Originally posted by StarrmanIt must be the one about redknight that was "happening" yesterday. Stocken created the thread, saying that he rather liked redknight (though he may have been being sarcastic). The thread quickly turned into a very inoffensive one about Nordic words and cats in and sometimes out of bags.
thread?
I looked in on that thread this morning and one user did throw some particularly nasty accusations at redknight and it was getting a bit heated.
To be honest, I can see why those posts got pulled but not the whole thread and I have no idea why Stocken got a ban because of it.
1 edit
Originally posted by wormwoodIf Red Night got a ban as well, I would be absolutely shocked.
no sign of rn though. well, maybe he has a life after all...
If that is the case, I would suggest the lot of you shut up and give us a couple days of peace lest RN makes a quick return along with Stocken.
Originally posted by StarrmanI mentioned it as an example where I was cautious and got banned nevertheless. It was not that long after I had got a ban for using the f-word (testing robomod), so I was even more careful than usual.
So, would you say that this is an example of where erring on the side of caution would have saved you from the ban? Personally I agree with you, I do't think that's a bannable offence, but were I to get a ban for such a thing, I'd just put it down to experience.
As I said, I accept that the moderators make the rules, even if I may not always like it (and in this case I don't because I happen to find etymology interesting). What made me so upset about it was that I wasn't warned at all and that it wasn't explained either. It made me worry that I might get a permanent ban some day without even knowing why. And I just don't see how punishment for something you didn't know to be wrong can be meaningful. It should be enough to delete the post and tell the person what exactly they did wrong.
Originally posted by eagles54Maybe that's not the point of bans. I still don't know what is the point of bans (meaning the kind of bans which come out of the blue and not for spamming - if a user is spamming, a ban can simply serve to keep xym from flooding the forum).
Maybe if they didn't have to guess at the reason for their ban, they could avoid making the same "mistake" twice.
Originally posted by NordlysYes, but as I mentioned before, if the mod deletes something a couple of times and the user continues to repost it, then I don't think it's quite as weak a reason to ban somebody as for just "quoting a link to a site about the etymology of a "forbidden" word.", as you put it.
I don't know if that played in. I did it twice because I had forgotten to delete the f-word in the quote the first time.
By leaving out that detail, you make the mods sound pettier than they are.
D
Originally posted by RagnorakOkay. It wasn't "a couple of times", and most likely it was robomodded, not deleted by a mod, and posting something again because you accidentally quoted a forbidden word shouldn't normally be a problem. But maybe the moderator saw it as doing the same offence twice. Others in that thread got banned for just one post, though.
Yes, but as I mentioned before, if the mod deletes something a couple of times and the user continues to repost it, then I don't think it's quite as weak a reason to ban somebody as for just "quoting a link to a site about the etymology of a "forbidden" word.", as you put it.
By leaving out that detail, you make the mods sound pettier than they are.
D