Bogus rules on the Deck - who is immune?

This is where we place discussions and conversations about the Lakewood Observer Observation Deck.

Moderator: Jim DeVito

Corey Rossen
Posts: 1663
Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2006 12:09 pm

Bogus rules on the Deck - who is immune?

Postby Corey Rossen » Fri Oct 07, 2016 8:13 am

A listing of rules have been broken recently, let's see if any action is taken. It should get even more interesting as some of the rule makers are also the rule breakers.

I have pulled out the rules that have been broken. The list is from a post noted below.

Who is immune? Are you?

New Rules For The Deck Needed?

Postby Jim O'Bryan » Thu Aug 11, 2016 1:57 pm
Over the past couple weeks we have watched the heat of rhetoric climb to what some thought were dangerous levels. "Dangerous" is when we start to worry. As I mentioned we put together a volunteer advisory board, to look at new ways for the Deck and Observer to interact with the community. As witnessed by Missy's latest posting, no one should ever be afraid to post on the Deck.

The rule the Deck has been under since day one.
You agree not to post any abusive, obscene, vulgar, slanderous, hateful, threatening, sexually-orientated or any other material that may violate any laws be it of your country, the country where “The Observation Deck” is hosted or International Law.

Potential New Rules

By registering at the Lakewood Observer Message Boards, users agree that any post deemed inappropriate may be removed at the sole discretion of the Lakewood Observer. Lakewood Observer also has the right, at its sole discretion, to revoke board privileges at any time without notice or reason. In simple terms: if you break the rules, you can be banned. Exploiting loopholes to circumvent rules will also result in a ban.

Lakewood Observer is not responsible for messages posted on the Lakewood Observer Boards or the content therein. Unless expressly stated otherwise, this includes messages posted by Lakewood Observer personnel, agents, representatives et al. Lakewood Observer reserves the right to reveal the identity of or whatever information we know about any user in the event of a complaint or legal action arising from any message posted by said user.

Flaming, Bashing, Trolling, and Spam
While it’s okay to have disagreements in discussions, name calling or other personal attacks will not be tolerated and could result in a ban if reported. Trolling is defined as posting anything specifically designed to attract a negative reaction from an individual or group. Not all negative opinions are automatically considered trolling, but positive discussions are encouraged. Advertising or excessive spamming or bumping of any thread is not permitted, and could result in a ban if reported. Everyone is trying to drive their post counts up, and active contributions to discussion will always be welcomed. Determination of flaming, trolling, and spam posts will be made at the discretion of mods.

Off-Topic Posts
Off-topic posts will be deleted or moved to the appropriate board. Excessively posting off topic content or hijacking and driving a discussion off topic could result in a warning or ban.

Questionable Content
Since we can't have a rule to cover everything, this is the rule to, well, cover everything. These are public boards, so act like you would if you were in a public place. (A nice place!) These issues are left to the discretion of individual moderators, but may include any material that is knowingly false and/or defamatory, misleading, spammy, inaccurate, abusive, vulgar, hateful, harassing, sexist, obscene, racist, profane, sexually oriented, threatening, invasive of a person's privacy, that otherwise violates any law, or that encourages conduct constituting a criminal offense. Asking for or offering any of the material listed above is also out not permitted.


Corey Rossen

"I have neither aligned myself with SLH, nor BL." ~ Jim O'Bryan

"I am not neutral." ~Jim O'Bryan

"I am not here to stir up anything." ~Jim O'Bryan
User avatar
Jim O'Bryan
Posts: 11893
Joined: Thu Mar 10, 2005 10:12 pm
Location: Lakewood
Contact:

Re: Bogus rules on the Deck - who is immune?

Postby Jim O'Bryan » Fri Oct 07, 2016 8:20 am

Corey Rossen wrote:A listing of rules have been broken recently, let's see if any action is taken. It should get even more interesting as some of the rule makers are also the rule breakers.

I have pulled out the rules that have been broken. The list is from a post noted below.

Who is immune? Are you?




Corey

More BS, you leave out so much and know so little.

Not one person has reported a single thing.

Just Corey whining, whaaaaaaaaa.


.


Jim O'Bryan
Lakewood Resident

"The very act of observing disturbs the system."
Werner Heisenberg

"If anything I've said seems useful to you, I'm glad.
If not, don't worry. Just forget about it."
His Holiness The Dalai Lama
cmager
Posts: 520
Joined: Fri Feb 19, 2016 8:33 am

Re: Bogus rules on the Deck - who is immune?

Postby cmager » Fri Oct 07, 2016 8:26 am

Mr. Rossen, it was nice while you were busy. Don't you have any more $100 picnics to organize?


