational and all, but Kitae's response to this was right on target.
  You make pointless judgments and over-dramatize trivial stuff, while ignoring what's really important. You criticize me for calling out TA, but you really need to re-read her first real response to me in this thread. It is outright condescending and inappropriate. She lost respect from that, and received an appropriate response. Rather than clarifying the issue properly (like Arsik did), she replied with another lame post, including a mentioning of Claudia and an implication that my argument was so dumb that no one but her and myself were convinced by it. This again was inappropriate and reinforces my position on this matter.
  

  [Image: http://img830.imageshack.us/img830/6403/capturejm.jpg]

  
  
  Anyway, Time made a good point and I'm quite frankly tired of these hostile arguments. And most of what's been needed to discuss has been discussed and settled. So, I leave this thread unless someone really wants to keep going at it or the tone of the whole thing changes to a more positive one. o/
• Bakuryu wrote on 2012-01-05 00:58
  Things are sometimes more complicated than they seem...
  I don't want to go into much detail here, as if I did do so on this subject, it would be something I believe would be inappropriate to discuss in public, being something that I'd rather just discuss with the staff, but even so I don't consider that important to bother myself or anyone else.
  Anyway, first, things got a bit out of hand here it seems, no one in this thread deserved to be called incompetent, or sexist, or any other derogatory mention. Everyone had good points, but the "tone" of the posts weren't helping to show them. In the end the whole GI should be considered as a ban, and that's it, in fact, this type of ban is commonly refereed as "Hell ban", and it's main advantage is that the user would take longer to realize he has been banned.
  So, that should completely null the idea some of you are having that they should "be asked if they want to have someone ignored" or something, because we would have to ask you if you want a regular-banned member around for you too.
  When some of the staff said that these users didn't exactly break enough rules or something like that I believe someone said, it's not entirely correct, I'll point you to this:
  

  [COLOR=Black]At any point these guidelines can change, and will be at staff discretion.

  
  This doesn't just mean we'll change the rule announcement to adjust things, add general rules (like signature was added for example), it also means the staff can punish you for something that isn't shown there, this happens very rarely, and is the case of some of the hell-banned members. And they are things that must be done for the continuation of a community where people can come to have fun, good discussions, and not the opposite, since people not exactly breaking laws (/rules) and dodging punishment on technicalities of the written law are quite common even in real life.
  Yes, it means the staff has to be heavily trusted, but where else isn't that the case? But it's also worth mentioning that these aforementioned people have been asked to prevent certain types of topics or attitude, but failed to comply.
  And if any of you have any opinion on how you believe this kind of thing can improve, if you think some hell-banned members don't deserve it, and it should be reconsidered by the staff, then you propose another way, but then you have to tell us a convincing case, you have to present good reasons, alternatives, elaborate on why you think we were wrong, etc. And do it with the proper terms, and proper attitude, otherwise if the reader expects a serious message, he would, for example (and as it seems has been the case here), see a joke as a serious remark, escalating to other, useless, argument.
  [/COLOR]