Selective Moderating

So, if a quilt-maker is mentioned in the Newcastle Planning thread it is forbidden. But it is ok for the same moderator to be talking about BBQ sauce being transported thousands of miles for her in the same thread! Do these people READ what they post??!! JEEEEEEEZE!

fudgemeister wrote:

So, if a quilt-maker is mentioned in the Newcastle Planning thread it is forbidden. But it is ok for the same moderator to be talking about BBQ sauce being transported thousands of miles for her in the same thread! Do these people READ what they post??!! JEEEEEEEZE!

BBQ sauce AND cornbread.

It looks like they've made it on to the news again!

UH-OH!!!! Where are the mods??? Now tooth implants are being discussed in that thread!!!! Oh, the horror!

OMG!! that video made me spit my coffee at the screen and scream with laughter. I'm crying it was so funny.

Jemina wrote:

fudgemeister wrote:

So, if a quilt-maker is mentioned in the Newcastle Planning thread it is forbidden. But it is ok for the same moderator to be talking about BBQ sauce being transported thousands of miles for her in the same thread! Do these people READ what they post??!! JEEEEEEEZE!

BBQ sauce AND cornbread.

Cornbread? Seriously? What? Any idiot can buy these things and make it in Scotland? And BBQ sauce, ok, maybe a certain type of brand cannot be found in Scotland, but for shizzle.

They got a new one over there.........Go play in the sandbox!!! You just cannot make this stuff up!

WTF? Someone's been searching terms and came across Wiki. A Sandbox is for the software developers who have new codes that have not been tested and want to test it before it goes public. It's also for unsafe sites and unwanted visitors. Hummm. Gerald's cackling his ass off at the stupidity.

Sassyone wrote:

WTF? Someone's been searching terms and came across Wiki. A Sandbox is for the software developers who have new codes that have not been tested and want to test it before it goes public. It's also for unsafe sites and unwanted visitors. Hummm. Gerald's cackling his ass off at the stupidity.

Unsafe sites and unwanted visitors--

fudgemeister wrote:

Sassyone wrote:

WTF? Someone's been searching terms and came across Wiki. A Sandbox is for the software developers who have new codes that have not been tested and want to test it before it goes public. It's also for unsafe sites and unwanted visitors. Hummm. Gerald's cackling his ass off at the stupidity.

Unsafe sites and unwanted visitors--

LOL I'd thought you laugh at it. Unwanted, and unsafe users.

fudgemeister wrote:

Where are the mods??

In Scotland stalkingerr, I mean, chasing Susan in BB err I mean Newcastle watching the musical?

The description of the sandbox sounds like a giant litterbox, to me. Gotta be careful what you deposit in there,----and when it's served its purpose, they dump it.

WAMcKinley wrote:

The description of the sandbox sounds like a giant litterbox, to me. Gotta be careful what you deposit in there,----and when it's served its purpose, they dump it.

And WAM, do you remember this? Bill's depiction of the set-up there. They do this all out in the open for members to see! Amazing!

OFF TOPIC!! OFF TOPIC!! OFF TOPIC!!!

Oh, sorry. I forgot you were talking about something submitted by CBill. Somehow, he's allowed to put ANYthing out there-----and is NEVER considered "off topic!!"-------

Great moderating at SBFII. A member gets a harassing PM from not one, but 2 members, and the mods and the admins. do NOTHING to those 2 members. Oh, BTW, the 2 members are part of the protected echelon of the Animal Farm. Ethics be damned!

So, what's new pussy cat?!?!?!

Hey SBFII mods--what is with the newbie, Little Tiger? I hope she gets punished for posting the same message a SECOND time after having the first one deleted. Both were sarcastic remarks against Bernicer. We know she is running the Glasgow operation, but based on past punishments of other members, she certainly deserves to be put in pre mod. Will selective moderating still be your rule?

fudgemeister wrote:

Hey SBFII mods--what is with the newbie, Little Tiger? I hope she gets punished for posting the same message a SECOND time after having the first one deleted. Both were sarcastic remarks against Bernicer. We know she is running the Glasgow operation, but based on past punishments of other members, she certainly deserves to be put in pre mod. Will selective moderating still be your rule?

Do we necessarily "know" she's running the Glasgow operation - just cos she says so, doesn't mean it IS so???

fudgemeister wrote:

Hey SBFII mods--what is with the newbie, Little Tiger? I hope she gets punished for posting the same message a SECOND time after having the first one deleted. Both were sarcastic remarks against Bernicer. We know she is running the Glasgow operation, but based on past punishments of other members, she certainly deserves to be put in pre mod. Will selective moderating still be your rule?

OK, mods. She posted vitriol again, 3 times in 2 days. Do your job, which you have had NO trouble doing in the past to people who did NOT warrant punishment!

fudgemeister wrote:

fudgemeister wrote:

Hey SBFII mods--what is with the newbie, Little Tiger? I hope she gets punished for posting the same message a SECOND time after having the first one deleted. Both were sarcastic remarks against Bernicer. We know she is running the Glasgow operation, but based on past punishments of other members, she certainly deserves to be put in pre mod. Will selective moderating still be your rule?

