Taymelo has been suspended for one week by the rest of The Syndicate for several negative racial stereotypes that he posted in the off topic forum (these have since been moved to The Stands). These comments were ruled to be in violation of our zero tolerance racism policy.

Please be aware that there were several others that made objectionable comments as well and this will not be tolerated going forward abd we will be watching closely for violations.

The limited rules that we have here at WTFDetroit apply to everyone.

http://us.news2.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/afp/20060802/capt.sge.bgh90.020806215843.photo00.photo.default-356x507.jpg[smilie=drunkdude.g:

Well, I'm never "happy" about anybody getting timed-out (except when wbroncos got nailed), so I'd have to say I'm not in full agreement with the decision.

On the other hand, now Taymelo might feel the same way I did with my one weeker.

Tay doesn't understand the big deal about his comments, but what I read into them was a narrow visioned account of "bad tippers", one that suggests "blacks with money" equals "blacks with no class", which isn't true. I know tons of white people who whip that #$%@ tip chart out, even when the service was out of sight fantastic. It's your upbringing, not your color. A buddy of mine, who is Armenian, is flat out the most generous tipper I've ever seen -- and he's not close to rich. It's just the way he is. He understands that side of the equation.

I've also heard of A list actors who tip "peanuts", though they can afford a stable of 10 cars and three multimillion dollar homes. And what's the fucking deal with the "Cristal" comment? Oh, that's right -- it's the favorite champagne of black rappers (except JayZ http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/5056744.stm).



Have fun with your week. I heard the nation of Western Michigan is delightful this time of year. Good place to visit, according to Mxy.


EDIT: On a lighter note, my life has seen many changes over the past month: got laid off, sold my motorcycle to pay for screen printing equipment (doing my own shirts now), and now it seems I'll be selling motorcycles for my day job (can no longer stand the bullshit of client-based graphics... though I'll still do it on a limited basis). But I can sense now that things are turning around -- starting today.

You people really need some thicker skin. Really.

He didn't say the "N" word. He didn't say Back to Africa. He didn't say nothing racial. He was discussing a stereotype. He warned people that he was going to discuss a stereotype. He did nothing wrong IMO.

i don't know what happened and don't really care enough to find out. But theres something wrong with the communication of the syndicate members if one of them finds themselves somehow slipping past the whatever rules are supposedly in place. It just doesn't look good. Either way this is the offseason and i'm going to kick back and watch the raider game tonight and listen to Madden say "Boom" a bunch of times. I will say that ever since a couple of long time members opened up this issue over nothing, its been getting dragged on way too long. i mean shit, the summer is almost over. fuck thicker skin, lets try more will power people. Enjoy your week everyone and congrats to the tigers. they waited until i disown them to do good. but good for them nevertheless.

I'm too lazy to check out what he said.

Have a good vacation, Taymelo.

I need a vacation from the net myself because I have finals next week. :P

Worst suspension in the history of the internet. What a fucking joke.

This site has become shit. It used to be by far the best site on the internet. Fuck this site. Untill it cleans up and becomes the way it used to be, I'm not posting.

I thought we left RealGM over this type of shit?

If Taymelo got banned for making stereotypical remarks about how black people do this and white people do that then anyone that has posted anything in relation to Chappelle's show should be banned too.

I thought we left RealGM over this type of shit?

If Taymelo got banned for making stereotypical remarks about how black people do this and white people do that then anyone that has posted anything in relation to Chappelle's show should be banned too.


I was thinking the same thing. I guess we have to get together and create an alternate site to the alternate site of RealGM. Actually RealGM is more inviting than this place at this point.

I thought we left RealGM over this type of shit?

If Taymelo got banned for making stereotypical remarks about how black people do this and white people do that then anyone that has posted anything in relation to Chappelle's show should be banned too.


I was thinking the same thing. I guess we have to get together and create an alternate site to the alternate site of RealGM. Actually RealGM is more inviting than this place at this point.
no its not. but i see theres gonna be alot of exaggerated complaints in here. it was a bad suspension(actually a really bad one i think), i see nothing wrong with the conversation and i dont think it was intended in the manner it was looked at. but honestly if you think its better at realgm because of this, then by all means go fight pop ups over there. no point in not being at the better place i say.[smilie=running.gif]

So I can insult other races because I'm black? Sweet!

White people suck at sports.

Damn...suspensions are dropping like flies.

I'd better get to my suspension shelter before this gets any worse.

wow what a thread. sorry to taymelo and lets just be detroit fans because thats what we do best.

0/10

Boo. Shameful.

Taymil-come to WRH. Like your brethren wandering the desert after fleeing the Pharoh, we shall be your holyland.

0/10

Boo. Shameful.

