Apolyton Justice

[Lefty Scaevola]

<center><table width=80%><tr><td><font color=000080 face="Verdana" size=2><font size="1">quote:
<img src="/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1>
</font><font size=1>Originally posted by Legman on 12-06-2000 11:02 AM</font>

But the implications for further incidents where a poster (you?, me?)


<img src="/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1></font></td></tr></table></center>

. No signigicant implications for me. My standards are self imposed and my ego more than self sufficient. The rest of the world is lucky that my standards tend to be socially responsible, such as respecting duly constituted authority and propety rights such as "he who pays the piper...". I am lucky to have a great opinion of myself conbined with srong independence from other control thus insulating me from outside "implications". MarkG's, DanQs', Lancer's, A H's, ore anyone else's here opinion of me is of very liitle weight to me. My judgement of how I deport myself with respect to them is of great importance to me. Any restriction of privilages would be of little note since I have more resources and communities than I have time or desire to use and interact with. I am very favored by the DICE GOD that my predilictions so well match my situation, and thus feel substantially immune to virtual "slings & arrows".
. As for thoses of you who are less invunerable or lucky, oh well.

------------------
Gaius Mucius Scaevola Sinistra
Pontificator Pendanticus
older richer & wiser than you

<font size=1 face=Arial color=444444>[This message has been edited by Lefty Scaevola (edited December 06, 2000).]</font>

[Lancer]

Well, I wasn't being mature either. I want ppl to know that what I said about AH, well I really don't know or care one way or the other. What has bugged me in the past is being called names, (and on the internet that doesn't take alot of balls) and replying with quotes from AH for the most part. Well that built up and came out last night. I wanted AH to sleep on insults that he could not reply to man to man, simply because of the distance, show him how it feels. I don't like being called names AH, and now maybe you know why.

So I'm done calling names, I withdraw the insults I threw at AH last night, and I will voluntarily withdraw myself from posting for a week because I see clearly now where I could have been alot more mature.

Mark has judged well in my opinion. When I read Mings instructions to take it to PM, I did. AH put that PM in public, and so put everything back in the open. I did try, Mark is right. My decision regarding not posting has nothing to do with Mark's decision, it has to do w/ my desire to share w/ AH his week because I'm not pleased with myself, not because I feel that I broke a rule of Apolyton, more like a rule of personal decency.

I'd guess Mark would agree with me on that.

[MichaeltheGreat]

<center><table width=80%><tr><td><font color=000080 face="Verdana" size=2><font size="1">quote:
<img src="/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1>
</font><font size=1>Originally posted by MarkG on 12-06-2000 08:10 AM</font>
btw, "mega" is smaller than "giga"....
<img src="/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1></font></td></tr></table></center>

I know, (of course), but Horse has had the Troll and Giga-troll title.

The Mega-troll honor has yet to be awarded, and Tera-troll just doesn't have the same ring to it. It's really something I've been living for. Please. Pretty Please


<font size=1 face=Arial color=444444>[This message has been edited by MichaeltheGreat (edited December 06, 2000).]</font>

[Legman]

Fair enough Ming. Yes, it's an assumption of mine - albeit an assumption that's been implicitly there in most of my posts so far on this, without MarkG denying it directly before his disappearance earlier.

I'll stick with my assumption (which I'm sure I'm not the only one who's embracing), but I'll refrain from further 'slandering' until MarkG will hopefully address my concerns again.

I will say however that slander was not intended by me, I merely expressed the concern I had for future incidents, given my earlier assumption.

Sorry for any offense.

[Ming]

<center><table width=80%><tr><td><font color=000080 face="Verdana" size=2><font size="1">quote:
<img src="/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1>
</font><font size=1>Originally posted by Legman on 12-06-2000 01:05 PM</font>
Yes, it's an assumption of mine - albeit an assumption that's been implicitly there in most of my posts so far on this, without MarkG denying it directly before his disappearance earlier.

Sorry for any offense.
<img src="/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1></font></td></tr></table></center>

No offensed taken by me Heck, for once, it isn't my moderating that's under fire

To answer your point about MarkG not denying it, He did answer and give his reasons already... I thought he was quite clear on answering why, when he posted:

"- they were asked to stop and take it to pm
- lancer stopped and messaged ah
- ah responded in public, quoting part of the private message

given that ah started and did most of the flaming in the first place, i fail to see how this is not fair..."

It follows the assumptions I made earlier. It wasn't personal, it was based on the above stated FACTS.
The only thing I "might" disagree with is the statement that AH did most of the flaming. They both did a good a job of the that

So I don't even see a reason for him to restate the obivious (especially since I just did it for him:0 )

[Garth Vader]

I am surprised the thread wasn't locked when the order to take it up in PM's was given. Then if one of the two of them created a new thread to continue the flaming I could see how a banning was in order.

Although I don't agree with a punishment given to one but not the other, the reasons given were reasonable enough.

If anybody cares, I am not a big fan of the sticky threads either.

[Legman]

Ming,
The quote you gave from MarkG in your last post, doesn't even begin to adress the concerns I have for a miscarriage of justice here. They both displayed insults and mild flaming, and they both posted after they were told not to. So the question remains, what underlying reasons did MarkG have for punishing one clown and not the other?

But as we agreed on earlier, it's probably more appropriate to save the assumptions until MarkG will hopefully be back to explain - or reverse his decision, which I'm still hoping for!

In the meantime, speak up Apolytoners! Voice your opinion on this. Did MarkG meet the standard of impartialness that we could reasonably expect from the good people who built this site for us? Or did he show bias in applying one kind of justice to the troll and another to the good Samaritan?

