A favor please regaurding owens the "moderator"

Originally Posted by WebSlave

No really, tell me how this is supposed to be done. I'm really curious.

That's your job, that's why you get the big bucks.

Seriously, it is well run, probably more than the 98% of the time that Sammy estimated. And you can't be paying yourself or the moderators nearly enough to take the volume of crap that you do. But none of that is of great comfort when y'all come to diametrically opposite conclusions. But then again, the Supreme Court voted 4-3 in Bush v Gore (and splits that way in many other cases also) so holding you to higher standards than we hold the judges in our highest court is perhaps asking a bit much.

Still gotta admit, that sig was funny.

Will you be adding more mods in the future, Rich? Or do you feel that what you have now is enough?

I have seen that asked in a few places but you never answered those questions that I saw. I'm just wondering..........

Rich, you're taking this a tad personal, no?

Ken and Dennis and even you Rich have set a bar that is pretty high. I made a mistake and ASSumed that all your moderators would be required to AT LEAST meet the heigth set by you three. I was wrong as owens does not.

As far as my point about you telling me that reporting a post about gubitz, you are reading more into it than I intended. Yes I know you said that if EITHER of us reported the other then we would be suspended, but there you see, lays the rub.

In the thread in which I recieved my fourth suspension I tried for SEVERAL posts to get gubitz to take it somewhere else, such as hell. I was laboring under the impression that if I reported it that I would be suspended. I also know that I did have to option of just ignoring him in that thread and I didn't, that IS on me.

HOWEVER, .....oh screw it, it doesn't matter anyway.

I understand now that there are really no hard and fasts here, which I was previously sure there were. It makes it all much more understandable.

As far as your comment about me "letting things slide" or words to that effect, I was laboring under the misguided thought that mods were held to a higher standard. After all, Ken and Dennis do it daily and have for as long as I've been here.

This is a late addition as I got sidetracked in my original post. I am NOT a moderator and am NOT held to the same standard that, in my opinion, a moderator should. Were I a mod, and I in NO way want to be one, I suspect you would see that consistency you mock. Have I, capitol I, NOT defended gubitz as well as sal when I thought THEY had been wronged? Perhaps you missed those posts Rich, but just so you know, I, capitol I, did. I ask for nothing that I am not willing to give in turn. end edit

My mistake for looking for consitency in your choice of moderators. Or MY opinion of your choices.

NOW I know better.

Welcome back Wes!!!

Originally Posted by wilomn

Rich, you're taking this a tad personal, no?

Ken and Dennis and even you Rich have set a bar that is pretty high. I made a mistake and ASSumed that all your moderators would be required to AT LEAST meet the heigth set by you three. I was wrong as owens does not.

As far as my point about you telling me that reporting a post about gubitz, you are reading more into it than I intended. Yes I know you said that if EITHER of us reported the other then we would be suspended, but there you see, lays the rub.

In the thread in which I recieved my fourth suspension I tried for SEVERAL posts to get gubitz to take it somewhere else, such as hell. I was laboring under the impression that if I reported it that I would be suspended. I also know that I did have to option of just ignoring him in that thread and I didn't, that IS on me.

HOWEVER, .....oh screw it, it doesn't matter anyway.

I understand now that there are really no hard and fasts here, which I was previously sure there were. It makes it all much more understandable.

As far as your comment about me "letting things slide" or words to that effect, I was laboring under the misguided thought that mods were held to a higher standard. After all, Ken and Dennis do it daily and have for as long as I've been here.

This is a late addition as I got sidetracked in my original post. I am NOT a moderator and am NOT held to the same standard that, in my opinion, a moderator should. Were I a mod, and I in NO way want to be one, I suspect you would see that consistency you mock. Have I, capitol I, NOT defended gubitz as well as sal when I thought THEY had been wronged? Perhaps you missed those posts Rich, but just so you know, I, capitol I, did. I ask for nothing that I am not willing to give in turn. end edit

My mistake for looking for consitency in your choice of moderators. Or MY opinion of your choices.

NOW I know better.

Nope not taking it personal at all. Wes, in emails we passed back and forth after you got suspended this time, I told you specifically that had I read your post before Jay Owens did, I would have suspended you myself. I don't even remember the thread any longer, but from what I can remember, both myself and Dennis Thomas warned you to tone it down or you would be suspended. You did not heed the warnings, and it just so happens that Jay was the moderator that caught you on the strike out pitch. You don't have a leg to stand on saying that your suspension, not matter by which moderator, was NOT justified.

You have probably more warning points then anyone else on this site, probably by a wide margin, so you certainly are no stranger to the rules here. Yet you keep pushing the envelope and act all "deer in the headlights" when you get what you certainly must know is coming.

Sorry, Wes, your Mr. Innocent routine, and trying to blame it on some sort of bias on the part of Jay Owens just does not wash. Not even a little bit. So let me make this perfectly clear to you, and hope there is no doubt in your mind about what I expect from you:

You WILL tone down your posts on this site and cease with the belittlement of anyone and everyone, regardless of who it is.

If I were you, I would also note the removal of the "unmoderated" state of the HELL forum as well. I am not going to accept the "I didn't know" rebuttal.