OK, mods. She posted vitriol again, 3 times in 2 days. Do your job, which you have had NO trouble doing in the past to people who did NOT warrant punishment!

Well, don't forget I was thrown off for posting the following cartoon. They declared it 'disrespectful'. To what exactly? Cartoon cars?

I am a bad person? Well some of their own site ain't so nice either.

Admin wrote:

...Well, don't forget I was thrown off for posting the following cartoon. They declared it 'disrespectful'. To what exactly? Cartoon cars?

As originally posted by PinkMyTickle:
This post is entirely offensive. First of all, it implies the Highway Department installs inferior guard rails. And then it denigrates Susafans by depicting them without getting their hair done. And then, right there in print, it clearly states Susan's music may be harmful enough to send people over the edge! This so-called person is hostile to Susan, has no Classy-and-Fabulous skills whatsoever, and insults a department of government. In good conscience (and mine is very good indeed!) someone so disrespectful and dangerous simply cannot be allowed to post on this forum ever again. Now, I order urge you good boys and--forum members not to worry about this. Any discussion would be so unnecessary and disruptive we would be forced to delete it. Enjoy the blessings and peace of the season with love in your hearts, and have a very Merry Christmas!

bernicer wrote:

I am a bad person? Well some of their own ain't so nice either.

No way are you a bad person Bernicer. People like this Little Tiger seem to enjoy making catty, snarky remarks and trying to make someone squirm. As long as she goes along with popular opinion at EW she should be safe and get away with it.

No surprise. Hours after posting 3 vitriolic posts, one of which was a repeat of a post that HAD been deleted (thus ignoring the first admonishment from a mod), NO action has been taken against Little Tiger! How do you expect respect if you refuse to apply all rules FAIRLY and EQUALLY? Same old story for the Animal Farm of SB fansites! Has LT joined the protected ranks there?

So SBFII--when are you making LittleTiger the new admin. over there? She seems to be running the mods AND that forum!

fudgemeister wrote:

So SBFII--when are you making LittleTiger the new admin. over there? She seems to be running the mods AND that forum!

Has Lynne been reincarnated???

In their own disclaimer at SBFII it states that copyrighted photos cannot be used without permission. Well, here comes Clarissastarr stating that it is OK since everyone does it. And she is a site moderator!!!

I told her it was unethical. I'll probably be the next one out the door. In my own opinion, she is an immature little twit. I also told them not to bother to PM me or flame me as I wouldn't be listening.

Most professional photographers do not use Photobucket, and for good reason. In reading the TOS/Terms of Use, it is clear that any image put up on that site is fair game for any Tom, Dick and Harry to help him or herself and do what they like..... Images which are watermarked and are in low resolution are done so as a semi-protective measure by professionals who are offering them for sale, either through news agencies for the news media to use or through their own galleries for the public to purchase. I noticed at least one photo on the PB site which was watermarked. That is done for a specific reason, and frankly, sharing a watermarked photo just looks silly and inappropriate. Shows that someone lifted the photo from a photo agency's site without permission. To reiterate: using copyrighted images is definitely theft and infringement upon the original creator's legal rights. If, for instance, Charlie Gray were to spot one of his copyrighted images on that site he would be easily able to take legal measures against the offenders.

Aside from that, it is possible that some people, ordinary citizens, not celebrities, but who happen to be in a photo with a celebrity, whose pictures are shown in M&G or other photos might not appreciate their images being shown and easily shared by anyone -- strangers -- via Photobucket.......

From Photobucket's Terms of Use:

If you make your Content public, you grant us a worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free license (with the right to sublicense) to copy, distribute, publicly perform (e.g., stream it), publicly display (e.g., post it elsewhere), reproduce and create derivative works from it (meaning things based on it), anywhere, whether in print or any kind of electronic version that exists now or later developed, for any purpose, including a commercial purpose.
You are also giving other Users the right to copy, distribute, publicly perform, publicly display, reproduce and create derivative works from it via the Site or third party websites or applications (for example, via services allowing Users to order prints of Content or t-shirts and similar items containing Content, and via social media websites).
So when you post it, you are telling us and all other Users that the Content really, truly is yours - no one else's - and that the posting and use of your Content does not violate the privacy rights, publicity rights, copyrights, contract rights, intellectual property rights, or human rights of somebody else. We're not responsible if it's not really yours or if you infringe on others' rights; you will be responsible if there are any costs for that.

http://photobucket.com/copyright/

If anybody wants to open their own account and post illegal stuff, go right ahead. Yes, it won't be the first time. But please do not drag one of Susan's fansites into the fray. That way if anybody is sued it will be the poster of the photos and not the fansite. Hiding behind the fansite to do this stuff is cowardly in my opioion.

Gee, what in the world is happening at SBFII tonight?? Lots of wild, out-of-character posts and a whole fleet of mods watching the thread! Reminds me of another July a couple of years ago when all h--- broke loose over there. Strange night, indeed. Is there a full moon??-----