PDA

View Full Version : Sandsjames Banned



sandsjames
03-03-2017, 01:13 AM
Odd that I try to be clear and concise, when I err I admit I am wrong ... when it is you there seems to be reason after reason why it isn't important.

Since just a week ago I told you I can see before and after edits and deletions etc. you know I could see an edit ... so who is the troll in this situation again? You are more likely just being unsurprisingly childish / immature at this point.

You state your character here is to be my nemesis, then say that isn't all the time, only in political discussions. Last week you said you don't like that I could ban you with no warning, today you say you can't respond to me without fear of repercussion .... something I have not done. You are so inconsistent and unable to see or be honest about it and have to hide. Ehind "I was just kidding", "I only play a character in political threads" or "you should have known what I meant" that it is impossible to know if you are meaning your words to be taken litterally or not; because they are not supposed to be, except when you say they are. You keep predicting I am going to ban you ... at this point you are likely right ... you are proving too immature to carry on conversations with. At least then we will then agree you were right about that.

Cool...well, enjoy yourself with the rest of your time here...hopefully you'll find a room full of people who will suck you dick and keep you happy. Enjoy your discussions with the other 3 people here who have exactly the same view points. I hope that someday you'll realize your own inability to accept any form of criticism. I know, however, that you won't because you're ego would never allow to do so.

Oh, PS...go fuck yourself....Ciao douche bag...

Mjölnir
03-03-2017, 06:14 AM
Cool...well, enjoy yourself with the rest of your time here...hopefully you'll find a room full of people who will suck you dick and keep you happy. Enjoy your discussions with the other 3 people here who have exactly the same view points. I hope that someday you'll realize your own inability to accept any form of criticism. I know, however, that you won't because you're ego would never allow to do so.

Oh, PS...go fuck yourself....Ciao douche bag...

Wow ... vulgar language and a personal insult ... moderator Christmas.

You have been saying for some time I would ban you without warning, congrats ... you have been banned, but you were absolutely warned.

Best of luck to you.

http://images.bidnessetc.com/content/uploads/images/source3/thor_gif_by_bookmaniac2013-d3ghexl-e16e74a63567ecb44ade5c87002bb1d9.gif

Rainmaker ... I don't remember that technique either, it would likely result in a corporal response.

Mjölnir
03-03-2017, 09:53 AM
Not how I had hoped this would turn out.

Yes, when I note an inaccuracy that provides / lends context I do point it out, as that can be significant to the topic:

-difference between a warship outfitted / classed as an intelligence collector, vice a civilian registered vessel used for collection.

-the difference between perjury and lying -- I can't NJP or court martial someone for just lying, I can for perjury or a false official statement.

In these cases details didn't matter to the Sandsjames, because his details were incorrect ... when the details from someone else were incorrect it was okay to point that out and argue those points. Sandsjames has for some time taken this personally and stated it was me talking down to him; that is not the intent nor honestly IMO the tone and he is the only one who expressed this viewpoint ... so I don't think it truly taken by posters here (I have done this with garhkal, Rainmaker, Rusty Jones etc.) as talking down to any of you. Also along the way it became "bragging" to point out a personal experience that lent context or background on a point that was being made, again ... Sandsjames was the only one who said this.

Also, I am pretty sure none of the users here have exactly the same viewpoints as I do. We all seem to disagree pretty regularly ... mostly cordially, sometimes not. Politically I am more liberal than some of you, more conservative than others, socially the same disparity, militarily the same disparity too.

Yes, I think Rusty Jones is a bit vulgar for my taste, but makes valid points from an underrepresented (on this site) viewpoint. I also don't think the too vulgar for my tase comments are really directed at anyone (sometimes yeah) ... but is just how he making his point.

Yes, I think Rainmaker is over the top in how he makes his points, but he often makes valid points.

Almost 4 years ago 5 mods were recruited by Gannett as a direct result of persistent flame wars on the boards. For a while the board became more about moderation than discussion, that was wrong. I am not sure if that is what caused Sandsjames' adversarial attitude with me in particular, I never banned him nor gave him an infraction for disagreeing with me, but did issue a couple warning for personal insults, and did tell him to leave my family out of a conversation once or that I would ban him. His personal issue with me has been disruptive for some time, I didn't want to ban him; on the other boards I mod I would have a long time ago because those boards are frankly more civil than this one; but at this point and based on the above, I have permanently banned him.

WILDJOKER5
03-03-2017, 11:45 AM
Almost 4 years ago 5 mods were recruited by Gannett as a direct result of persistent flame wars on the boards...

Yeah, we were crazy back then. Back when the MTF was fun.

Mjölnir
03-03-2017, 01:07 PM
Yeah, we were crazy back then. Back when the MTF was fun.

I probably personally ruined it.

