Galahad wrote:In my opinion, all that already weakens the idea you are proposing of some sort of dictatorship ruling supreme "squelching" dissent and initiative.
Not towards laymembers. In fact it seems rather a double standard; laymembers can do pretty much whatever they want short of breaking the rules and it'll slide. But propose an improvement as a CR and unless it's as trivial as adding a text alignment tag, the answer will almost surely be no. Whether that's because they are opposed to improvements and don't have the knowledge to implement them I'll leave for them to answer.
I ask honestly and genuinely: how would you know that no-one has initiative? If I recall, whatever project Randall is engaging in is secretive and, as far as I am aware, nothing explicit has been said of it publicly. (If I am incorrect, please correct me.) That could well be the case here. In fact, I myself am planning on a furry-related art project to be done and showcased over the holidays when I have more time. As for squelching: your
"Ask Dr Lee" column used this forum with almost a dozen usable responses - even prompting
THIS reply from you, humorously referring to how you were being overloaded with responses. To me, that seems to indicate avid use and support, rather than squelching.
The only reason Randall is being secretive about his upcoming project is specifically because it is upcoming. Contrary to what the organisers of that convention that's now been postponed twice seem to think, it's usually a good idea to keep your plans under wraps until you're ready to reveal them. As for my column which started as a thread here, the overwhelming response came from the laymembers. The admins had no valid reason to squelch it since it was not breaking any rules, therefore they were neither condoning nor condemning it.
I am inclined to think that you are likely referring to how many, including Ryall and me, disagreed with a commercial idea of Randall's and gave reasons as to why we believe it would be unsuccessful. (I cannot find the thread - if you do and wish to link it, please feel free to do so.) It was just that: sharing of ideas and opinions, including criticism if the idea warranted it. If we had some vendetta against Randall and were adamant on squelching his ideas or initiatives, a thread like
THIS would not make much sense - where we provide ideas to supplement his own and promote a discussion around a possible concept that could be commercialized.
That is not what I was referring to. In fact in that particular case I agreed with the general sentiment that it was a rather frivolous idea. Regardless that is not what he is now working on.
Valerion wrote:I would like to remind everyone that the admins are open to your comments. We are all furry, and we make mistakes, or get irritated, or have bad days. These things happen. And sometimes we do make bad mod decisions, yes. But if you feel that you have been unfairly treated, PM the mod that did it, they may be willing to reconsider after you've spoken to them. Or PM me, or a CR. We can look at the issue and see if the mod action was indeed justified (and explain it to you), or not, and reverse it. Yes, sometimes my opinion of what is appropriate will differ from yours.
Kind of difficult to do that when the person you unjustly banned is so disgusted that they have no intention to return, and therefore no interest in rectifying past wrongs. And no I'm not talking about Randall, I'm talking about Grayhound.
Much more productive IMO than just spreading rumours amongs your friends, or to harbour grudges. Or to shout about how we are evil censors that also manages to do nothing. Speaking to each other and discussing differences is what builds communities.
Frankly, since the beginning of this thread, I feel this is no longer about censorship but poor leadership.
Rakuen Growlithe wrote:Leeward wrote:This is why I respect and would rather work with people like Tetsudra and Randall /../ At this rate zafur is soon going to become a cesspool of the worst sort of trolls, perverts and weirdos, which is terrible for the fandom's image. /../ At the very least it'll provide a stark contrast for an alternative.
A stark contrast for the alternative would be great. I assume you mean the alternative is Anthroview and Furry Times. The same pair that published this example of hypocrisy.
Complete misinterpretation of what that comic is supposed to convey. Firstly, the furry on the left is called GENERAL FURRY VIEW, not ZAFUR VIEW. Do you really think most furs are not like that? I doubt it. I can't blame you for taking it as an insult though, considering how well you fit into the left category. Secondly, the one on the right is called AC GOALS, not AC MANAGEMENT. We never claimed to be irreproachable, or the pinnacle of furry culture.