Corey Rossen
Posts: 1663
Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2006 12:09 pm

Re: Bogus rules on the Deck - who is immune?

Postby Corey Rossen » Fri Oct 07, 2016 8:48 am

Jim O'Bryan wrote:
Corey Rossen wrote:A listing of rules have been broken recently, let's see if any action is taken. It should get even more interesting as some of the rule makers are also the rule breakers.

I have pulled out the rules that have been broken. The list is from a post noted below.

Who is immune? Are you?




Corey

More BS, you leave out so much and know so little.

Not one person has reported a single thing.

Just Corey whining, whaaaaaaaaa.


.


I hope this isn't the policy that was set in place by the founders (yourself included) as a way to deal with people who bring light and attention to issues on the Deck - but apparently it is.

So a person points out an issue and you call them a whiner followed by another lack of maturity response?

I guess it is best that some founders of this organization aren't around to see how their hard work is being portrayed and carried out on the Deck. What a shame and disgrace to the quality they sought.


Corey Rossen

"I have neither aligned myself with SLH, nor BL." ~ Jim O'Bryan

"I am not neutral." ~Jim O'Bryan

"I am not here to stir up anything." ~Jim O'Bryan
User avatar
Jim O'Bryan
Posts: 11893
Joined: Thu Mar 10, 2005 10:12 pm
Location: Lakewood
Contact:

Re: Bogus rules on the Deck - who is immune?

Postby Jim O'Bryan » Fri Oct 07, 2016 8:53 am

Corey Rossen wrote:I guess it is best that some founders of this organization aren't around to see how their hard work is being portrayed and carried out on the Deck. What a shame and disgrace to the quality they sought.



Corey


Founders? What are you rattling on about.

Corey, you have never been to a board meeting, an advisers meeting, or any Observer meeting, yet you claim to know so much of "the founders" and the purpose.


.


Jim O'Bryan
Lakewood Resident

"The very act of observing disturbs the system."
Werner Heisenberg

"If anything I've said seems useful to you, I'm glad.
If not, don't worry. Just forget about it."
His Holiness The Dalai Lama
Corey Rossen
Posts: 1663
Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2006 12:09 pm

Re: Bogus rules on the Deck - who is immune?

Postby Corey Rossen » Fri Oct 07, 2016 9:08 am

Jim O'Bryan wrote:
Corey Rossen wrote:I guess it is best that some founders of this organization aren't around to see how their hard work is being portrayed and carried out on the Deck. What a shame and disgrace to the quality they sought.



Corey


Founders? What are you rattling on about.

Corey, you have never been to a board meeting, an advisers meeting, or any Observer meeting, yet you claim to know so much of "the founders" and the purpose.


.


True, but I'm guessing phrases such as "whaaaaaa" from a founder of the organization would be looked down upon.

Listen, I never singled you out or picked a fight with you. Then you come on here and start your antics. I brought up an issue and you reacted the way you did - that is on you, not me.

I have not personally attacked anyone, harassed, bullied or trolled (in whatever sense of the 30 definitions you think it really means) - I simply started a thread about an issue.

I'm guessing you are deeming yourself as immune. While we are on the topic, who else is immune? Names please.


Corey Rossen

"I have neither aligned myself with SLH, nor BL." ~ Jim O'Bryan

"I am not neutral." ~Jim O'Bryan

"I am not here to stir up anything." ~Jim O'Bryan
User avatar
Jim O'Bryan
Posts: 11893
Joined: Thu Mar 10, 2005 10:12 pm
Location: Lakewood
Contact:

Re: Bogus rules on the Deck - who is immune?

Postby Jim O'Bryan » Fri Oct 07, 2016 9:53 am

Corey Rossen wrote:
Jim O'Bryan wrote:
Corey Rossen wrote:I guess it is best that some founders of this organization aren't around to see how their hard work is being portrayed and carried out on the Deck. What a shame and disgrace to the quality they sought.



Corey


Founders? What are you rattling on about.

Corey, you have never been to a board meeting, an advisers meeting, or any Observer meeting, yet you claim to know so much of "the founders" and the purpose.


.


True, but I'm guessing phrases such as "whaaaaaa" from a founder of the organization would be looked down upon.

Listen, I never singled you out or picked a fight with you. Then you come on here and start your antics. I brought up an issue and you reacted the way you did - that is on you, not me.

I have not personally attacked anyone, harassed, bullied or trolled (in whatever sense of the 30 definitions you think it really means) - I simply started a thread about an issue.

I'm guessing you are deeming yourself as immune. While we are on the topic, who else is immune? Names please.



Corey

You seem to have the most complaints. You demand new rules, and we look at them. No matter what even when I have tried things you have suggested over the years, it makes no difference, you still complain.