You are certainly smart enough to be able to utilize some subset of the English language that does not contain blatantly derogatory words, and you are strongly advised to do so. If you feel that you are being biased against, maybe, just maybe, it is more that the mods are watching you closely because of your past history here, and feel that you are more likely to be a potential problem then other people posting here. I believe you know as well as I do that another fine will most certainly be your last one. And don't doubt for a minute that other people know that too, and will be trying like hell to bait you into that bear trap. I can think of half a dozen people right off hand that would be perfectly willing to take the fall with you just to get you nailed. So here's the challenge. Wes. Are you MAN enough to resist the baiting?

I can think of half a dozen people right off hand that would be perfectly willing to take the fall with you just to get you nailed. So here's the challenge. Wes. Are you MAN enough to resist the baiting?

Hey Wes. Hint Hint... There's one. Now you just have to find the other 5.

rich rich rich, you're either intentionally misreading what I am writing or you are genuinely missing my point so let me try once again.

This LAST suspension, according to how I NOW know you look at things, is perfectly fine. I called a guy I consider a dumbass and an idiot,a dumbass and an idiot, had Dennis ask me to tone it down and owens suspend me, fine that's dealt with and water under the bridge as far as I'm concerned.

About the gubitz thing, I thought my hands were tied, that if I reported to you that HE was breaking your rules for us, that I would be suspended. So I said nothing and eventually took the bait he offered. Funny how mods had squat to say on that one for soooooooo long. But I digress. You do seem to be unwilling to see how that "deer in the headlights" would be confused by the fact that sometimes he's hit by the oncoming truck and sometimes there is no truck at all. Oh well, again, water under that bridge too.

One last thing. You mentioned that I am most likely quite familiar with the rules for this site. In the interest of my last fine at least cooling off before I reconsider getting kicked off again, I'll just let that one go. After all, there is NO rule I have to respond in any particular manner. Is there?

Just a couple of other things Rich, I play Mr. Innocent with NO one here. I'm not and EVERYONE knows it. If I say I don't know something it's genuine and if YOU are now saying I'm lying I'd like to see some evidence of that. I don't think you are but I've made ASSumptions about what you meant and been wrong before.

As far as questioning my manhood, that's a good one. As if I need anyones validation of myself to make me feel better about me. HA. IF I fall, it'll be through my own lack, not by someone else's interpretation my "manhood" if you get my drift.

Perhaps this was posted too far back in this thread and you forgot about it Wes (courtesy of Jim O)........



What is it about those warnings that you did not understand? What was it about that statement where I said "Last warning, Wes." that was not clear to you?

Just because someone may very well be a dumbass and an idiot does not give you license to call them such on this site. Those terms, by most people, would be considered as derogatory, and there are specific rules about using derogatory language on this site.

As for the Gubitz/Pollock thing, I just got tired of getting emails from both of your about the other. So what does a mommy do when the kids are pulling this crap? Just what I did. Told you both that I would punish the next one who bothers me again with their little spat. If someone wants an audience for their shenanigans like this, it's fine, up to a point. But when you try to drag me into the middle of it, then we have a problem that I need to resolve in a manner that leaves me OUT of it completely.

And Wes, you are either acting like you don't understand why you got the suspension, or you really don't understand. I prefer to think it is the former, rather then the later, because I know you are not unintelligent. That's why I use the warning system. It gives everyone here an audit trail of what myself and the moderators are doing concerning penalties and punishments for behavior we would rather not have on this site. The moderator assessing the points is listed, the warning being assessed is listed, and a link directly to the post it refers to (unless it was offensive enough to be deleted), is also provided. It's all there in black and white for ANYONE to view.

If anyone believes that myself or one of the moderators have assessed them warning points in error, or in a biased manner, it is a simple matter for you to prove your case. Simply show me how that is so. The record is there for you to be able to do so, if possible. In your case, Wes, you just did not prove your case that Jay Owens was biased against you and the suspension was not warranted. Matter of fact, you were not even able to provide me with even a hint of doubt about the situation. But all this was discussed in our emails between us, yet you feel that perhaps airing it in public will change my mind? Not likely.

So if you believe Jay Owens is being biased against you, the solution is supremely simple, isn't it? Simply don't give him anything to give you warning points about and the problem is solved.

Which part of it's water under the bridge did you NOT get Rich?

I made an ASSumption and was made the ass.

I NOW understand things that I previously did not.

What I think and what you think may or may not be the same thing and it may change from one instance to another. This is fine.

I GET it now, I DIDN'T then.

I am not the first to feel this way and am doubtlessly not the last.

You also speak, or write, as though I sent you an unreasonable number of emails about gubitz. I would figure, in the years I've been a member here, that they number less than 12 and most of them were long ago. It may be a few more and if that is an inordinate amount then I, again, made an incorrect assumption.

You have a veiw of things that is NOT the view I have. These views are not mutually incompatible given my new understanding of how things work.

I say we put it to the test.

Are you man enough for that?

Originally Posted by wilomn

I say we put it to the test.

Are you man enough for that?

Sure. As long as the next time you publicly accuse one of my moderators as being biased, please have your ducks all lined up in a row. I am asking nothing more then what most people ask of people posting on the BOI when someone makes a blanket statement like "Bob's Bargain Basement Boas SUCKS!". Details and facts, please. DETAILS and FACTS.

It reflects on my ability to manage this site by the people I chose to help me out with that task. As such, if I am wrong in those decisions, I want to see the facts that will prove it so. Just as when I think the person making the accusation is wrong, it behooves me to be certain, as best I can, that they see WHY I believe they are wrong. It saves time in the long run if other people entertaining such thoughts see the discussion unfold themselves.

This case is closed as far as I am concerned.

Thanks for the feedback.