|
Post by Ela on Aug 27, 2017 17:36:37 GMT
Moderator CommentSome posts have been removed from this thread for violating our forum rules: Baiting other posters with remarks based on suspicions that have not been proved is included in this. Please cease and desist. If you have a problem with what someone on this forum is posting, please use the report function. Thanks. End of Moderator CommentBack to your regularly scheduled discussion.
|
|
|
Post by valeyard on Aug 27, 2017 18:19:10 GMT
Moderator CommentSome posts have been removed from this thread for violating our forum rules: Baiting other posters with remarks based on suspicions that have not been proved is included in this. Please cease and desist. If you have a problem with what someone on this forum is posting, please use the report function. Thanks. End of Moderator CommentBack to your regularly scheduled discussion. What about comments from charlesuirdhein and his cheese fetish?
|
|
|
Post by nucleusofswarm on Aug 27, 2017 18:34:22 GMT
Moderator CommentSome posts have been removed from this thread for violating our forum rules: Baiting other posters with remarks based on suspicions that have not been proved is included in this. Please cease and desist. If you have a problem with what someone on this forum is posting, please use the report function. Thanks. End of Moderator CommentBack to your regularly scheduled discussion. Naturally, I will not argue with a mod's decision. I respect it and will refrain from future responses on this thread. All the same, this was not a one-sided issue, and if the suspicion is proven correct (and there's a little too much coincidence going on here), that in turn raises questions of its own that perhaps need to be discussed (in private, if needs be).
|
|
|
Post by Ela on Aug 27, 2017 18:36:58 GMT
Moderator CommentSome posts have been removed from this thread for violating our forum rules: Baiting other posters with remarks based on suspicions that have not been proved is included in this. Please cease and desist. If you have a problem with what someone on this forum is posting, please use the report function. Thanks. End of Moderator CommentBack to your regularly scheduled discussion. Naturally, I will not argue with a mod's decision. I respect it and will refrain from future responses on this thread. All the same, this was not a one-sided issue, and if the suspicion is proven correct (and there's a little too much coincidence going on here), that in turn raises questions of its own that perhaps need to be discussed (in private, if needs be). Yes, any suspicions/complaints/violations of the forum rules need to be discussed in private. That's what the report function is for. Thanks for respecting that.
|
|
|
Post by Ela on Aug 27, 2017 19:03:40 GMT
I want to add that soap-boxing and campaigning will also not be tolerated.
If you are, to coin a phrase, beating a dead horse over your own opinions and other people have already disagreed, let it go. Don't keep reiterating.
Let's keep this a pleasant place for all of us to have amicable discussions about the subjects we love to talk about.
Thanks.
|
|
|
Post by Audio Watchdog on Aug 27, 2017 23:29:26 GMT
How does the forum stand on people who are either banned or suspended starting up new accounts to take up the same kind of "arguments" that got them banned and/or suspended in the first place? On the movie discussion board I moderated for a decade that was strictly verboten. Asking simply as a hypothetical if someone were to do that.
|
|
|
Post by Ela on Aug 27, 2017 23:42:56 GMT
It's forbidden here, also.
However, we are not going to ban a new account on the basis of a suspicion if we have no proof. If a banned user creates a new account and starts committing the same types of violations that the banned user committed, that new account will be banned.
If you feel someone is violating the forum rules, please use the report function.
