Clock Crew

the common people should have the right to vote for/against the rules they must abide by

I don't see any real precedent examples of abuse for this initiative to exist.

clear example of abuse (http://www.clockcrew.cc/talk/showthread.php?99755-Adding-Rule-10)

they effectively made the rules even more hazy and bendable to the staffs interpretation while completely removing our own right to protest in the same fashion

Quote from: MiracleFruitClock;1871928clear example of abuse

they effectively made the rules even more hazy and bendable to the staffs interpretation while completely removing our own right to protest in the same fashion

Topcatyo explained it pretty succinctly in that thread.

QuoteBasically the rule is this:

Don't break the rules.

Don't make parody threads breaking the rule.

Don't make a protest thread breaking the rules to prove a point.

Don't try to get around breaking a rule by being a smartass, IE "I didn't post a torrent! I posted a link to a torrent!"

If you don't like a rule, tell us or make an initiative. We will do our best to rectify things.

The rule is not that you're not allowed to disagree with a rule and do something about it in a productive fashion. For clarification: productive fashion would be discussing the rule with the staff and making an initiative about changing or repealing the decision. This rule does not make the rules system free to whatever interpretation the staff wants, which is what you're implying.

Also, corpsegrinder said it succinctly when he said:

Quote from: RibsClock;1871873The regular members have more say in the rules than they ever have.

The staff have less individual authority and discretion than they ever have.

The regular members have more say when it comes to choosing staff than they ever have.

The regular members have more say when it comes to getting rid of and dealing with abusive staff than they ever have.

The staff are more bound to the rules than they ever have been.

Just a shot of perspective for you folks that are complaining about how unjust and unfair this supposedly is.

We are not abusing the system, and we are not abusive staff members. We're on your side and I don't get why some people are so up in arms about us being horrible and abusive when we clearly aren't.

Down with the bourgeois! Bow before your new proletariat god!

Quote from: AbsintheClock;1871934Down with the bourgeois! Bow before your new proletariat god!

Also, no pooftahs.

occupy .cc

Quote from: SoBe Clock;1871935Also, no pooftahs.

What he said.

Also Dwarf, I don't recall you giving anyone any say when you and clam were running the place. And don't give me that "it was your administration too" crap. If it was my administration too then you would have invited me to the staff blast chats.

The fact is some people who take the clock crew too seriously get all butt hurt if they aren't considered cool enough to be staff after a certain amount of time. Maybe they don't even realise it yet. This is especially bad now that seniority doesn't explicitly come into play any more regarding staff appointments. Some people take consequently redirect this rage at the current staff in an effort to establish an "us vs. them" mentality, thereby assuring themselves as the super cool winners of the clockcrew even though they aren't staff

It's also already very apparent which way this vote is gonna go so let's never talk about it again lest we all die of boredom and mind pains and rip out our own eyes with dissatisfaction at the free will and internet that life bestows upon some people

Quote from: MiracleFruitClock;1871928clear example of abuse

they effectively made the rules even more hazy and bendable to the staffs interpretation while completely removing our own right to protest in the same fashion

How is this hazy and bendable? You're being purposely vague here because you have no idea what exactly you're arguing. Miraclefruit, my dear, beautiful Miraclefruit, the rule is "don't minimod and don't break rules." Your own hazy and bendable interpretation of such a clear rule removes your right to protest. All other clocks are free to protest as the will, assuming they understand that they can't break rules to do so.

When a road sign declares "Do not cross," do you interpret it as "Do not pray to a christian god near this sign, lest he smite you"?

It means horse thief crossing. I actually typed horse thief too, and not that other word when I wrote this.

Quote from: clockradioclock;1871944the rule is "don't minimod and don't break rules."

ahaha and apparently i'm the one who didnt read the rule

QuoteDon't try and smartass your way around rules: the staff are not bound to your interpretation or wrangling of the rules.

so while the staff are not bound to our interpretation or wrangling of the rules, we however are bound to their interpretation or wrangling of the rules

Quote from: AbsintheClock;1871939What he said.

