Beefy Boxes and Bandwidth Generously Provided by pair Networks
good chemistry is complicated,
and a little bit messy -LW
 
PerlMonks  

Re^5: Plea for upvotes. (nonsense)

by Anneq (Vicar)
on Sep 09, 2013 at 23:52 UTC ( #1053124=note: print w/ replies, xml ) Need Help??


in reply to Re^4: Plea for upvotes. (nonsense)
in thread Plea for upvotes.

GOB,

If you really ARE the good old buk (GOB), I have indeed seen your contributions every day, for years. I've bookmarked and reviewed and re-reviewed many of them. Thank you. A lot.

I just don't think Tye messed with your account. From his past behaviour, I can't see him doing it.

As well, I would consider jumping to help you out if your approach was not so over-the-top. I don't want to stand up and be counted in support of that behaviour. Sorry. You lost credibility when your posts turned to nonsense and hostility instead of logic.

And lastly, there are a lot of people here at the monastery. Is there anyone else experiencing similar abuse? Maybe I've missed some posts, but I don't see a trend of others having similar complaints. If its just you, then you might consider stepping back and thinking about other possibilities for you account problem? I can imagine your frustration, though, losing privilege after all these years.

Anne


Comment on Re^5: Plea for upvotes. (nonsense)
Re^6: Plea for upvotes. (nonsense)
by BrowserUk (Pope) on Sep 10, 2013 at 00:30 UTC
    I just don't think Tye messed with your account. From his past behaviour, I can't see him doing it.

    You're right; but for the wrong reasons. Tye has abused his position on several occasions. Of course it is very hard for a non-privileged monk to prove that; but when you are here every day and have logic and analysis at your disposal, it is clear if not proven.

    So, my assumption was based upon experience and history; but in the end, factually incorrect. But I only 'know' that because of hearsay.

    But the fact that any single person can wield that level of caprice without check or balance reinforces the premise of my first thread, against which that unconscionable action was exacted, and for which this thread was my *only recourse*.

    Regardless of whether you consider that first thread warranted some extraordinary response -- I don't. I only asked a perfectly valid question in a perfectly valid, and even polite way (which is unarguable if you read that question, rather than the reaction to it) -- you have to concur that unilaterally disabling an account on the basis of nothing more than a personal distaste for the owner of that account, and his temerity to question the status quo, is exactly why the question needed to be asked; and why it should be responded to.

    The site norm is that it takes four different monks to concur that an obvious spam-post is indeed spam -- and (if I understand it correctly) zero contrary votes, and multiple, disparate, deliberate, actions by each of those 4 monks, in order for that post to be reaped.

    But, one, privileged (supposedly trusted and trustworthy) monk can, on a whim, ban another monk whom he dislikes. Is that right? Even if the banned monk, is a arrogant, egocentric, know-it-all (Ie. me)?

    If its right, move on. If it's not right, then re-read the OP of the first thread. Read it carefully. Is there anything in there that says Tye is bad. That Tye shouldn't be a God. Anything that denigrates Tye.

    Those are rhetorical questions, because there isn't. It simply asks if, given that the vast majority of the God's -- the only ones whom have any possibility of providing check & balance to the actions of the other Gods -- are totally inactive; is this place best served by those that remain given their obvious and self-described, lack of time to give to this place?

    Maybe the fact that I'm the only one who's sees a problem means I spend too much time here. Or maybe, it means that all those other experienced, talented, creative monks that have been and gone; and no longer bother with this place; means that they reached their point of frustration with this place long ago and simply walked away.


    With the rise and rise of 'Social' network sites: 'Computers are making people easier to use everyday'
    Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error.
    "Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority".
    In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice.
      Regardless of whether you consider that first thread warranted some extraordinary response -- I don't. I only asked a perfectly valid question in a perfectly valid, and even polite way (which is unarguable if you read that question, rather than the reaction to it) -- you have to concur that unilaterally disabling an account on the basis of nothing more than a personal distaste for the owner of that account, and his temerity to question the status quo, is exactly why the question needed to be asked; and why it should be responded to.

      But I was posting in THIS thread, in which you call tye "a demogodic shithead that has been holding this place back for a decade or more". Funny to be sure, but definitely not polite. FYI, my spell checker spells it "shit head", not one word.

      But to address your point of validity, while I respect your experience, and others have piped up to say how valuable you are to the site, you haven't really given much in the way of evidence, really. No one can argue with your point that one shouldn't be able to use power to exercise personal vendettas on a whim. Fine. Agreed. But now what? Has someone done this? You are expecting people to believe someone is actively doing things, without providing any evidence, except your experience. That is really hard to get behind. No?

      You may think it selfish of me but I don't see a problem so I don't see the point of changing it. Your first, and as you say, reasonably presented, question presented a poll. I didn't study it closely, but it doesn't look like anyone else has a problem with the way things are? I'd hate to see you go, and so would others, from what I've read. So if your account is fixed now, maybe you won't have any further problems, I hope.

      FWIW, I also value your wit and sarcasm over the years. Hilarious. Thanks.

      Anne

        But I was posting in THIS thread,

        And this thread was my (exasperated, exacerbated, frustrated) reaction to, the reaction to, the first thread.

        Any attempt to divorce this thread from that thread, and view this thread in isolation, is like claiming "the guy died of a heart attack; the fact that I'd just shot him causing a through'n'through flesh wound is irrelevant".

        You are expecting people to believe someone is actively doing things, without providing any evidence, except your experience.

        How can I present evidence?

        • Do I have access to the Perlmonks Logs? No.
        • Do I routinely wire-shark my every interaction with this site -- or any other? No.
        • Can obtain the PM database and perform a forensic analysis of it? No.

        So, what do I base my charge on.

        1. The time line.
        2. The similarity of what happened to me -- I experienced it; I cannot prove I did beyond asking why would I make it up? What does anyone think I would have to gain from such an exercise -- to what has been recurrently reported by another monk.
        3. A private email (hearsay) from a third party, that I am not at liberty to divulge either author or content, but take to be convincing for several reasons, not least of which is that the author has historically no particular love for me.

          Unsolicited and completely unexpected, it convinced me that I was right about both the time line and the mechanism; but off-base regarding the agent.

          No surprise and no apology there. The complete lack of transparency means the best anyone could do is guess, accuse the 'obvious perpetrator', and gauge the reaction.

        Regarding the non-issue of 'shithead' versus 'shit head'; google has them 473,000 & 925,000 respectively, so I claim a win based upon crowd-sourced wisdom. Wanna argue? Go ahead, but its irrelevant.


        With the rise and rise of 'Social' network sites: 'Computers are making people easier to use everyday'
        Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error.
        "Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority".
        In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice.

Log In?
Username:
Password:

What's my password?
Create A New User
Node Status?
node history
Node Type: note [id://1053124]
help
Chatterbox?
and the web crawler heard nothing...

How do I use this? | Other CB clients
Other Users?
Others perusing the Monastery: (14)
As of 2014-10-22 16:24 GMT
Sections?
Information?
Find Nodes?
Leftovers?
    Voting Booth?

    For retirement, I am banking on:










    Results (119 votes), past polls