This is gonna be a long, long read:
DaveEllis schreef:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Nobody has said Sims post was not offensive, only
> that there are posts which are FAR more offensive
> than that, posted by banned members, which go
> without problems. Sim gets a final warning for
> some drunken posts (which have been a part of this
> forum for longer than most members have) and yet
> we have to put up with banned members destroying
> threads, and fanboys being unable to hold a
> conversation without resulting to "LOL MASSA
> SUX".
>
> They just grabbed their chance to bash Gui
> (especially you, Dave). That varied from 'ROFL' to
> accusing him from 'attention whoring'. All to just
> back up Sim, whose post had little to nothing to
> do with anything (the part of it I could
> understand anyway) and bash Gui.
>
> Really? I bashed Gui? I backed up Sim? Do not
> assume I implied anything with my post in that
> thread, take it for face value. I described
> exactly what was happening - attention whoring.
> And if you find that offensive then I suggest you
> report it, along with posts by moderators who in
> the past have also called Gui an attention whore -
> some even posting pictures to prove the point. I
> fail to see how pointing out Guis continued
> posting in such a manner is a bash or attack upon
> him, especially when no personal insult was
> swapped. I also did not back up Sim. I posted of
> my own accord and explained the situation to Gui,
> again, like has been done countless times before.
> Given what the subject of the thread had become,
> it seems my post was one of the most civilised in
> it...
Bashing isn't just one post. The bashing I mean is your contineous (sp?) rant and negative behaviour towards Gui. That has been this way since I joined GPG (spring 05). That's over three years and I can't imagine it hasn't been that way before I joined.
Your pointing out what happens isn't the problem, it's that you constantly do it, in not what you call the friendliest way. Gui posted a thread about him going to a gig and found a vid of that gig in which he screams, so what? But hey, let's point out it's attention whoring! If that's attention whoring, hows your constant rant towards the mods and everything else you don't like not attention whoring?
> So why should it save Sim now?
>
> But nobody said it should 'save' Sim. However, you
> already posted You've got to be kidding me :/
> regarding that issue, so surely you agree to an
> extent anyway? You, like us, were surprised Sim
> could be on a final warning for his postings,
> given the level of quality we see on this forum.
> You also posted
> Who cares you've had your last warning, Sim? You
> can always get back with a new account, that seems
> to be tolerated here., which mirrors the points I
> have been making
Yes, I posted that. Because all I knew at that moment was that Sim had been given his final warning because of a drunken post. I had never seen the post itself, let alone know its content. There were posts saying using Sims drunkness as an excuse for his post, or saying it's not as bad because he's drunk, while that's far from the truth.
Still, I stand by my point that you can still create a new account because it appears to tolerated. So Sim can do the same and should do the same if he gets banned, because I too can not believe that he's closer to being banned than other people, while the quality of his posts is considerably higher than from those other people.
> My point is that you are complaining about how
> people post @#$%&, but I can say that insulting
> people all the time (no matter what they have
> posted) and giving the impression you think you're
> better and know everything better than everybody
> else (because that's what you do) isn't any better
> than fanboys pissing around their non-opinions
> around the forum.
>
> Well there are 2 topics here which you have
> merged, which should not be.
>
> 1 - The fanboy postings. For example "LOL MASSA"
> 2 - The poor moderation, linked to the insults
>
> So let us address the first one, the fanboys. Now
> you say that people are complaining and acting
> like there posts are "better" than other peoples.
> Now, I see your point, this could be considered
> high horse. But isn't also 'logical'? Are you
> suggesting that every post is of similar quality?
> Surely posts vary, and some members make better
> posts than others? I think to suggest that every
> post is equal, and that anyone who thinks there
> posts are "better" is just high horse (I
> understand you did not use that term, but bare
> with me).
