A new(On Topic) BC....

Overpaid Union Thug

Well-Known Member
Arguing isn't the reason I'm anonymous on this site. I embarrass people on Facebook all the time for their idiotic views. Sometimes they come at me on direct message just because they can't stand their arguments being picked apart for all to see.
Many people on this forum are anonymous because their comments could bring scrutiny from their supervisors. Some because the crap they talk to other members could be someone they work with and they don’t want that connection revealed. Which means they are actually cowards.

Whenever someone would DM me on Facebook out of anger I’d respond with a link to online mental health professionals.
 

zubenelgenubi

I'm a star
Many people on this forum are anonymous because their comments could bring scrutiny from their supervisors. Some because the crap they talk to other members could be someone they work with and they don’t want that connection revealed. Which means they are actually cowards.

Whenever someone would DM me on Facebook out of anger I’d respond with a link to online mental health professionals.

We're anonymous because it's a TOS.
 

Integrity

Binge Poster
Post 30 is not any violation of TOS #6. The post uses well crafted humor to make a point.
I have to agree with @quad decade guy,

In my opinion the post 30 of this thread is a violation of the BC terms of service.

IMO I viewed the point of the post was to be an indirect insult. I believe while it didn’t mention names it was meant to be insulting to another of our BC family.
 

Wally

BrownCafe Innovator & King of Puns
I have to agree with @quad decade guy,

In my opinion the post 30 of this thread is a violation of the BC terms of service.

IMO I viewed the point of the post was to be an indirect insult. I believe while it didn’t mention names it was meant to be insulting to another of our BC family.
If that was insulting you must of grew up in a bubble. You never hung out with the guys much, been on a bowling team, played sports, etc, have you?
 

burrheadd

KING Of GIFS
I have to agree with @quad decade guy,

In my opinion the post 30 of this thread is a violation of the BC terms of service.

IMO I viewed the point of the post was to be an indirect insult. I believe while it didn’t mention names it was meant to be insulting to another of our BC family.
I think #30 was right on the mark
“If you can’t take the heat get out of the kitchen”
 

Integrity

Binge Poster
If that was insulting you must of grew up in a bubble. You never hung out with the guys much, been on a bowling team, played sports, etc, have you?
It was not insulting to me.

I have hung out with guys, been on organized sports teams, hung around Teamsters in many settings.

None of these settings are bound by the BC Terms of Service.

Posts on this site however are bound by these mutually agreed upon terms.

I am still of the opinion that post #30 of this thread was meant to be an indirect insult to one of our fellow BC members.

Indirect insults are a violation of BC TOS.
 

BadIdeaGuy

Moderator
Staff member
It was not insulting to me.

I have hung out with guys, been on organized sports teams, hung around Teamsters in many settings.

None of these settings are bound by the BC Terms of Service.

Posts on this site however are bound by these mutually agreed upon terms.

I am still of the opinion that post #30 of this thread was meant to be an indirect insult to one of our fellow BC members.

Indirect insults are a violation of BC TOS.
I'm in no way condoning personal attacks. And I'd go ahead and venture my opinion that post #30 is probably in violation of the TOS.

That said, I'm not a fan of what all is going on. People aren't always going to get along, and they aren't always going to play nice. The moderators should not be your babysitters.

The first step, when you've isolated someone that is not getting along with you here should be to put that person on ignore.

It's simple, and then you don't have to deal with that person anymore. If I end up in control of this site, my expectation will be that people will attempt to handle the situation themselves by using the ignore feature first, before asking the moderators to assist. It shows very little respect for the moderators' time to expect them to constantly be reading over every other post that replies to a given account. Especially when there is already a solution baked right into the software.

The same goes for people that like to pick at people who could be viewed as obnoxious or bothersome. Instead of wasting everyone's time by taking cheap shots at them, put them on ignore. We're all adults here. Again. Show the moderators enough respect not to waste their time chasing down all the little jabs you take at a user you don't like. Even if they deserve it.
 

Wally

BrownCafe Innovator & King of Puns
It was not insulting to me.

I have hung out with guys, been on organized sports teams, hung around Teamsters in many settings.

None of these settings are bound by the BC Terms of Service.

Posts on this site however are bound by these mutually agreed upon terms.

I am still of the opinion that post #30 of this thread was meant to be an indirect insult to one of our fellow BC members.

Indirect insults are a violation of BC TOS.
Wow. You are "that guy". The "BrownCafe- Andy Dick Syndrome"...

 
Last edited:

zubenelgenubi

I'm a star
I have to agree with @quad decade guy,

In my opinion the post 30 of this thread is a violation of the BC terms of service.

IMO I viewed the point of the post was to be an indirect insult. I believe while it didn’t mention names it was meant to be insulting to another of our BC family.

