EnviroLink Forum
http://www.envirolink.org/forum/

Waynes personal bias?
http://www.envirolink.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=8840
Page 1 of 2

Author:  pops [ Sun Aug 17, 2008 10:51 pm ]
Post subject:  Waynes personal bias?

Wayne Stollings wrote:
The following is a warning which has been issued to you by an administrator or moderator of this site.
Quote:
Arguing a ruling after being warned.

Oh so now I can't point out that "A comedain you ain't"
you warn me for personal attacks that do not exsist but allow Ante to attack board moderators?
Quote:
Oh please! Don't worry about my credibility. I'm confident in myself. I also happen to be very critical of myself. My advice to you, if you want one, is to concentrate on your own credibility and on yourself; that is if you do not wish to be seen as a troll because it's becoming more and more evident that you are starting to perfectly fit a definition of an Internet troll. Also, one more friendly advice... try not to stick your nose in things you have no ability to grasp. Sorry, but from your responses I have no other recourse but to conclude that you either have no clue of what discourse at hand is about or are intentionally trying to provoke and disrupt the discussion
viewtopic.php?f=4&t=8776&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&start=15

Lets not forget this gem from Ranka
Quote:
ranka wrote:
Wayne Stollings wrote:
Admin note: Off topic posts moved to the proper forum



And perhaps we should all thank AL for gumming up yet another topic?

Ranka.[/quote


The concept is a bit hard to grasp unless there is a Bias and a personal agenda on your part.

Author:  pops [ Sun Aug 17, 2008 11:12 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Waynes personal bias?

And least we forget Waynes little gem was issued for exatly the same comment that Ranka made but no warrning was issued to her.

Quote:
Wayne Stollings wrote:

Didn't AL warn you about off topic posts in the animal concerns forum? You should heed them.


I see by AL's post above Wayne that no warning was give for me or anyone else to heed.

Wayne Stollings wrote:

I suppose you missed the PM with that information so you have to ask me? No, I did not have to issue an official warning in this case. Not every one asks for an official warning. Some people can take a suggestion without having to result in an official warning. Most do not have multiple instances in the same thread and even fewer that continue after a warning.

I guess that makes you special.


Nope! Didn't miss it, I posted it.
So in other words Wayne, if I or any one else wants to express an opinion, they damned well better wait until you give it to them... Well anyone except Ranka or the elk that is. That about the jest of it.

In addendum: In light of AL’s revelation of no warning ever having being issued I demand that the official warning issued by Wayne be immediately lifted and further I demand an apology be forth coming from Wayne to me for it's issuance in the first place.
You know I’m gonna hold my breath

Author:  pops [ Mon Aug 18, 2008 5:36 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Waynes personal bias?

The following post, is yet one more in a seemingly never ending list of examples of Waynes bias. This post which contained only 4 paragraphs from the text of an article that has a total of 24 paragraphs, was edited and a warning issued. Where Sonic, Ranka and Ante are allowed near volumes of text from copyrighted sources and not a word is said.

viewtopic.php?f=4&t=8606&hilit=post+edited
Quote:


jhawk wrote:
I think the following extract puts it better than I could....

Peter McKnight, Vancouver Sun
Published: Saturday, May 20, 2006



........' The problem, it seems, is with the use of loaded terms like "rights" and "personhood." And though it might seem counterintuitive, the use of such terms could do animals a lot more harm than good.

Certainly, recognizing apes as persons endowed with rights could accord them powerful protections. But it could also backfire, and would undoubtedly do a lot less than either animal activists or their opponents believe.



Full article.....................http://www.unitedanimalway.org/uaw/news ... vents.html

Admin note:Edited to conform to the copyright rules.

Author:  pops [ Mon Aug 18, 2008 7:15 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Waynes personal bias?

oh yea.....I forgot....how about AR's can derail threads with off topic complaints and critisisms and that is allowed but everyone else is told they must "post in the proper forum" Or why is it that AR's can openly argue with a moderator and their is no offical action for that and it is not only allowed but it is encouraged and Wayne usually participates right along with them. [-X

Author:  Wayne Stollings [ Mon Aug 18, 2008 7:42 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Waynes personal bias?

pops wrote:
The following post, is yet one more in a seemingly never ending list of examples of Waynes bias. This post which contained only 4 paragraphs from the text of an article that has a total of 24 paragraphs, was edited and a warning issued. Where Sonic, Ranka and Ante are allowed near volumes of text from copyrighted sources and not a word is said.

viewtopic.php?f=4&t=8606&hilit=post+edited
Quote:


jhawk wrote:
I think the following extract puts it better than I could....

Peter McKnight, Vancouver Sun
Published: Saturday, May 20, 2006



........' The problem, it seems, is with the use of loaded terms like "rights" and "personhood." And though it might seem counterintuitive, the use of such terms could do animals a lot more harm than good.

Certainly, recognizing apes as persons endowed with rights could accord them powerful protections. But it could also backfire, and would undoubtedly do a lot less than either animal activists or their opponents believe.