Rusty Jones
03-03-2017, 01:13 PM
SJ is permabanned now? So... the only thing left for me to do here is argue with RM, garkhal, and WJ5? Yeah, I'm not sticking around for that. Good luck, everyone!

Mjölnir
03-03-2017, 01:17 PM
SJ is permabanned now? So... the only thing left for me to do here is argue with RM, garkhal, and WJ5? Yeah, I'm not sticking around for that. Good luck, everyone!

Sorry to hear that. You can always argue with me :)

Good luck to you Richard.

WILDJOKER5
03-03-2017, 02:07 PM
SJ is permabanned now? So... the only thing left for me to do here is argue with RM, garkhal, and WJ5? Yeah, I'm not sticking around for that. Good luck, everyone!

Go to your special happy place, you will be ok. Unlike a conservative at UC Berkley, you wont be punched or beaten with sticks by a massive horde of "tolerant liberals".

garhkal
03-03-2017, 09:20 PM
so I don't think it truly taken by posters here (I have done this with garhkal, Rainmaker, Rusty Jones etc.) as talking down to any of you. Also along the way it became "bragging" to point out a personal experience that lent context or background on a point that was being made, again ... Sandsjames was the only one who said this.


I've never taken your mod stance that way..

360BHR
03-04-2017, 12:21 AM
Gee, I was really looking forward to seeing what was going to happen when SJ's "Tic Toc" clock runs down and President Trump is still in office...

Rainmaker
03-04-2017, 02:47 AM
Gee, I was really looking forward to seeing what was going to happen when SJ's "Tic Toc" clock runs down and President Trump is still in office...

It will look a lot like this.

https://m.elitestatic.com/m/06ad0dbf2db8a860/Hillary-Clinton-supporter-cry.jpg

LOAL-D
05-23-2017, 07:26 PM
We did have a lot of fun back in the day on this forum LD

garhkal
05-24-2017, 05:41 AM
It does seem to be dead somewhat in the past month or so..

Mjölnir
05-24-2017, 10:59 AM
It does seem to be dead somewhat in the past month or so..

indeed ...

Rainmaker
05-26-2017, 01:13 AM
It does seem to be dead somewhat in the past month or so..

I'm happy to report.....After many years of struggle, and with the help of God and Rainmaker.....the progs have been driven from our forum..... Congrats garhkal......We win the internet!

RS6405
05-28-2017, 02:28 AM
I say remove all bans from all people and lose the moderation. This is the internet, not grade school or active duty.

(I had written out numerous points on why MTF does not need bans or mods, but my sign-in timed out. So. I will leave it at that).

tiredretiredE7
05-28-2017, 05:42 PM
It is an Internet forum, one that has a published set of rules / guidelines that all users agree to when they register.

Of particular note with SandsJames was the use of my daughter in a discussion about rape, which I repeatedly asked him to stop. Rainmaker also did the same thing and when asked to stop did). Change the paradigm a bit and someone using Tak's or your son's disabilities in a cruel manner would not be okay, if they were asked to stop and didn't they would have gotten banned.

I have little empathy, sympathy or "give a shit" for folks (more appropriately -- adults -- most of whom are old enough to have done a full career) that can't follow a few very simple rules, keep personal insults down etc. If that is what the user wants there are other forums or bulletin boards that have fewer or no rules. The moderation here is much looser than numerous other forums.

This fruit has died on the vine, but we should be honest -- a few people despite numerous requests, messages and polite asking could / would not adhere to the rules they agreed to ... that is not an issue with the rules, moderation or me but with the individuals.

To be blunt; the Mods ruined these forums. Before the Mods, these forums were awesome. Conversations were frank, blunt, truthful and sometimes violated even the "politically incorrect" language allowed by fellow veterans. I truly believe the Mods were hired to cut back on the frank language used on the forum and they have been very successful in achieving their tasking. I quit posting when the mods were hired and checked the forums once every two months to see how much of an impact the new Mods were having.

Mjölnir
05-28-2017, 09:11 PM
To be blunt; the Mods ruined these forums. Before the Mods, these forums were awesome. Conversations were frank, blunt, truthful and sometimes violated even the "politically incorrect" language allowed by fellow veterans. I truly believe the Mods were hired to cut back on the frank language used on the forum and they have been very successful in achieving their tasking. I quit posting when the mods were hired and checked the forums once every two months to see how much of an impact the new Mods were having.

That is one way of looking at it.

I think something you are missing is that after Mods were recruited, conversation stayed frank, blunt, truthful etc. but there was an effort to cut down on the personal BS; but curtailing conversation ... reference almost any back and forth with Rusty and Rainmaker. I don't recall any topic (military, political, social etc) being prohibited ... the one exception being that some Mods didn't want folks talking about bans, which I didn't agree with and was changed... it is hard to know what the left and right limits are if you don't discuss it.

From my point of view, Mods were recruited to enforce the rules that were already in place, but had frankly been ignored. The site owner wanted it to be different, since they own the licence and server space, they do get to pick the rules. At least one poster was personally upset he was not recruited as a Mod, others did not want to adhere to the guidelines they had already agreed to. Unfortunately some of the more prolific posters were also those who couldn't handle having the rules enforced; they got warned, then temporarily banned, then permanently banned ... then less prolific or vocal users get pissed about the bans and it started a bad cycle. It is easy to say that not banning anyone would not have started that cycle, but there were also users who would not follow the rules established by the owner, who frankly didn't really care if site traffic dwindled and I don't have empathy for folks who can't understand they agreed to the terms and then want to ignore that agreement. I Mod on two other sites, and things here were much looser on those, which have much ... MUCH larger memberships; so I honestly don't think it was the style of moderation, but a combination of (any) moderation with the personalities that were already here ... unfortunately the owner did decide they wanted it moderated and cleaned up.

What I find particularly ... childish ... some people hated any moderation and by extension the moderators; which led to things turning personal for some users who would like to predict their own banning then step up the insults to create a self fulfilling prophecy of sorts. I can let a lot role off my back, talk about raping or assaulting my daughter or wife, tell me to go fuck myself, or suck cock though and yeah ... that is a ban, high post count or not. That type of talk is not okay, internet forum or not.

tiredretiredE7
05-28-2017, 09:53 PM
That is one way of looking at it.

I think something you are missing is that after Mods were recruited, conversation stayed frank, blunt, truthful etc. but there was an effort to cut down on the personal BS; but curtailing conversation ... reference almost any back and forth with Rusty and Rainmaker. I don't recall any topic (military, political, social etc) being prohibited ... the one exception being that some Mods didn't want folks talking about bans, which I didn't agree with and was changed... it is hard to know what the left and right limits are if you don't discuss it.

From my point of view, Mods were recruited to enforce the rules that were already in place, but had frankly been ignored. The site owner wanted it to be different, since they own the licence and server space, they do get to pick the rules. At least one poster was personally upset he was not recruited as a Mod, others did not want to adhere to the guidelines they had already agreed to. Unfortunately some of the more prolific posters were also those who couldn't handle having the rules enforced; they got warned, then temporarily banned, then permanently banned ... then less prolific or vocal users get pissed about the bans and it started a bad cycle. It is easy to say that not banning anyone would not have started that cycle, but there were also users who would not follow the rules established by the owner, who frankly didn't really care if site traffic dwindled and I don't have empathy for folks who can't understand they agreed to the terms and then want to ignore that agreement. I Mod on two other sites, and things here were much looser on those, which have much ... MUCH larger memberships; so I honestly don't think it was the style of moderation, but a combination of (any) moderation with the personalities that were already here ... unfortunately the owner did decide they wanted it moderated and cleaned up.

What I find particularly ... childish ... some people hated any moderation and by extension the moderators; which led to things turning personal for some users who would like to predict their own banning then step up the insults to create a self fulfilling prophecy of sorts. I can let a lot role off my back, talk about raping or assaulting my daughter or wife, tell me to go fuck myself, or suck cock though and yeah ... that is a ban, high post count or not. That type of talk is not okay, internet forum or not.

I am glad you replied in the manner of the personal attack on you resulted in a ban; not violation of the forums rules and this is the problem with the Mods in these forums. Ban people for violation of the forum rules not personal attacks on you or other forum members or Mods. This "personal attack" banning attitude will only result in more perma-bans so the very same people can simply make a new profile (IP monitoring does not work; VPNs are cheap).

Conversations absolutely did not stay the same which is exactly what the site owner wanted. There is one political party which calls for free speech except when it is contrary to their own. It is clear which political party you and the site owner belong too. Do not try the whole "this is a private server so free speech does not apply because if this site receives even 1 cent of federal funding/assistance/grants then the 1st amendment applies. Several other sites tried the same argument and lost. Eitherway, congrats you ruined these forums and Barry would be proud.

Mjölnir
05-28-2017, 11:05 PM
I am glad you replied in the manner of the personal attack on you resulted in a ban; not violation of the forums rules and this is the problem with the Mods in these forums. Ban people for violation of the forum rules not personal attacks on you or other forum members or Mods. This "personal attack" banning attitude will only result in more perma-bans so the very same people can simply make a new profile (IP monitoring does not work; VPNs are cheap).

Personal insults &/or attacks (against anyone) are a violation of the forum rules ... you can read them here: http://forums.militarytimes.com/faq.php I get the impression you are arguing for only banning people for violating the rules, without knowing what is in the rules.


Conversations absolutely did not stay the same which is exactly what the site owner wanted. There is one political party which calls for free speech except when it is contrary to their own. It is clear which political party you and the site owner belong too. Do not try the whole "this is a private server so free speech does not apply because if this site receives even 1 cent of federal funding/assistance/grants then the 1st amendment applies. Several other sites tried the same argument and lost. Eitherway, congrats you ruined these forums and Barry would be proud.

