About this "stealth mod" business

[Jeff]

There are none. Mods is mods. No one who is not identified publicly as a moderator has moderator privileges.

[Simulist]

About this "stealth mod" business

Equipping a fish with radar-absorbent material does seem a bit unlikely, even for the more conspiracy-minded.

[Canadian_watcher]

Hello Jeff - I see we're on just about the same schedule.

Your post misses a fact, though, and in doing so allows the group here to continue to feel entitled to 'put me in my place' as if I've cried wolf.

The fact is that up until about a week ago there was someone here who still had mod privileges which were not revealed to the board but that he made use of.

[82_28]

Who the fuck cares about "stealth mods" anyhow? When I venture into the "wilds" of the greater Internet I use my own head same as I use it here. Even if there were stealth mods how really would it affect anybody?

There will be stealth mods and rumors of stealth mods. It's how the Book of Revelations would be written today.

[compared2what?]

Who the fuck cares about "stealth mods" anyhow? When I venture into the "wilds" of the greater Internet I use my own head same as I use it here. Even if there were stealth mods how really would it affect anybody?

There will be stealth mods and rumors of stealth mods. It's how the Book of Revelations would be written today.

Very apt. But when hate-filled people use that as an excuse for transferringr the stink of whatever destructive bullshit they're spewing from themselves to innocent others while acting like outraged holy martyrs whenever they're not the ones who come out of it smelling like roses, it's also a problem.

As you know. I don't mean that. I just mean: Same problem.

[Simulist]

... and in doing so allows the group here to continue to feel entitled to 'put me in my place' ...

It isn't "the group here" you need to be worried about. Your consistent recklessness with facts has done a pretty a fine job of "putting you in your place" without any needed help at all from anyone else.

[Canadian_watcher]

Jeff? care to step in or was contriving for the usual suspects to have tacit permission to bash me what you intended by starting this thread?

[justdrew]

c_w - I told you I checked the mod log and there was no use. mods can not remove things from the mod log.

[Canadian_watcher]

c_w - I told you I checked the mod log and there was no use. mods can not remove things from the mod log.

I don't know why it wouldn't show up, JD, perhaps you didn't look back far enough. Or maybe it doesn't show up because it registers as a regular editing function which is fair enough. What I know is that barracuda edited a post after I responded to it and after he called Jeff into the thread. The original post was only one sentence long so yes, I definitely noticed when a second sentence was added. A sentence that insinuated that I had been PMing barracuda, which I had not.

I brought this immediately to the attention of Jeff, who ignored me but did delete one of my posts in its entirety.

A system of justice or even of good board moderation must be that the rules are applied equally to all. If I'm being trolled and insulted and lied about then I would for that person doing the trolling to be sanctioned just as many others of us have been. This is a repeated pattern from the same one person (who has always got a little dirt cloud of flea supporters who change up from months to months) since the time I was made a mod. Since then it has been a systematic trolling and belittling of me - from a gang of people here on RI.

sorry, it's just true. I thought most of the folks on here were
a. better than that
b. smart enough to recognize what is in front of their faces.
c. interested in fairness and justice.
d. opposed to bullying, retaliation and censorship.

[barracuda]

I don't know why it wouldn't show up, JD, perhaps you didn't look back far enough. Or maybe it doesn't show up because it registers as a regular editing function which is fair enough. What I know is that barracuda edited a post after I responded to it and after he called Jeff into the thread.

You mean this thread? In which you proposed that Your Old Pal Jerky and I were sock puppets?

The original post was only one sentence long so yes, I definitely noticed when a second sentence was added. A sentence that insinuated that I had been PMing barracuda, which I had not.

What I was referring to by "private messages" your rather constant attempts at sexual innuendo as a means of getting my goat. The ambiguity of my statement was a counterpoint to your own foolish attempts to make it appear that I had some sort of love interest in your wobbling dewlap. I did not, and do not, honey. It's nothing personal - over-entitled suburban blonds just aren't my type.

But needless to say, there is no back-edit in the world that can "win" an argument which you had already lost on your own before I ever entered the thread to defend myself.

I brought this immediately to the attention of Jeff, who ignored me but did delete one of my posts in its entirety.

I saw your charming deleted response (which, as I recall, included a homosexual slur), and I thought I had come in before it with my edit. But Jeff subsequently deleted my response to the slur as well. Censorship? hardly.

More to come...

[Canadian_watcher]

irrelevant, really. you're proving why you were upset with me in that thread meanwhile I'm trying to demonstrate that you had 'stealth modship' (if I must be forced to mock this with the rest of you) in that thread. the fact that you got so hot under the collar about my posts is your own problem. the post Jeff deleted (not me) was to say I was sorry I had stolen your dollies. Not a homosexual slur, my friend, just an attempt to point out what a sissy you were being for calling Jeff to defend you

The fact remains that you were still enjoying mod privileges at that time.

[justdrew]

you know the edited tag only goes on posts edited after you hit submit. he could have edited it while you were composing.

That said. You should either drop it and knock off the fighting or find another board. We are not here for waring posters to score points on one another. So, please... enough already.

[Canadian_watcher]

you know the edited tag only goes on posts edited after you hit submit. he could have edited it while you were composing.

That said. You should either drop it and knock off the fighting or find another board. We are not here for waring posters to score points on one another. So, please... enough already.

I'll drop if / when they drop it.

people had already responded, Drew. that theory does not fly.
Besides, I've asked Jeff for a 'ruling' and can't accept you as a proxy right now.

[barracuda]

the post Jeff deleted (not me) was to say I was sorry I had stolen your dollies. Not a homosexual slur, my friend, just an attempt to point out what a sissy you were being for calling Jeff to defend you

I see - it wasn't a homosexual slur, you were just pointing out how pathetically weak I am, and your method of doing so is to cal me a girl. Some brand of feminism you've got going there.

[Canadian_watcher]

the post Jeff deleted (not me) was to say I was sorry I had stolen your dollies. Not a homosexual slur, my friend, just an attempt to point out what a sissy you were being for calling Jeff to defend you

I see - it wasn't a homosexual slur, you were just pointing out how pathetically weak I am, and your method of doing so is to cal me a girl. Some brand of feminism you've got going there.

boys can play with dollies, too. besides, it went with the theme as I called Jeff "Dad" in that same deleted post. And yes, anyone who has to call in a moderator or boad admin over what I had written up to that point is pathetically weak. My comparison of Jerky to you was just that - it was not an insinuation of sockpuppetry.