I think you've missed the point there. What I was doing was making a comparison between your complaining about fanboy behaviour and I-am-better-than-you behaviour from you and others, which is not at all linked to poor moderation. How was Guis video linked to poor moderation? Both fanboyism and I-am-better-than-you behaviour are as bad as eachother.
No, I do not think every post is of the same quality. What I meant is that people think they are better than other people. It's stupid to suggest every post is of the same quality, because they are simply not.
> So, here is a real example to prove my point. Are
> you saying these 2 lines are of equal quality and
> promote the same level of conversation?
>
> haha i pissed myself at massa, cheered like f*ck.
> hate the wanker!!
>
> "Well, I'm not Massas biggest fan, and whilst it
> is ashame that he had an engine failure, I'm glad
> he retired and I'm glad Heikki won".
>
> Those posts the essentially the same thing, but
> yet could not be more different.
Not relevant, see above. I however, do agree.
> Is it wrong for Gav, myself, or anyone else, to
> ask for higher standards of posting? Is it wrong
> that we are tired of not being able to have a
> conversation on a site we love?
No, I've never said that. I very much agree with asking for a higher standard of posts, because the current standard is disgracefully low. That isn't what my post was about, my post was about your behaviour towards others. Thinking you're able to tell other people what to do. Thinking you're able to say what Gui should post and what not in his own thread. And that what you do not like, you address that as attention-whoring. That video was to a certain level relevant to the thread. It was about a gig he went to, which was, coincendentally, the very subject of the thread.
> Onto the next point - the insults. This forum has
> always had insults. They were here before I posted
> (I remember lurking back in the early GP3 days and
> seeing quite a few arguments) and they will be
> here long after I am gone (providing the site does
> not go first) and they were here when I was not
> active on this forum. To an extent, I think a
> little jib at each other is healthy for a forum,
> just like an argument can often be healthy for a
> relationship. Recently however it has been really
> bad. To the point where if someone criticise
> Piquet, they get a series of posts insulting them.
> Or to the opposite extent, if they praise Massa,
> they again get the series of insults thrown at
> them. Certain topics, such as Piquet, Massa,
> Barrichello, Ferrari, Kimi, and McLaren, usually
> end up in one massive flame fest, with people
> making sensible posts either ignored, or insulted
> by the resident fan boys (I suppose the topics are
> more related than I thought at first really). Only
> a select few topics could you actually have a full
> conversation without the thread destroying
> itself.
As you say, it has been becoming worse lately, but that's not just because of fanboys. You could almost say that they might follow your example. You say you've been insulting for a long time. Of course, a little insult here and there is not bad, but the rate you are doing it at is bad. I estimate that at least 50% of your post towards Gui (and 80% towards fanboys) contains some sort of insult. Being it a clear swearing words or accusing him from all kinds of different other things. Maybe the fanboys thought 'hey, DaveEllis does it, he's a respected member, so I guess it's tolerated here'. And then it escalated. It's not just the others. But of course, this is just a guess.
> Now, obviously I realise that myself, Gav, and
> even you, have crossed the line every so often -
> this is why we have moderators (or rather why we
> should have moderators). However occasional steps
> over the line are a completely different problem
> to what is being discussed.
>
> A major question which still has not been
> addressed is - why is this allowed? Why are
> threads allowed to deteriorate down to nothing but
> a complete mess, whilst other members give a
> little insult when drunk, or play a prank with the
> signature and get a "final warning"? And what is
> with the complete lack of enforcement on this
> forum anyway? We have one of the worst members in
> this forums history banned and allowed to return,
> despite not changing his ways. We have a member
> who has had a final warning given to him twice
> (not sure if my understanding of the word final is
> the same as others). We even members directly tell
> the moderators to be ban there accounts and the
> moderator in question simply acted like a complete
> c**t and tried to make a fool of the members, in
> ways far worse than what the original members had
> done in the first place.
Yes, it is ridiculous that Sim has gotten his second final warning, while there are members far worse than him. However, his insult (drunken or not) was totally out of place and totally uncalled for.