Many others seem to channel "the founders" but rarely do they know the founders, most have not even spoken to "the founders." People have no idea of how open the founders were. It was the founders working together that decided, "Let's give people enough room, rope, electrons to define and hang themselves and let others see them as they really are." Let's showcase the narrative of the city at all levels.

"Allow a community to know more about itself then ever before." One of the hallmarks of this project. With every post Corey Rosen defines himself, as does Jim O'Bryan, Brian Essi, David Anderson, etc.. With every Observation posted, you become the Observation. There is an original comment from "the founders."

We are still looking at new rules, really know one has really mentioned it in your absence. As of right now, we are operating under the old rules and the new laws.
Waiting on input on rules from two members/supporters of BL for their input. I reached out to many from all sides and angles for their thoughts.

But for now "A mosh pit of word jazz" aka, opinions, discussions, over a digital fence.

.


Jim O'Bryan
Lakewood Resident

"The very act of observing disturbs the system."
Werner Heisenberg

"If anything I've said seems useful to you, I'm glad.
If not, don't worry. Just forget about it."
His Holiness The Dalai Lama
Corey Rossen
Posts: 1663
Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2006 12:09 pm

Re: Bogus rules on the Deck - who is immune?

Postby Corey Rossen » Fri Oct 07, 2016 10:30 am

Jim O'Bryan wrote:
Corey Rossen wrote:
Jim O'Bryan wrote:
Corey Rossen wrote:I guess it is best that some founders of this organization aren't around to see how their hard work is being portrayed and carried out on the Deck. What a shame and disgrace to the quality they sought.



Corey


Founders? What are you rattling on about.

Corey, you have never been to a board meeting, an advisers meeting, or any Observer meeting, yet you claim to know so much of "the founders" and the purpose.


.


True, but I'm guessing phrases such as "whaaaaaa" from a founder of the organization would be looked down upon.

Listen, I never singled you out or picked a fight with you. Then you come on here and start your antics. I brought up an issue and you reacted the way you did - that is on you, not me.

I have not personally attacked anyone, harassed, bullied or trolled (in whatever sense of the 30 definitions you think it really means) - I simply started a thread about an issue.

I'm guessing you are deeming yourself as immune. While we are on the topic, who else is immune? Names please.



Corey

You seem to have the most complaints. You demand new rules, and we look at them. No matter what even when I have tried things you have suggested over the years, it makes no difference, you still complain.

Many others seem to channel "the founders" but rarely do they know the founders, most have not even spoken to "the founders." People have no idea of how open the founders were. It was the founders working together that decided, "Let's give people enough room, rope, electrons to define and hang themselves and let others see them as they really are." Let's showcase the narrative of the city at all levels.

"Allow a community to know more about itself then ever before." One of the hallmarks of this project. With every post Corey Rosen defines himself, as does Jim O'Bryan, Brian Essi, David Anderson, etc.. With every Observation posted, you become the Observation. There is an original comment from "the founders."

We are still looking at new rules, really know one has really mentioned it in your absence. As of right now, we are operating under the old rules and the new laws.
Waiting on input on rules from two members/supporters of BL for their input. I reached out to many from all sides and angles for their thoughts.

But for now "A mosh pit of word jazz" aka, opinions, discussions, over a digital fence.

.


I am not demanding new rules, nor have I ever. I am not suggesting new rules, nor have I ever.

I have questioned the enforcement of the rules that you have created and posted. I have questioned who is immune to those rules (though day after day it is very obvious). That's all. If you want to call that complaining, fine call it complaining.

I think people here are finding imperfections throughout our city and others on all sorts of topics - but to you, as you state - they are just complaining. Thanks for clarifying.


Corey Rossen

"I have neither aligned myself with SLH, nor BL." ~ Jim O'Bryan

"I am not neutral." ~Jim O'Bryan

"I am not here to stir up anything." ~Jim O'Bryan
Corey Rossen
Posts: 1663
Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2006 12:09 pm

Re: Bogus rules on the Deck - who is immune?

Postby Corey Rossen » Tue Oct 11, 2016 9:56 am

You don't have to be an UpperDecker, a non UpperDecker Observer or Other to see the hypocrisies that go on - that is all I am pointing out. Hold people and media sources accountable - that is what UpperDeckers are pushing, correct? That is, except, when it falls upon them. UpperDeckers want others to follow rules and show accountability yet are unable to do so themselves. They hate it when this is pointed out. It ruins the digital fence and more importantly the conversation. As long as UpperDeckers, or supporters of UpperDeckers, follow the UpperDecker non-governed rules as part of their unspoken agreement they will prevail on this site unmatched, unchallenged and penalty-free. Once you point out these hypocrisies one is labeled anti-Deck or a Deck Basher - which by those same standards makes many UpperDeckers anti-Lakewood or Lakewood Bashers.

Just look below for proof - since UpperDeckers always ask for proof. Again, I am not anti-Deck or bashing, just pointing out some constructive criticisms that could be worked on.

It is always highly praised by UpperDeckers and a founder that "real names" are used to help accountability and display the ideals of "give somebody their own rope" - well this is not the case if you are a supporter of the UpperDeckers. Just look at a portion of the Terms of the Observer, maybe the first sentence is just for show? Be Civil? Hmmm.

LO - Be Civil.jpg
LO - Be Civil.jpg (39.67 KiB) Viewed 2632 times


I see some people are not held accountable to list "real names." Why are they not required to do so? Do you really think I will get an answer? Can this hurt the conversation over the digital fence?

LO - Cmager - registration.jpg
LO - Cmager - registration.jpg (40.14 KiB) Viewed 2632 times


Yep, looks like it hurts the conversation. And when called on it...crickets (pretty funny exchange here).

LO - Cmager - crickets.jpg
LO - Cmager - crickets.jpg (53.24 KiB) Viewed 2632 times


Wasn't somebody just accused by a founder as not existing or not being a real person by other UpperDeckers and supporters? I wonder if this is just a ghost posted by a founder, who claims the ghost does not exist. Hmmm. It is Halloween time, I wonder if ghosts exist, it would be a great time for a siting.

Just trying to hold accountability as constructive criticisms can help things grow and get better.


Corey Rossen

"I have neither aligned myself with SLH, nor BL." ~ Jim O'Bryan

"I am not neutral." ~Jim O'Bryan

"I am not here to stir up anything." ~Jim O'Bryan
Corey Rossen
Posts: 1663
Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2006 12:09 pm

Re: Bogus rules on the Deck - who is immune?

Postby Corey Rossen » Tue Oct 11, 2016 9:57 am

Look out - GHOST!

LO - Jim with kate e parker.jpg
LO - Jim with kate e parker.jpg (55.45 KiB) Viewed 2632 times


Corey Rossen

"I have neither aligned myself with SLH, nor BL." ~ Jim O'Bryan

"I am not neutral." ~Jim O'Bryan

"I am not here to stir up anything." ~Jim O'Bryan
Patrick Wadden
Posts: 265
Joined: Thu Oct 01, 2015 11:04 am

Re: Bogus rules on the Deck - who is immune?

Postby Patrick Wadden » Tue Oct 11, 2016 10:34 am

I don't doubt that cmager is a real person. Just a little annoyed that don't know who I am talking to. I am sure that the folks over there at LO's world headquarters vetted CM and confirmed that He/She exists.


todd vainisi
Posts: 352
Joined: Sun Feb 09, 2014 8:41 am

Re: Bogus rules on the Deck - who is immune?

Postby todd vainisi » Tue Oct 11, 2016 10:47 am

Don't often agree with Corey, but yeah, it does seem wrong the cmager gets to hide him/herself while the rest of us are all on the google index with our comments attached to our real names. M Buckley too.


Brian Essi
Posts: 2278
Joined: Thu May 07, 2015 11:46 am

Re: Bogus rules on the Deck - who is immune?

Postby Brian Essi » Tue Oct 11, 2016 10:56 am

Patrick Wadden wrote:I don't doubt that cmager is a real person. Just a little annoyed that don't know who I am talking to. I am sure that the folks over there at LO's world headquarters vetted CM and confirmed that He/She exists.


Mr. Wadden,

Mager is real--he wrote an article in the LO about the rebranded Voters for Fuax Progress.

You don't like him because he is smart and rocks your world.

Cosmo Lamer and Pasquelle Manno and a bunch of others---Fake like the Fake Foundation and the millions that Summers is hiding from us.


“Success is not final. Failure is not fatal. It is the courage to continue that counts." Winston Churchill
User avatar
Jim O'Bryan
Posts: 11893
Joined: Thu Mar 10, 2005 10:12 pm
Location: Lakewood
Contact:

Re: Bogus rules on the Deck - who is immune?

Postby Jim O'Bryan » Tue Oct 11, 2016 12:21 pm

Patrick Wadden wrote:Real names should be required on the deck.



Patrick

Real names are required on the Deck.

We make every effort to verify members. Mistakes will happen.

If you know someone to be not who they are please report them.

.


Jim O'Bryan
Lakewood Resident

"The very act of observing disturbs the system."
Werner Heisenberg

"If anything I've said seems useful to you, I'm glad.
If not, don't worry. Just forget about it."
His Holiness The Dalai Lama

Return to “Discussions About The Deck”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests