Dear Users Complaining About Moderators
- Thread starter lacktheknack
- Start date
Recommended Videos
This is just completely wrong. I have personally been warned for daring to even mention the word. Unless you're now claiming I'm imagining things. You're just wrong here. I contacted the support at the time, whom were very rude and they informed me, under no allowance was I allowed to mention the software.[/quote]The Lunatic said:
<url=http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/jump/18.407649.17012440>Your post that received a warning was for admitting to "ABP" (Adblock Plus). Go read it. It says, and I quote, "I use ABP." That is why you got a warning. It wasn't for, as you claim, "daring to even mention the word."
The ticket you submitted has nothing to do with the moderators, and if you check the way the forums are moderated -- heck, go look at the Jimquisition adblock thread again, if you want to -- you'll see that whoever answered your ticket was wrong, as people can say "adblock" without getting warned.
I don't believe you for a moment.The Lunatic said:
I said "Adblock" in the OP. And I'm saying now. Adblock Adblock Adblock Adblock Adblock. I'm not going to be wrathed for saying it out loud. (EDIT: Epic fail typo)
So... as you've said multiple times, Citation Needed.
<url=http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/jump/18.407649.17012440>Your post that received a warning was for admitting to "ABP" (Adblock Plus). Go read it. It says, and I quote, "I use ABP." That is why you got a warning. It wasn't for, as you claim, "daring to even mention the word."Marter said:
The ticket you submitted has nothing to do with the moderators, and if you check the way the forums are moderated -- heck, go look at the Jimquisition adblock thread again, if you want to -- you'll see that whoever answered your ticket was wrong, as people can say "adblock" without getting warned.[/quote]
At this time I had publisher's club membership thus did not use it for The Escapist. Nor claimed that I did. This is what I went over with the email staff at the time, whom made stated in no uncertain terms that I was not allowed to use that three letter word in any context, as others may google it and find the software.
This was there reasoning. It had nothing to do with whom was using the software, merely that it was mentioned.
Sorry, I'm not responsible for moderation, I cannot comment on how things are sometimes moderated and how sometimes they are not.lacktheknack said:
That's basically all irrelevant. I told you why your post was wrathed by a moderator, and that's all we have control of. I also already told you that whoever handled your ticket was wrong, because that's not how the site is moderated. The only thing I haven't yet told you is how you continually use "whom" incorrectly. Moderators don't have any idea what happens in appeals. We don't handle them, we don't hear about them, and we have no say in them. Sometimes even the staff can misspeak. You were wrathed for admitting to using adblocker. Not for mentioning it. Them's the facts.The Lunatic said:
Multi-quoting is becoming pretty much impossibly convoluted, so, I'll drop it for now.
Not "Entirely".
And in the interest of presenting a fair and unbiased argument, I cite sources to give a better overall image, rather than to simply push a view. As I have said, these results are found using only the term "Escapist Forum".
My point was that these are what people see when looking for our forum, and that this means the forums have a poor reputation. I'm sorry you didn't quite understand this from my post.
I further stated that in my opinion, it is the rules here which create this environment. However, this is an opinion and not a goal post.
And again, the point is about reputation. And unfortunately, regardless of if you like it or not, the reputation of these forums can be different from what actually happens on these forums. You have to consider an outside perspective. And if an outsider member sees users getting banned (Be it their last warning or not) for mentioning a certain word, they are going to get an impression from that.
I am not responsible for this, I am simply stating that this is the case.
And, please stop putting words into my mouth. It is making this discussion rather tedious.
I never said it didn't count. I said it's a low sample size with a narrow "Victory".
However, I must say, your attitude is really poor here. You're throwing off any criticism as "Vocal minority" as if that discredits the points they are making in some way.
Please, if you're going to claim these people aren't worth listening to, state why they are not worth listening to.
Tell us why you think that most people are happy.
At the moment, the only argument you're presenting is "It's not more than 50% so they don't count".
It displays very little useful information, it simply states who is still around, not those whom have left.
Also, it doesn't factor in user groups. I myself got Neo'd by only posting in user groups and never the forums.
The user groups lack moderation and thus my post count is only a reflection of my engagement in user groups.
Also, of those over 1000, it does not state how many are still active. A user could have got past 1000, got warned, left, had the warning pass and then never post again, and yet still be counted in this as being "Fine with the rules".
I suggest you read the post more carefully. I used the word "Mostly".
Not "Entirely".
And in the interest of presenting a fair and unbiased argument, I cite sources to give a better overall image, rather than to simply push a view. As I have said, these results are found using only the term "Escapist Forum".
My point was that these are what people see when looking for our forum, and that this means the forums have a poor reputation. I'm sorry you didn't quite understand this from my post.
I further stated that in my opinion, it is the rules here which create this environment. However, this is an opinion and not a goal post.
I am not a moderator. I am not responsible for unilateral enforcements of rules. I cannot possibly comment on why it is enforced in places and ignored in others. This is for you to answer. Sorry.
And again, the point is about reputation. And unfortunately, regardless of if you like it or not, the reputation of these forums can be different from what actually happens on these forums. You have to consider an outside perspective. And if an outsider member sees users getting banned (Be it their last warning or not) for mentioning a certain word, they are going to get an impression from that.
I am not responsible for this, I am simply stating that this is the case.
Then how can you claim majority?
I admit to using dramatics, however whilst uninformed it's hard to come to much other conclusion as we see this thread.
And, please stop putting words into my mouth. It is making this discussion rather tedious.
I never said it didn't count. I said it's a low sample size with a narrow "Victory".
However, I must say, your attitude is really poor here. You're throwing off any criticism as "Vocal minority" as if that discredits the points they are making in some way.
Please, if you're going to claim these people aren't worth listening to, state why they are not worth listening to.
Tell us why you think that most people are happy.
At the moment, the only argument you're presenting is "It's not more than 50% so they don't count".
This is over a year old, and it a pointless piece of information.
It displays very little useful information, it simply states who is still around, not those whom have left.
Also, it doesn't factor in user groups. I myself got Neo'd by only posting in user groups and never the forums.
The user groups lack moderation and thus my post count is only a reflection of my engagement in user groups.
Also, of those over 1000, it does not state how many are still active. A user could have got past 1000, got warned, left, had the warning pass and then never post again, and yet still be counted in this as being "Fine with the rules".
Well, that doesn't make sense. You say yourself that you're lower on the chain of things than the staff, and then say they're wrong.Marter said:
As far as I'm aware, the staff get the final say in the matter, thus if they have said I am not allowed to mention it, you don't really have the authority to say otherwise.
I'm sure you're only going off what you're told, but, in this instance, so am I.
I'm aware the moderators have no control over it, and my objection is with the rule itself.
Ironically, in this instance, the rudeness of the staff in question, likely cost The Escapist more than they will make from me in future ad revenue, as the sheer rudeness displayed was enough for me to cancel my publisher club membership.
Could you please refrain from trying to draw IceForce into an argument? I really don't want to have to hand out any more infractions in this thread. :/Colour Scientist said:
Only one person has called us a prick, and I'm pretty sure he was doing that on purpose in order to make us look worse when we handed out the punishment for it. >.> Everyone else here is being mature as far as I can tell.Caiphus said:
I don't envy the moderator's job here. Seems like no matter what they do someone complains they're either moderating too much and abusing their 'power' or not enough and letting people get away with trolling and what have you.
The rules here aren't that hard to follow. Of course people make mistakes and say things in the heat of an argument but that's what the infraction system is for. Having an infraction or two isn't a huge personal insult or anything so just relax about it.
The rules here aren't that hard to follow. Of course people make mistakes and say things in the heat of an argument but that's what the infraction system is for. Having an infraction or two isn't a huge personal insult or anything so just relax about it.
And quite possibly also assuming that all the people who have been banned haven't deserved it. Whether you like the rules or not it's a fact that some people deserve to get banned for their behavior. This isn't reddit or 4chan. You are accountable for what you say and how you say it and this community is, imo, better because of it.anthony87 said:
Some people decide to call that elitist. Myself I think of it being much more that the rules in place force you to act more like you would IRL. Because IRL you'd get punched in the face before the end of the sentence.
I had to lol at this given the thread subject matter. It's pretty much the equivalent of banging on the hood of a stationary police car and shouting at the driver to go fuck himself.Eamar said:
...So you were part of an internet community for six years and after one, I repeat one instance of unfair moderation you quit the whole thing?DanDanikov said:
Pretty much everyone I've seen refer to the incident agrees it was a cluster fuck. Honestly you have every right to be upset about that, but to just up and quit after one incident of a site not handling something well isn't the site or it's moderators or staff rejecting you. You are still completely free to come and participate in this community but decided not to because of human mistakes. That's your choice.