Taymil-come to WRH. Like your brethren wandering the desert after fleeing the Pharoh, we shall be your holyland.

no don't welcome him in as he is an awful poster

but i do send my condolences as he was banned for the dumbest of reasons. i wonder what he'll do now with all the free time that he has from not being able to write long, boring, unreadable posts

maybe its just my love of conformity and authority speaking here, but i thought taymelo went too far. saying 'black people typically are poor tippers' is one thing (something i may agree with), but i thought he went beyond that.

the mods here make me sleep better at night.

0/10

Boo. Shameful.

Taymil-come to WRH. Like your brethren wandering the desert after fleeing the Pharoh, we shall be your holyland.

no don't welcome him in as he is an awful poster

but i do send my condolences as he was banned for the dumbest of reasons. i wonder what he'll do now with all the free time that he has from not being able to write long, boring, unreadable posts

LMAO! Shane is now the best poster here.
and your thought that he is, shows that you arent here much.:cool:

This was going to suck no matter which way it was handled. If we did nothing and looked the other way, Taymelo would be getting preferential treatment (in light of recent "watermelon/fried chicken suspensions"). If we took action some of the more ignorant or bored/dramatic members here were going to act out, which is some of what you are seeing now.

So since we were screwed either way, we decided to be consistent and fair based on what had been done before in other cases. Add to that the fact that we believe that a person that is in a position of leadership here (and making decisions to better the site, as well as ruling on the rules violations of others) should be held to a higher standard.


I thought we left RealGM over this type of shit?


Personally, I left because of 3 main things:

1. Selective enforcement of the rules depending on who you are (Pistons fans treated like shit, Heat/Pacer fans given free reign).

2. Any non-basketball discussion was discouraged.

3. The "PG-rated" atmosphere.

Since #1 mentioned above was the main crux of why many left, not taking action with regards to Tay's comments would have made us more like RGM than giving Tay a week off. We're trying to have as fair and even of a playing field as possible.

I can't figure out how the race issue has to be as big of a probelm here as it is. Here's a good rule of thumb. If you make racial comments and they are negative/derogatory in nature, and someone takes offense to them, then there's going to be trouble. Period. Jokes are one thing, but it's pretty clear when a comment is a joke and when it's just plain ignorance or baiting (not referring specifically to Tay's comments here).

There are plenty of sites on the internet that you can go to to read and share any racially ignorant thoughts/feelings that you may have, but this won't be one of them. It's that simple.

As far as Taymelo goes, I like him about as much as you can like a guy that you only know by chatting about sports over the internet. But it was determined that his comments were counter to what we are trying to do here, so he's sitting out for a week. He's not banned, he's not a pariah, he's just taking his medicine. If I or any other Syndicate member ever does anything that the other forum leaders view to be detrimental to the site, I'll gladly take my week's vacation as well.

Feel free to discuss this here in this thread, as it won't be moved, edited or deleted as it would have been at RGM.

I'm sure the 4-5 posters who have made it into this thread and disagree with the banning feel good, at this point, about being called ignorant by the syndicate.

Look, generally I don't care at all about this shit and I laughed my ass off at the thread title when I saw it. But what is there like a banning quota or something around here? I think you guys have moved in the wrong direction with the whole "from now on we just ban, any one of us has the power to do it instantly, and we don't need to explain shit nor are we going to be cool and just put people back in there place through public discussion". I mean its not like the user-base benefits from talking out these types of things nor is it true that simply coming in and taking people out reduces moral.

I won't miss Taymelo making me feel bad with his fanatical defense of a political side I'm generally on the same side of, but damn. I almost want to start testing the line just to see what would get me insta-banned by the FCC...syndicate because of all this bullshit and when your actions start making people want to do that, you're doing something wrong.

It's a week off for some comments that were in bad taste, he's not dead, there's no reason to eulogize him or profess what you'll miss most about him.


I'm sure the 4-5 posters who have made it into this thread and disagree with the banning feel good, at this point, about being called ignorant by the syndicate.

I didn't mean to infer that anyone that has stated opposition to Tay's suspension in this thread as being ignorant, I was referring to some of the posts in other threads that are obvious attempts to be inflammatory. Sorry about the confusion.

Since we're having this discussion I might as well ask this question to those of you that are in disagreement with Tay's suspension, would you have been okay if Taymelo had received preferential treatment and nothing was done? Be honest.

If poster A makes negative "fried chicken/watermelon" comments and gets a week off, and then poster B, who is in a position of influence/"power" here makes similar comments but nothing is done, would you think that is okay?

Because that is what we were faced with, pick your poison.

(I'm primarily looking for feedback from regular posters here, not the opportunistic vocal minority, but of course, those comments are welcome/expected too).

