And that is why I grew to hate a lot of teachers. Because most of them are worthy of no respect of mine.Nannernade said:
Have You Ever Been Banned/Suspended?
- Thread starter Mr. Eff_v1legacy
- Start date
I was suspended once back when I had about 4980 posts. Thankfully it was a requested suspension and was deleted soon afterwards. Apart from that, I have a clean record.
[div class=ban_reason]User was banned for this post (permanent)[/div]
Not:
[div class=ban_reason]User was banned for: Editors Note: The Spy Who Fragged Me [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/6.175608-Editors-Note-The-Spy-Who-Fragged-Me#4988523 target=_self] (permanent)[/div]
If he was banned for that post as well, then the link at the bottom would've linked directly to that post, not to the top of that thread.
The more likely thing to have happened is that the post he was actually banned for was deleted from the thread (why the ban link leads to the top of that thread despite having a number indicating that it was meant to lead to a specific post), however he got put on probation or something similar earlier in the thread and when you're banned, any posts which you've recieved a probation or suspension for now says that you were banned for it (it's why [user]superpandaman[/user] is supposedly banned for this post [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.81746-10-ways-to-go-Gonzo?page=2#1098143] yet the link to the post he was banned for links to a completely different thread which has now been deleted).
For the record, corroded wasn't banned for that post. If he was, then it would've said at the bottom:thejadefalcon said:
[div class=ban_reason]User was banned for this post (permanent)[/div]
Not:
[div class=ban_reason]User was banned for: Editors Note: The Spy Who Fragged Me [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/6.175608-Editors-Note-The-Spy-Who-Fragged-Me#4988523 target=_self] (permanent)[/div]
If he was banned for that post as well, then the link at the bottom would've linked directly to that post, not to the top of that thread.
The more likely thing to have happened is that the post he was actually banned for was deleted from the thread (why the ban link leads to the top of that thread despite having a number indicating that it was meant to lead to a specific post), however he got put on probation or something similar earlier in the thread and when you're banned, any posts which you've recieved a probation or suspension for now says that you were banned for it (it's why [user]superpandaman[/user] is supposedly banned for this post [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.81746-10-ways-to-go-Gonzo?page=2#1098143] yet the link to the post he was banned for links to a completely different thread which has now been deleted).
Read my post correctly:thejadefalcon said:
EDIT: Like I said, the more likely situation was that he was put on probation and then reacted with another post. That post he reacted with was the one which got him banned and was deleted shortly afterwards.Zombie_Fish said:
Just edited. Sorry. Little disorientated today.Zombie_Fish said:
That's... a system that's RIPE for misuse, in my opinion. If someone's banned, their post should stay up for the rest of time. Otherwise, a moderator could ban someone for a post that, while perfectly within the rules, offends the mod somehow and then delete the post so no-one can contradict them. I'd give that mod an arse-kicking if I was the admin (and I have done this before).
thejadefalcon said:
MiracleOfSound said:
The user asked to be suspended, I can't remember if it was exam time or what but it wasn't for anything he posted.Ziadaine said:
There's often things like that, or cases where someone has been harassing someone in PMs or they may just have a really bad recent history and their warnings were given in private.
Ziadaine said:
You two should take a look at that guys profile. It says he requested the suspension. Which many people have done in the past.MiracleOfSound said:
The problem is people posting "first" comments. I have no idea why but on every video you will have five or six people that post about the video before there is even time to finish watching the video.comadorcrack said:
OT: No mod wrath here.
People shouldn't have to check the profile for that. It should be mentioned in the post. The random passerby to that thread is just going to look at that post and think "WTH, mods?!"manaman said:
What about these?.Warheart said:
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/6.202851-Question-of-the-Day-June-18-2010#6765370
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/6.175608-Editors-Note-The-Spy-Who-Fragged-Me
I'm fully aware of the people posting before it's even possible to have watched to whole video and those punishments are duly earned under the category of "spam" but I've seen users get suspended or put on probation for posts that were well within the time alloted to have watched the video. One poster got suspended despite making a very blatant reference to the very ZP video he was commenting on!manaman said:
Ah, I know what you are talking about. They made it a rule to basically not rudely comment on the looks or the voices of the people in the videos. They are trying to curb a rather stupid and immature trend where people are aggressively insulting to the people making the videos.GamingAwesome1 said:
Some people just don't bother reading the rules. Like this guy:
You insulted the cast of the show, you insulted The escapist, you insulted everyone that watches the show, and you don't think you deserved the mod wrath? Yeah, I doubt they actually are paying special attention to you but I really hope they are. There was a way to word that so it was not insulting, but you can't seem to fathom that it was how you put forth your opinion and not your opinion in itself can you?beddo said:
You've got to be kidding me.Mr. Eff said:
Please tell me that you read the rest of this thread before posting. I mean, we gave reasons for both of those examples of mod wrath not just on this thread, but on this [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.203222-Have-You-Ever-Been-Banned-Suspended?page=4#6783889] very [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.203222-Have-You-Ever-Been-Banned-Suspended?page=4#6781523] page [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.203222-Have-You-Ever-Been-Banned-Suspended?page=4#6781343] and yet you still seem to give those examples as if they're still examples of irrational moderator action. If you had looked four posts above yours, you would've seen one of our resident users explain Tharwen's suspension, two posts above that and a moderator explained it, so much for the moderators not justifying their actions.
I'm sorry, but in trying to make the moderators seem irrational, you've just made yourself look very lazy.
Perhaps I forgot to refresh the page. Whoops.Zombie_Fish said:
You don't have to be rude, sir.
I understand that the is a difference in definition and method. However, I would consider a prostitute to be someone who knowingly, actively and consensually participates in sexual acts for direct monetary gain.MiracleOfSound said:
Basically money changes hands for sex, the fact that it's filmed and given a title doesn't matter to me, I see no differentiation between this and basic street prostitution. Is someone who works as an expensive 'escort' not a prostitute? What about a massage parlour with contracts? Where do you draw the line?
I merely expressed what I thought and people might not agree or like it, but no one has a right to not be offended. I hadn't intended to insult those in the video directly, I was more complaining about the exploitative industry as a whole.
EDIT: I, of course, didn't address my opinion in the most courteous manner however, that's free speech for ya.
I know, it's a veyr thin line and a debate I'm not going to get into because, well... there's no clear answer. But I did think that particular suspension was a little harsh and I truly, truly do not like that show at all and think it's quite exploitative of us as nerdy men!beddo said: