Oh my gosh yes PLEASEMajor_Tom said:This needs a Dramatic Reading by slowbeef.
Oh my gosh yes PLEASEMajor_Tom said:This needs a Dramatic Reading by slowbeef.
I never said there are rules to the removal of pub club membership. Please, don't put words in my mouth. Also, really? You think there's some sort of conspiracy about a large amount of the members getting pubclub membership? *shakes head* It's really nothing you need to worry about, nor is it my business to discuss it.Fox12 said:There are rules governing the removal of pub club membership? I find that difficult to believe, as the handing out of mass pub club memberships was unprecedented
YEAH! I mean, it's not like this is the only site with that sort of clause in their legal forms or anything! Oh... wait...And a policy of "the mods can ban anyone, any time, for any reason" is, in my opinion, unhealthy for the forum as a whole. I would venture that your experiance as a mod has, perhaps, had a negative result on your view of the community.
Please.. I'm saying this with all due respect... get some common sense, please. The rules say in a large amount of text; Don't be a dick to others!Fat Hippo said:The question has never been whether they can, but whether they should. In the past, users have almost always been banned for specific posts, and not their entire posting history. Saying something along the lines of "Maybe this specific post wasn't that bad, but he was poison overall" sets a new precedent which conflicts with this forum's understanding of how the rules are applied. This logically creates a feeling of apprehension, as it theoretically allows for the banning of things done far in the past, without any specific causal argumentation for why one person deserves a ban over another.n0e said:Ultimately, the staff can ban anyone they want to for any reason. This has always been the case on any website, not just this one. This community forum isn't public property and your right to view it can be revoked for any reason at any time.
This is a fundamental question which needs to be answered for any set of rules, or they become arbitrary, and therefore more or less useless. At that point "Don't be a dick" might as well be all have you left, but there's a good reason we tend to be more specific when defining acceptable and unacceptable behavior in any social space, particularly ones with many members who are bound to disagree on what a dick actually is.
Silvanus said:Such as referring to people as "poison"?n0e said:End User shall not post or transmit through the Site any material which violates or infringes in any way upon the rights of others, which is unlawful, threatening, abusive, defamatory, invasive of privacy or publicity rights, vulgar, obscene, profane or otherwise objectionable [...]
They never have, really. Same things go for content creators and former staff themselves, even. I'm sure I don't need to remind everyone of the way people started talking about MovieBob after he got canned from the website.The Decapitated Centaur said:The banned probably don't get the same considerationsSilvanus said:Such as referring to people as "poison"?n0e said:End User shall not post or transmit through the Site any material which violates or infringes in any way upon the rights of others, which is unlawful, threatening, abusive, defamatory, invasive of privacy or publicity rights, vulgar, obscene, profane or otherwise objectionable [...]
Need a hug, man?n0e said:A bunch of really defensive stuff.
Aww is this just Wild West drama shit bleeding over to the real site?! Man, why can't those CowEsapers keep to their stables?!CaitSeith said:Maybe I'll miss his incredibly hilarious "teh evil mods" conspiracy theories and rants. Or maybe not, as he liked to moderate Wild West itself with annoying autoplay music.
Shhhh, that's not part of the narrative. Or it could be as we could always invent details about your choice. I bet you were another martyr who thought the team was too harsh! What fun we have with watching the mod list!Katherine Kerensky said:Oh, I wasn't kicked from my position, I quit it.
I don't have time at this moment to get to the rest of what has been said, but thank you kindly for responding. That was one spot in the changing of the guard that was not mentioned in the announcement.Katherine Kerensky said:Oh, I wasn't kicked from my position, I quit it.
People keep saying things like this and I don't know why. Wynn tried to start arguments with mods consistently for a very long period of time and ignored dozens of different people's different approaches to get him to settle down a little. This isn't someone who said one thing wrong and suddenly got ganged up on by mods, this is someone who spent however many years seeing how far they could push it. Is there anyone who has even been half as directly antagonistic to the mods and would therefore be at risk of the same treatment? I don't visit here super often these days but I can't think of anyone.Armadox said:Wynn wasn't merely banned, they took away his pubclub membership, and dragged him into public where they could ban him for causing a scene. Is this what we have to look forward to, staff depubbing undesirable members from the WW so that the situation could arise to mass ban them?
A conspiracy? I wouldn't call it that. We know what happened, and I wasn't accusing anyone of anything. The tech team was fired, and they gave away pub club memberships. What is freely given can be freely taken. But after some thought, I think there dhould be some cause, or guidelines, determining this.n0e said:I never said there are rules to the removal of pub club membership. Please, don't put words in my mouth. Also, really? You think there's some sort of conspiracy about a large amount of the members getting pubclub membership? *shakes head* It's really nothing you need to worry about, nor is it my business to discuss it.Fox12 said:There are rules governing the removal of pub club membership? I find that difficult to believe, as the handing out of mass pub club memberships was unprecedented
YEAH! I mean, it's not like this is the only site with that sort of clause in their legal forms or anything! Oh... wait...And a policy of "the mods can ban anyone, any time, for any reason" is, in my opinion, unhealthy for the forum as a whole. I would venture that your experiance as a mod has, perhaps, had a negative result on your view of the community.
