My Tribunal

[thunderbolt23]

Good Lord. Here we go.

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

From the looks of it, the Professor X-CaliforniaLaw use of “Tribunal” to essentially have a referendum on people they don’t like petered out - most voters preferred to have the “Tribunal” used for policing purposes.

And it makes sense. What good is the process of unilateral invitation into the T-Cell Alpha if every invited member is subject to a referendum based on their “reputation”? That makes the entire point of having existing members invite people moot. If reputation or history be a factor in letting someone in, that assessment is better made by the initial inviter - that is the point of allowing existing members the power to decide who comes in initially and who does not.

If there is going to be a potential vote on every invitation choice, the “Tribunal” is no “tribunal” at all - it is essentially a “membership” vote. And that is fine, if that is the system you want to build - but whatever the choice, it should be driven and held in trust by mature members interested in preserving a good forum, and not prima donnas on an ego trip.[/quote]

That was my post from above. It’ll come in handy for the rest of this.

You have no clue what you are talking about. I didn’t even vote for Headhunter

I am not even sure what you mean - you didn’t you vote against HH, or “for” him? - but it doesn’t matter, because I never claimed you did either. Next:

…and I am not the one who created the Tribunal in the first place…the MODs did. So take your accusations elsewhere.

I never claimed you invented “Tribunal” or were behind it, of course, and this is the same Tribunal I have said that I…wait for it…support.

For one who cries strawman at every turn, you sure are prone to that action.

In order for my above post to be a guilty of creating a strawman, it would have to assume a viewpoint you don’t have.

The only viewpoint of yours I mentioned in the above post is the one where you believe the Tribunal can and should be used to act as a referendum to get rid of people based on reputation. Which, of course, is not a straw man, because it is absolutely right, based on your own admission.

Swing, and a miss.

Seriously, Professor X, learn when to stop posting. If I have to keep educating you on the topic, I am going to start charging a fee.

[Professor_X]

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

I am not even sure what you mean - you didn’t you vote against HH, or “for” him? - but it doesn’t matter, because I never claimed you did either. Next:[/quote]

You must be retarded. You wrote:[quote]From the looks of it, the Professor X-CaliforniaLaw use of “Tribunal” to essentially have a referendum on people they don’t like petered out - most voters preferred to have the “Tribunal” used for policing purposes.
[/quote]

Why mention my name at all in the discussion of this tribunal if I had NO influence on kicking the subject of this thread out by voting on it?

What else could you possibly mean by "Professor X-CaliforniaLaw use of “Tribunal”? If I didn’t use it, why is my name coming up?

[quote]

The only viewpoint of yours I mentioned in the above post is the one where you believe the Tribunal can and should be used to act as a referendum to get rid of people based on reputation. Which, of course, is not a straw man, because it is absolutely right, based on your own admission.[/quote]

I dare you to find where that was written. Why make up things? I never wrote that a tribunal should be used based on reputation…which means the “strawman” (you love so much) is simply your own.

[Headhunter]

Getting kicked out of the Air Force must have done something to the Prof; made him bitter. I suppose he went on one of his paranoid ‘racism’ rants one too many times, probably to a General.

That probably would have been funny to watch: “Maynard, we’ve put up with you long enough.”

Of course, they let him write his own seperation of service papers, so he could keep his career. That General was too kind hearted, IMHO — now his patients (the poor bastards) have to listen to his rants, instead of his oughtbe neighbors in the trailer park.

[thunderbolt23]

[quote]Professor X wrote:

You wrote:From the looks of it, the Professor X-CaliforniaLaw use of “Tribunal” to essentially have a referendum on people they don’t like petered out - most voters preferred to have the “Tribunal” used for policing purposes.

Why mention my name at all in the discussion of this tribunal if I had NO influence on kicking the subject of this thread out by voting on it?[/quote]

Because, genius, I have said it a thousand times - you support that kind of use of the Tribunal. You said so. You think it is ok. You think it should be used that way.

I don’t give a damn if you didn’t vote against HH or not - you came out in defense of using the Tribunal to boot people based on their reputation.

No more, no less - that is your viewpoint, and it is the one I referenced.

What else could you possibly mean by "Professor X-CaliforniaLaw use of “Tribunal”? If I didn’t use it, why is my name coming up?

I meant exactly what I wrote - that you support using the Tribunal as a way to vote out people you don’t like even before they post anything objectionable.

It’s easy, assuming you can read.

I dare you to find where that was written. Why make up things? I never wrote that a tribunal should be used based on reputation…which means the “strawman” (you love so much) is simply your own.

Heh.

[i]Jsbrook wrote:Well, it seems to me that most of your posts are deliberately made to incite controversy and get a rise out of people to no productive end. T-Nation Alpha was created in part to avoid that kind of bullshit. So, whether you intended to post there or not, I think it’s entirely legitimate for people to presumptively determine they want to keep that kind of behavior out.

This is not a trial, and this is not a court. You have to live with the reputation that you have created. It seems to me you may have nominated yourself anyway. But if you did not, it makes sense to me that people would want to keep you out because of the way you have conducted yourself. The comparison to Jim Crow is ludicrous. That was discrimination based on an indelible characteristics people were born to. Whoever nominated to ban you did so because of your own actions.[/i]

You replied: That pretty much sums it up.

LankyMofo wrote: This makes me want you out. That being said, I think enough is enough with the perpetual witch hunt that is going on.

You wrote: Hey, what did you expect?..It was either going to be this or something like it once Headhunter was let in here. Hopefully this is a lesson about WHO we allow in here instead of some constant focus on getting people removed.

And my favorite:

Otep wrote: Why is HeadHunter on tribunal? Someone give me evidence to weigh.

You replied: Why not search through his posting history?..Then ask yourself what benefit he has been in the forums that actually have something to do with weight training.

Enough. I know your fragile ego won’t let you back down, but just stand by your original point, the one all of us can read - that you originally supported the Tribunal’s use to boot out people based on their “posting history” (your words). Looks like you’ve changed your tune out of convenience, but too bad.

My point was that that model was rejected by T-Cell Alpha members, and I think the T-Cell Alpha will be the better for it.

[jsbrook]

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
The Mage wrote:
I thought this tribunal was done out of spite. Petty and childish. I in fact voted to keep HH, for the reasons I stated before: Until a person does in fact give a justifiable reason to be removed, they should not be. Having not posted there means there was no reason.

Beyond that, HH you are taking this way too personally. First you were obviously invited, so were able to get in. Then when the tribunal crap started, you said you did not want to be a member there. I think that was the only reason you were voted out. Also having made such a statement I can’t see why you are complaining so much. You practically asked to be kicked out.

As far as the reason for the “club”, having a non-moderated forum is a great idea. I am very big on free speech. But there are limits, and if what goes on there comes back to haunt the owners of this forum, it will be shut down.

If you have a better way of dealing with an unmoderated forum, tell us how to do it.

I concur, and while I think HH has overstated the issue with hyperbole, the principle stands.

From the looks of it, the Professor X-CaliforniaLaw use of “Tribunal” to essentially have a referendum on people they don’t like petered out - most voters preferred to have the “Tribunal” used for policing purposes.

And it makes sense. What good is the process of unilateral invitation into the T-Cell Alpha if every invited member is subject to a referendum based on their “reputation”? That makes the entire point of having existing members invite people moot. If reputation or history be a factor in letting someone in, that assessment is better made by the initial inviter - that is the point of allowing existing members the power to decide who comes in initially and who does not.

If there is going to be a potential vote on every invitation choice, the “Tribunal” is no “tribunal” at all - it is essentially a “membership” vote. And that is fine, if that is the system you want to build - but whatever the choice, it should be driven and held in trust by mature members interested in preserving a good forum, and not prima donnas on an ego trip.[/quote]

Who? HH is the only one who has been voted out. I’m sure there are others Prof X and Califorina Law don’t like on this website. HH is a uniquely disruptive and divisive influence on this website. Who else compares EVERYTHING to Jim Crow and the Nazis and starts fake threads about buying their prepubescent daughter a vibrator to provoke people? Half of what he says and the way he says it is done to get a rise and has nothing to do with legitimate discussion. Why should that be in T-Cell Alpha? For all people have been complaining about ths Tribunal function, it has not been used by people to try to kick those out just cause they don’t like them or what they have to say.

