chyron8472

All I’m saying is that we don’t have enough information to get bent out of shape and assume it was unfair and unequal treatment. There may have been PMs exchanged between Frink and the mods, and regarding more than that incident. Just because the warnings weren’t public doesn’t mean they weren’t given.

But sure, it also could have been a knee-jerk reaction on Jay’s part since Jay was the one who banned him and then bitched about it, when he didn’t have to get involved at all since it was the Spoiler thread.

yhwx said:

Also, you neglect to mention the fact that someone else broke a rule, which according to Jay’s rules, is punishable by an permanent and immediate ban with no prior warning.

I thought we already discussed that some people may not necessarily consider it a slur when applied abstractly or not directed at a real person.

Frank your Majesty said:

I don’t think it’s fair to take his posts, that at the time he made them were not considered to break the rules, and retroactively use them as a justification to ban him over something completely unrelated.

You don’t think “Don’t attack other members personally. When debating, argue the point, not the person. Respectful criticisms of debate style (logical fallacies) are acceptable” and “Do not harass other members, either publicly or via PM. Any unwanted contact after a request to stay away will be considered harassment” have been rules?

Frank your Majesty said:

I just don’t see how Frink was the only one who should have been banned in that situation. Either ban all offending parties or noone. So much for equal treatment of every member.

Again, you assume that Frink was banned for this singular incident rather than for a pattern of incidents. You attack the idea of it not being equal treatment because you’re only going on the information you have which may not give the whole picture. I imagine other things like constantly harassing JMSW (rather than reporting him and letting the mods decide) and stuff like that to be contibutors to his ban.

I do also not have all the information, and yes, I also am assuming. But I doubt banning Frink shows unequal treatment of every member when he’s been able to get away with quite a lot of nonsense for quite a long time without any repercussions.

darthrush said:

Frank your Majesty said:

darthrush said:

DominicCobb said:

darthrush said:

Hal 9000 said:

Well, I’m hopeful for a Frink more similar to the good ol’ days. We ought to be able to let one another know if we have a problem with something another party has said in gentle, civil manner, at least as a first response. Frink has a reputation for gunning it from 0 to 60 and stifles discussion. To be honest, I’ve often refrained from posting in threads, usually posted by the uninitiated, about topics outside of his liking, just to avoid having more BS to put up with.
He’s a fun, endearing gatekeeper, and I like having him around. But he shouldn’t have such free reign to crap all over differing opinions.

If I had the mad scientist capabilities he himself possesses, I’d probably set the Frink-o-meter to about 33%.

Same, I love Frink as well but recently he just became a bit more aggressive towards others who disagreed with him on something as stupid as movies.

EDIT: Wrong wording there. Movies are one of my favorite things but it is stupid to get in heated name calling over them.

Frink didn’t get heated because he disagreed about the movie. It was because of the offensive word used.

I wasn’t talking about that instance. I’m talking about how every time a person ranks ROTS too high for Frink’s liking, he had to berate them for it. I like Frink, but like Hal, think sometimes he goes too far. I am not talking specifically about that situation.

But that’s not a bannable offense, so it shouldn’t play any role in his current ban.

I never said Frink should have been banned.

Well, I will say it. He skirts the rules all the time regarding behavior toward other members, and it’s about time for it to have finally bit him in the ass. Maybe this will encourage him to cool it.

Hal 9000 said:

Well, I’m hopeful for a Frink more similar to the good ol’ days. To be honest, I’ve often refrained from posting in threads, usually posted by the uninitiated, about topics outside of his liking, just to avoid having more BS to put up with.
He’s a fun, endearing gatekeeper, and I like having him around. But he shouldn’t have such free reign to crap all over differing opinions.

I agree. There are topics (besides the obvious one) that I no longer mention because I do not wish to invite ridicule. And it would be my hope that people could talk about opinions or interests without worrying about getting jumped.

You could try banning yourself and see what happens. 😉

SilverWook said:

chyron8472 said:

Ever when Frink’s not posting here, he’s posting here.

I’m a member of Fanedit.org and Frink is a mod there. Professional courtesy. Give the man a little credit for trying to apologize?

It was a joke. The man is probably one of most active posters here. I was joking about him being here so often that he’s here even when he’s not.

I imagine it revokes your login credentials for even that session.

Even when Frink’s not posting here, he’s posting here.

yhwx said:

It was known for about two minutes that Frink was banned before he posted. I assume it’s just some technical glitch that allowed that to happen.

Oh.

When you’re banned, they restrict access to your account so you can’t log in (speaking from experience). I imagine adding someone to the Banned Users group is a separate step in adminCP compared to restricting their login. So maybe he knew (and posted) because there was a 2 minute window between them adding him to Banned Users and blocking his login access.

I can see the problem of us not knowing if we are on thin ice, but maybe he knew because they told him but he didn’t tell us. Hence the reason why he posted here before he was banned.

Why is it our business to know he was on thin ice, though? Ought that to be between him and the mods?

yhwx said:

chyron8472 said:

As I said, this one incident alone is probably not singularly why Frink was banned.

Even if so, the rules are still not being applied equally.

You don’t know that. You assume unequal treatment because you don’t have enough information to ascertain why one was banned and the other was not. You don’t know what the entire reasoning was for banning Frink, so you can’t objectively say it was unfair.

As I said, this one incident alone is probably not singularly why Frink was banned.

SilverWook said:

Possessed said:

SilverWook said:

chyron8472 said:

SilverWook said:

As Jay pays for this forum out of his own pocket, (we haven’t even had advertising in years) he doesn’t owe you guys a darn thing.

I didn’t say that. I meant he runs a Star Wars forum and therefore it would behoove him to watch a Star Wars film before the site inevitably spoils it for him.

Those pesky things like jobs and family do get in the way.

All I’m saying is that I have seen the movie so I ought to be made temporary admin for the time being and I definitely won’t do anything crazy like ban all the mods and Jay in the meantime and enact rules against making posts without a mandatory picture of a cat doing something funny in every post.

That’s not a crazy idea. Like a sheriff appointing temporary deputies.

“I shot the sheriff… but. I. did. not. shoot. the. dep-u-teee…”

Possessed said:

SilverWook said:

chyron8472 said:

SilverWook said:

As Jay pays for this forum out of his own pocket, (we haven’t even had advertising in years) he doesn’t owe you guys a darn thing.

I didn’t say that. I meant he runs a Star Wars forum and therefore it would behoove him to watch a Star Wars film before the site inevitably spoils it for him.

Those pesky things like jobs and family do get in the way.

All I’m saying is that I have seen the movie so I ought to be made temporary admin for the time being and I definitely won’t do anything crazy like ban all the mods and Jay in the meantime and enact rules against making posts without a mandatory picture of a cat doing something funny in every post.

All I know is the community certainly won’t behave themselves simply to keep him from being spoiled by moderating it.

SilverWook said:

Knowing nothing about Jay’s occupation that’s assuming an awful lot about his free time. How often do you even see him post here compared to us mods?

I assume nothing. I know he owns this site. I know it will spoil him quickly if he lets it. I know if he doesn’t want to be spoiled he ought to watch the film before it does. Obligations or no.

If he wants to not be spoiled before reading the spoiler thread, he should watch the film before reading the spoiler thread.

yhwx said:

chyron8472 said:

yhwx said:

chyron8472 said:

yhwx said:

If people react to the r-word as much as the n-word.

Do they? I’m not saying Frink, I’m saying people. I guess I don’t interact with enough people to know whether it generally an unacceptable epithet to most people now. I know it’s unacceptable here, because people here said it was. But in general is it really on that level of just being a downright nasty epithet?

Like, just in a general, in real life, if something happened that one feels is unjustified and one shows one’s displeasure by saying “that’s retarded.” Is that an epithet?

I’m not saying it’s not. And I’m not saying I use it. I’m saying it didn’t used to be a big deal, and last I remember someone complaining about it it maybe still wasn’t as big a deal as it again has become.