You should read the fine print more often when signing up on websites, you'd be surprised what you're agreeing to if that little bit comes as a surprise to you. My impression of this community isn't what's worth discussing. I'm here, aren't I? That should say something about how I feel regarding the community. I just choose not to sugarcoat what I say for the special snowflakes who think that calling someone "poison" is tantamount to hate speech.
Please.. I'm saying this with all due respect... get some common sense, please. The rules say in a large amount of text; Don't be a dick to others!Fat Hippo said:The question has never been whether they can, but whether they should. In the past, users have almost always been banned for specific posts, and not their entire posting history. Saying something along the lines of "Maybe this specific post wasn't that bad, but he was poison overall" sets a new precedent which conflicts with this forum's understanding of how the rules are applied. This logically creates a feeling of apprehension, as it theoretically allows for the banning of things done far in the past, without any specific causal argumentation for why one person deserves a ban over another.n0e said:Ultimately, the staff can ban anyone they want to for any reason. This has always been the case on any website, not just this one. This community forum isn't public property and your right to view it can be revoked for any reason at any time.
This is a fundamental question which needs to be answered for any set of rules, or they become arbitrary, and therefore more or less useless. At that point "Don't be a dick" might as well be all have you left, but there's a good reason we tend to be more specific when defining acceptable and unacceptable behavior in any social space, particularly ones with many members who are bound to disagree on what a dick actually is.
That's it. That's all they really say. Yet again, here we have someone nitpicking the rules with an obsession that borderlines obsessive-compulsive because they don't agree with it. I've got news for you, no one cares if you agree with them or not. They are the rules here. They are what the staff and moderators agree to enforce and what you and everyone else agree to abide by when posting here. It's as simple as that. Any interpretation beyond that level of simplicity is just your sense of paranoia creating an atmosphere where a conspiracy theory exists.
While this post may sound like "Hey, he's being a dick! He's breaking the rules!". Honestly, that's up to the moderators and staff to decide in the end, and if they feel as though I'm acting that way, I will, unlike many here, respect their decision towards my post or account. Why? Because this is their show now and they're calling the shots. I respect that, as you and everyone else should.
This is actually kind of a hilarious area where this community has never been able to actually hold a consistent position when you look at events of moderation.Elvis Starburst said:I shouldn't have to even remind anyone how hated it is that people skirt the passive-aggressive rule in order to bait the person they're arguing with. We expected those people to be punished.
It's a pants on head retarded double standard I'm absolutely perplexed by in Wynn's case (And possibly American Tanker, but I don't fully have that situation memorized). Wynn wasn't being passive-aggressive, he was being full aggressive. But just because he didn't tip over the line of the rules, somehow he got away with it and everyone suddenly came to his defense after got banned when the mods had enough. Why?! He got the punishment everyone would beg for when someone was being passive aggressive, and now suddenly it's a problem that his line skirting was dealt with like it should?shrekfan246 said:This is actually kind of a hilarious area where this community has never been able to actually hold a consistent position when you look at events of moderation.
People have been complaining that troublemakers skirt by the rules through passive-aggressiveness since before I joined these forums, and while that does have some merit, this is far from the first time that a user who was a persistent issue has been removed from the forum despite their actual posts not explicitly breaking the Code of Conduct. And every time said users are banned, there's a sudden backlash about how actually they weren't really deserving of a ban, at least not for whatever post inevitably got marked as their banned-for one.
Except in every case I know of it broke the catch-all "Don't be a jerk" rule.shrekfan246 said:People have been complaining that troublemakers skirt by the rules through passive-aggressiveness since before I joined these forums, and while that does have some merit, this is far from the first time that a user who was a persistent issue has been removed from the forum despite their actual posts not explicitly breaking the Code of Conduct.
Oh, certainly, but that's a level of nuance that the backlash here doesn't ever take into consideration. Many people here seem to think that "don't be a jerk" only applies to extremely explicit, openly hostile comments. I've seen plenty of threads over the years where someone got banned and the thread would immediately derail into a bunch of people saying, "oh come on, that was ban-worthy?"Fappy said:Except in every case I know of it broke the catch-all "Don't be a jerk" rule.shrekfan246 said:People have been complaining that troublemakers skirt by the rules through passive-aggressiveness since before I joined these forums, and while that does have some merit, this is far from the first time that a user who was a persistent issue has been removed from the forum despite their actual posts not explicitly breaking the Code of Conduct.
One of the Retsutalks was about Slowbeef's demodding (voluntary), and he made the comment "I've had to probate PizzaTime several times for just being a bad poster."shrekfan246 said:Oh, certainly, but that's a level of nuance that the backlash here doesn't ever take into consideration. Many people here seem to think that "don't be a jerk" only applies to extremely explicit, openly hostile comments. I've seen plenty of threads over the years where someone got banned and the thread would immediately derail into a bunch of people saying, "oh come on, that was ban-worthy?"Fappy said:Except in every case I know of it broke the catch-all "Don't be a jerk" rule.shrekfan246 said:People have been complaining that troublemakers skirt by the rules through passive-aggressiveness since before I joined these forums, and while that does have some merit, this is far from the first time that a user who was a persistent issue has been removed from the forum despite their actual posts not explicitly breaking the Code of Conduct.
I'm mostly just noting how the moderators here have never been able to win, because even when people have complained that the moderation was too lenient, they were still complaining that it was too harsh and oppressive.