[Professor_X]

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

Because, genius, I have said it a thousand times - you support that kind of use of the Tribunal. You said so. You think it is ok. You think it should be used that way.[/quote]

Doofus, I didn’t write anywhere, NOT IN ONE SINGLE PLACE, that the tribunal should be used based on past actions. I even dared you to find this quote…and apparently you know this as well.

Even the quotes you posted don’t show this. They show that it is clear why someone else chose him for a tribunal…because he has acted like an ass in the past to many groups of people in general with the things that he types.

As if that needed an explanation, I am not in control of what other people do. But I damn sure understand WHY that one person did it even if I wouldn’t have done the same myself.

Maybe this truly is hard for you to grasp, even after I have stated many times that I didn’t even vote.

Headhunter got kicked out because of headhunter. He stated WHILE that vote went on that he wanted no part of that forum…so EVERYONE WHO VOTED voted him out.

No one is to blame for that but Headhunter himself. Not me, not Cali-law or anyone else.

[Professor_X]

[quote]jsbrook wrote:

Who? HH is the only one who has been voted out. I’m sure there are others Prof X and Califorina Law don’t like on this website. HH is a uniquely disruptive and divisive influence on this website. Who else compares EVERYTHING to Jim Crow and the Nazis and starts fake threads about buying their prepubescent daughter a vibrator to provoke people? Half of what he says and the way he says it is done to get a rise and has nothing to do with legitimate discussion. Why should that be in T-Cell Alpha? For all people have been complaining about ths Tribunal function, it has not been used by people to try to kick those out just cause they don’t like them or what they have to say.[/quote]

He ignores this. He wants to act as if Headhunter is not a troll and has not acted ridiculously in the past.

The bottom line is, he never should have been let in to begin with. However, the tribunal should be based on actions IN that forum…but clearly this one case is different than any other that may involve a poster who actually contributes POSITIVELY in the forums.

I mean, look at how Headhunter has acted after this incident. Is this man truly as old as he says he is?

He sure doesn’t act like it.

[jsbrook]

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

I meant exactly what I wrote - that you support using the Tribunal as a way to vote out people you don’t like even before they post anything objectionable.

[/quote]

No, the position is to presumptively vote out the few people where almost everything they’ve ever said on this website is objetcionable and disingenuous trolling. I can’t actally think of another that fits in this category offhand, and there are plenty I don’t like on this website and whose actual POSITIONS I don’t agree with. That doesn’t mean they should be voted out. They shouldn’t because they don’t purposely try to disrupt and divide or provoke people with fake threads for their own amusement and don’t purposely bring down the level of discussion in the threads they post in.

[Professor_X]

[quote]jsbrook wrote:
thunderbolt23 wrote:

I meant exactly what I wrote - that you support using the Tribunal as a way to vote out people you don’t like even before they post anything objectionable.

No, the position is to presumptively vote out the few people where almost everything they’ve ever said on this website is objetcionable and disingenuous trolling. I can’t actally think of another that fits in this category offhand, and there are plenty I don’t like on this website and whose actual POSITIONS I don’t agree with. That doesn’t mean they should be voted out. They shouldn’t because they don’t purposely try to disrupt and divide or provoke people with fake threads for their own amusement and don’t purposely bring down the level of discussion in the threads they post in.[/quote]

Again, perfectly written.

This ONE poster is a troll. To try to compare him to anyone else on this forum who is even half way serious about lifting is beyond ridiculous.

[jsbrook]

[quote]Professor X wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
thunderbolt23 wrote:

I meant exactly what I wrote - that you support using the Tribunal as a way to vote out people you don’t like even before they post anything objectionable.

No, the position is to presumptively vote out the few people where almost everything they’ve ever said on this website is objetcionable and disingenuous trolling. I can’t actally think of another that fits in this category offhand, and there are plenty I don’t like on this website and whose actual POSITIONS I don’t agree with. That doesn’t mean they should be voted out. They shouldn’t because they don’t purposely try to disrupt and divide or provoke people with fake threads for their own amusement and don’t purposely bring down the level of discussion in the threads they post in.

Again, perfectly written.

This ONE poster is a troll. To try to compare him to anyone else on this forum who is even half way serious about lifting is beyond ridiculous.

[/quote]

Right. I don’t know what people aren’t getting. I feel like some of these people would say my buddies and I wouldn’t be justified if we kicked a guy out of our weekly poker game after seeing him smack his wife in the face because the conduct is unrelated to poker and didn’t occur while we were playing.

[Professor_X]

[quote]jsbrook wrote:
Professor X wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
thunderbolt23 wrote:

I meant exactly what I wrote - that you support using the Tribunal as a way to vote out people you don’t like even before they post anything objectionable.

No, the position is to presumptively vote out the few people where almost everything they’ve ever said on this website is objetcionable and disingenuous trolling. I can’t actally think of another that fits in this category offhand, and there are plenty I don’t like on this website and whose actual POSITIONS I don’t agree with. That doesn’t mean they should be voted out. They shouldn’t because they don’t purposely try to disrupt and divide or provoke people with fake threads for their own amusement and don’t purposely bring down the level of discussion in the threads they post in.

Again, perfectly written.

This ONE poster is a troll. To try to compare him to anyone else on this forum who is even half way serious about lifting is beyond ridiculous.

Right. I don’t know what people aren’t getting. I feel like some of these people would say my buddies and I wouldn’t be justified if we kicked a guy out of our weekly poker game after seeing him smack his wife in the face because the conduct is unrelated to poker and didn’t occur while we were playing.[/quote]

LOL!

He is now lying and saying I got kicked out of the Air Force. Yes, we sure wanted this type of crap in that forum.

I am really beginning to doubt that this guy is even over the age of 20.

[thunderbolt23]

[quote]jsbrook wrote:

Who? HH is the only one who has been voted out. I’m sure there are others Prof X and Califorina Law don’t like on this website. HH is a uniquely disruptive and divisive influence on this website. Who else compares EVERYTHING to Jim Crow and the Nazis and starts fake threads about buying their prepubescent daughter a vibrator to provoke people?[/quote]

This doesn’t speak to the principle. Does HH troll? Sure. His conspiracy stuff is plain idiocy, and I never saw the vibrator thread, but I read it was nonsense.

But that isn’t my concern - my overarching concern was an abuse of a good policing tool that would ultimately ruin itself, and the forum with it. Headhunter was merely the canary in the mine.

Half of what he says and the way he says it is done to get a rise and has nothing to do with legitimate discussion. Why should that be in T-Cell Alpha? For all people have been complaining about ths Tribunal function, it has not been used by people to try to kick those out just cause they don’t like them or what they have to say.

Well, it was attempted outright - luckily, enough people strangled the concept in its cradle to send a message that that kind of use of the Tribunal isn’t appropriate.

[Professor_X]

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Does HH troll? Sure. [/quote]

No, that should have been the end of your post.

[thunderbolt23]

[quote]Professor X wrote:

(text)[/quote]

Enough. A poster asks for a reason to vote someone out, and you say “look at their posting history”.

This always gets tiresome. Enough with the weaseling.

[Professor_X]

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Professor X wrote:

(text)

Enough. A poster asks for a reason to vote someone out, and you say “look at their posting history”.

This always gets tiresome. Enough with the weaseling.[/quote]

Yes…FOR A FUCKING TROLL, who you even acknowledge is one, and in reference to WHY he was on tribunal (which I just wrote to you is easily understood considering WHO WE ARE TALKING ABOUT even if I woudln’t have acted the same).

What the fuck is it that you are not getting?

