Originally posted by DelmerPeople now realize it's utterly pointless to discuss the moderation here; the Mods have been given a blank check by the Site Admins. And some have a bit of a ego trip and have no problem cashing it.
I don't disagree with you N1M, especially in regards to people who actually pay to become members of the community, but it is annoying when someone continually tries to make the same point in the same way. It is probably also counter productive in regards to actually presenting an arguement in such a repetitive, boring manner.
Incidently, I thought this th ...[text shortened]... nough to me, but perhaps I didn't do a good job in presenting the material in my initial post.
Originally posted by no1marauderUnfortunate, but perhaps all the more reason for a debate on the subject.
People now realize it's utterly pointless to discuss the moderation here; the Mods have been given a blank check by the Site Admins. And some have a bit of a ego trip and have no problem cashing it.
Originally posted by Sambo69Go get your jammys on. I'll be in to read you a bedtime story right away
It's a pity that STANG's "opponents" chose to vent their feelings rather than focus on the broader issue of censorship and the failings of a moderator approach based on whoever is loudest.
Don't cry you'll wake your little sister
Originally posted by StarValleyWyI agree on the ban of that Stang tosser. Gives us aussie's a bad name.
I miss Stan.
He is... errrr... was -- one of the few honest lefties on this site. And you have to admit that the general quality of lefty posts has deteriorated since stan was reincarnated as sambo.
I hope the mods look into his other non sub account (aka smabo69), with a view to ban that also. Why encourage these sooks?
Originally posted by DelmerI know that Stang has developed a certain reputation for himself in the forums, but I have actually found some of his posts to be intelligent and inciteful, even if I might not necessarily agree with his opinion. Personally, I don't believe that any subscriber should be given a warrant to abuse or any way harrass other players. Every member agrees by the same terms and conditions, regardless of whether or not they have a star next to their name.
The handle "Stang" has been unseen in the forums for quite some time. As annoying, repetitive and propaganda prone as Stang sometimes was, I personally have second thoughts about indefinitely banning someone from the forums who actually pays money and subscribes to the site.
I also think there is no practical way to keep those banned indefinitely from pos ...[text shortened]... ead about forum banning gets so out of control that it leads to more people being banned.)
I think you're right, no ban should be open-ended. Every player should know how long they have before they are re-allowed in the forums. I just don't think being a subscriber should be a factor in the equation.
B.
Originally posted by BromageI agree. I wonder how many others do too ?
I know that Stang has developed a certain reputation for himself in the forums, but I have actually found some of his posts to be intelligent and inciteful, even if I might not necessarily agree with his opinion. Personally, I don't believe that any subscriber should be given a warrant to abuse or any way harrass other players. Every member agrees by the sam ...[text shortened]... r not they have a star next to their name.
I think you're right, no ban should be open-ended.
Originally posted by sasquatch672Yeah, but who makes the rules? You?
I think if you come here, just like anywhere, you agree to a set of rules. If you break those rules, you lose your privileges. Imagine some putz at a classy restaurant - forget that, a dirt-floor bar - walking around to every patron present and saying to them, over and over, "VIOLENCE LEADS TO VIOLENCE". Do you think that person's quote-unquote "free ...[text shortened]... not to have that extra drink and just maybe not to come back?
Stang should stay gone.