Originally posted by PhlabibitJust ban him again. Oh, what fun we could all have...
As an example, I talked with Noodles about why she got a ban for double posting a removed thread on the "F Word". She tried to justify it over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over, and the only difference is I didn't tell her it was me that removed the post.
She treated it like it was her right to have an intelligent conversat ...[text shortened]... d it yesterday. More info came out and it turned out I was right on the money.
P-
Originally posted by dottewellHe's saying I deliberately started a thread to cause trouble. I didn't. I was honouring a bet and never imagined it would have such consequenses. Now, he can call me stupid for not realising what it would lead to, and I would be unable to argue with that, but he can't claim I purposely wanted to upset people. It wasn't my intention. It just happened that way.
He is right if he is saying that you deliberately started a controversial thread about a particular, controversial user.
(Not saying I think it's a good reason for a ban.)
Originally posted by stockenNo. The issue is whether you knew it would, or was very likely to, cause trouble. Not whether that was your objective.
He's saying I deliberately started a thread to cause trouble. I didn't. I was honouring a bet and never imagined it would have such consequenses. Now, he can call me stupid for not realising what it would lead to, and I would be unable to argue with that, but he can't claim I purposely wanted to upset people. It wasn't my intention. It just happened that way.
1 edit
Originally posted by PhlabibitI don't think people are bothered so much about their posts being removed - as long as they know why. Same with bans, if they are fair - which seems to be not entirely certain on this site.
So, still... any user will still think their post was golden and shouldn't have been touched. I've warned people also and some have said, "you do what you have to do, but I'm going to do it anyway."
Stocken, in your case for starting a thread that would cause trouble...
I also think stocken's thread was obviously for fun - if it got out of hand that was not because of the thread - same as any thread could get out of hand.
Originally posted by Phlabibit1) I got no explanation for that ban until I approached the mods myself. I never got an explanation from the mod who banned me, whoever it may have been.
As an example, I talked with Noodles about why she got a ban for double posting a removed thread on the "F Word". She tried to justify it over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over, and the only difference is I didn't tell her it was me that removed the post.
She treated it like it was her right to have an intelligent conversat ...[text shortened]... d it yesterday. More info came out and it turned out I was right on the money.
P-
2) The thread wasn't removed when I posted in it, obviously. Dr Strangelove's posts were removed, but I had no way of knowing that it was for content rather than being robomodded. To my knowledge it isn't wrong to repost something which didn't get through or got removed if you remove the reason why it didn't get through. I explained in my posts why I reposted it.
3) If I simply had been told that the link Dr Strangelove and I posted was not allowed here, the matter would have been closed for me. What I am up against are bans for something you can't know to be wrong. That's what I was arguing about. I wasn't arguing for my right to have an intelligent conversation about a swear word (although it would be nice if it were allowed). I accept that Russ makes the rules. But if I am not told about what's not allowed, I shouldn't be punished. I may be overreacting, but I have never taken injustice well.
4) The discussion we had was partly to find out what's okay and what's not, partly it was an interesting discussion about different cultures (at least that's how I understood it). In fact I thought we were getting somewhere, until you started accusing me of being a liar etc., and also until you told me you were not the one who had given me the ban, which made the whole thing rather pointless because the moderator who did might not even have agreed with the reasons you gave for the ban. The whole thing was extremely frustrating for several reasons, but I won't go into that again.
Originally posted by stockenA bet is fun because something is at stake. What was at stake here was a user looking like he supports a crazy idea based on a hot topic.
Were you now? Interesting perception of reality you've got there, Phlab.
The user would face a lot of heat from RHP users, that was what made the bet fun.
The thread did just what was expected. Raised a lot of crap.
Where am I wrong?
P-
Originally posted by NordlysRHP has a fantastic feature called site feedback. Perhaps Russ is interested in reading your 4 point post. I'm not.
1) I got no explanation for that ban until I approached the mods myself. I never got an explanation from the mod who banned me, whoever it may have been.
2) The thread wasn't removed when I posted in it, obviously. Dr Strangelove's posts were removed, but I had no way of knowing that it was for content rather than being robomodded. To my knowledge it isn ...[text shortened]... ing was extremely frustrating for several reasons, but I won't go into that again.
You and I have been over this longer than I care.
P-
- Joined
- 05 Oct 05
- Moves
- 63425
Originally posted by PhlabibitYou're wrong in that just about every thread in here causes a lot of "crap", once the right users find each other.
A bet is fun because something is at stake. What was at stake here was a user looking like he supports a crazy idea based on a hot topic.
The user would face a lot of heat from RHP users, that was what made the bet fun.
The thread did just what was expected. Raised a lot of crap.
Where am I wrong?
P-
Originally posted by PhlabibitAll I'll get is something like "we don't deal with moderator issues". I have tried it before. Maybe belgianfreak has a better chance to be heard.
RHP has a fantastic feature called site feedback. Perhaps Russ is interested in reading your 4 point post. I'm not.
You and I have been over this longer than I care.
P-
I agree that we have been over this too often, but if you bring it up again and use it as an example for the opposite of what it was (using it as an example for what happens if you explain a ban, when it was an example for what happens if you don't give an explanation), please don't expect me to be quiet. Especially since the same thing is still happening.
Originally posted by SJ247Right, well in that case we should just close down the forums and shut up shop, becuase clearly we can't risk the right users finding each other. All hell would break loose.
You're wrong in that just about every thread in here causes a lot of "crap", once the right users find each other.
- Joined
- 05 Oct 05
- Moves
- 63425
1 edit
Originally posted by Freddie2006Or, we could stop saying that one specific thread caused issues.
Right, well in that case we should just close down the forums and shut up shop, becuase clearly we can't risk the right users finding each other. All hell would break loose.
I like your off-the-wall dramatic "throw the hands up" style responses. And they call me the drama queen round your parts!
Originally posted by NordlysPerhaps this is because there is no real arguament here. The mods are trusted by the admin to make decisions, and the admin know that these might not always be right. We have to live with this. In severe cases (and I know this for a fact), the admin will act in moderation issues, this just isn't a serious case. All it is, is a couple of jackasses complaining becuase they got banned for posted something that they knew would provoke.
All I'll get is something like "we don't deal with moderator issues". I have tried it before. Maybe belgianfreak has a better chance to be heard.