[pat]

[quote]Professor X wrote:
thunderbolt23 wrote:
Professor X wrote:

(text)

Enough. A poster asks for a reason to vote someone out, and you say “look at their posting history”.

This always gets tiresome. Enough with the weaseling.

Yes…FOR A FUCKING TROLL, who you even acknowledge is one, and in reference to WHY he was on tribunal.

What the fuck is it that you are not getting?[/quote]

You’re starting to get petty. You’ve made it clear you hate HH and other do too. Let’s leave it alone, please. This thread needs to go away. There is nothing that can be said that hasn’t been said.

[jsbrook]

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
jsbrook wrote:

Who? HH is the only one who has been voted out. I’m sure there are others Prof X and Califorina Law don’t like on this website. HH is a uniquely disruptive and divisive influence on this website. Who else compares EVERYTHING to Jim Crow and the Nazis and starts fake threads about buying their prepubescent daughter a vibrator to provoke people?

This doesn’t speak to the principle. Does HH troll? Sure. His conspiracy stuff is plain idiocy, and I never saw the vibrator thread, but I read it was nonsense.

But that isn’t my concern - my overarching concern was an abuse of a good policing tool that would ultimately ruin itself, and the forum with it. Headhunter was merely the canary in the mine.

Half of what he says and the way he says it is done to get a rise and has nothing to do with legitimate discussion. Why should that be in T-Cell Alpha? For all people have been complaining about ths Tribunal function, it has not been used by people to try to kick those out just cause they don’t like them or what they have to say.

Well, it was attempted outright - luckily, enough people strangled the concept in its cradle to send a message that that kind of use of the Tribunal isn’t appropriate.[/quote]

What principle? And what attempt? As far as I know, CaliforniaLaw was the only other real Tribunal. Nephorm, EmilyQ, and World were either self beta-tests or mistakes. In any case, none of the other Tribunals got even close to the requisite votes to kick them out. People aren’t getting kicked out because they aren’t liked. Maybe a few people use the Tribunal that way [how would you prevent that?] but not enough that it’s an issue. The only successful Tribunal removed a disingenuous troll.

[jsbrook]

[quote]pat wrote:
Professor X wrote:
thunderbolt23 wrote:
Professor X wrote:

(text)

Enough. A poster asks for a reason to vote someone out, and you say “look at their posting history”.

This always gets tiresome. Enough with the weaseling.

Yes…FOR A FUCKING TROLL, who you even acknowledge is one, and in reference to WHY he was on tribunal.

What the fuck is it that you are not getting?

You’re starting to get petty. You’ve made it clear you hate HH and other do too. Let’s leave it alone, please. This thread needs to go away. There is nothing that can be said that hasn’t been said.[/quote]

Ok, let’s let it die. With the possible exception of making nominations public, the Tribunals are working fine. Disingenuous trolls get kicked out. People don’t kicked out because they simply aren’t liked. End of story.

[thunderbolt23]

[quote]jsbrook wrote:

This ONE poster is a troll. To try to compare him to anyone else on this forum who is even half way serious about lifting is beyond ridiculous.

Right. I don’t know what people aren’t getting. I feel like some of these people would say my buddies and I wouldn’t be justified if we kicked a guy out of our weekly poker game after seeing him smack his wife in the face because the conduct is unrelated to poker and didn’t occur while we were playing.[/quote]

Focus - who is saying HH doesn’t troll?

The question is: should the Tribunal be used to vote someone out who is a “troll” but has otherwise caused no trouble?

I think not, for a number of reasons. Quite a few people agree with me - read CaliforniaLaw’s dead Tribunal attempt.

What you suggest is essentially having periodic votes to determine who is a troll and who is not. That sounds like a mess and a recipe for lots of high school drama in a forum that should be focused on training and motivation.

If you disagree, that is fine, there are a number of viewpoints on the matter - but unlike Professor X, who can’t let anything go that challenges his precious ego, we can respectfully agree to disagree. It looks like the Tribunal mess - as I stated in an earlier post - has fixed itself for now.

[vroom]

Damn, I’ve been gone too long… does this mean we can vote people out?