Rickshaw Megathread

Status
Not open for further replies.

hodj

Vox Populi Jihadi
<Silver Donator>
31,672
18,377
It's only about Tanoomba in this instance because a_skeleton_03 chose to act out.

Funny how every time he does something that should have him excised from this community, there's always a reason why he should be sacrosanct and immune.

He knows what he is doing, he does it intentionally. Stop defending him.

"If we don't believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don't believe in it at all."

False equivalency. What Tanoomba is doing is not free expression, it is not taking a position and defending it honestly, it is doing his dead level best to disrupt every conversation.

There is no equivalency here. He is like Dawkin's Deity on Youtube Hangout community. He goes into every conversation and does his dead level best to blow it up. To make it impossible for anyone to communicate on the issue in a productive manner.

He is not just "Arguing some position we disagree with" and that stale, worn out strawman has flown the coop.

He is intentionally toxic. Dawkin's Deity has an entire channel on Youtube dedicated to posting the times he does what Tanoomba does, which is intentionally detonate every discussion and reduce it to vulgarities and outright warfare.

This is an example of the toxic behavior Tanoomba exhibits in this community in another format. These people are not dealing honestly and do not deserve or dare to hide behind "free speech" as a justification

 

Soygen

The Dirty Dozen For the Price of One
<Nazi Janitors>
28,326
43,170
Once again we aren't "changing time honored traditions" just because your memory is shoddy. We are going back to our roots.
I didn't say anything about tradition in the post. You are most definitely making new and/or changing rules. There was no "No personal threads in the shaw" rule on FOH.
 
  • 2Like
Reactions: 1 users

hodj

Vox Populi Jihadi
<Silver Donator>
31,672
18,377
I wouldn't ban him here either

Exactly.

You would rather allow a toxic person harass a community indefinitely than do anything about it, but you'll throw a shit fit when anyone tries to put a stop to it because there is no reason.

There is no other community on the internet where Tanoomba's antics, after this many years, of being completely incapable of holding a rational discussion with anyone, would not have been banned.

Its just a fact.

It isn't censorship. He is simply not dealing in good faith with this community. Period.
 

a_skeleton_03

<Banned>
29,948
29,762
I didn't say anything about tradition in the post. You are most definitely making new and/or changing rules. There was no "No personal threads in the shaw" rule on FOH.
There wasn't any listed rules there. There also doesn't need to be a listed rule when you can't do anything to change it.

There isn't a rule "nobody that isn't a moderator will post in the moderator only forum" because they can't do it.

There wasn't a rule "no personal threads in the rickshaw" because nobody but the moderators could make or move threads into there and that is the rule they followed internally.
 

Erronius

Macho Ma'am
<Gold Donor>
16,491
42,460
If you remember I was one of the people who complained the worst about "victory laps" on RR.

You complained about a lot of stupid shit, and it started to all blur together pretty damned quickly.

I was a bit busy getting the site up and running and honestly did not expect anyone in RRP so soon because the moderators had claimed they were going to do as little moderation as possible. Then there were two people in RRP within a day.

Aren't you being a bit disingenuous here? I could have sworn you had been posting about whoever was spam-reporting posts and saying that you couldn't wait until Mods were elected so they could handle it. So you saying this sounds kinda bullshitty.

One of them then says "well then I guess I will just start posting in here regularly"

Who was that? Was that Tanoomba who said that? Because if so I'd just like to point out that he's been saying that for a while now as part of his passive-aggressive anti-Mod action protesting.

...and I then decided what's the point of a rickshaw if it's just the default for some users. If we are going to make it where people have personal playgrounds in there why not just let everyone be able to create new threads?

And there's the problem.

Oh, and it's sadly hilarious (emphasis on sadly) that you were just asking 'where the punishment was', and then a page later you're talking about letting users just create threads on a whim in the Rickshaw. Da fuq? You literally make no sense.

So then if I can post whatever I want in my special personal thread in the rickshaw where is the "punishment"?
 
  • 2Like
Reactions: 1 users

Soygen

The Dirty Dozen For the Price of One
<Nazi Janitors>
28,326
43,170
Exactly.

You would rather allow a toxic person harass a community indefinitely than do anything about it, but you'll throw a shit fit when anyone tries to put a stop to it because there is no reason.

There is no other community on the internet where Tanoomba's antics, after this many years, of being completely incapable of holding a rational discussion with anyone, would not have been banned.

Its just a fact.

It isn't censorship. He is simply not dealing in good faith with this community. Period.
Then he should be banned and not have tailor made rules built around him.
 
  • 1Like
Reactions: 1 user

pharmakos

soʞɐɯɹɐɥd
<Bronze Donator>
16,306
-2,236
Exactly.

You would rather allow a toxic person harass a community indefinitely than do anything about it, but you'll throw a shit fit when anyone tries to put a stop to it because there is no reason.

There is no other community on the internet where Tanoomba's antics, after this many years, of being completely incapable of holding a rational discussion with anyone, would not have been banned.

Its just a fact.

It isn't censorship. He is simply not dealing in good faith with this community. Period.