Full article.....................http://www.unitedanimalway.org/uaw/news ... vents.html

Admin note:Edited to conform to the copyright rules.



I do not remember the length exactly, but only four paragraphs seems a bit too short from my memory the whole piece seems more in line. What is not tied to memeory is the fact there was no warning issued for this, I just edited the piece and noted it instead of deleting is as we are allowed to do under the rules.

Author:  Wayne Stollings [ Mon Aug 18, 2008 7:49 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Waynes personal bias?

The rest boils down to the lack of understanding of what a personal attack is and is not, what is arguing over a ruling and what is not, and possibly a few other details that are not important enough to bring up at this time.

Author:  josh knauer [ Mon Aug 18, 2008 8:28 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Waynes personal bias?

Pops... I don't really see it, especially from the examples you are providing. To be clear, there's no way for us to find every violation of every rule, it is perfectly reasonable for all moderators to decide how they wish to react to rules violations when they see them. More importantly, the community should respond to these issues in a mature and as positive a way possible. This would make it unnecessary for moderators to have to get involved.

Nitpicking the actions of a specific moderator, especially at this time, seems a bit too contrived for my tastes. Sorry you don't like the actions, but I don't see any serious issue here.

-josh

Author:  pops [ Mon Aug 18, 2008 9:29 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Waynes personal bias?

josh knauer wrote:
Pops... I don't really see it, especially from the examples you are providing. To be clear, there's no way for us to find every violation of every rule, it is perfectly reasonable for all moderators to decide how they wish to react to rules violations when they see them. More importantly, the community should respond to these issues in a mature and as positive a way possible. This would make it unnecessary for moderators to have to get involved.

Nitpicking the actions of a specific moderator, especially at this time, seems a bit too contrived for my tastes. Sorry you don't like the actions, but I don't see any serious issue here.

-josh

And honestly Josh chronology aside, I can't see how you honestly can't see the bias unless you simply choose not to.

Author:  pops [ Mon Aug 18, 2008 9:37 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Waynes personal bias?

Wayne Stollings wrote:
[uote="pops"]The following post, is yet one more in a seemingly never ending list of examples of Waynes bias. This post which contained only 4 paragraphs from the text of an article that has a total of 24 paragraphs, was edited and a warning issued. Where Sonic, Ranka and Ante are allowed near volumes of text from copyrighted sources and not a word is said.

viewtopic.php?f=4&t=8606&hilit=post+edited
Quote:


jhawk wrote:
I think the following extract puts it better than I could....

Peter McKnight, Vancouver Sun
Published: Saturday, May 20, 2006



........' The problem, it seems, is with the use of loaded terms like "rights" and "personhood." And though it might seem counterintuitive, the use of such terms could do animals a lot more harm than good.

Certainly, recognizing apes as persons endowed with rights could accord them powerful protections. But it could also backfire, and would undoubtedly do a lot less than either animal activists or their opponents believe.



Full article.....................http://www.unitedanimalway.org/uaw/news ... vents.html

Admin note:Edited to conform to the copyright rules.



I do not remember the length exactly, but only four paragraphs seems a bit too short from my memory the whole piece seems more in line. What is not tied to memeory is the fact there was no warning issued for this, I just edited the piece and noted it instead of deleting is as we are allowed to do under the rules.[/quote]

The length nor the editing, is not at issue here (according to the rules 1 paragraph is allowed plus the conecting link). What is at issue is your allowing the AR members to post near volumes while editing others at will.

Author:  pops [ Mon Aug 18, 2008 9:45 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Waynes personal bias?

Wayne Stollings wrote:
The rest boils down to the lack of understanding of what a personal attack is and is not, what is arguing over a ruling and what is not, and possibly a few other details that are not important enough to bring up at this time.


Yeah and that sounds like "that would depend on what the defenition of IS, is".

Quote:
Wayne Stollings wrote:
There have been some questions about what has been assumed to be an issue here. To clarify the situation only requires a clarification of th eruels as we have them.

We allow no personal attacks. This is clear in some cases but not all of them so we have grey areas.

To say Poster "A" is scum, stupid, a liar, a hypocrite, crazy, etc. is an example of a clear personal attack. We do not allow them because they are personal and once the discussion turns personal in this nature the result is usually never good.

To say Group "A" is scum, stupid, liars, hypocrites, crazy, etc. is an example of a less clear personal attack if Group A contains posters known to be members of that group. It is viewed as an attempt to get around the personal attack.

To say the actions of a groups is stupid, hypocritical, murder, or whatenver is not a personal attack because it is relating to the actions. It would be something which could be discussed for sure, but it is not an action requiring official intervention.


If the comments, position, campaign, etc. of Poster "A" are called hypocritical, a misrepresentation, a lie, crazy, etc., it is not an attack on the person but what is being discussed. If it gets too far out of hand, as in being repeated excessively to where it becomes an atttack it might be addressed officially.

It is somewhat common to jump to a conclusion that making a statement like "Meat is murder" is an attack because if meat is murder, I eat meat, therfore I must be a murderer and they have just attacked me. That does not rise to the level of a personal atteck under our rules and the administration here will not take action on it.

While people may not agree with the semantics, the personal view, the posting style, the location, the vocation, the hobbies, or whatever else may come up, these are not violations of the rules here. There should be some level of disagreement between views as this is a board designed for discussion. We do want to keep the discussions civil enough there is no reason for paternal blocks to be considered, which in a forum such as this means language primarily. Of course, we have had some inappropriate pictures from time ot time, but not in the course of normal posting.

My personal opinion on the matter is this, I may not agree with what anyone says, but I will defend their right to say it as long as it does not violate the rules of this board. Too many boards want to only have agreement in views and that is not the goal of this forum. I will point out what I believe to be an error in fact regardless of whether I agree with the poster or not. I like to see less official input as a moderator rather than more, because it tends to stifle the discussion.If this is a problem for anyone, I apologize, but I will not back from that position.

Now that I have made an explanation, I hope is understandable, I would like to thank AL for her assistance in illutrating how these errors in views can manifest and create lively discussions while staying civil. I do not think we could have made the example with any current poster without causing too much concern.

Of course, I will be glad to explain anything in greater detail if needed, but somehow I do not see that happening at the moment.

Author:  jhawk [ Mon Aug 18, 2008 11:28 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Waynes personal bias?

I do not remember the length exactly, but only four paragraphs seems a bit too short from my memory the whole piece seems more in line. What is not tied to memeory is the fact there was no warning issued for this, I just edited the piece and noted it instead of deleting is as we are allowed to do under the rules.[/quote]

The lenght nor editing, is not at issue here (according to the rules 1 paragraph is allowed plus the conecting link). What is at issue is your allowing the AR members to post near volumes while editing others at will.[/quote]


*********************
In the quote mentioned here, I posted 4 paragraphs out of 28.

QED

Author:  pops [ Mon Aug 18, 2008 12:11 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Waynes personal bias?

jhawk wrote:
I do not remember the length exactly, but only four paragraphs seems a bit too short from my memory the whole piece seems more in line. What is not tied to memeory is the fact there was no warning issued for this, I just edited the piece and noted it instead of deleting is as we are allowed to do under the rules.


The length nor the editing, is not at issue here (according to the rules 1 paragraph is allowed plus the conecting link). What is at issue is your allowing the AR members to post near volumes while editing others at will.[/quote]


*********************
In the quote mentioned here, I posted 4 paragraphs out of 28.

QED[/quote]
Well it seems that Wayne’s memory is faulty or is it his honesty

Author:  Wayne Stollings [ Mon Aug 18, 2008 12:22 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Waynes personal bias?

pops wrote:
jhawk wrote:
I do not remember the length exactly, but only four paragraphs seems a bit too short from my memory the whole piece seems more in line. What is not tied to memeory is the fact there was no warning issued for this, I just edited the piece and noted it instead of deleting is as we are allowed to do under the rules.


The length nor the editing, is not at issue here (according to the rules 1 paragraph is allowed plus the conecting link). What is at issue is your allowing the AR members to post near volumes while editing others at will.



*********************
In the quote mentioned here, I posted 4 paragraphs out of 28.

QED[/quote]
Well it seems that Wayne’s memory is faulty or is it his honesty[/quote]

Really? I was clear on the issue of memory, but that was ignored. Where is the support for your claim of a warning being issued or is that "honesty" so quickly forgotten as well?

This seems to be a poor attempt to distract from the issue of your personal attack. If you are going to try to argue every ruling I make, remember there is a limit to such argument allowed.

Author:  pops [ Mon Aug 18, 2008 12:38 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Waynes personal bias?

Wayne Stollings wrote:
pops wrote:
jhawk wrote:
I do not remember the length exactly, but only four paragraphs seems a bit too short from my memory the whole piece seems more in line. What is not tied to memeory is the fact there was no warning issued for this, I just edited the piece and noted it instead of deleting is as we are allowed to do under the rules.


The length nor the editing, is not at issue here (according to the rules 1 paragraph is allowed plus the conecting link). What is at issue is your allowing the AR members to post near volumes while editing others at will.



*********************
In the quote mentioned here, I posted 4 paragraphs out of 28.

QED

Well it seems that Wayne’s memory is faulty or is it his honesty[/quote]

Really? I was clear on the issue of memory, but that was ignored. Where is the support for your claim of a warning being issued or is that "honesty" so quickly forgotten as well?

This seems to be a poor attempt to distract from the issue of your personal attack. If you are going to try to argue every ruling I make, remember there is a limit to such argument allowed.[/quote]

No argument Wayne it's a complant, a grip and they are allowed in the feedback forum are they not, or do you now wish to limit freedom of speach as well.

Author:  josh knauer [ Mon Aug 18, 2008 4:00 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Waynes personal bias?

Ok... you've vented your frustration at getting in trouble for a personal attack against another user and it is not really going anywhere. Perhaps this can conclude this thread?

Page 1 of 2 All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/