Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.

Underground > Policy & Help >

Moderation requests & discussion thereof

Page: 1 ... 80 81 82 83 84(85)86 87 88 89 90... 95

18:36 / 23.01.08

Not true yet.

ONLY NICE THINGS

20:45 / 23.01.08

Is it not? It seems reasonably true. Let's see...

I happen to consider the Joker an iconic character spawned from pop culture that embodies pure, unabridged, unapologetic, terror that creeps the fuck out of me, not a clown that laughs at death (I do not find him - or it - funny at all)

Followed by:

This is not meant as gloating in any way whatsoever, nor it is meant to further any argument hereof, but this CNN articles implies there may actually be a connection between Heath's death and his role as the Joker, and I quote:

The role disturbed him, according to The Associated Press. He called The Joker a "psychopathic, mass-murdering, schizophrenic clown with zero empathy."

"Last week, I probably slept an average of two hours a night," Ledger told The New York Times. "I couldn't stop thinking. My body was exhausted, and my mind was still going."

He said prescription sleeping pills didn't help, according to AP.

"It was a very great challenge for Heath," director Christopher Nolan told AP. "He's extremely original, extremely frightening, tremendously edgy. A very young character, a very anarchic presence that taps into a lot of our basic fears and panic."

That is, quoting interviews with the star and the director promoting the film.

I seem to recall you went into bat with a series of misapprehensions and misconceptions over bullygate, junior, and it took a very long time to help you to untangle your fetlocks. Is there a chance to nip this one in the bud early?

21:30 / 23.01.08

I was quoting the CNN article, not "bits of interviews that I cobbled together". Nor did I defend any theory that "some psychic force murdered Heath Ledger". The only theory that one might consider me to acknowledge as feasible from that post is that Heath Ledger could have been under a lot of stress from his work.

21:38 / 23.01.08

DM is now cobbling together bits of interviews promoting the film

to construct a theory that the malign psychic force of the Joker murdered Heath Ledger by forcing him to take an overdose of sleeping pills

Haus, the first one of these statements is clearly false. Look at the text. Following that, your second assertion really can't be true. Am I missing something here about how the above statements are "reasonably true"? I'm trying to do the ever popular 'reading the thread' bit and the 'don't try to read minds' bit, and I really don't understand where you're coming from here.

Less searchable M0rd4nt

21:56 / 23.01.08

No, the first statement is clearly true. The text, to me, looks like bits of interviews, selectively presented so as to create or shore up the idea that this unfortunate young man's sad demise was at least partly the result of his taking on the role of The Joker. If Megsie is not implying that playing The Joker is connected to or responsible for the suicide, I would dearly love to know what the alternative meaning is.

Not, of course, as dearly as I would love to see this whole sick, tasteless, uglifying, misery-inducing mess dropped and never spoken of again. But you take what you can get, right?

ONLY NICE THINGS

21:57 / 23.01.08

Shouldn't you be telling Junior Anti-League to mind his own business at this point, Dead Megs? "Please"?

The CNN article was quoting promotional interviews given by Ledger and Nolan to the Asssociated Press. Dead Megatron quoted these selectively to aim to prove his point about the power of the Joker. Thus, cobbled together.

Now, Junior Anti-League, once again. During bullygate you employed a series of ad hominems, missed important chunks of the discussion, made up quotes and resorted in the end to accusations of "picking things apart", which oddly you seem to want to do now. I hope that we are all learning all the time, and that you are seeking to do better this time around. So, what's your objective?

22:35 / 23.01.08

OK, Haus. If by cobbled together, you meant quoting what he found to be the relevant portions of an article that contained multiple sources, then sure. Sorry about the miscomprehension on my part. I still disagree with you about the assertion that this was done "to construct a theory that the malign psychic force of the Joker murdered Heath Ledger by forcing him to take an overdose of sleeping pills". This reading of the post just strikes me as a bit of willful mischaracterization.

I completely agree with what TTS said ("The text, to me, looks like bits of interviews, selectively presented so as to create or shore up the idea that this unfortunate young man's sad demise was at least partly the result of his taking on the role of The Joker. If Megsie is not implying that playing The Joker is connected to or responsible for the suicide, I would dearly love to know what the alternative meaning is."), I just don't see that this is really the same as what you said. Anyway, I know that there's really no point in arguing with you ever, much less over something this trivial, so I'm backing down. Perhaps we can agree to disagree or whatever.

ONLY NICE THINGS

22:53 / 23.01.08

Ok, so just to be clear, when you said:

Haus, the first one of these statements is clearly false. Look at the text. Following that, your second assertion really can't be true.

You were incorrect in your first statement, and thus it does not follow that the second really can't be true after all?

Fair enough. Looking at the text, I don't think that the interpretation is clear from Megs' actual statements, but I am familiar with a degree of retroactive clarification being required in these discussion. So, sure, we can substitute "the emotional toll of playing the Joker, a malign fictional character" for `"the malign psychic force of the Joker". No worries. Personally, I think locking the thread was still the right thing to do.

22:59 / 23.01.08

I completely agree about locking it.

If you'd actually read my initial post you would have know that already. (joking, joking...)

ONLY NICE THINGS

23:09 / 23.01.08

Not that it actually is locked... so either somebody disagreed or we haven't got a quorum yet. Ah, well.

23:42 / 23.01.08

I haven't agreed or disagreed to it for what its worth but, yes, the moderation action does seem to have disappeared.

Getting embroiled in any argument to or for isn't really in my interests at the moment, though. However, having said that, I would 'agree' at this stage to a lock, 'temporary' or 'otherwise', were the moderation action to be re-proposed.

There probably is, as mrs wonderstarr suggested, a warranted and, hopefully interesting, discussion to be had in relation to the viewing of an actor's filmography after his/her tragic death and resultant mythologizing immanent in/or at least effect on audience reception and marketing (aside from the human tragedy of it all).

00:37 / 24.01.08

If Megsie is not implying that playing The Joker is connected to or responsible for the suicide, I would dearly love to know what the alternative meaning is.

That the stress from work led to insomnia, which led to an accidental over-medication. I don't think it was suicide.

And I didn't cobbled the bits, the CNN article did. Plus, how can one quote something - anything - without being selective? Other than by reproducing the source text in its entirety, of course. (which, if you think about it, I sort of did, by providing the link to the article).

As for locking the thread, it may simply be unnecessary, since the possibility of this argument continuing there is zero, as far I'm concerned. However, removing the "dirty jokes" bit from the thread's description might be a good idea. It seems out of place now.

ONLY NICE THINGS

08:52 / 24.01.08

The unadulterated fabness of DM talking about how he provided the entire context by linking to the article only becomes clear when one remembers this lengthy attempt to persuade him to read the text of an article that had been linked before telling us what it said,and then that it didn't matter what it said, because the important thing was this, whether or not it said it.

However, this unedifying spectacle of DM repeatedly ramming his face into a wall while complaining of rough handling is getting us nowhere. In short - this geek speculation about how playing a bad character, and the effects gleaned from promotional interviews of it (in which, it must be said, it's unlikely that anyone would profit from saying "it's just a job. Ultimately will having green hair upset anyone profoundly? Does interviewing people upset you profoundly? It's a job, and one which is going pretty well, since I am here and you are also here"), might have brought about a person's death is inappropriate outside Newsarama, free sheets and supermarket tabloids, and the jokes also popping up in the thread just as inappropriate.

I'm more interested to know whether the lock was disagreed, or whether the board is gefutzed.

12:13 / 24.01.08

Plus, how can one quote something - anything - without being selective?

DM, the problem isn't that you quoted the article rather than reproducing it whole, it's that the parts you quoted and the way you introduced them gave a false impression of what the article says. The 'point' of the article, if it has one, is that nobody can yet determine exactly what happened. The article talks about pills in the room not having been scattered about, a bill being tested for drug residue and none being found, and the absence of a note. Based on your presentation of the article I would've expected it to be titled "Actor spoke of work woes" or something, when in fact is titled "Autopsy fails to find how actor Heath Ledger died".

Can you see how the way I'm describing it is giving a different impression of the article's tone and content than what you said? And can you see how speculating as to what happened is not only pointless (given the lack of information about it) but, done in the context of the fractious DKR thread, rather tasteless?

16:15 / 24.01.08

Based on your presentation of the article I would've expected it to be titled "Actor spoke of work woes" or something, when in fact is titled "Autopsy fails to find how actor Heath Ledger died"

Granted. My intention was simply to highlight the part of the article in which its overal subject (speculations on the circumstances of the death) and the subject of the thread (The Dark Knight movie) intersected, but now that you have put it this way, I have to admit the presentation could have been better.

16:48 / 24.01.08

I've put the lock forwards again. To make this clear, I will keep putting it forwards until the moderator who vetoed it the first time displays a smidgen of the good manners expected from somebody in their position and explains why they disagreed it in the first place.

18:07 / 24.01.08

An unpleasant possibility comes to mind.

18:10 / 24.01.08

Colour me intrigued?

Our Lady Has Left the Building

20:29 / 24.01.08

Well, I wasn't around whenever it was the first request was made but I voted for the latest one and it seems to have done the job.

Essential Dazzler

01:42 / 25.01.08

It is locked.

14:43 / 25.01.08

Still waiting for that explanation.