What? He used to regularly and voluntarily move posts to his Shaw thread, even when not on RRP, specifically so that he wouldn't disrupt the root discussion.
 
  • 4Like
Reactions: 3 users

khorum

Murder Apologist
24,338
81,363
Hodj just needs to realize that if he succeeds in getting Tanoomba banned, he's almost certainly next.
 
  • 10Like
Reactions: 9 users

hodj

Vox Populi Jihadi
<Silver Donator>
31,672
18,377
Then he should be banned and not have tailor made rules built around him.

He doesn't have tailor made rules built around him. That would be something like "Tanoomba is not allowed to have a personal thread in the shaw"

Rather, his behavior led to a blanket rule "No one may have personal threads in the shaw".

Hodj just needs to realize that if he succeeds in getting Tanoomba banned, he's almost certainly next.

I have nothing to do with any of what is going on right now.

Did I, for instance, tell Tanoomba to go post in the Gamergate thread and antagonize the shit out of the new mod team and admin, yes or no?

Nope. Didn't even engage with him in that thread while he was posting, but rather encouraged people to do what, exactly?

Put him on ignore.

He pushed and got himself shawed. He is pushing to get himself banned.

I have nothing to do with that.

I am only pointing out the hypocrisy of the old moderation team, who allowed Tanoomba to get away with what he got away with for so long, crying out to defend him now when he's no longer being allowed to get away with those antics.
 

Cad

I'm With HER ♀
<Bronze Donator>
24,496
45,437
Then he should be banned and not have tailor made rules built around him.

Honestly if I didn't want Tanoomba posting in the rickshaw this is what I would have done. The whole point of shawing them is to only allow them to post in the rickshaw.
 
  • 2Like
Reactions: 1 users

a_skeleton_03

<Banned>
29,948
29,762
Aren't you being a bit disingenuous here? I could have sworn you had been posting about whoever was spam-reporting posts and saying that you couldn't wait until Mods were elected so they could handle it. So you saying this sounds kinda bullshitty.

I am not being disingenuous (pot calling kettle black?), they have handled every single report, I have handled none. They were the ones that RRP'ed him and Wooly. They have handled almost every single user activation (I did some of they weren't online). This is the only thing they haven't done. Just because you pussied out doesn't mean I am bullshitting.

Who was that? Was that Tanoomba who said that? Because if so I'd just like to point out that he's been saying that for a while now as part of his passive-aggressive anti-Mod action protesting.

Tanoomba and Mist both find that their go to. It should not be.

Oh, and it's sadly hilarious (emphasis on sadly) that you were just asking 'where the punishment was', and then a page later you're talking about letting users just create threads on a whim in the Rickshaw. Da fuq? You literally make no sense.

I am saying that if they get their own personal threads and we are all about equality here then everyone should have their own personal threads so then why are we restricting the creation of threads ....

It's a basic logic line. A to B to C

Post a thread, get placed in the poll, get voted on.

Oh, I forgot you don't follow basic logic.
 
  • 1Like
Reactions: 1 user

Soygen

The Dirty Dozen For the Price of One
<Nazi Janitors>
28,326
43,170
He doesn't have tailor made rules built around him. That would be something like "Tanoomba is not allowed to have a personal thread in the shaw"

Rather, his behavior led to a blanket rule "No one may have personal threads in the shaw".
You know what I mean, dude. He shouldn't be the source of new rules for this community. If he's that much of a burden, there is a much simpler solution that will not affect the rest of the community(no matter how trivially this really affects us).
 
  • 2Like
Reactions: 1 users

Picasso3

Silver Baronet of the Realm
11,333
5,322
Fun fact: I think I've already had more threads locked here than foh and rer combined.
 
  • 2Like
Reactions: 1 users

a_skeleton_03

<Banned>
29,948
29,762
Does that really make sense since my thread was in the rr on foh?
Your thread was created in the first week when they didn't have permissions set correctly. It literally says that in the first post of it.

You could argue for the reinstatement of yours a lot more than the others, sure. I feel it's now HoS.
 

pharmakos

soʞɐɯɹɐɥd
<Bronze Donator>
16,306
-2,236
I would be okay with everyone having their own Shaw thread.
 
  • 3Like
Reactions: 2 users

kegkilla

The Big Mod
<Banned>
11,320
14,738
This is ridiculous. There was no need to make an issue out this and now Tanoomba is masturbating furiously over all the attention he's getting. He played you like a fiddle a_skeleton_03.
 
  • 9Like
Reactions: 8 users

a_skeleton_03

<Banned>
29,948
29,762
You know what I mean, dude. He shouldn't be the source of new rules for this community. If he's that much of a burden, there is a much simpler solution that will not affect the rest of the community(no matter how trivially this really affects us).
We didn't have the Rickshaw user group set up until Woolygimp started losing it but just because we created them after that doesn't mean he was the source of it.

Tanoomba was just an easy indicator, like bleeding gums means you should floss more.
 
  • 1Like
Reactions: 1 user
Status
Not open for further replies.