Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Taboo topics

He who must not be named

He who must not be named part deaux

Any reference to pigment discrimination

Soon to be closed Lewis/Smith followed by Dake/Dieringer

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, spladle said:

Taboo topics

He who must not be named

He who must not be named part deaux

Any reference to pigment discrimination

Soon to be closed Lewis/Smith followed by Dake/Dieringer

 

 

This is what you're referring to when you refer to pigment discrimination, correct?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, hammerlockthree said:

The posters are softer than the moderators. You can't say one person is tougher than another without half a dozen people freaking out, every delinquent to show a little contrition is instantly hailed as a hero...

How dare you badmouth the Magic Man, you ponce.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/9/2019 at 2:10 PM, spladle said:

Taboo topics

He who must not be named

He who must not be named part deaux

Any reference to pigment discrimination

Soon to be closed Lewis/Smith followed by Dake/Dieringer

 

 

The whole premise behind deleting the “he who shall not be named” topics is still just ridiculous to me.  

1. How is mentioning the is being considered as the replacement for the Olympics going to be the dagger that keeps him out of consideration?   According to the rules the consideration of his entry was based on his competition results, so it was not a surprise to anyone who was being considered or why he deserved to be the one added in.  2. Who on the FILA committee is reading his board on a regular basis?  Let along taking the comment as a serious representation of USA Wrestling.   Let along being offended by just the sheer mention of the considered as grounds for elimination him from consideration?  3. It had no disparaging comments (st least the initial post maybe most of them) about the Wrestler, USA Olympics, FILA, or the IOC in it to even offended anyone who may have read them.

Worst locked thread I believe that I have ever seen. I don’t blame JB (mod at the time) for this, since he was doing as ordered, but what a dumb rational behind this one.   On a side note this was probably the closest I’ve been to being temporarily banned due to constantly egging on the  “he who shall not be named” rhetoric.   

Edited by MadMardigain

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The whole premise behind deleting the “he who shall not be named” topics is still just ridiculous to me.  

1. How is mentioning he is being considered as the replacement for the Olympics going to be he dagger that keeps him out of consideration?   According to the rules the consideration of his entry was based on his competition results, so it was not a surprise to anyone who was being considered or why he deserved to be the one added in.  2. Who on the FILA committee is reading his board on a regular basis?  Let along taking the comment as a serious representation of USA Wrestling.   Let along being offended by just the sheer mention of the considered as grounds for elimination him from consideration?  3. It had no disparaging comments (st least the initial post maybe most of them) about the Wrestler, USA Olympics, FILA, or the IOC in it to even offended anyone who may have read them.

Worst locked thread I believe that I have ever seen. I don’t blame JB (mod at the time) for this, since he was doing as ordered, but what a dumb rational behind this one.   On a side note this was probably the closest I’ve been to being temporarily banned due to constantly egging on the  “he who shall not be named” rhetoric.   

I was not the mod during the whole Mike Zadick issue (there, I said it!) , I was still at InterMat until August of 2008. Wrestling 411 after that. I didn’t start moderating this board until December of 2009-October of 2012. During that time, I outlined rules and best practices. I can’t speak for the moderation before me, but I felt I was fair, approachable and transparent - but I did prefer to answer most questions directly asked - although few actually took the time to contact me directly. I banned 12 accounts in 3 years, most trolls and repeat signups from previous bans. The 2008 purge had that many in a week and the 2009 one (Shovegate) was likely more. Neither of those were on my watch. Just wanted to clarify.

 

Magistrate! (Some if you understand what this means)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, JasonBryant said:

I was not the mod during the whole Mike Zadick issue (there, I said it!) 

My apologies for the mistaken identity JB.  It’s been a few years and a few drinks since that time.  But I still stand by my earlier statement that I don’t blame the moderator for the censorship if he was indeed taking direction from someone else to do it.  

Edited by MadMardigain

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×