I don't see where a conservative or liberal viewpoints are stifled or promoted ... the board has for years had many more conservative posters, which skews it that direction. The 1st Amendment applies here ... you can pretty much say what you want ... but yes, there are rules just as there are anywhere else. Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences. An interesting tangent would be a discussion on how even with the 1st Amendment, not all speech is protected or how the 1st Amendment applies to obscenity or 'fighting words' (search for Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire) ... which is probably where most of the moderation, warnings, bannings here came from. I think you are confusing freedom of speech with saying whatever the hell someone wants ... they actually are not the same thing.

Again, we have two different viewpoints / perspectives. I can accept that the addition of moderators had a role in the decline here, but it was far from just the moderators. You don't have to accept that ... it is your prerogative.

sparks82
06-01-2017, 05:48 PM
I am glad you replied in the manner of the personal attack on you resulted in a ban; not violation of the forums rules and this is the problem with the Mods in these forums. Ban people for violation of the forum rules not personal attacks on you or other forum members or Mods. This "personal attack" banning attitude will only result in more perma-bans so the very same people can simply make a new profile (IP monitoring does not work; VPNs are cheap).

Conversations absolutely did not stay the same which is exactly what the site owner wanted. There is one political party which calls for free speech except when it is contrary to their own. It is clear which political party you and the site owner belong too. Do not try the whole "this is a private server so free speech does not apply because if this site receives even 1 cent of federal funding/assistance/grants then the 1st amendment applies. Several other sites tried the same argument and lost. Eitherway, congrats you ruined these forums and Barry would be proud.

Personal attacks are generally not allowed on most Internet forums. It's funny that people think it's okay to talk like that anonymously online but I guarantee they wouldn't dare say some things they do on here to that person's face. Especially about their children or spouses.

Mjölnir
02-16-2018, 09:27 PM
I say remove all bans from all people and lose the moderation. This is the internet, not grade school or active duty.

(I had written out numerous points on why MTF does not need bans or mods, but my sign-in timed out. So. I will leave it at that).
RS6405

It is an Internet forum, one that has a published set of rules / guidelines that all users agree to when they register.

Of particular note with SandsJames was the use of my daughter in a discussion about rape, which I repeatedly asked him to stop. Rainmaker also did the same thing and when asked to stop did). Change the paradigm a bit and someone using Tak's or your son's disabilities in a cruel manner would not be okay, if they were asked to stop and didn't they would have gotten banned.

A long, long time ago, before there were Mods, someone made a comment about Tak's kid and his issues. There were all kinds of folks asking the admin to ban that user ... so what is different here? Is it that I am a mod, that I am an officer? Talking about sexually assaulting a 6 year old kid is sick. Simply. Fucking. Sick.

I have little empathy, sympathy or "give a shit" for folks (more appropriately -- adults -- most of whom are old enough to have done a full career) that can't follow a few very simple rules, keep personal insults down etc. If that is what the user wants there are other forums or bulletin boards that have fewer or no rules. The moderation here is much looser than numerous other forums.

This fruit has died on the vine, but we should be honest -- a few people despite numerous requests, messages and polite asking could / would not adhere to the rules they agreed to ... that is not an issue with the rules, moderation or me but with the individuals.

Mjölnir
02-16-2018, 09:27 PM
I say remove all bans from all people and lose the moderation. This is the internet, not grade school or active duty.

(I had written out numerous points on why MTF does not need bans or mods, but my sign-in timed out. So. I will leave it at that).

RS6405

It is an Internet forum, one that has a published set of rules / guidelines that all users agree to when they register.

Of particular note with SandsJames was the use of my daughter in a discussion about rape, which I repeatedly asked him to stop. Rainmaker also did the same thing and when asked to stop did). Change the paradigm a bit and someone using Tak's or your son's disabilities in a cruel manner would not be okay, if they were asked to stop and didn't they would have gotten banned.

A long, long time ago, before there were Mods, someone made a comment about Tak's kid and his issues. There were all kinds of folks asking the admin to ban that user ... so what is different here? Is it that I am a mod, that I am an officer? Talking about sexually assaulting a 6 year old kid is sick. Simply. Fucking. Sick.

I have little empathy, sympathy or "give a shit" for folks (more appropriately -- adults -- most of whom are old enough to have done a full career) that can't follow a few very simple rules, keep personal insults down etc. If that is what the user wants there are other forums or bulletin boards that have fewer or no rules. The moderation here is much looser than numerous other forums.

This fruit has died on the vine, but we should be honest -- a few people despite numerous requests, messages and polite asking could / would not adhere to the rules they agreed to ... that is not an issue with the rules, moderation or me but with the individuals.