The Glade 4.0

It always was, Mookhow and Dash shared administrative rights here. Did dash quit or something? (I mean officially. I know that in a defacto way, he not only quit long ago, but he passive-aggressively forced all his mods to do so as well, one way or another.)

_________________
Well Ali Baba had them forty thieves, Scheherezade had a thousand tales
But master you in luck 'cause up your sleeves you got a brand of magic never fails...
...Mister Aladdin, sir, What will your pleasure be?
Let me take your order, Jot it down -You ain't never had a friend like me
█ ♣ █

Dash is just on vacation.

Ah. Well, Monte is banned. You got some 'splainin' to do when he gets home. :p

_________________
Well Ali Baba had them forty thieves, Scheherezade had a thousand tales
But master you in luck 'cause up your sleeves you got a brand of magic never fails...
...Mister Aladdin, sir, What will your pleasure be?
Let me take your order, Jot it down -You ain't never had a friend like me
█ ♣ █

Also it's common sense to not overly criticize the moderators on an Internet forum...

And there, ladies and gentlemen, is our example of a poster smartening up.

_________________
Buckle your pants or they might fall down.

*chuckle* Really? (Looks through PM box for warnings from mods.) Nope. none.
(looks through threads to where my post was the impetus for splitting the thread) Nope. None.
(looks through posts where I resort to name calling.) Eh. maybe one or two at best even in hellfire.

When mods split threads they normally split ALL relevant posts, but you've actually had yours specifically quoted as being the offending post.

viewtopic.php?f=2&t=3541&start=25

But you know, as long as you keep repeating the lie to yourself (and the world) that you're somehow an innocent victim of the big bad Riov who somehow is trashing your beloved glade with my self pity, take a long look in the mirror. I'm not the one who's resorting to name calling anyone who disagrees with me. I've even been complimentery to you on a couple of occasions. I've even weighed in as agreeing with the likes of Rynar and Elmo and a few of the others when I feel they are right.

I'll disagree with people who I feel are wrong on a particular issue. You seem to have it in for me. How many posts do you name me, in a negative sense, when I'm not even part of the discussion?

Our little boy is growing up!

Now, you'll notice some changes... hair will grow where it didn't before... and you'll grow a pair...well, that may or may not happen. That's pretty much a voluntary thing.

You WILL find yourself having to go to the bathroom in the middle of the night...

Oh, wait - that's MY changes. Scratch that last one.

_________________
In time, this too shall pass.

TheRiov:

Searching for Khross using your name (TheRiov) in a Post

36% of those posts are in the last 7 days. You have a weird definition of stalking/having it out for you.

Search for TheRiov using my name (Khross) in a Post

And, out of curiosity, let's see how many of your posts are deliberately antagonistic ...
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=734&p=13555&hilit=Khross#p13555

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=1039&p=22554&hilit=Khross#p22554

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=1039&p=22970&hilit=Khross#p22970

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=1665&p=35371&hilit=Khross#p35371

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=1665&p=35418&hilit=Khross#p35418


All of those posts take place prior to me indicating that a comparison to Nabokov was both ironic and a inappropriate as an indictment of the website you linked. It's interesting to note, however, that of the 24 times you've directly mentioned my name, 23 are negative and accusatory. And, appropriately, all of the posts prior to the Nabokov post by you are insulting save 1 about the Scrabble like game in Gaming.

Now, I wonder what you'll do with that fact ...

_________________

I already have some white hairs. That said, I don't feel very grown up at all.

except all the times you refer to me obliquely with such terms as "Captain victim card" or whatever else your current buzz word for me is.

Can you and Khross take it to PMs or something? It's getting kind of irritating for the two of you to be bickering in every conversation.

_________________
"Therefore do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about itself. Each day has enough trouble of its own." Jesus of Nazareth

Well when I do try to take things to PM's I get crap like this:

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=3856&start=50


But hey, if Khross will back the hell off me, and stop making insinuations about my character, I'll be happy to let it drop.

I see it differently.

I'm hoping TheRiov actually READS what Khross is posting. Did you? I know he'll say that Khross started it first, but I tell you, in some sick way TheRiov is feeding off the conflict. Even if I'm wrong about that, he's sure not doing anything to tamper the coals... I think it's extremely interesting being on the outside looking in on this one.

Heck, he's apparently blaming Khross for Rynar replying to his "I hate you" PM.

_________________
In time, this too shall pass.

Word.