I don’t understand why it really matters how it was taken in the past. The thing is that we’re talking about. A thing that happened now, December 2017. The past shouldn’t really matter in that conversation.

It matters because this is a discussion board and language changes over time. the severity of the epithet changes over time, it seems. I was unaware of it being so severe as to warrant an immediate, no-warning instaban.

Well now you know. No need to discuss it in a committee.

Yes, because the other guy didn’t get banned yet. So apparently is can still be up for debate whether it warrants one. That probably won’t change the mods’ minds, but I can still talk about whether whatever action they might or might not take that they haven’t taken yet migth be appropriate.

yhwx said:

chyron8472 said:

yhwx said:

If people react to the r-word as much as the n-word.

Do they? I’m not saying Frink, I’m saying people. I guess I don’t interact with enough people to know whether it generally an unacceptable epithet to most people now. I know it’s unacceptable here, because people here said it was. But in general is it really on that level of just being a downright nasty epithet?

Like, just in a general, in real life, if something happened that one feels is unjustified and one shows one’s displeasure by saying “that’s retarded.” Is that an epithet?

I’m not saying it’s not. And I’m not saying I use it. I’m saying it didn’t used to be a big deal, and last I remember someone complaining about it it maybe still wasn’t as big a deal as it again has become.

I don’t understand why it really matters how it was taken in the past. The thing is that we’re talking about. A thing that happened now, December 2017. The past shouldn’t really matter in that conversation.

It matters because this is a discussion board and language changes over time. The severity of the epithet changes over time, it seems. I was unaware of it being so severe as to warrant an immediate, no-warning instaban.

And I’m not saying it’s not. I’m saying I didn’t know it was. And am not sure when it became so because it didn’t used to be.

SilverWook said:

As Jay pays for this forum out of his own pocket, (we haven’t even had advertising in years) he doesn’t owe you guys a darn thing.

I didn’t say that. I meant he runs a Star Wars forum and therefore it would behoove him to watch a Star Wars film before the site inevitably spoils it for him.

yhwx said:

If people react to the r-word as much as the n-word.

Do they? I’m not saying Frink, I’m saying people. I guess I don’t interact with enough people to know whether it generally an unacceptable epithet to most people now. I know it’s unacceptable here, because people here said it was. But in general is it really on that level of just being a downright nasty epithet?

Like, just in a general, in real life, if something happened that one feels is unjustified and one shows one’s displeasure by saying “that’s retarded.” Is that an epithet?

I’m not saying it’s not. And I’m not saying I use it. I’m saying it didn’t used to be a big deal, and last I remember someone complaining about it (where I heard them complain) that wasn’t here it maybe still wasn’t as big a deal as it again has become.

yhwx said:

chyron8472 said:

Warbler said:

chyron8472 said:

SilverWook said:

Jay has said more bans are likely as he reviews the thread. And he hasn’t even seen the movie yet so he’s spoiling himself in the process.

He should watch it first then. This is his site, so he should have already watched it.

Besides, if he can’t ban the person the used the r-word, because he hasn’t read the thread because he hasn’t seen TLJ, then how can be ban Frink? Someone with banning power must have Frinks post.

I think it was Jason or Wook.

Jay made the post explaining the ban.

Yeah I know. I’m not sure how the reporting system works, is what I’m saying I guess. I assume someone reported a post, and Jay read it, or another mod read it and reported it to Jay, or whatever. I don’t know.

Warbler said:

chyron8472 said:

SilverWook said:

Jay has said more bans are likely as he reviews the thread. And he hasn’t even seen the movie yet so he’s spoiling himself in the process.

He should watch it first then. This is his site, so he should have already watched it.

Besides, if he can’t ban the person the used the r-word, because he hasn’t read the thread because he hasn’t seen TLJ, then how can be ban Frink? Someone with banning power must have Frinks post.

I think it was Jason or Wook. Jay did post in the thread, but that doesn’t mean he read more than the post that was reported.