[SuperSneak]

Oh, brother...this crap again.

I think it was biased myself...they were both acting like jerks, relatively speaking...so AH had the "last word"...I would think that threatening physical harm to someone would be at least as woeful, no matter what point it occurred in...they both should have gotten equal spankings or been left alone.
Mark is biased, Ming is biased...in the end, big deal...it's just the internet.
Stupid...the whole thing is stupid.
Welcome to the "real world" folks.
I'm ashamed of both of them...and I like them both, BTW. They are two very different people, but nice in their own way. They just need to grow up a bit.
Tune in next week...business as usual, I imagine.


------------------
Bring it!

"How ridiculous and how strange, to be surprised by anything that happens in life." Marcus Aurelius (Meditations)
Chief Revealer of Personal Foibles

[MarkG]

Legman,

Ming explained in an excellent way how my decision was made. He did that by reading what was posted by the two, and what I posted in the specific thread and in this thread. Since i doubt that he has any mind-reading powers, i fail to see how you can not come to the same result. the only "assumption" i can make is that you are the one with the bias, given that you agree with AH on the matters of the sticky threads and of threads about Karen

btw, i also fail to see how you expect me to deny that i'm totally unbiased. this would be ridicullous...

and something else: why on earth would i want to "shut up" AH? did i "shut him up" the last time that we had a whole thread in this forum(where it should be)?


Lancer,

thank you for your post and for your decision

<font size=1 face=Arial color=444444>[This message has been edited by MarkG (edited December 06, 2000).]</font>

[Lazarus & the Gimp]

Whoa....excuse the latecomer here but I want to just get something clear.

How much of a problem is that sticky thread? It's an ongoing sage that we're all familiar with, and it might just achieve a highly worthwhile result. What harm does it do having that there?

[MarkG]

<center><table width=80%><tr><td><font color=000080 face="Verdana" size=2><font size="1">quote:
<img src="/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1>
</font><font size=1>Originally posted by Lazarus & the Gimp on 12-06-2000 04:02 PM</font>
How much of a problem is that sticky thread? It's an ongoing sage that we're all familiar with, and it might just achieve a highly worthwhile result. What harm does it do having that there?
<img src="/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1></font></td></tr></table></center>it goes against the rules of nature as AH understands them...

[Lefty Scaevola]

RE: Lazerus about sticky Thread
. The spirit among posters tends to be very egalitarian and democratic and somewhat anarchistic. Many of them object to a thread )other than a reference thread like the Great Library, or an FAQ) being accorded privilaged status. They think it should rise and fall on its "merits" being how often serious post are made to it. Some even object to "bumps".
. For myself, I say the Admins are welcome (in addition to the obvious that its their right) to emphasise a thread, which emphasis itself is a communication about the feelings of the Admin.

------------------
Gaius Mucius Scaevola Sinistra
Pontificator Pendanticus
older richer & wiser than you
<font size=1 face=Arial color=444444>[This message has been edited by Lefty Scaevola (edited December 06, 2000).]</font>

[Legman]

So MarkG, I take it you don't agree with my view that

a) they both posted insults and mild flaming to virtually the same extent

b) they both posted to the thread after they were told not to

?

If you don't agree, then please tell me where AH's actions differed sufficiently from Lancer's actions for him to be restricted as the only one.

If you do agree, then what reasons did you have for banning AH?

If you answer this in an honest and non-manipulative way, I will assure you I will draw my own conclusions from your answer and not raise the matter any further, except for the option of one reply to your answer.

BTW, I don't think I'm biased on this matter - other than I was apparently the one outraged enough at your decision to start this thread inquiring why you did what you did.

Note also that almost everyone who posted to this thread share my view of you handing out punishment in an unjust fashion in this case. How can so many people with all the evidence readily available have the same - wrong - view of one man's decision? Isn't it more likely that you made a bad call - something nobody's gonna blame you for if you reverse your decision?

[Lefty Scaevola]

. I see another cold shoulder comming on here Legman. Get your sweater on!!

[Ming]

<center><table width=80%><tr><td><font color=000080 face="Verdana" size=2><font size="1">quote:
<img src="/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1>
</font><font size=1>Originally posted by Legman on 12-06-2000 04:39 PM</font>
So MarkG, I take it you don't agree with my view that
a) they both posted insults and mild flaming to virtually the same extent
b) they both posted to the thread after they were told not to

<img src="/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1></font></td></tr></table></center>

Answer to A: Yes, they were both bad boys and engaged in mild flaming.
Answer to B: First, they were NEVER told to not POST to the thread. They were told to chill, and then continue their "discussion" by MP.

As I discribed before (please reread it again if something is still unclear to you), the posts immediately after the warning to chill and take it to PM were ignored because neither had seen the warnings yet. Once it was obvious that they both HAD seen the warning... then what happened?

Lancer posted that he had sent a PM to AH. Fine, a little testy in the nature of it, but it was to alert AH he had a PM on the subject.

AND NOW, ONE LAST TIME, AH then posted what was sent by PM "INCLUDING A QUOTE FROM LANCER" (a big break against the rules since he/they were told to take it to PM) This was like throwing gasoline on a fire that had been put out, in an attempt to start the fire all over again. FOR THAT, HE WAS RESTRICTED... THAT WAS THE STRAW THAT BROKE THE CAMEL'S BACK!

Lancer's next post was simply trying to end it. He told AH that he was done with the discussion, and that AH should think about what was said. Go back and read it.

There is a big difference in their actions AFTER they were aware of the warnings. Before than, Yeah, they were both bad! But the before has nothing to do with the restriction.

I hope this helps...