And it's not the first time that this has happened in FTV&T, either. I don't buy the 'board glitch' theory, because it's not frequent enough for that to be the case and it's not happened in other fora.

If we're not going to have moderators who are willing to be accountable for their actions, then we might as well fuck the whole board off, given that moderation is one of the tiny number of bits that supposedly do work.

STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK

15:58 / 25.01.08

I thought it was generally accepted (inasmuch as anything is) that if you disagree someone's mod request you either post on the board why you did so or at the very least PM whoever it was who proposed it to explain why. Perhaps not.

16:01 / 25.01.08

It's been stated as accepted board policy in a number of these threads - quite possibly including this one - in the past. There's no way that any worthwhile moderator wouldn't be aware of it by now.

ONLY NICE THINGS

16:13 / 25.01.08

Really, though, does it matter? I mean, we can't compel anyone, and what are we going to do? Smoke them out and ban them?

16:39 / 25.01.08

Oh, I know that there's nothing that we can do about it. It's just quite depressing to see that yet another person gives so little of a shit about the place that they'll ignore discussions of moderation actions in favour of doing their own thing regardless. And maybe more depressing that they got into a position to be able to do that in the first place.

It's like final nail time, or something. A confirmation of what I'd recently been trying quite hard to ignore.

miss wonderstarr

15:13 / 27.01.08

I've started a thread in Gaming about the camera-eye and the CGI-eye (or the CG-eye, if you were being clever). This is partly about games, and partly about CGI in cinema.

E. Randy has really brought the discussion to life, but my ideas also overlap very much with cinema, and I'd like to see if people from the Film board can contribute.

Do moderators think it would be best to start a thread in Film linking to the Gaming thread, with an explanation of the relevance? Or twin threads, slightly different, one for each board?

Less searchable M0rd4nt

19:57 / 27.01.08

There's the Pager thread in convo, have you put a link in there?

miss wonderstarr

20:24 / 27.01.08

No, I'll give that a shot thank you.

13:24 / 29.01.08

There's a thread about a large organisation over in Temple. The thread has several links to sites who are unfriendly towards said organisation. Many posters have expressed distrust of and enmity for said organisation, and many have expressed suuport for their detractors and attackers.

Said organisation are famously litigious and renonwned for fighting as dirty as they are allowed, so I thought it might be wise to 1337-out or star some of the more googleable terms.

Sites are going down all over the place, and it would be a shame for the Temple to become one of them. What do Temple moderators think? Does this seem a paranoid reaction, or a sensible precaution?

14:03 / 29.01.08

I think we're OK, since we're not actually organizing anything and not actually originating any attacks. We're not linking to the target pages of said organization, just observing the conflict (I'm not sure how they'd even find that discussion, frankly.) They've got bigger fish to fry.

Any other opinions, I'm open to hear, since, well, it's two groups that are full of surprises.

20:38 / 29.01.08

I just posted a more-or-less stream-of-consciousness post in the G&G 'camera' thread, which I've now been reading and wanting to edit. So I added this to the bottom of a paragraph:

And what actually ends up happening is that it sticks a dirty great barrier up between the player and the player-character, because when you *do* get to see the p-c, during those non-playable sequences, they look nothing like you thought they would, nothing like the image in your head. And they're never animated properly, either, because the developers haven't had to think about how the p-c should be seen to move as ze is never observed doing that through the majority of the game, the bits that people play. That's why when you play a FPS and look at 'yourself' in a mirror, you see hir move about like a wooden doll with no joints, why when you press 'jump' in front of that mirror, they just launch from the ground in a completely unrealistic manner. And that carries over to the cutscenes, the atrocious and entirely unbelievable animation.

and just pressed asfsafasf random buttons for the edit mod action reason, as I thought I'd got it through in time to skip needing approval.

Only, I hadn't. I'd missed the five minute slot, or whatever it is. So please don't disagree it, because there is a reason for the edit and that's it.

16:44 / 30.01.08

I'm glad someone else does that asdf randomness. I thought it was just me living life in the dangerzone, never knowing if I'd passed the five minute limit.

STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK

11:26 / 05.02.08

I'm not sure about resizing the Beadle Wikipedia thing- it stops it breaking the frame, sure, but then it makes it unreadable.

STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK

11:56 / 05.02.08

I've agreed the second one, cos you don't really need to read it twice... is there some sort of way of turning the first into a thumbnail? My web fu is not strong.

12:55 / 05.02.08

You're right about the inability to read it. I thought of making a request to turn it into a link but then I thought Wikipedia would be reading differently soon and wasn't that partly the point of the image link.

Perhaps it would be better to just quote the text? The big image is horrible indeed. Maybe we can get whoever posted it to quote the text instead.

Page: 1 ... 80 81 82 83 84(85)86 87 88 89 90... 95