Conquer Club

More offensive than the fact of what is avatar is, is the idea that Owen considers himself the black jesus and acts like he's above everyone.

my point is proven. if f*ck can't be on one avatar, than it shouldn't be allowed on any. mod or not, the rulings need to be fair and even across the board. just because King A finds a giraffe amusing and a picture of a black guy not amusing, shouldn't matter. my point is proven, i was found guilty for being owenshooter, period.-the black jesus

Owen, if a moderator was wearing your previous avatar, he would have also been told to remove it. If you were wearing Calidmr's avatar, you would have been left alone.

Metsfanmax wrote:

Woodruff wrote:Nor does squishyg have anything to do with the moderator abuses, to my knowledge.

Still, she feels as though this is a concerted effort by "the mods" to play favorites among themselves. If you object on principle to something structural in your organization, how can you legitimately still claim to be a member of the organization?

We do not have a system of collective responsibility here. Mods have a right to disagree with decisions made by other mods. Your suggestion that squishy should resign because she disagrees with one particular ruling is absurd.

Anyway squishy never expressed that she had a particular disagreement with the ruling, if you read her words carefully she just stated that not necessarily everyone was happy with the ruling that was given.

I'm not suggesting that she should resign because she disagrees with one ruling. I'm suggesting that she should resign because she believes that the current system is structured in such a way that mods are treated in a biased manner when it comes to the rules. If she was just saying "I think that this mod was treated in a biased manner in this particular case," then fine - you're right, it's just an isolated incident. But Woodruff specifically alluded to the idea of two separate classes on CC, where the staff members are generally treated differently, and squishy implied that she agreed with that statement. What's absurd is a mod continuing to hold her position, and therefore implicitly defend a system whose structure she openly objects to.

I honestly think you are making a lot of assumptions and jumping to conclusions from one line of text, I'm sure squishy can defend herself when she is online but I think your accusation that she openly objects to the moderator structure system on this site seems a bit far-fetched.

nagerous wrote:

Metsfanmax wrote:

Woodruff wrote:Nor does squishyg have anything to do with the moderator abuses, to my knowledge.

Still, she feels as though this is a concerted effort by "the mods" to play favorites among themselves. If you object on principle to something structural in your organization, how can you legitimately still claim to be a member of the organization?

We do not have a system of collective responsibility here. Mods have a right to disagree with decisions made by other mods. Your suggestion that squishy should resign because she disagrees with one particular ruling is absurd.

Anyway squishy never expressed that she had a particular disagreement with the ruling, if you read her words carefully she just stated that not necessarily everyone was happy with the ruling that was given.

+1 well said... you are battering against an elite team though

Metsfanmax wrote:I'm not suggesting that she should resign because she disagrees with one ruling. I'm suggesting that she should resign because she believes that the current system is structured in such a way that mods are treated in a biased manner when it comes to the rules. If she was just saying "I think that this mod was treated in a biased manner in this particular case," then fine - you're right, it's just an isolated incident. But Woodruff specifically alluded to the idea of two separate classes on CC, where the staff members are generally treated differently, and squishy implied that she agreed with that statement. What's absurd is a mod continuing to hold her position, and therefore implicitly defend a system whose structure she openly objects to.

putz.... squishy is one of the few mods that actually is fair and isnt one of the "elite"

so many mods do NOTHING.... but be their "status" which is sad but makes me chuckle. This thread has just become a thread for putzes with axes to grind... sad but funny.


edit... lol just realized this is a place for sycophants like mets... to try to become mods.. (look it up on google bubba)
sad..... this thread shows the inconsistancy of policy in CC and how forum players (some of them (im looking at you)) are really pathetic.

How did this

squishyg wrote:speak for yourself, clearly other posters in this thread do agree with Woody.

Become

Metsfanmax wrote:I'm not suggesting that she should resign because she disagrees with one ruling. I'm suggesting that she should resign because she believes that the current system is structured in such a way that mods are treated in a biased manner when it comes to the rules. If she was just saying "I think that this mod was treated in a biased manner in this particular case," then fine - you're right, it's just an isolated incident. But Woodruff specifically alluded to the idea of two separate classes on CC, where the staff members are generally treated differently, and squishy implied that she agreed with that statement. What's absurd is a mod continuing to hold her position, and therefore implicitly defend a system whose structure she openly objects to.

Mets. Stop trolling squishyg.

jefjef wrote:How did this

squishyg wrote:speak for yourself, clearly other posters in this thread do agree with Woody.

Become

Metsfanmax wrote:I'm not suggesting that she should resign because she disagrees with one ruling. I'm suggesting that she should resign because she believes that the current system is structured in such a way that mods are treated in a biased manner when it comes to the rules. If she was just saying "I think that this mod was treated in a biased manner in this particular case," then fine - you're right, it's just an isolated incident. But Woodruff specifically alluded to the idea of two separate classes on CC, where the staff members are generally treated differently, and squishy implied that she agreed with that statement. What's absurd is a mod continuing to hold her position, and therefore implicitly defend a system whose structure she openly objects to.

Mets. Stop trolling squishyg.

You would know how it became that, if you actually read what Woodruff said.