Also Dwarf, I don't recall you giving anyone any say when you and clam were running the place. And don't give me that "it was your administration too" crap. If it was my administration too then you would have invited me to the staff blast chats.

you mean the staff blast that sobe created and was the only admin of and that never got used? im pretty sure we discussed most site related things in the grid or in irc, and everyone was invited to irc, which was public knowledge so dont pretend you dont know. it definitely was your administration as well but at the time apparently you just didnt care enough to participate at the level that you do now youre admin.

Only 1% of people run the entire clock crew wah wah its not fair

Quote from: MiracleFruitClock;1871954i'm the one who didnt read the rule

Yes, that is correct.

Quote from: MiracleFruitClock;1871954so while the staff are not bound to our interpretation or wrangling of the rules, we however are bound to their interpretation or wrangling of the rules

No. The staff are bound to a single interpretation of the rule, and that is what's written on the page.

An example of "your interpretation of the rules" vs "the rules" was when you posted a host of torrent sites to prove a point. By your interpretation, there was nothing illegal and you were safe. According to the rules, posting links to torrent sites of any kind will result in a ban. Rule 10 is an exact reaction to your stupidity. Contest a rule by explaining why it's wrong, don't contest it by breaking it. You've proved nothing in breaking it.

As an American I support representative democracy. Long live the Clock Crew! :salute:

Quote from: DWARFINATORclock;1871955you mean the staff blast that sobe created and was the only admin of and that never got used?

That actually is true. I did create that blast and was the admin of it but anyone in the blast could invite anyone to it, it wasn't one of those admin-invite-only blasts. It never really got used at all anyway so we just kind of left it there.

Quote from: MiracleFruitClock;1871954so while the staff are not bound to our interpretation or wrangling of the rules, we however are bound to their interpretation or wrangling of the rules

You need to explain why they are wrong and you are right.

Quote from: clockradioclock;1871957No. The staff are bound to a single interpretation of the rule, and that is what's written on the page.

what a crock of bullshit

really if you believe this is the case then exactly how was i banned for flaming and insults multiple times when what's written on the page says "Flames and insults do not constitute harassment."

so what you're implying is that there is no longer moderator discretion for the rules? what the fuck are you even talking about

Quote from: clockradioclock;1871957An example of "your interpretation of the rules" vs "the rules" was when you posted a host of torrent sites to prove a point. By your interpretation, there was nothing illegal and you were safe. According to the rules, posting links to torrent sites of any kind will result in a ban. Rule 10 is an exact reaction to your stupidity. Contest a rule by explaining why it's wrong, don't contest it by breaking it. You've proved nothing in breaking it.

an example of "the staffs interpretation of the rules" vs "the rules" would be when blob clock stole a clockname, directly defied rule 6 as it was written at the time, and was caught for it, and then certain members of the staff made up a bunch of bullshit that was NOT written in the rules, something about a "statute of limitations" and then a week later changed the rule officially

Quote from: RibsClock;1871965We're bound to the rules as written, and yes there is discretion in instances of ambiguous application

these two things contradict each other

I'ma go ahead and let you argue this til you're blue in the face. Seems like most members have the right idea. And one of the yes votes on there was an accident, although I'ma let you have it cuz I'm such a sport.

Quote from: AbsintheClock;1871976I'ma go ahead and let you argue this til you're blue in the face. Seems like most members have the right idea. And one of the yes votes on there was an accident, although I'ma let you have it cuz I'm such a sport.

nice counterpoint

just get out already

Make me cutie pie.

quit misusing the initiatives forum dickHEAD

Quit misusing your brain honey.

Blind Miraclefruit, are you seriously rage-posting because I don't agree with your skewed interpretation of a new rule?

If you want to vilify the staff, go for it. Be prepared, however, to face the consequences of your actions against them and their rules. More importantly, brave Miraclefruit, don't expect anyone to be on your side for it.

Quote from: MiracleFruitClock;1871969really if you believe this is the case then exactly how was i banned for flaming and insults multiple times when what's written on the page says "Flames and insults do not constitute harassment."

so what you're implying is that there is no longer moderator discretion for the rules? what the fuck are you even talking about

Either, proud Miraclefruit, you expect moderator discretion with this statement, or you're against it. In whatever case, your argument falls apart.