Like I said in JS's thread, offer an option for an apology and subsequent discussion. If the poster refuses, a one week suspension.

Since we're having this discussion I might as well ask this question to those of you that are in disagreement with Tay's suspension, would you have been okay if Taymelo had received preferential treatment and nothing was done? Be honest.

If poster A makes negative "fried chicken/watermelon" comments and gets a week off, and then poster B, who is in a position of influence/"power" here makes similar comments but nothing is done, would you think that is okay?



The problem I have isn't preferential treatment, its genuine racism vs. critical annalysis of a touchy subject.

Look, black people maybe do like chicken, but to say it in the context it was said is grounds for a ban. It wasn't said to be funny or intelectual, it was said to get a rise out of someone. You get banned for that at WRH, you should get banned for that anywhere that doesn't come with a disclaimer allowing it. It's intent is to do harm.

What Tay did is the kind of thing that should be encouraged. He spoke openly about a taboo. Black people don't tip. Is it a stereotype? Hell yeah. Is it true? Hell yeah. Why not talk about it? I didn't give good service to blacks because I wasn't rewarded as a server, lets bring it up. This is the internet, not a boardroom, fopauxs are the norm. The trouble lies in placing boundaries on grey areas.

If Tay received different treatment because of whom he was here I would be furious, I'm banned from boards for exactly that, but that isn't what I see. I see ambiguity, which breeds contempt and confusion. Let me put it this way Glenn, if someone has a "ask a black guy" thread, and I ask "why don't black people tip?" is that grounds for a ban now? I said "black people don't tip"....I presented it as fact, I issued a stereotype. No different than what Tay did, he just did it in his ultra-descript manner.

You are all treading in a very murky pond here, and answers of "cause we said so" and "you can leave if you don't like it" are only going to further schism the congregation. I appreciate your efforts Glenn, but I can't see any answer you could provide at the point you stand I could accept.

The fact is the Syndicate is correct in the decision, and aside of the collective enitity I will not back down. We are not like the TOS Realgm, we are not showing biast toward one person or group and allowing similar behavior by other to go unchecked. We have been open and consistent, we have had full disclosure on these issues. Sure we could have suspended people or banned them and kept it quiet, and not answered questions related to the issue but we are willing to have an open discussion but what is not open for discussion is our stance against racially based comments.

As I have said throughout my previous post and in my everyday life if you don't like what we are doing you have choices, you can go to another forum. The collective voice against us on this issue for the most part is fringe posters who have made between 5% - 50% of their total posts on this issue, so I'll be blunt I don't give a flying fuck about pretend members or a poster who have no value here becase they want to promote their tough ass site. As for the other group of voices coming forward most of them are devil's advocates and baiters, guys who take issue against any stance those in powers make. This week Tay the victim last week he was the enemy.

As Glenn said all voices are welcomed. I am sorry that not everyone shares my belief in equality. This is not an issue of repression or censorship it is a matter of taking a stance against a behavior that we find acceptable which is spelled out in the user agreement.

For those who miss Taymelo already, the following is the opening to a paper written by Taymelo that should give you some key insight into mind:


The Effect of Trainable Theory on Markov Machine Learning
Taymelo
Abstract
Interposable methodologies and 802.11 mesh networks have garnered minimal interest from both analysts and futurists in the last several years. In this paper, we prove the development of interrupts. We disprove that operating systems can be made semantic, replicated, and linear-time.

Introduction

Many computational biologists would agree that, had it not been for architecture, the understanding of write-ahead logging might never have occurred. The notion that cyberinformaticians connect with the deployment of Internet QoS is never well-received. Though related solutions to this riddle are bad, none have taken the compact solution we propose here. Clearly, virtual machines and the memory bus are based entirely on the assumption that XML and fiber-optic cables are not in conflict with the study of the transistor.

In our research we propose a cacheable tool for simulating gigabit switches (Boning), which we use to disprove that online algorithms and I/O automata can connect to fulfill this ambition. Nevertheless, cache coherence [10] might not be the panacea that hackers worldwide expected. Indeed, telephony and erasure coding have a long history of cooperating in this manner. Our algorithm learns efficient symmetries [23]. Two properties make this approach distinct: we allow Web services to visualize scalable epistemologies without the refinement of red-black trees, and also Boning studies reinforcement learning. Clearly, we see no reason not to use client-server archetypes to develop pseudorandom symmetries.

Our main contributions are as follows. We verify not only that the famous read-write algorithm for the refinement of the World Wide Web [15] runs in W(logn) time, but that the same is true for Internet QoS. Further, we concentrate our efforts on demonstrating that SMPs and linked lists can interfere to solve this issue. We disconfirm not only that compilers [12] and cache coherence are largely incompatible, but that the same is true for hierarchical databases [25].

