I remember that, i was also involved and recieved 14 days, Vegas was going nuts that was awesome.

Yes, you and I were the only ones to get 14 days for that one. Everyone else either got a lesser penalty or were let off completely. Hmmm.

This is pretty weak, but I got a warning for calling Rush Limbaugh a 'blowhard.' When I replied back and even gave them the definition of what that was, he replied back that he didn't care. FWIW, there are 147 times that blowhard has been used on the board...mine was the one that got nailed. I don't remember who warned me.

One who likes Rush. Which means he is a switch-hitter.

Find where I complain about unfair bannings? Usually I know my bans are worth it. The few times that I have had serious beefs with my bans/ban lengths, I've usually had them shortened by the appeals process.

Doesn't mean I won't say "damn" because I get banned... but I don't bitch and whine like a teenage girl.

Then again, unlike you I am not a teenage girl. So I guess it makes sense.

That's where my feud with Pete started. He banned me for three days for calling Waters a troll. The word troll is used about 10 times a day and I've never gotten banned for it. Pete gets mod powers, starts throwing them around and that's it.

That's pretty funny. I wish i could have been a part of that.

I did a couple of days for that. Good times. And well worth it.

Hey EWTH, why can I receive boardmail but not send them? That doesn't make any sense.

try to post again and click on your warnings queue for the answer.

Sweeeet got the Full Santos! Who else has that... Robin? Others?

Fantastic news.

Out of curiousity, when one gets the "Full Santos" what exactly does the message say?

There's no official notification other than your Moderator Warnings has a new entry.

So it's really not permanent. It's just a 100-year ban. Your great-grandchildren should be able to post. :)

What the hell does your auto-ignore score have to do with anything? Do you really believe that the auto-ignore system was designed for you? If so, you're giving yourself way too much credit.

That was a low blow.

Truthfully, I avoid some of the troublemakers posts. Just like I avoid posts from people I consider idiots. There's some overlap there.

Actually, he took the cue from me. I've been giving warnings to other people for the same thing.

Mike definitely wasn't the main catalyst for that one. Actually, lots of people had asked me for a trollizer feature, but I thought the UteFans version was poorly implemented. I tried to make a more fair trollizer-type feature.

I'm still not sure if it is more of a low blow to BluePete or to the mods. :)

Wouldn't it just be easiest if there was a general realization that there is an element of subjectivity to enforcement and leave it at that? Maybe I'm not such a golden boy after all. Maybe my infractions are minor enough that they don't get noticed. Maybe I don't actually have infractions but wish I did so I could build some street cred.

Lawyers will never get street cred, so you can just end that pipe dream right now.

The people that I know are mods (except 1) I get along with very well. I dare say they are some of my favorites over there on the board. Favorites doesn't mean I agree on everything though and I am sure they understand that as well as I do.

I also realize I will be noted for discipline more often than some others. I understand that too, as I don't like to be told how to think. Maybe it is an age thing.

Therefor I have never had a problem with getting suspended. I don't go whining to people over it or act like I have been singled out and picked on.

I have whined over things. I have whined greatly in regards to signing the meaningless rules agreement over and over. All in all they (CB) have a pretty darn good site which I think everyone would have to agree on the whole is well run.

I guess old age makes you funny. If my Bishop told me to leave church and not come back for two weeks because I had a blue shirt on. I would leave and come back when he said I could. If he told me I also had to sign an agreement not to wear any color but white, I would attend another ward. :)

It's not a low blow. It's an accurate description, but take it as you will. ;)

No worries tkh...I like you...see you at the tailgates.

So you made a major change to how you do things and didn't announce it to the board.

Sounds reasonable.

Calling someone a troll was never a bannable offense in the three years I've been part of Cougarboard. One day you decide it is and around the same time you make Pete a mod. This new rule is kept secret.

All I see is a new mod banning me for three days for something I'd never been banned for before. To me, it seems the new mod is overstepping his bounds and isn't trained properly. I make my feelings known and I'm not worth the trouble I cause.

It all goes downhill from there.

Well, at least I understand how it all happened now.

I don't know about you , but if it was clear someone didn't like me in their house, I would just move on.

I don't know if it is fair or not, but you and I are conservatives. Fairness isn't our issue, that is for liberals. We are about power and the excercise thereof.

Myself, I quite admire the efficiency with which Jefe wields his power.

I've moved on. I just wanted to know how it happened exactly. Details were fuzzy and are clear now.

Thank you for your insight.

Not sure if Jefe is still monitoring this thread
 

but I just got a 14 day ban for making a joke about Utah Mormons. I asked what the difference is between a joke / poking fun / good natured ribbing and an "attack". His response was that there is no difference.

Yet back in April, when I got a similar ban for an "attack", I reported abuse on a post that was making fun of Texans. He added 7 days for wasting mods time. And told me that the Texas thing was just a joke.

So which is it? Is there such a thing as "good natured ribbing" or are they all attacks? If there IS a difference, a list of protected groups and those that are okay to engage in "good natured ribbing" would be very useful.

So you cant comment on Utah mormons nor can you ask danoconda if he has threatened to beat people up in front of their bishops on cougarboard. But you can make racially, and politically insensitive jokes. I actually reported abuse on this thread just to see what would happen and 2 moderators have already read that i reported it. Yet the thread is still there. I think someone should crack on american miners being stuck 1900 feet underground and see what happens.

http://www.cougarboard.com/noframes/...tml?id=2921575

I just got this in an email from a friend.

Two Middle East mothers are sitting in a cafe
chatting over a plate of
tabouli and a pint of goat's milk. The older of the
mothers pulls her
bag out and starts flipping through photos and they
start reminiscing.

"This is my oldest son Mohamed. He would be 24
years old now."

"Yes, I remember him as a baby" says the other
mother cheerfully.

"He's a martyr now though" mum confides.

"Oh, so sad dear" says the other.

"And this is my second son Khalid. He would be 21"

"Oh, I remember him," says the other happily, "he
had such curly hair
when he was born".

"He's a martyr too" says mum quietly.

"Oh, gracious me ...." Says the other.

"And this is my third son. My baby. My beautiful
Ahmed. He would be
18", she whispers.

"Yes" says the friend enthusiastically, "I remember
when he first
started school".

"He's a martyr also," says mum, with tears in her
eyes.

After a pause and a deep sigh, the second Muslim
mother looks wistfully
at the photographs and says,

"They blow up so fast, don't they?"

I don't find the joke particularly funny, but it's certainly not racially insensitive. Insulting to Muslims maybe, although one could argue it's consistent with world opinion (or American opinion) or the religion.

The Utah miners comparison is unbelievably obtuse.