So while I do agree you have a legitimate reason to be upset but to hold that kind of a grudge it kinda seems like sooner or later there was going to be an incident that convinced you to quit the site.
In all fairness I received a warning for describing something as faggy once, but I've seen gay used as an adjective plenty of times on this forum with no such infractions being issued. I think its that kind of double standard that upsets people. Personally I couldn't be bothered, even if i do get banned its not like I've lost something really important in my life, just a dark corner of the internet where i used to waffle some rubbish once in a while.TopazFusion said:
I actually really like how things are run around here. With the forum health bar in place, you'd have to be pretty unique to actually get banned.
I also like how on the first page, it's established the problem of people calling moderator abuse doesn't actually bring anything to the table. No evidence, no nothing. Just a "I was wronged." And not half-way down the page we have someone doing just that. I think Marter even went above and beyond to find that post Lunatic complained about, as in my eyes, it's not something that moderation staff is expected to do. Shit, if I ran the place, I wouldn't expect them to say anything other than "Put in a ticket." Kudos to the both of you, Tetris guy too... What was your name again? Aaah, I'll find it after I edit.
It really does go without saying. If you don't like the rules, don't agree to them in the first place.
If you have a problem with moderation and staff, go to the source of the problem. (Put in a fucking ticket. Really, nobody can do anything if you don't put in a ticket.)
And finally, if you're going to publicly sprout this, have some evidence. No evidence means that people have to assume you're full of shit. However, if you have evidence, then people can turn around and say "Yeah, they're really not right!!" Check your PM's. You should have a PM titled "Warning notice" from "System Message." If you don't have the balls to post that PM, you don't have a case.
Captcha: "battle royale" No, we really haven't gotten to that point, little buddy.
I also like how on the first page, it's established the problem of people calling moderator abuse doesn't actually bring anything to the table. No evidence, no nothing. Just a "I was wronged." And not half-way down the page we have someone doing just that. I think Marter even went above and beyond to find that post Lunatic complained about, as in my eyes, it's not something that moderation staff is expected to do. Shit, if I ran the place, I wouldn't expect them to say anything other than "Put in a ticket." Kudos to the both of you, Tetris guy too... What was your name again? Aaah, I'll find it after I edit.
It really does go without saying. If you don't like the rules, don't agree to them in the first place.
If you have a problem with moderation and staff, go to the source of the problem. (Put in a fucking ticket. Really, nobody can do anything if you don't put in a ticket.)
And finally, if you're going to publicly sprout this, have some evidence. No evidence means that people have to assume you're full of shit. However, if you have evidence, then people can turn around and say "Yeah, they're really not right!!" Check your PM's. You should have a PM titled "Warning notice" from "System Message." If you don't have the balls to post that PM, you don't have a case.
Captcha: "battle royale" No, we really haven't gotten to that point, little buddy.
Any time. Like I said you know the rules and youve put the effort in to read the TLDR CoC which is a lot more than can be said for most (me included) who just click accept. Its people like yourself (and many others) that make this place great. We have a huge mix of people mostly into videogames but others who are into different stuff and the discussions are usually pretty varied and I always learn something about a hobby/topic I would never have thought about before. As a general message to everyone Id like to say keep it up guys. Its us that make this place what it is and its the mods that keep that standard up.Eamar said:Well, I just saw this and now I'm blushingshootthebandit said:Thank you, kind sir! And no, I don't disagree at all, I always enjoy our conversations.
I dont have a problem with the mods. My health bar is in the yellow (which I deserve) and I accept that. A lot of people here say the mods are shit just as an excuse for their actions. My only qualm with the mods at the minute is that they havent locked this thread although to be honest it shows them in a good light
The escapist is a site on which it is fine to troll, but not to accuse someone of trolling (or even genuinely politely ask). Snidely insinuating unpleasant things about people is fine and dandy, but explaining in detail the reasons why you think someone is stupid/immoral/etc is not.
The problem with moderation is that it is not consistent, it does not look at context; it follows letters instead of spirits.
This last part is a curiosity; I saw the phrase "I don't want to have to hand out any more infractions" during this thread. By what measure does a mod 'have to' hand out infractions? What are the consequences (for moderators) of a post slipping through the cracks?
The problem with moderation is that it is not consistent, it does not look at context; it follows letters instead of spirits.
This last part is a curiosity; I saw the phrase "I don't want to have to hand out any more infractions" during this thread. By what measure does a mod 'have to' hand out infractions? What are the consequences (for moderators) of a post slipping through the cracks?