Quote from: MiracleFruitClock;1871969an example of "the staffs interpretation of the rules" vs "the rules" would be when blob clock stole a clockname, directly defied rule 6 as it was written at the time, and was caught for it, and then certain members of the staff made up a bunch of bullshit that was NOT written in the rules, something about a "statute of limitations" and then a week later changed the rule officially

Blobclock was banned for breaking the rules, fair and simple. The Rule 6 amendment came about after his ban. You have misplaced your anger if you think he got away with it scot-free. Are you upset that the rule was changed? If so, expect a torrent agitation in your future, good Miraclefruit, because things change.

quit coming on to me you fuckin pooftah

Quote from: MiracleFruitClock;1871986quit coming on to me you fuckin pooftah

You're the one looking at my butt.

Quote from: clockradioclock;1871985Either, proud Miraclefruit, you expect moderator discretion with this statement, or you're against it. In whatever case, your argument falls apart.

i am pointing out the obvious flaws in the system
you, however, have no argument at all

Quote from: clockradioclock;1871985Blobclock was banned for breaking the rules, fair and simple. The Rule 6 amendment came about after his ban. You have misplaced your anger if you think he got away with it scot-free. Are you upset that the rule was changed? If so, expect a torrent agitation in your future, good Miraclefruit, because things change.

yes he was banned for a week for breaking the rules. only *after* several members (including me) crusaded to get him banned and it was only done after i presented the "ClockOfBlob" situation to ribs, regardless of what the rule stated. even then "blob" was not forced to take another name. hell he could still be blob clock if he really wanted to and was willing to face the constant torment

either way the point that you clearly missed is how the staff handled the situation. immediately after "blob" was proven to have broken the rules as they were written the staff fabricated random bullshit such as the "statute of limitations," and then stalled the entire situation until they came up with a way to modify rule 6 in order to protect him from that very same rule

so blind clockradio, i dont see how you can possibly stick with your "there is only 1 interpretation of the rule" theory because it is clearly false

Quote from: MiracleFruitClock;1871996i am pointing out the obvious flaws in the system
you, however, have no argument at all


 
yes he was banned for a week for breaking the rules. only *after* several members (including me) crusaded to get him banned and it was only done after i presented the "ClockOfBlob" situation to ribs, regardless of what the rule stated. even then "blob" was not forced to take another name. hell he could still be blob clock if he really wanted to and was willing to face the constant torment

either way the point that you clearly missed is how the staff handled the situation. immediately after "blob" was proven to have broken the rules as they were written the staff fabricated random bullshit such as the "statute of limitations," and then stalled the entire situation until they came up with a way to modify rule 6 in order to protect him from that very same rule

so blind clockradio, i dont see how you can possibly stick with your "there is only 1 interpretation of the rule" theory because it is clearly false

The logical fallacy, uncouth Miraclefruit, is yours not mine: "they changed the rules that one time, so your argument for '1 interpretation of the rule' is false". Amending a rule does not constitute a shift in its interpretation. The interpretation remains the same all around, so a proposal is made to change the obvious '1 interpretation' for the better.

Rule 6 was amended because a whole bunch of other users currently have stolen names and it'd be a hassle to enforce a name change everywhere. They weren't trying to protect Blob, forget Blob, they were trying to protect a handful of other members. The rule was amended so that users wouldn't be banned. What kind of a moron takes issue with an administration who is constantly working to find ways through which they can avoid banning members?

You have absolutely no argument, Miraclefruit, and I'm not saying that the way you say it. Your posts are, by and large, "the staff is a big bad wolf!" and when asked why, you fail to provide solid evidence. Get over your vendetta. Stop crying wolf.

what amazing timing i just happen to have a very recent example

Quote<&clammo> http://www.clockcrew.cc/talk/showthread.php?99796-Revision-of-Rule-1-The-public-domain-torrent-issue
<&clammo> theres the repost
repost that shouldnt even be reposted because the first one was fine
<&clammo> yep
yet again we are subject to the staffs twisted interpretation of the rules
despite them crying "there is only 1 interpretation"
what a joke
<&clammo> post that in the thread
no see that's not going to help
it helps me
hammer my point
into your thick fucking skulls
<&clammo> well
Right now everyone is being aggressive towards each other all the time instead of actually talking about the issues that need to be resolved reasonably
I'm aware some staff members have not been personable lately
<&clammo> the thread was closed because it didnt agree with something that wasnt even in the rules
<&clammo> thats a valid point

said thread (http://www.clockcrew.cc/talk/showthread.php?99794-Revision-of-Rule-1) was closed for having a public poll

the charter reads:

QuoteVIII. Elections - Initiatives.