Tetsudra was on the staff here until he resigned after an aggressive rant, attacking and swearing at the users he was supposed to be helping. After that he deleted all his posts, against the site guidelines that he was supposed to be following and enforcing. Then, after years of inactivity in the local community, he comes back, starts making demands of me and sending subtle threats.
And pray tell what prompted that outburst, hmm? Again, intense frustration at the total lack of interest in implementing any improvements. You drive people insane with your passivity and then blame them when they snap.
Except there is a big difference with saying someone's actions on another site are a reason for moderation and saying that someone's conduct does not match your goals, regardless of where it happens. But it's obvious that any pretence of civility and calmness applies purely to interactions on AnthroCulture itself. Apparently it's fine for a representative of that community to insult or attack other furs as long as it happens off site.
Oh please. You wouldn't give a shit less if I attacked other furs on other platforms, so why should AC care what people do here?
Which of course brings us to Randall. There may be things about him to respect. He did get an edition of a magazine out which is a good achievement. But is he good for the fandom's image? Is he a good leader? No. And somehow you don't see this. He was
banned from carbonite.co.za,
banned from mybroadband,
banned from avforums and now is banned from here. You can be targetted in one place, maybe two but he's been banned from at least four forums and you don't seem to think that it has something to do with him. It's always someone else?
He can be hotheaded, I'll give you that. But he's good at what he does and very dedicated. He also has no ambition to represent the fandom in any way (in fact he doesn't even want to be part of it any more), nor does he wish to lead any initiatives within it. It's therefore not a fair comparison to say he's a bad leader.
His conduct on here went back and forth enough to make Donald Trump proud. [...] Despite that history he was
made a moderator on AnthroCulture on the 8th of August. By the 30th of August he was removed from his position for abusing it. First bit of irony, his abuse was due to bias where he targetted a user he disagreed with and deleted their posts (Isn't that what you complained so bitterly about Leeward?) even though in the AnthroCulture
rules discussion page he wrote:
Another rule I want to see, is a rule against bias. I have seen it many times, moderators get appointed and it goes directly to their heads. It is one thing moderating, but quite another censoring free speech because you're the boss.
I'm well aware of this, we all chastised him for it. He knows what he did was hypocritical and accepts the consequences.
Even more ironic is that Tetsudra said about Randall:
The reason for removing moderator privileges is an unauthorized post deletion on AC.
The exact same thing he did on ZAFur!
Doesn't that prove that he knows what he did was wrong?
So yes, I am aware of the differences between our approaches. I'm sticking with the one that is not built on continuously attacking and insulting other users. I think the conduct above is what is damaging to the fandom's image. But you're probably not going to listen because you already think we're the problem. You think that attacking users for no reason (remember Brisby?) is positive conduct. You think kicking up a fuss because a user's request for text alignment was fulfilled is positive conduct. And you think it's censorship to remove insulting and off-topic messages from a forum thread.
Brisby has literally never responded to anything directed at him, in fact I'm convinced he's either a bot or a troll, but either way his posts add absolutely nothing of value no matter where he posts (unless you're into his mangled English MLP balloon porn fanfics, which you seem to be). He necroed a thread for no apparent reason for goodness' sake. I made a fuss over the text alignment thing because when I suggested the addition of formatting tags and other features I was shot down repeatedly, and yet when someone else asks it's done immediately. Why the double standard? This isn't about me. You're twisting my words and making me the bad guy when all I'm doing is pointing out the truth, along with my interpretation of it.
But think about this picture you posted.
Is that the sort of attitude that makes the fandom better? Is that and the insults and attacks really what will help improve things? But it's out there. I've seen how you and Randall and Tetsudra behave. It doesn't match what you say and it's not something I want any part of. It's out there and others can choose where they stand.
LOL you're really taking that one hard, aren't you? First of all it's a joke (and a cute drawing), and second of all I see no reason to hide my disdain for you. Maybe under different circumstances we'd be friends, but everything I've seen of you so far leads me to believe that you are the embodiment of everything I loathe. I'm always open to being proven wrong, but you can't blame me for hating you, or expressing as much.
(Just kidding.)
