Defending the Truth

sear · 03-30-2007, 03:17 AM

In the religion forum, in the context of a banned (former) DTT member, sear previously posted:

Quote:

"Nope, not sure why." sear

In response, tadpole256 posted:

Quote:

"One thing you can be sure of is that it's not for public discussion, and it's no reason to go off topic..." tadpole256

http://www.defendingthetruth.com/rel...against-3.html (euthanasia: is scripture against it? god against it?)

It is axiomatic that we learn by mistake; but the wise learn from the mistakes of others.
How can we be expected to obey the rules as they are applied in these fora, if obtaining the details of their enforcement is discouraged as above?

I have reviewed the thread at issue.
I have not detected any post by birdyboy that appears to violate the rules here, as I understand them*.
I do NOT question the judgment of the banning.
I merely inquire about the substance; for the benefit of the entire cyber-community.

*I may very well be mistaken.
And if so, wouldn't it be in the best interests of all concerned if the parameters at issue be made clear to all, so those that are determined to obey the rules can be confident that they are doing so?

It's not in the least uncommon to make example of rule breakers. That approach is often used as deliberate warning to all, about the consequence of rule breaking.
So why the secrecy tadpole256? What are you trying to hide?

Further, how do you propose that I engage in substantive exchange with someone that is banned?

And finally, tadpole256:
Regarding your

Quote:

"no reason to go off topic..." tadpole256

The comment was in the locus in which the phenomenon was observed.
Posting that comment elsewhere would have been by definition out of context.

tadpole256 · 03-30-2007, 12:29 PM

The reason of for the ban in this case is not one for public discussion. You can trust that if you violate a rule you will be made aware. If you want to be proactive feel free to ask if something is allowable.

The staff of Defending the Truth is in no way obligated to reveal what goes on behind the scenes to anyone except perhaps law enforcement. If you lose faith in our ability to be impartial and fair, you can leave. We feel confident that we have the support of the majority of our community, as demonstrated by the fact that we have such long-standing membership.

If you wish to communicate with a banned user, I might suggest e-mail or instant messenger. Of course, you'd need to swap such info pre-ban...

sear · 03-30-2007, 03:56 PM

Quote:

"The reason of for the ban in this case is not one for public discussion." tadpole256

I had not intended to solicit discussion.
The comment I posted was:

Quote:

"Nope, not sure why." sear

http://www.defendingthetruth.com/rel...against-3.html (euthanasia: is scripture against it? god against it?)

But I continue to believe preventing rule breaking is better than imposing sanction after the fact.
I'm somewhat puzzled that you apparently don't.

Quote:

"The reason of for the ban in this case is not one for public discussion." tadpole256

In this case it's not, but in other cases it is?

This site has TWO policies?

tadpole256,
I've been Moderating, & or Administering BBS sites for years.
You can tell that nonsense to other more gullible persons if you wish.
But I know better.

Surely you should not divulge confidential details. You should not, and I ask that you do not.
But if birdyboy was banned for what he posted, then why not say so?
If the post which earned him his ban is still displayed, why not post a link to it here?
If it was such an egregious violation that this site's cadre (you, or any other) edited or deleted it, that would not prevent you from disclosing the nature of violation.
If it was a vulgarity, you needn't repeat the vulgarity. It's a simple matter to tastefully characterize it: ie "the f-word" for example. Clearly understood. Where's the problem?

The fact that you opt to not do this suggests you feel you have something to hide.
Is there another more plausible explanation for your secrecy here tadpole256?

Quote:

"The staff of Defending the Truth is in no way obligated to reveal what goes on behind the scenes to anyone except perhaps law enforcement." tadpole256

What does that have to do with birdyboy's banning?
Do you mean to suggest he did something "behind the scenes" to get himself banned?
What could that possibly be? Attempted extortion? Identity theft? Computer hacking your server? Do you take me for a fool?

Quote:

"... anyone except perhaps law enforcement." tadpole256

tadpole256,
I have years of U.S. federal law enforcement experience. Again, you state the perfectly obvious; evidently your unsuccessful attempt at a red herring.

Quote:

"If you lose faith in our ability to be impartial and fair, you can leave." tadpole256

Again you state the obvious.

One of two things is true.
Either you take me for such a fool that you sincerely think I didn't know this.
If that's the case, then you are clearly wrong.
Or, you're being defensive about something you're uncomfortable about disclosing.
Why would you not take pride in your work tadpole256?
Why so defensive?
What have you to hide?
What have you to be ashamed of?

Furthermore, your short-tempered brinkmanship further confirms your emotional pique. Your sensitivity betrays a vulnerability.
Persons that take pride in their work generally tend to be proud to flaunt it.

If keeping your secret is that important to you tadpole256, please do.
But if you think I'm fool enough to fall for your dramatic secrecy here, you profoundly underestimate me.
I seriously doubt you'd be fool enough to believe the story you're telling me here, if I told it to you at one of my sites. It would never occur to me to do so.
Why you seem to think I would believe it is quite beyond me.

indago · 03-30-2007, 07:42 PM

I don't know birdyboy. I don't know what caused the ban. Sometimes the administrators know things that the site users do not. Sometimes a user will come onto a site and the administrators know who he is from other sites and know that all that will come of the new users presence will be mayhem and chaos. I don't even know if this was the case in this particular instance. It would be nice to know just what did occur in this case, since it has now become known to other users.

tristanrobin · 03-30-2007, 09:03 PM

well, I thought birdyboy was a creep and his posts were incomprehensible. I, for one, won't miss him.