Initiatives may be submitted to the Election Coordinator to appear on the ballot. To be added, the initiative must been openly proposed and discussed in the Initiatives sub-forum of the Policy forum using the polling feature, with over 55% approval and at least 20 voters, and been open for polling for more than 2 weeks. If there are a large number of initiatives mid-year, a special election may be called for.

Initiatives may modify the ClockCrew charter and/or clockification policy, including the removal of any staff position.

can anyone point out to me the part where it says that public polls are not valid?

"don't break the imaginary rules and don't minimod"

There is none. But by the same stretch of rule you'd have to wait til the next election for any of your initiatives to pass as well. The anonymous vote system is being put in for now as an emergency measure so as not to negatively influence people's vote under the scrutiny of public pressure.

God forbid people would want to voice their opinion without being targeted.

But thanks for pointing out the inconsistencies, it saves me a whole lot of trouble to find them myself.

Quote from: AbsintheClock;1872015But thanks for pointing out the inconsistencies, it saves me a whole lot of trouble to find them myself.

just being a good clock as usual
i only ever do what is right

btw i just owned you and your fuckin bullshit rules how do you feel about that

I feel like you need to step off my dick before I make another emergency measure out of you. You can either keep on topic about your own thread, and talk to me like a gentlemen, or I can break my digital foot up in your ass.

so everyones a scared lil baby that is afraid to publicly stand by their vote

Deleting all posts irrelevant to this specific topic. If it keeps getting derailed, I'm closing the thread.

Quote from: AbsintheClock;1872022Deleting all posts irrelevant to this specific topic. If it keeps getting derailed, I'm closing the thread.

what the fuck are you serious

you just deleted my highly-relevant post about the charter and my proof that you specifically are enforcing rules that do not exist (its the one with the chatlog in it)

if you would kindly undelete it so my argument may be viewed publicly

User was banned for this post - Flooding the initiatives thread with reposted deleted material.

Quote from: AbsintheClock;1872022Deleting all posts irrelevant to this specific topic. If it keeps getting derailed, I'm closing the thread.

There isn't a post relevant to this topic. Miraclefruit has taken us on an adventure.

Nowhere in the thread does he specifically and clearly explain why we should consider making rule changes public. Instead, he tries to dismantle another rule in the wrong thread. In doing so, he contradicts himself and suggests that the rules should both be up to moderator discretion as well as rigidly defined and inflexible. Bouncing off of this we digress to the past, where Miraclefruit tries to explain that moderator discretion was actually a bad thing because it affected him negatively. We eventually get into a discussion about the consistency of bans among the staff, their unwillingness to ban as many people as possible with the help of dangerously miswritten rules, and their decision to change the rules to protect as many as possible. I would venture to describe how much further away from the thread's title we could go, but I'm afraid I'd lose myself along the way.

clockradio i really really would like to write up another long post disproving you again but babsinthe is just going to delete it in a blind rage because it incriminates him

Consider it an executive decision.

okay i see that clockradio can post things that are completely irrelevant to the thread without deletion but i cannot

just close this thread you bumbling fucking idiot

note to self: when arguing with babsinthe keep post-copies in text files or screengrabs on desktop in case you win

<&clammo> http://www.clockcrew.cc/talk/showthread.php?99796-Revision-of-Rule-1-The-public-domain-torrent-issue
<&clammo> theres the repost
repost that shouldnt even be reposted because the first one was fine
<&clammo> yep
yet again we are subject to the staffs twisted interpretation of the rules
despite them crying "there is only 1 interpretation"
what a joke
<&clammo> post that in the thread
no see that's not going to help
it helps me
hammer my point
into your thick fucking skulls
<&clammo> well
Right now everyone is being aggressive towards each other all the time instead of actually talking about the issues that need to be resolved reasonably
I'm aware some staff members have not been personable lately
<&clammo> the thread was closed because it didnt agree with something that wasnt even in the rules
<&clammo> thats a valid point