The rest of this paper is organized as follows. We motivate the need for von Neumann machines. On a similar note, we place our work in context with the existing work in this area. We place our work in context with the related work in this area. Further, we argue the natural unification of IPv6 and A* search. Even though it might seem counterintuitive, it is derived from known results. Finally, we conclude that Israel is good and Hezbollah is bad.
http://punitive-surgery.lcs.mit.edu/scicache/591/scimakelatex.47252.Taymelo.html

Since we're having this discussion I might as well ask this question to those of you that are in disagreement with Tay's suspension, would you have been okay if Taymelo had received preferential treatment and nothing was done? Be honest.

If poster A makes negative "fried chicken/watermelon" comments and gets a week off, and then poster B, who is in a position of influence/"power" here makes similar comments but nothing is done, would you think that is okay?



The problem I have isn't preferential treatment, its genuine racism vs. critical annalysis of a touchy subject.

Look, black people maybe do like chicken, but to say it in the context it was said is grounds for a ban. It wasn't said to be funny or intelectual, it was said to get a rise out of someone. You get banned for that at WRH, you should get banned for that anywhere that doesn't come with a disclaimer allowing it. It's intent is to do harm.

What Tay did is the kind of thing that should be encouraged. He spoke openly about a taboo. Black people don't tip. Is it a stereotype? Hell yeah. Is it true? Hell yeah. Why not talk about it? I didn't give good service to blacks because I wasn't rewarded as a server, lets bring it up. This is the internet, not a boardroom, fopauxs are the norm. The trouble lies in placing boundaries on grey areas.

If Tay received different treatment because of whom he was here I would be furious, I'm banned from boards for exactly that, but that isn't what I see. I see ambiguity, which breeds contempt and confusion. Let me put it this way Glenn, if someone has a "ask a black guy" thread, and I ask "why don't black people tip?" is that grounds for a ban now? I said "black people don't tip"....I presented it as fact, I issued a stereotype. No different than what Tay did, he just did it in his ultra-descript manner.

You are all treading in a very murky pond here, and answers of "cause we said so" and "you can leave if you don't like it" are only going to further schism the congregation. I appreciate your efforts Glenn, but I can't see any answer you could provide at the point you stand I could accept.

Nice post, Herm. Thanks for taking the time.

(Speaking for myself here) I think if we were confident that 100% of the poster base was capable of having that discussion without it completely coming off the tracks, we would do just that.

Do you think that's possible here or at any sports-based internet message board? IMO, it's not likely, which is why instead of trying to define the boundary that is undefinable we chose to make it simple and avoid the slippery slope. "Stay away from the touchy racial stuff". That makes it pretty clear, no ambiguity. I'm sorry, but stating generalities as fact will lead nowhere good. "All (insert racial group) do/are this (insert your sterotype of choice)" is flat out ignorance.

Well, I tried (despite having you telling me in advance it was impossible to sway you). Thanks for sharing your opinion in a civilized manner, at least. Hopefully we'll at least get some clarity here when we're done if nothing else.

behavior that we find acceptable which is spelled out in the user agreement.

Unacceptable. And it is not spelled out.

Herm the issue is the fact that no life, no reality is the same for any two people here. In the real world you have the ability to read a person's body language, tone and have a knowledge of who they are, that is not true in the world of cyber space. In this enviroment people can hide behind ignorance because they know no matter how fast or how vile they type, the screen isn't going to hold them accountable, it's not going to punch them or fight back.

So while you and I and a handful of others feel that we can discuss a topic with intelligence all it takes is one biggot or imature fool to change the topic with a lack of maturity and knowledge disparity. To me that is the greatest issue and trouble, we can truly distinguish what is meant as fun and what is meant to be venom as a whole. Context is abstract in the cyber world. It is easy to say we can look at it case by case but everytime we have somebdy wants to push the limit further, it is no longer acceptable to tolerate the behavior or look at it case by case because of context, because the issue just gets worse.

I don't expect us all to agree.

Since we're having this discussion I might as well ask this question to those of you that are in disagreement with Tay's suspension, would you have been okay if Taymelo had received preferential treatment and nothing was done? Be honest.

If poster A makes negative "fried chicken/watermelon" comments and gets a week off, and then poster B, who is in a position of influence/"power" here makes similar comments but nothing is done, would you think that is okay?



The problem I have isn't preferential treatment, its genuine racism vs. critical annalysis of a touchy subject.

Look, black people maybe do like chicken, but to say it in the context it was said is grounds for a ban. It wasn't said to be funny or intelectual, it was said to get a rise out of someone. You get banned for that at WRH, you should get banned for that anywhere that doesn't come with a disclaimer allowing it. It's intent is to do harm.

What Tay did is the kind of thing that should be encouraged. He spoke openly about a taboo. Black people don't tip. Is it a stereotype? Hell yeah. Is it true? Hell yeah. Why not talk about it? I didn't give good service to blacks because I wasn't rewarded as a server, lets bring it up. This is the internet, not a boardroom, fopauxs are the norm. The trouble lies in placing boundaries on grey areas.

If Tay received different treatment because of whom he was here I would be furious, I'm banned from boards for exactly that, but that isn't what I see. I see ambiguity, which breeds contempt and confusion. Let me put it this way Glenn, if someone has a "ask a black guy" thread, and I ask "why don't black people tip?" is that grounds for a ban now? I said "black people don't tip"....I presented it as fact, I issued a stereotype. No different than what Tay did, he just did it in his ultra-descript manner.

You are all treading in a very murky pond here, and answers of "cause we said so" and "you can leave if you don't like it" are only going to further schism the congregation. I appreciate your efforts Glenn, but I can't see any answer you could provide at the point you stand I could accept.

Nice post, Herm. Thanks for taking the time.

(Speaking for myself here) I think if we were confident that 100% of the poster base was capable of having that discussion without it completely coming off the tracks, we would do just that.

Do you think that's possible here? IMO, it's not likely, which is why instead of trying to define the boundary that is undefinable we chose to make it simple and avoid the slippery slope. Stay away from the touchy racial stuff. That makes it pretty clear, no ambiguity. I'm sorry, but stating generalities as fact will lead nowhere good. "All (insert racial group) do/are this (insert your sterotype of choice)" is flat out ignorance.

Well, I tried despite having you telling me in advance it was impossible to sway you. Thanks for sharing your opinion in a civilized manner, at least. Hopefully we'll at least get some clarity here when we're done if nothing else.

Now, where do you get off inserting "ALL"? That never happened, and shouldn't be a conclusion drawn. Actually, I don't even really get where that is headed.

What then is touchy? Can we talk about Jon Barry being "scrappy"? Are Euro players "soft"? May I dicuss Reggie White's "Mexicans in a house" take? Is what I'm doint right now in violation? I'm discussing race, in a touchy way, yes? Your extreme is infinitly more ambiguous/slippery-slope than one that butts up against being inflamitory. Your litmus seems to be "I don't like that". If you don't want to wade in the pool I'd remove the "touchy" part alltogether and just say don't talk about it at all.

So while you and I and a handful of others feel that we can discuss a topic with intelligence all it takes is one biggot or imature fool to change the topic with a lack of maturity and knowledge disparity. To me that is the greatest issue and trouble, we can truly distinguish what is meant as fun and what is meant to be venom as a whole. Context is abstract in the cyber world. It is easy to say we can look at it case by case .

How is this not exactly what you're doing? I guess I need to understand how you all interpret your policy and where this finality you and Glenn are getting at exists.

Herm when you say the name of a group and then make an observation it is not clear if you mean all or those you have encountered or whatever, so "All" doesn't need to be used for it be understood as such for minds that want to accept it as all they do.

And I agree with your last point, not talking about it at all seems to be the best option. With that said if the discussion is something that was said publicly or is entertainment and is newsworthy there is no harm in discussion of the topic such as the "Reggie White rant", if you agree or disagree with his comments that is your choice and you are free to discuss your feeelings, as long as you are not directing your comments at another person or poster base to bait. However when a poster who has no public standing or no known resume to start a thread about said group, we don't now where they a coming from or what they are doing interms of intent, what their sample size of the theory is or what their evidence is. Therefore every subsquent post after that carries a new burden of proof and evidence that is based on their once again limited point of view. That is not acceptable in my view.

If a poster joined and said I work for such and such company, and we have studied said sterotype andI would like to get a feel for what others think about our finding. I would first check into their actual background and then allow them to proceed most likely, but just because a person was a waiter for 10 days or a lifetime doesn't mean that they are a qualified sociologist. With that said if the group providing the study had a pro-whatever group doctrine I would not allow it to be used as evidence or as a legit topic about the sterotype.

Now, where do you get off inserting "ALL"? That never happened, and shouldn't be a conclusion drawn. Actually, I don't even really get where that is headed.

re: "all"

Come on Herm. You and I both know when someone says "black people don't tip" or "forget about the Pakistanis" they don't mean "some" and they don't mean "the one's that I know".

You know the "all" is understood.

Now it seems like you are trying to muddy the issue, not clarify it. And by touchy I mean just that. If you think someone might get offended, they probably will.

I know that you enjoy the contrarian role, but let's keep it constructive, okay?