At any rate, I'm not trolling anyone. I'm just saying that it's nonsensical to openly object to some structural flaw in a system and continue to take part in that system. Her agreement with Woodruff implies that she believes the current system structurally favors mods and gives biased rulings for them. If she believes that, the only logical choice is to resign her position. If she didn't mean to imply that she agrees with Woodruff, then my posts are irrelevant.

There is no system... except the one you envision yourself being in... THAT IS THE POINT... We need better mods like Squishy to help create a system.... .. not for ppl like you to take her place.


grow up

owenshooter wrote:my point is proven. if f*ck can't be on one avatar, than it shouldn't be allowed on any. mod or not, the rulings need to be fair and even across the board. just because King A finds a giraffe amusing and a picture of a black guy not amusing, shouldn't matter. my point is proven, i was found guilty for being owenshooter, period.-the black jesus

meh. I actually agree with owen here. You guys need to make up your minds on what is right & what is wrong.. its too boarder line and its becoming a joke for many as you can see already. Some are laughing, lots are NOT

-griff

Metsfanmax wrote:

Woodruff wrote:Nor does squishyg have anything to do with the moderator abuses, to my knowledge.

Still, she feels as though this is a concerted effort by "the mods" to play favorites among themselves. If you object on principle to something structural in your organization, how can you legitimately still claim to be a member of the organization?

She said no such thing.

Woodruff wrote:

Metsfanmax wrote:

Woodruff wrote:Nor does squishyg have anything to do with the moderator abuses, to my knowledge.

Still, she feels as though this is a concerted effort by "the mods" to play favorites among themselves. If you object on principle to something structural in your organization, how can you legitimately still claim to be a member of the organization?

She said no such thing.

You said that, and she agreed with you. Why are you playing semantics?

Metsfanmax wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

Metsfanmax wrote:

Woodruff wrote:Nor does squishyg have anything to do with the moderator abuses, to my knowledge.

Still, she feels as though this is a concerted effort by "the mods" to play favorites among themselves. If you object on principle to something structural in your organization, how can you legitimately still claim to be a member of the organization?

She said no such thing.

You said that, and she agreed with you. Why are you playing semantics?

I'm not at all playing semantics. She said that I wasn't the only one...which was patently clear to anyone reading the thread. All her statement meant for certain was that she had read the thread.

Mets, I really hope you're not this much of an idiot.




Unless you're trolling, in which case, carry on.

Woodruff wrote:

Metsfanmax wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

Metsfanmax wrote:

Woodruff wrote:Nor does squishyg have anything to do with the moderator abuses, to my knowledge.

Still, she feels as though this is a concerted effort by "the mods" to play favorites among themselves. If you object on principle to something structural in your organization, how can you legitimately still claim to be a member of the organization?

She said no such thing.

You said that, and she agreed with you. Why are you playing semantics?

I'm not at all playing semantics. She said that I wasn't the only one...which was patently clear to anyone reading the thread. All her statement meant for certain was that she had read the thread.

The tone of the message ("speak for yourself") made it abundantly clear that she agreed with you.

At any rate, as I said - if I'm wrong about her agreement with you, all it means is that my posts are irrelevant. No need for us to argue about what she meant.

Her "tone"? Did you hear it or apply it.


MODS PLEASE LOCK THIS THREAD.

king achilles wrote:Owen, if a moderator was wearing your previous avatar, he would have also been told to remove it. If you were wearing Calidmr's avatar, you would have been left alone.

but it isn't jesus or an accepted image of christ by the catholic church. with this ruling i am linking below, the fact that AoG's was not of buddha so it is left alone shows the double standard and "owen" moderation that goes on around here. 2 avatars.. one offensive and forcibly removed under threat of a 6 month ban, the other deemed ok... please explain:

Subject: AOG[closed]es

makes no sense... like most things around here lately...-the black jesus

king achilles wrote:Evil Semp took your report as spurious because you just copied and pasted the wordings from another previous report and then you followed it up with a "I could care less how this is ruled,...".

Next time be more careful of what you say or we could take it another way.

I am re-opening this case. Army of GOD, PM sent. You should know better than to do this.

It's been changed Owen,as you can see...

owenshooter wrote:my point is proven. if f*ck can't be on one avatar, than it shouldn't be allowed on any. mod or not, the rulings need to be fair and even across the board. just because King A finds a giraffe amusing and a picture of a black guy not amusing, shouldn't matter. my point is proven, i was found guilty for being owenshooter, period.-the black jesus

owenshooter wrote:but it isn't jesus or an accepted image of christ by the catholic church. ...-the black jesus

do you deliberately miss the point, or are you actually just incapable of retaining more than one post at a time in your head?

please explain how a black man with a crown of thorns, used as the avatar for someone calling himself 'the black jesus', can be anyone other than jesus.

a lot of people are named Jesus in hispanic culture. Owen (in real life) is half puerto rican and half black. That is why he is the Black Jesus. Want to guess his middle name?? JESUS.

I thought it was Shooter...

jbrettlip wrote:a lot of people are named Jesus in hispanic culture. Owen (in real life) is half puerto rican and half black. That is why he is the Black Jesus. Want to guess his middle name?? JESUS.

playing dumb doesn't strengthen your case

Army of GOD wrote:I thought it was Shooter...

That's his last name. Duh.