I know that several people have been banned (at least temporarily) in the past weeks. I don't think it makes any difference what they were banned for. Frankly, it's none of our business - though usually it's pretty clear.

tadpole256 · 03-30-2007, 09:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sear

I had not intended to solicit discussion.
The comment I posted was:

But I continue to believe preventing rule breaking is better than imposing sanction after the fact.
I'm somewhat puzzled that you apparently don't.

In this case it's not, but in other cases it is?

This site has TWO policies?

tadpole256,
I've been Moderating, & or Administering BBS sites for years.
You can tell that nonsense to other more gullible persons if you wish.
But I know better.

Surely you should not divulge confidential details. You should not, and I ask that you do not.
But if birdyboy was banned for what he posted, then why not say so?
If the post which earned him his ban is still displayed, why not post a link to it here?
If it was such an egregious violation that this site's cadre (you, or any other) edited or deleted it, that would not prevent you from disclosing the nature of violation.
If it was a vulgarity, you needn't repeat the vulgarity. It's a simple matter to tastefully characterize it: ie "the f-word" for example. Clearly understood. Where's the problem?

The fact that you opt to not do this suggests you feel you have something to hide.
Is there another more plausible explanation for your secrecy here tadpole256?

What does that have to do with birdyboy's banning?
Do you mean to suggest he did something "behind the scenes" to get himself banned?
What could that possibly be? Attempted extortion? Identity theft? Computer hacking your server? Do you take me for a fool?

tadpole256,
I have years of U.S. federal law enforcement experience. Again, you state the perfectly obvious; evidently your unsuccessful attempt at a red herring.

Again you state the obvious.

One of two things is true.
Either you take me for such a fool that you sincerely think I didn't know this.
If that's the case, then you are clearly wrong.
Or, you're being defensive about something you're uncomfortable about disclosing.
Why would you not take pride in your work tadpole256?
Why so defensive?
What have you to hide?
What have you to be ashamed of?

Furthermore, your short-tempered brinkmanship further confirms your emotional pique. Your sensitivity betrays a vulnerability.
Persons that take pride in their work generally tend to be proud to flaunt it.

If keeping your secret is that important to you tadpole256, please do.
But if you think I'm fool enough to fall for your dramatic secrecy here, you profoundly underestimate me.
I seriously doubt you'd be fool enough to believe the story you're telling me here, if I told it to you at one of my sites. It would never occur to me to do so.
Why you seem to think I would believe it is quite beyond me.

LMAO... I refuse to believe that anyone with 'years of federal law enforcement experience' would be so petty and overly dramatic about such a minor and unimportant incident...

As for your years of forum and bbs experience, and blah blah blah... all the other crap you are always spouting... I don't care. You are not a moderator here, and frankly I think you are a pompass ass... (just my opinion).

There is no secret here, birdyboy was given a temp-ban... because we (the moderators) felt it was in the best interest of the site, period.

tadpole256 · 03-30-2007, 09:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by indago

I don't know birdyboy. I don't know what caused the ban. Sometimes the administrators know things that the site users do not. Sometimes a user will come onto a site and the administrators know who he is from other sites and know that all that will come of the new users presence will be mayhem and chaos.

Thank you...

AlicornsPrayer · 03-30-2007, 09:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tristanrobin

well, I thought birdyboy was a creep and his posts were incomprehensible. I, for one, won't miss him.

I know that several people have been banned (at least temporarily) in the past weeks. I don't think it makes any difference what they were banned for. Frankly, it's none of our business - though usually it's pretty clear.

I'll second that opinion. I've stated several times on this site that what happens between mods and members in disciplinary measures are between those parties alone. And not up for discussions by the rest of us, as it doesn't involve us nor should we be informed the whys of those actions.

tadpole256 · 03-30-2007, 09:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tristanrobin

well, I thought birdyboy was a creep and his posts were incomprehensible. I, for one, won't miss him.

I know that several people have been banned (at least temporarily) in the past weeks. I don't think it makes any difference what they were banned for. Frankly, it's none of our business - though usually it's pretty clear.

Again thank you. His incomprehensible nature was part of the reason for his ban...

Not everything is a god damn conspiracy...

onthefence · 03-30-2007, 10:52 PM

tadpole didn't close this thread

03-30-2007, 10:52 PM		#10 (permalink)
	onthefence Beer Man Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: stuck in the middle Posts: 4,786 Country: Thanks: 89 Thanked 230 Times in 140 Posts	tadpole didn't close this thread "We could not now take time for further search or consideration, our victuals being much spent, especially our beer." - William Bradford Clowns to the left of me, Jokers to the right..... Now offering premium membership for only $25.00!! Click here to get started.!

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode