PSP (Dizzy)

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


PSP (Dizzy) last won the day on January 8 2015

PSP (Dizzy) had the most brohoofed content!

Community Reputation

200 Brohoofs

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

About PSP (Dizzy)

  • Rank
  • Birthday 06/26/1994

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    United States
  • Personal Motto
    If we're all for one world, there's a world for us all
  • Interests
    People and videogames!

My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic

  • Best Pony Race

MLP Forums

  • Opt-in to site ads?
  • Favorite Forum Section
    Show Discussion

Contact Methods

  • Skype
  1. happy birthdau =)=)=)=)=)=)=)!

  2. It seems like you're directly avoiding just admitting they have been wrong. Is there a way I could speak to an admin in this thread publicly? Also that doesn't really answer my question at all. It's a rule, why is it not in the rule section?
  3. That solution seems entirely counter-productive. If the admins are doing something wrong, attention needs drawn to it, and i needs to be fixed. Why abandon someplace instead of working to make others see that the community in which they take shelter is founded on faulty ethics? At the very least, people need to know these rules are unfair and unethical.
  4. It is not that I assume there is a "higher power", but rather that the admins could be wrong. It seems that we are unwilling to even humor the idea that they could be, which is frightening. How are the admins not to be held accountable for their own potential mistakes? The caretakers of the community would not be in danger of being "attacked" by making their decisions publicly visible, and it is their duty as the body of power presiding over this site to do so. And of course the user would "waive their right to privacy" by taking their dispute public, as that is the point: that the issue would be seen by many, and not diffused in private, where they could easily be silenced or refused proper hearing. Also, why is the rule that states discussion of bans is against the rules in the FAQ and not in the rules section? Why hide it away like that, especially if there is going to be a penalty for it?
  5. No, I read everything, you just restated them and did not really answer any of my concerns. 1. I was not saying that the tickets should remain open until the admins do whatever the user asks, I was saying that they should remain open until the issue reaches its logical resolution. 2. They should only remain private if the supposed wrongdoer wishes them to remain private. Having a proper hearing where people can actually see what is taking place should be allowed if the supposed wrongdoer wishes it. Otherwise it just means that they have to shut up about the issue, even if it were resolved incorrectly. 3. Your personal experience is not really relevant to this particular issue. The moderation could easily be proven wrong about a certain issue, but then deny they are wrong about another through ignorance. This is why accountability and transparency is important, so they can be held responsible for all of their decisions. Also, I would really appreciate a response from a mod or admin about this. Because I feel that these concerns pertain directly to the staff. And their lack of obligation to respond is becoming very apparent.
  6. It does not matter if the ticket is marked as "closed" if the dispute was not actually resolved. Deciding a dispute is resolved without it actually reaching a logical resolution is not ethical, especially when dealing with removing someone from the forums. The problem is that all bans from the site are handled in private. There is no accountability, and the staff have absolutely zero obligation to respond to the users, unless they see it appropriate. "Moderation dispute tickets are the only appropriate location to discuss warnings that have been received - forum threads, status updates, blog posts, and all similar venues are not acceptable places to dispute, complain about, or otherwise discuss warnings - doing so in such places will result in warning points being applied to your account, at an amount to be determined by the administration." They are completely unaccountable for their actions. They take matters involving bans off-site and refuse to allow discussion of them on-site. Transparency and accountability is apparently a negative, by them, which is a recipe for disaster in any form of governing body. An individual can be banned, refused a proper hearing by any of the staff, and then be un-allowed to make his case where other, more reasonable people, might see it.
  7. The admins do have the final say, and they can choose to ignore and cancel any disputes if they desire. The idea is, if the admins refuse to follow basic logical process, they are still incorrect, even if they listen to the other staff.
  8. Am I right in the assumption that the dispute system exists only to question moderator decisions, and not admins? If so, doesn't that strike you as a little... disturbing? That those with the most power over the site are considered to be infallible? That they supposedly cannot be wrong, and are not to be questioned by the userbase? No one is entirely right all of the time, and it is beyond problematic for the system to be run in this way. A dispute is not resolved until the individuals in said dispute reach the most logical, honest, and fair conclusion. Ending a dispute simply because an admin or admins reach a conclusion is not the same as a dispute actually being "resolved". Following a basic logical process is not difficult or time-consuming, either.
  9. You say that disagreement is fine as long as one does not directly attack another poster, but you also say that posts are removed if they offend/have a chance of offending someone. That seems like a contradiction to me. Does one of these take priority? If someone tells the truth or points out a logical flaw/factual error in a fellow poster's argument, and it offends them immensely, what then?
  10. None of that really answers my main concern, which was about honesty. No one has to call anyone stupid, but i an individual is pointed out as being factually, truthfully incorrect, is that somehow harmful?
  11. When making moderator/admin decisions on this site, regarding banning or warning as it pertains to community interaction, what is the exact criteria? As near I can tell, the criteria is simply anything that could be interpreted as offensive or hurtful, though I would like to be proven wrong. The problem with this model, if it is indeed the way things work, is that it means some individuals can be banned or warned for simply attempting to tell the truth. The truth can be inflammatory and provocative to someone who either 1. does not want to be wrong 2. does not like having their beliefs questioned Because of this, simply trying to state the truth can be a source of unpleasant emotions. Do said emotions caused by attempting to state the truth override the fact that the truth is, well, the truth? And that there is nothing inherently inflammatory or menacing in trying to be truthful? The first bullet on your rules is "opinion is opinion", but what if it isn't? What if an individual is attempting to make a truthful statement, and said statement is seen as offensive or hurtful, when inherently that is not the case? Thank you for your time. PSP
  12. A lot of videogames. I just don't get the cynicism that seems to surround the gaming community lately. Most games are awesome. This, intensely. Especially Ultimate Muscle, Kirby, Pokemon, and definitely TMNT. All wonderful jobs.
  13. Nah. A film would have to do something very discomforting for me to do that.
  14. Soup. I don't know why. Soup is not a very good late night snack.