The way I look at the policy is simple. It allowed for us to say racist statements had no place but fringe sterotypes and humor had a limited role as long as they remianed in check and in context. We allowed some of that to occur and for awhile because it was held in check for a while, but then the limit was pushed, we offered up warnings and asked nicely for the behavior to stop. Some people did while others ignored and wanted to further test our limits, we punished accordingly, but still were willing to look at it case by case. However once again the limited was pushed and more warnings and punishments were issued however they limit was again tested to the point that we are no longer finding that case by case examination works. It sucks that people are being suspended after one inncident but the fact is we did everything in the open so that it would deter behavior, it did not. So the finality of our views isn't a matter of a sudden change in policy it is a reaction to the enviroment in which we see is no longer in control.

Now, where do you get off inserting "ALL"? That never happened, and shouldn't be a conclusion drawn. Actually, I don't even really get where that is headed.

re: "all"

Come on Herm. You and I both know when someone says "black people don't tip" or "forget about the Pakistanis" they don't mean "some" and they don't mean "the one's that I know".

You know the "all" is understood.

Now it seems like you are trying to muddy the issue, not clarify it. And by touchy I mean just that. If you think someone might get offended, they probably will.

I know that you enjoy the contrarian role, but let's keep it constructive, okay?
Couldn't disagree more. You do NOT mean all, you mean generally. You are wrong. When I say "black people don't tip" I mean if I get 100 tips.....whatever, you get it.

If I say "black people are poor", what do I mean Glenn? Do I mean there are no rich blacks? No, I don't. I'm speaking of the mean. Which I believe was later shown to be true as the results of a days tips were shown. Hardly scientific, but enough to support his original question.

I don't enjoy contrainianism, I am disillusioned by misinterpretation. Maybe thats why Tay got banned for all I know, maybe you didn't understand what he said. Seriously, I'm a bit taken aback.

He wasn't banned, he's suspended for a week. However, I do realize that "banned" is much more dramatic.

The specific rule, updated by Taymelo on 7/5/06, states:


1. No racial/ethnic insults. We tolerate innocent jokes that are in context. However, we do not tolerate racial/ethnic comments made with malicious intent (the Syndicate will be the judge, jury, and executioners with respect to determining intent)

What he posted was not an innocent joke, and was not in a good natured context. Further, several posters made it known that they were offended. No apology was issued. I can't see how anyone can say that he was wronged in any way, especially since he wrote the friggin rule and is one of this site's founders!

These things that we are saying (JS and I), and the rule shown above are near carbon copies of his own words. Where's the injustice?

Fair, set up whatever you want. I don't know your policy right now, and wouldn't know if I was breaking it, were I to tread in that direction, which I will at some point. This will continue to be the case here for most I imagine, where it be race or gender or "what's for lunch". If you are comfortable with that so am I, but let me promise this will be back in a matter of months. I will simply bump these posts.

I'm done with this, I will continue the "all" discussion if you choose as that bothers me much more than if I can suggest that black people like chrome wheels.

See Herm, you are illustrating our point more than you are making your own. As a result of the cyber world we are talking in Glenn and myself can only examine you based on a limited knowledge base, we don't know you or your intent. While both may be in the right place, we don't truly know. And if simple examples you make can be skewed or twisted beyond your intent you can see the problem this board has when 50 people look at your comments or try to understand your intent. Everyone has their own agenda and will use words of others to further their own as they need.

I don't know how to better explain myself.

Did you suspend srt4b for complaining about black people tipping?

Did you suspend Varsity for responding to Taymelo's post about black's not tipping with "that's funny coming from a Jew of ALL people"?

Nope.

Was Taymelos syndicate status removed, like my modship was?

Nope.

Equality my ass. This is nothing but a ploy for you guys to say: "Hey, see, we're fair!"


LMFAO. I dont even care.
I'm just trying to piss you guys off.

Something came up over here and I had to stop reading this thread somewhere close to JS' comments about how I always have the option of going somewhere else (thanks for that by the way, I think I might discover a whole wide world on the web now that I know I can go other places). But from the length of this thread, I expect I'll be back with something to say later.

Yesthisisjustaposttoupmypostcount

Was Taymelos syndicate status removed, like my modship was?

Nope.

Equality my ass. This is nothing but a ploy for you guys to say: "Hey, see, we're fair!"


LMFAO. I dont even care.
I'm just trying to piss you guys off.

ERRRR Wrong Tay is no longer a member of the syndicate.

The way I look at the policy is simple. It allowed for us to say racist statements had no place but fringe sterotypes and humor had a limited role as long as they remianed in check and in context. We allowed some of that to occur and for awhile because it was held in check for a while, but then the limit was pushed, we offered up warnings and asked nicely for the behavior to stop. Some people did while others ignored and wanted to further test our limits, we punished accordingly, but still were willing to look at it case by case. However once again the limited was pushed and more warnings and punishments were issued however they limit was again tested to the point that we are no longer finding that case by case examination works. It sucks that people are being suspended after one inncident but the fact is we did everything in the open so that it would deter behavior, it did not. So the finality of our views isn't a matter of a sudden change in policy it is a reaction to the enviroment in which we see is no longer in control.

Yes, I do remember this. You PM'ed me during my bout with Tay, and asked me nicely to stop.

And I did.

Then I was suspended!!!!!

And you have yet to address my post, regarding asking the poster to offer up an apology and encourage constructive dialogue between them and the membership. If the poster truly is racist, he or she shall refuse the option, choosing suspension. If it was merely a "mistake", then they'll say so. I'm sure the membership, who's comfort and security is the basis for these rules, would find a sincere apology sufficient.

Was Taymelos syndicate status removed, like my modship was?

Nope.

Equality my ass. This is nothing but a ploy for you guys to say: "Hey, see, we're fair!"


LMFAO. I dont even care.
I'm just trying to piss you guys off.

ERRRR Wrong Tay is no longer a member of the syndicate.

My bad, I thought I still saw the title under his name.
[smilie=burgerking.:

Was Taymelos syndicate status removed, like my modship was?

Nope.

Equality my ass. This is nothing but a ploy for you guys to say: "Hey, see, we're fair!"


LMFAO. I dont even care.
I'm just trying to piss you guys off.

ERRRR Wrong Tay is no longer a member of the syndicate.

My bad, I thought I still saw the title under his name.
[smilie=burgerking.:


Matt and Mola generally handle the graphics so titles are not removed as quickly as some would like, by myself and others for fear of messing up the site by going where we don't know how to navigate.

How can I get better tips from Black People?

I'll take this one.

Stereotype alert: If you can't handle them, don't read this:

I used to wait tables.

Unfortunately, its a trick question.

More often than not black people don't tip over 10%, no matter how much money they have, and no matter how good the service is.

I recommend not killing yourself to provide great service. You'll be wasting your time.

Forget about diners of Pakistani descent, as well.

Concentrate on white people. They are skittish about slavery. Kiss their butts, and they'll give you over 20% just so they don't feel like slavedrivers.

I'm kinda mad my race is getting stereotypic "cheap" comments from a jewish guy of ALL people. Anyway, as a black man I always give 15-20%...though I make no promises to people that "don't waste their time".

Why wasn't Varsity suspended for this? Is Mel Gibson's dad running the Syndicate?

I don't have a lot to offer, except knowing Taymeelo, he will be saving up a lot of wordy posts for his return.

Everyone run out and buy a backup scroll wheel mouse. You are going to need it. [smilie=reporter.gi: [smilie=rofl.gif] :eek: [smilie=grumble.gif]

I can't stand the way this stuff is handled. Why do you need to start a "Here ye, here ye!" thread about suspensions? Denny McLain's name got smeared, and now Taymelo's name got smeared. This stuff should be handled privately. And the punishment doesn't come close to fitting the crime. Taymelo makes some borderline racial comments, he gets suspended for a week, stripped of his syndicate rights, and a thread gets started by his other former syndicate members in which his name gets smeared.

I can't stand the way this stuff is handled. Why do you need to start a "Here ye, here ye!" thread about suspensions? Denny McLain's name got smeared, and now Taymelo's name got smeared. This stuff should be handled privately. And the punishment doesn't come close to fitting the crime. Taymelo makes some borderline racial comments, he gets suspended for a week, stripped of his syndicate rights, and a thread gets started by his other former syndicate members in which his name gets smeared.

Truer words... never spoken. SKelly for POY.

I can't stand the way this stuff is handled. Why do you need to start a "Here ye, here ye!" thread about suspensions? Denny McLain's name got smeared, and now Taymelo's name got smeared. This stuff should be handled privately. And the punishment doesn't come close to fitting the crime. Taymelo makes some borderline racial comments, he gets suspended for a week, stripped of his syndicate rights, and a thread gets started by his other former syndicate members in which his name gets smeared.


AMEN Skelly...

Why the hell does an announcement have to be made? Just do it and shut the hell up about it.

Secondly, many people probably didn't even read the damn thread earlier, but now I'm sure everyone has because of this thread advertising it to more prominance.

LOL @ anyone who took offense to TayMelo's post

Thirdly, some of you take these boards WAY TOO seriously. Get a god damn life and quit your bitching. Some of you are truly pathetic.

Wait a minute. You are worried about people's "internet name" yet you accuse others of taking this place too serious? I don't know about anyone else, but I don't remember half the bullshit that goes down here the next day and I don't suddenly think Denny or Anthony or even Steve is a piece of shit because they get suspended or whatever.

Catching up on the conversation:

It appears to me that Glenn and JS (since they are the only two posting here) have set up a false dilema for themselves. I fully understand that they believe that they are left with only 2 options, suspend and apparently strip Taymelo of his syndicate title (that seems fucking rough) or be seen as treating him preferentially. Again, its fine with me that Taymelo got suspended (I'm sure he'll live, as we all would). I think its ridiculous that you think you've painted yourselves in this "take people out just to be fair" corner. JS clearly thinks you've made the right decision but maybe this suspension isn't the decision that you should be looking at. But as I just said in the last paragraph, half the stuff that goes down here I forget about by the next day anyway, so suspend whoever you want.

The rest is somewhat off-topic:


(Speaking for myself here) I think if we were confident that 100% of the poster base was capable of having that discussion without it completely coming off the tracks, we would do just that.


WTF is this? Cater to the least common denominator? Lets not do shit because everyone might not be able to keep up? I understand this is just your own opinion Glenn, but that doesn't really exists here since you wield power in this place. Its not just how you think, its how (at least part) of the syndicate acts, especially since you've all got autonomy now. Again, this isn't a big deal or anything, it just caught my eye as I read the thread. IMO its a pretty poor way to play things.

Taymelo wasn't stripped of his Syndicate status, he requested to be un-Syndicated, a decision that he had been weighing for months.

I'll let him explain fully when he gets back because I don't want to put words in his mouth, but basically he doesn't want his opinions speaking for anyone else but himself anymore. He wants freedom to just be himself and not worry about harming the site's image. So brace yourself for some really good posts when he returns, lol.

And as far as my opinion about having deep, insightful discussions about racial issues here at WTF, it's a selfish one. I don't want to police it, and don't want to be subject to the ignorance that is bound to result, even at the expense of possibly missing some intelligent conversation along the way. Seeing that junk being welcomed here is just the thing to keep potential new posters from joining here IMO. Like I said, that's just me, but I know at least some of the others feel the same way.

I'd much rather have more people here than better things said.

I'd much rather have more people here than better things said.

Maybe we can start a private "racial issues" forum and you can be the mod.

Seriously.

That might be a good Idea, because, searously, its one of my favorite subjects.

I even once thought about finding a school that has classes on stereotypes and racial issues.

That might be a good Idea, because, searously, its one of my favorite subjects.

I even once thought about finding a school that has classes on stereotypes and racial issues.

i don't think you'll have any problems finding those types of classes. in college, you can take these types of classes as electives and whatnot.

I'd much rather have more people here than better things said.
Maybe we can start a private "racial issues" forum and you can be the mod.

Seriously.

I'd consider that.

I think what's being forgotten in all of this is that most of us (sorry, Shanethejuggalo and a few other wrh'ers, your drama queen bitch act got old in high school) want the same thing here: We want a place to come to online to discuss sports, life, entertainment, politics, etc..

We all have the same goal, so I think we all need to remember that nobody here is perfect, including the "powers that be". Despite what you might think, in reality, the decision-makers aren't trying to ruin the site, aren't trying to piss you off, and aren't trying to make this a no fun zone.

Have some mistakes been made? Maybe, but I firmly believe that all actions taken had good intentions, those being to make this a place that everybody can come together to chat on the things mentioned above.

If you have a problem with the way some things are being handled, how about next time, rather than jump down everyone's throat and make a big huge scene, maybe make a little constructive criticism or a few suggestions. I can assure you that, while your ideas aren't guaranteed to be used, everyone's opinions and thoughts WILL be considered.

I just think some people are so quick to jump all over everyone who does something they don't like, they forget that we all want the same thing, and it's not as easy as you might think to make everyone happy. Anyone who's had any management experience knows what I'm talking about. To be honest, it's damned near impossible, but I think the people who run this place are doing their best.

Does Diddy get a thread?

No more public threads after this since they are too disruptive. There will be announcement in regards to changes forthcoming.

We've received some good constructive feedback/suggestions via PMs and there will be some changes made as a direct result.

Sorry to deny the highly coveted "banned thread" to those who were looking for that badge of honor.

edit: JS beat me to it

awwwwwww......

Just kidding. It works better that way.

Taymelo,

You are allowed to post again. I figure you've gotten confused with your suspension. After all, you are probably used to 3 day work weeks and when Thursday and then Friday came around and you still couldn't post, I'm sure you were disoriented and perhaps thought you were suspended for a month. This is not the case. You can post.

This is ghey.

This is ghey.

As ghey as a silk shirt?