|
|
|
Post by Audio Watchdog on Aug 27, 2017 23:45:57 GMT
It should be pretty easy to see if the same person has opened up another account, right?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 27, 2017 23:50:37 GMT
Classic metaphysical logic. We're seeing effect before cause in much the same way as the fossilised dinosaur bones before Earthshock's freighter. The Moffat era struggles quite a bit with making it internally consistent (particularly with the Forrest Gump approach that staples new elements into old scenes), but it's not a new phenomenon. The most inventive use of "effect then cause" in the television series I think was that first episode of The Space Museum when they jumped the time track and Day of the Daleks's central conceit is all about seeing what will happen if Styles fails, before Styles has failed. 'Day of the Daleks' originally had a short coda, written but never filmed, where the Doctor and Jo see themselves in the lab at UNIT again, completing the loop started earlier in the story. But the significant part is that the Doctor tries to explain to Jo about the Styles / Daleks / guerillas paradox they have just helped solve: 'I was able to intervene and put history back on its proper tracks.' And Jo replies, 'I know, because you're a Time Lord.' They didn't go around waving their symbiotic nuclei (Of Rassilon) in those days, but for 1970s me that simple explanation was good enough; the Doctor could end the time loop / paradox because as a Time Lord he stood outside Time in some way. The laws that governed what he could and could not do were legal laws of Gallifrey rather than physical laws of the Universe. The tricky bit (which I never noticed at the time) is passed over quickly - the paradox began not because of the actions of the guerillas (although they were the direct cause of the loop) but because the Daleks changed history to one in which they could conquer the Earth. Dalek time technology in DOTD is very primitive so how they could do what the Doctor later did in reverse is a mystery. Perhaps it was an accident, part of their time research which went wrong and gave them an unexpected result? Possibly the future seen in DOTD was an existing, alternative timeline which the Daleks broke into by accident? That would tie in with the Doctor's statement that he had 'put history back on its proper tracks'. (Fun fact: I read Terrance Dicks' brilliant novelisation so many times in the 1970s that when the VHS came out I was disappointed that it didn't match the story as I 'remembered' it. So my TV memory was of a story which had never existed in that form, right down to that (unfilmed) final lab scene which I clearly remembered seeing!) I have very similar memories of The Seeds of Doom and The Ark that way. That idea may have gotten cut from Day, but I'm certain that Invasion of the Dinosaurs ran with the idea to its natural conclusion, particularly with the mechanics of the time scoop. Day of the Daleks is a bit of an oddity chronologically speaking. It must've occurred sometime before Remembrance of the Daleks where they've garnered a certain wisdom regarding time travel. I'm tempted to believe that it was down to an experiment that led to the creation of the DARDISes in The Chase or maybe something related to the eventual development of the Time Destructor in The Daleks' Master Plan. It's interesting to note that the correct pattern of history is still a Dalek Invasion of Earth, just not the one we see here in this particular timestream where the Occupation has turned Earth into a factory world.
|
|
|
Post by Ela on Aug 27, 2017 23:55:51 GMT
It should be pretty easy to see if the same person has opened up another account, right? Not necessarily. If it were easy, that would sure make our jobs as moderators a lot easier.
|
|
|
Post by Audio Watchdog on Aug 28, 2017 0:10:47 GMT
It should be pretty easy to see if the same person has opened up another account, right? Not necessarily. If it were easy, that would sure make our jobs as moderators a lot easier. Are you guys banning by screen name or IP address? Because if someone opens a new account you should be able to see if it is the same IP address, right?
|
|
|
Post by Ela on Aug 28, 2017 0:13:03 GMT
Not necessarily. If it were easy, that would sure make our jobs as moderators a lot easier. Are you guys banning by screen name or IP address? Because if someone opens a new account you should be able to see if it is the same IP address, right? Only if the person joins with the same email address and IP address. If both are different, it's guess work. Believe me, we do check.
|
|
|
Post by Audio Watchdog on Aug 28, 2017 0:14:59 GMT
Are you guys banning by screen name or IP address? Because if someone opens a new account you should be able to see if it is the same IP address, right? Only if the person joins with the same email address and IP address. If both are different, it's guess work. Believe me, we do check. I guess it must change from forum to forum as well. It was a pretty easy check on the forum I moderated for.
|
|
|
Post by Ela on Aug 28, 2017 0:16:55 GMT
I'd like us to move on from this discussion, please, as we've gone way off-topic.
If you have further questions, please PM the moderators.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 29, 2017 12:16:17 GMT
Do seem to be ganging up on him a bit, you realize. Not without reason though in all fairness.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 29, 2017 12:16:47 GMT
Do seem to be ganging up on him a bit, you realize. We are and we should back off a bit, but I still consider it sound advice. It's what I did. At least twice. I cannot understate how therapeutic it is.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 29, 2017 12:36:11 GMT
We are and we should back off a bit, but I still consider it sound advice. It's what I did. At least twice. I cannot understate how therapeutic it is. Yeah. I did it with Lie Of The Land. FYI, though, your fan edits are really good. Thanks. I'm very proud of them and they come from a genuine place.
|
|