i win

plz dont delete

<&clammo> http://www.clockcrew.cc/talk/showthread.php?99796-Revision-of-Rule-1-The-public-domain-torrent-issue
<&clammo> theres the repost
repost that shouldnt even be reposted because the first one was fine
<&clammo> yep
yet again we are subject to the staffs twisted interpretation of the rules
despite them crying "there is only 1 interpretation"
what a joke
<&clammo> post that in the thread
no see that's not going to help
it helps me
hammer my point
into your thick fucking skulls
<&clammo> well
Right now everyone is being aggressive towards each other all the time instead of actually talking about the issues that need to be resolved reasonably
I'm aware some staff members have not been personable lately
<&clammo> the thread was closed because it didnt agree with something that wasnt even in the rules
<&clammo> thats a valid point

i wonder when babsinthe is gonna go offline so i can have my freedom of speech back

<&clammo> http://www.clockcrew.cc/talk/showthread.php?99796-Revision-of-Rule-1-The-public-domain-torrent-issue
<&clammo> theres the repost
repost that shouldnt even be reposted because the first one was fine
<&clammo> yep
yet again we are subject to the staffs twisted interpretation of the rules
despite them crying "there is only 1 interpretation"
what a joke
<&clammo> post that in the thread
no see that's not going to help
it helps me
hammer my point
into your thick fucking skulls
<&clammo> well
Right now everyone is being aggressive towards each other all the time instead of actually talking about the issues that need to be resolved reasonably
I'm aware some staff members have not been personable lately
<&clammo> the thread was closed because it didnt agree with something that wasnt even in the rules
<&clammo> thats a valid point

a

<&clammo> http://www.clockcrew.cc/talk/showthread.php?99796-Revision-of-Rule-1-The-public-domain-torrent-issue
<&clammo> theres the repost
repost that shouldnt even be reposted because the first one was fine
<&clammo> yep
yet again we are subject to the staffs twisted interpretation of the rules
despite them crying "there is only 1 interpretation"
what a joke
<&clammo> post that in the thread
no see that's not going to help
it helps me
hammer my point
into your thick fucking skulls
<&clammo> well
Right now everyone is being aggressive towards each other all the time instead of actually talking about the issues that need to be resolved reasonably
I'm aware some staff members have not been personable lately
<&clammo> the thread was closed because it didnt agree with something that wasnt even in the rules
<&clammo> thats a valid point

b

<&clammo> http://www.clockcrew.cc/talk/showthread.php?99796-Revision-of-Rule-1-The-public-domain-torrent-issue
<&clammo> theres the repost
repost that shouldnt even be reposted because the first one was fine
<&clammo> yep
yet again we are subject to the staffs twisted interpretation of the rules
despite them crying "there is only 1 interpretation"
what a joke
<&clammo> post that in the thread
no see that's not going to help
it helps me
hammer my point
into your thick fucking skulls
<&clammo> well
Right now everyone is being aggressive towards each other all the time instead of actually talking about the issues that need to be resolved reasonably
I'm aware some staff members have not been personable lately
<&clammo> the thread was closed because it didnt agree with something that wasnt even in the rules
<&clammo> thats a valid point

c

<&clammo> http://www.clockcrew.cc/talk/showthread.php?99796-Revision-of-Rule-1-The-public-domain-torrent-issue
<&clammo> theres the repost
repost that shouldnt even be reposted because the first one was fine
<&clammo> yep
yet again we are subject to the staffs twisted interpretation of the rules
despite them crying "there is only 1 interpretation"
what a joke
<&clammo> post that in the thread
no see that's not going to help
it helps me
hammer my point
into your thick fucking skulls
<&clammo> well
Right now everyone is being aggressive towards each other all the time instead of actually talking about the issues that need to be resolved reasonably
I'm aware some staff members have not been personable lately
<&clammo> the thread was closed because it didnt agree with something that wasnt even in the rules
<&clammo> thats a valid point

d

<&clammo> http://www.clockcrew.cc/talk/showthread.php?99796-Revision-of-Rule-1-The-public-domain-torrent-issue
<&clammo> theres the repost
repost that shouldnt even be reposted because the first one was fine
<&clammo> yep
yet again we are subject to the staffs twisted interpretation of the rules
despite them crying "there is only 1 interpretation"
what a joke
<&clammo> post that in the thread
no see that's not going to help
it helps me
hammer my point
into your thick fucking skulls
<&clammo> well
Right now everyone is being aggressive towards each other all the time instead of actually talking about the issues that need to be resolved reasonably
I'm aware some staff members have not been personable lately
<&clammo> the thread was closed because it didnt agree with something that wasnt even in the rules
<&clammo> thats a valid point

e

<&clammo> http://www.clockcrew.cc/talk/showthread.php?99796-Revision-of-Rule-1-The-public-domain-torrent-issue
<&clammo> theres the repost
repost that shouldnt even be reposted because the first one was fine
<&clammo> yep
yet again we are subject to the staffs twisted interpretation of the rules
despite them crying "there is only 1 interpretation"
what a joke
<&clammo> post that in the thread
no see that's not going to help
it helps me
hammer my point
into your thick fucking skulls
<&clammo> well
Right now everyone is being aggressive towards each other all the time instead of actually talking about the issues that need to be resolved reasonably
I'm aware some staff members have not been personable lately
<&clammo> the thread was closed because it didnt agree with something that wasnt even in the rules
<&clammo> thats a valid point

<&clammo> http://www.clockcrew.cc/talk/showthread.php?99796-Revision-of-Rule-1-The-public-domain-torrent-issue
<&clammo> theres the repost
repost that shouldnt even be reposted because the first one was fine
<&clammo> yep
yet again we are subject to the staffs twisted interpretation of the rules
despite them crying "there is only 1 interpretation"
what a joke
<&clammo> post that in the thread
no see that's not going to help
it helps me
hammer my point
into your thick fucking skulls
<&clammo> well
Right now everyone is being aggressive towards each other all the time instead of actually talking about the issues that need to be resolved reasonably
I'm aware some staff members have not been personable lately
<&clammo> the thread was closed because it didnt agree with something that wasnt even in the rules
<&clammo> thats a valid point

f

<&clammo> http://www.clockcrew.cc/talk/showthread.php?99796-Revision-of-Rule-1-The-public-domain-torrent-issue
<&clammo> theres the repost
repost that shouldnt even be reposted because the first one was fine
<&clammo> yep
yet again we are subject to the staffs twisted interpretation of the rules
despite them crying "there is only 1 interpretation"
what a joke
<&clammo> post that in the thread
no see that's not going to help
it helps me
hammer my point
into your thick fucking skulls
<&clammo> well
Right now everyone is being aggressive towards each other all the time instead of actually talking about the issues that need to be resolved reasonably
I'm aware some staff members have not been personable lately
<&clammo> the thread was closed because it didnt agree with something that wasnt even in the rules
<&clammo> thats a valid point

g

h

<&clammo> http://www.clockcrew.cc/talk/showthread.php?99796-Revision-of-Rule-1-The-public-domain-torrent-issue
<&clammo> theres the repost
repost that shouldnt even be reposted because the first one was fine
<&clammo> yep
yet again we are subject to the staffs twisted interpretation of the rules
despite them crying "there is only 1 interpretation"
what a joke
<&clammo> post that in the thread
no see that's not going to help
it helps me
hammer my point
into your thick fucking skulls
<&clammo> well
Right now everyone is being aggressive towards each other all the time instead of actually talking about the issues that need to be resolved reasonably
I'm aware some staff members have not been personable lately
<&clammo> the thread was closed because it didnt agree with something that wasnt even in the rules
<&clammo> thats a valid point

<&clammo> http://www.clockcrew.cc/talk/showthread.php?99796-Revision-of-Rule-1-The-public-domain-torrent-issue
<&clammo> theres the repost
repost that shouldnt even be reposted because the first one was fine
<&clammo> yep
yet again we are subject to the staffs twisted interpretation of the rules
despite them crying "there is only 1 interpretation"
what a joke
<&clammo> post that in the thread
no see that's not going to help
it helps me
hammer my point
into your thick fucking skulls
<&clammo> well
Right now everyone is being aggressive towards each other all the time instead of actually talking about the issues that need to be resolved reasonably
I'm aware some staff members have not been personable lately
<&clammo> the thread was closed because it didnt agree with something that wasnt even in the rules
<&clammo> thats a valid point

aa