That's your interpretation. If people moderated based on feelings and beliefs, only the most sensitive people would still be around posting their nonsense that no one would read.
 

oldngray

nowhere special
That's your interpretation. If people moderated based on feelings and beliefs, only the most sensitive people would still be around posting their nonsense that no one would read.
It isn't what you said but what he thought you meant to say.

Where do you end up if you go down that rabbit hole?
 

scratch

Least Best Moderator
Staff member
It's simple....I agree.

However it's not.....apparently.

Let's review.....

This site was established(from my understanding)(if not please clarify) to create a place away for the situations TOS #6 outlines.

I'm not very smart......granted. Try this-do you think the average folks out there would read ALL the stuff on here and conclude what? They would read personal insults, attacks, threats, bullying hateful stuff. Pretty easily identified and not really debatable. Although the perps try to distance and change definitions to continue and simply not look boorish.

Now, that said....

Even you have basically acknowledged such. It's all there. This notion of we are all adults and just ignore them. Well, the slander/libel/personal attacks and bullying are still going on. Folks good reputations are being viciously attacked. Which means the victims have to do something about it.......change user names, create new accounts etc. Analogy: crime ridden neighborhoods......nothing gets done to reduce the crime....just people leave or don't go there. This sort of thing perpetuates the crimes and in effect victim shames. What you propose: Does nothing. Encourages the bad behavior. In fact bears no semblance of conformity to the TOS and therefore the wishes of the Founder. I've never read they are optional. There are really very few folks that post on here. A quick review will show this. Most of those posts are super similar in content and intent.

Here's a novel/fresh idea:

Punish the perps. Magic. All this gets under control. I understand respect for peoples time. That street runs both ways.

Now and what you propose.....akin to a navy Ensign being subjected to sexual harassment at a Tailhook convention. And told to just take it.....that's the way it is. Man up.

No? You bet.

Considering all of this......remember.....not everyone has the same privileges of speech on BC. No? Better believe it.
"Punish the perps", Just how would you propose that? I've been here about seventeen years total and Cheryl tried everything under the sun to try and get everybody to get along. Most of the time moderation worked. Ideally, the problem member learns to post without insults and their post will get approved by a moderator. Then that member is taken out of the queue and doesn't have to wait to be approved. Believe me, moderators don't like spending their time reading posts in the queue line and approving them. We still can temporarily ban members from a thread. But the problem is, people can easily work around moderation by simply creating a new account. As I have explained before, only an Administrator has the power to put people in and out of moderation. We are currently running this site without one and will never have access to Cheryl's computer. An Administrator's Control Panel is different from a Moderator's, we will never have the same level of permissions. Until this site changes ownership, that isn't going to change. Most grown adults simply ignore people they don't care about, they scroll on by. If you can't handle that, use the Ignore feature. That is its purpose. Banning members or throwing people in moderation as a punishment simply does not work in the long run and never will. This topic is like beating a dead horse. You have two options that have been explained repeatedly, and you still log onto this site and chose not to use them.
 

qdg2

Well-Known Member
"Punish the perps", Just how would you propose that? I've been here about seventeen years total and Cheryl tried everything under the sun to try and get everybody to get along. Most of the time moderation worked. Ideally, the problem member learns to post without insults and their post will get approved by a moderator. Then that member is taken out of the queue and doesn't have to wait to be approved. Believe me, moderators don't like spending their time reading posts in the queue line and approving them. We still can temporarily ban members from a thread. But the problem is, people can easily work around moderation by simply creating a new account. As I have explained before, only an Administrator has the power to put people in and out of moderation. We are currently running this site without one and will never have access to Cheryl's computer. An Administrator's Control Panel is different from a Moderator's, we will never have the same level of permissions. Until this site changes ownership, that isn't going to change. Most grown adults simply ignore people they don't care about, they scroll on by. If you can't handle that, use the Ignore feature. That is its purpose. Banning members or throwing people in moderation as a punishment simply does not work in the long run and never will. This topic is like beating a dead horse. You have two options that have been explained repeatedly, and you still log onto this site and chose not to use them.
On my way! Thanks.
 

Lineandinitial

Legio patria nostra
I have to agree with @quad decade guy,

In my opinion the post 30 of this thread is a violation of the BC terms of service.

IMO I viewed the point of the post was to be an indirect insult. I believe while it didn’t mention names it was meant to be insulting to another of our BC family.
As the Author of Post #30, I interpret this comment as slanderous, an indirect retaliation for submission of my opinions, and an indirect provocation to engage with this assailant.
As a member in good standing of Brown Cafe, I submit a cautionary notice to my assailant that such provocation will result in a response initiated by him/her/it and tacitly approved by the Moderators.
 

Wally

BrownCafe Innovator & King of Puns
I will agree, the Ignore Button works. I have one member on ignore, and honestly, I don’t even remember their name anymore.
wonder-who-that-could-be-head-tilt.gif
 
Top