I'm much more interested in the discussion over how "Don't be an ***" qualifies as a rule, and how all of a sudden somebody can arbitrarily be determined to be doing so given that the entire history of their behavior is consistently "ass-ish."

Again, I do not in principle disagree at all with the removal from individuals from a closed community, and specifically I agree with the removal of Montegue.

My concern in this case, as was the cause for me to resign as a moderator, is that no true grounds for the removal can be given except for pissing off one of the admins. Now, if that's grounds for perma-ban then fine, but it's a precarious position for any given poster to be in.

Now, I certainly understand Stathol's position here in that Monty indicated an absolute unwillingness to do X, Y, and Z; however, he has always exhibited an unwillingness to do X, Y, and Z. So unless something happened, perhaps via private message, IM, or email, it is logically inconsistent to believe that objective reasoning was the cause for the perma-ban. As such, as I joked to Corolinth via IM, one could only logically concluce that it was, in the end, personal.

Do I really believe that is the case? No, the board was not out to get Monty; however, given that no logical cause for the change in policy towards his behavior has been given at this time, one could definitely fall into that belief.

Will anything come of my concern about the vagaries and arbitrary nature of the rules, specifically in regards to this decision? I doubt it. What, ultimately, am I saying? That I believe it would assuage the concerns of many community members if a more concrete reason for the change in policy regarding this behavior would be given.

_________________
“The duty of a patriot is to protect his country from its government.” - Thomas Paine

Technically yes, but Mook was sort of the "technical admin" and Dash was the "community admin" so to speak, except it seems Dash has pretty much abdicated at this point.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Hell fire, where we can have two tiered discussions!

_________________
"Life isn't divided into genres. It's a horrifying, romantic, tragic, comical, science-fiction cowboy detective novel. You know, with a bit of pornography if you're lucky."
— Alan Moore

And arguments about how we're not arguing with each other.

_________________

Hey, no recursing!

I think that you're overlooking the fact that he pissed off the admin specifically by dragging that admin into a Hellfire dispute which he had no desire to be a part of, and did so over his administrative duties. I don't see how it could be personal, since Mook probably has less history with Monty than anyone else here. He piled this on top of his extensive history of atrocious behavior.

That's all objective reasoning. The line that he crossed was subjective, but this was not a case of subjectively deciding that his repeated behavior had suddenly crossed some imaginary line; it was based on the fact that he added a new behavior to it; specifically moving the discussion beyond hellfire and its purview of topics and into a smear campaign against an admin who puts in effort to maintain the board and doesn't wish to participate in Hellfire.

So yes, there are other logically consistent conclusions beyond it being personal.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

I believe Monty had done the same thing in the past, though perhaps with less vehemence. Without post searches I do not have evidence to support that belief at this time, so you may be correct. That has not, from what I've seen, been stated as the reason, although it has been implied to be.



If it were truly Hellfire, there'd be 7 tiered discussions.

_________________
“The duty of a patriot is to protect his country from its government.” - Thomas Paine

_________________
Sail forth! steer for the deep waters only!
Reckless, O soul, exploring, I with thee, and thou with me;
For we are bound where mariner has not yet dared to go,
And we will risk the ship, ourselves and all.

Huh. Can't say I'm surprised. The vast majority of this board has been fed up or annoyed at Monte for years.

That said, what is really disappointing is how none of the many many posters who have specifically targeted him over the years have had anyone call them on their behavior.

Monte absolutely needs to be responsible for his actions, yet that doesn't make all of the bullying that he's been a recipient of "ok".

It's been my observations that the "Don't be an ***" rule is VERY selectively used. I sincerely hope that changes in the future. YMMV.

I know it hasn't, but that's the only indicator we have, and given that it's a very uncharacteristic action from Mookhow, that makes the evidence very strong indeed. As to whether he did it in the past, I don't recall either for sure but nothing comes to mind. There may have been things that could have been read in that way, but I don't recall anything quite so blatant as this episode of drama-hijaking.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

There's only one poster that could really be said to be "specifically targetting him." Monty has not been the recipient of bullying, nor was there any need to call anyone else on their behavior. Other people have been out of line from time to time, but the fact that everyone else is not perfect does not mean Monty was somehow being victimized. This sort of thing comes up every time he's gotten in trouble, someone always wants to pretend that everyone else's behavior somehow is just like his because it wasn't perfect. When it takes the entire rest of the board to equate him in assholishness, the problem is not with the entire rest of the board.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Fun Google feature:

_________________