Poll: Injustice of the Permaban
- Thread starter Drathnoxis
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I remember I got this message attached to a probation warning, "Your lucky I don\'t suspend for that - don\'t post such things - a spoiler is no excuse ".AccursedTheory said:
Consistency is a problem. I got probation for a picture of "Carnage Nun Migumi" as being not PG-13 enough on a site that regularly features ads that show similar amounts of skin on much more realistic characters. Similarly the tone of the site is often pretty jarring. It's simultaneously OK to call celebrities all sorts of horrible, terrible things, but accusing someone of possibly being "intentionally dense" got me modded for "attacking" a member. If Anita Sarkeesian made an account today, would all of the things people said before she joined suddenly be actionable?
Pretty much any crowd sourced notification system will do this to some degree.
On the opposite end, some members who were obvious trolls went unbanned for ages. The ones who rejoined under alternate accounts pretty much confirm that they were trolling the whole time. The warning bar system has helped this, but it still took a while for the infractions to add up.
Overall I'd give the site a B rating. Better than most, but definitely room for improvement.
I.E.
Is so vague it's practically useless. Anyone can find it offensive? Anyone can find anything offensive (or at least claim to) at anytime for any reason. Something like "majority of forum peers" or similar would be less vague, not great but better.
Hopefully no one on the entire internet finds this post offensive, or I'm in trouble.
I would not take it personally if you called me "princess" or "crybaby" if I deserved it, (this is the internet and I expect as much.), but the practice of doing so is consistently moderated on this site. Which makes it a clear defined rule, as clear as something that is "low content" or "advertising" both of which are also consistently moderated.AstroSmash said:
You just HAD to use that particular abbreviation, didn't you *rubs temples*Daystar Clarion said:
Also, I recall getting a warning for "calling someone a troll" in a post where I specifically stated that I wasn't calling anyone a troll, just using a certain trope expression. [http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/InsaneTrollLogic]
Naturally I was cranky about that, but, ah well. I can't even remember when it happened anymore.
I can't say I agree. Most other sites I've ever been (even moderated myself) on don't have the 6 month thing, it's just a permanent record with maybe a bit of moderator-discretion.
Notable posters might well be at odds with people more, but that's no excuse for acting like an idiot. I don't understand lashing out in forum posts, it's not like a face to face conversation where you just blurt stuff out. You have to type things through and read them, it's not really an impulsive thing. Whilst I'm not the most controversial person usually, I've gotten into my fair share of disagreements and I have quite a few posts, and still I've only ever gotten two warnings, one of which is very old.
Having different opinions has no bearing on your conduct, it's perfectly possible to disagree without being a total arse about it, especially if it's not your first offence. If you're not going to bother trying to improve them you get what's coming.
I get that it's sad to see users you recognise go, but I'd be more annoyed if people were getting special exceptions. I think Sky said in a thread the other day that they were actually getting quite a lot of people complaining as to why Vault hadn't gotten in more trouble, and there was a lot of anger when she was actually banned. There's no way that the mods are going to please everyone, it's a pretty impossible position to be in, I sympathise a lot. They get a lot of stick for doing what they do, I don't really feel it's deserved. A lot of it just comes from differences of judgement, usually I can't really fault them for it.
Notable posters might well be at odds with people more, but that's no excuse for acting like an idiot. I don't understand lashing out in forum posts, it's not like a face to face conversation where you just blurt stuff out. You have to type things through and read them, it's not really an impulsive thing. Whilst I'm not the most controversial person usually, I've gotten into my fair share of disagreements and I have quite a few posts, and still I've only ever gotten two warnings, one of which is very old.
Having different opinions has no bearing on your conduct, it's perfectly possible to disagree without being a total arse about it, especially if it's not your first offence. If you're not going to bother trying to improve them you get what's coming.
I get that it's sad to see users you recognise go, but I'd be more annoyed if people were getting special exceptions. I think Sky said in a thread the other day that they were actually getting quite a lot of people complaining as to why Vault hadn't gotten in more trouble, and there was a lot of anger when she was actually banned. There's no way that the mods are going to please everyone, it's a pretty impossible position to be in, I sympathise a lot. They get a lot of stick for doing what they do, I don't really feel it's deserved. A lot of it just comes from differences of judgement, usually I can't really fault them for it.
Look, if you don't want to spend a minute with the CoC, that's your prerogative, I for one like to check in on the CoC every now and then, even think of ways that everyone can be happy with the CoC.Vegosiux said:
As an innocent bystander, it sounded more to me like he was implying the mods would have strokes due to the stupidity of some of the stuff people post here.DeadpanLunatic said:
Bad joke is bad. 10 points from Gryffindor.AstroSmash said:
In all seriousness though, perhaps you'd be willing to PM me or another member of the Red Guard instead of making silly jabs at our work. Who knows? You might see better results that way.
When has a moderator ever been an asshole to you exactly?AstroSmash said:
When someone highly visible in OT dies the death of a thousand cuts, everyone starts going on about moderation.Sassafrass said:
Honestly, it used to be a lot harsher. No healthbar, probations being handed out at the least provocation. I think there even was a period when there weren't even warnings issued...
I have no issues with the way this place is moderated whatsoever.
Look at my post count, look at my time joined. I have gotten 1 warning my entire time here, and that was when I made a low-content post when I wasn't aware of the low-content rule being added. It really isn't that hard to not be a dick.
And no, it isn't because I always go with the crowd and keep low, as anyone I've had a debate with about EA can attest to.
And no, it isn't because I always go with the crowd and keep low, as anyone I've had a debate with about EA can attest to.
GOOD MODERATION: The guy I reported gets a warning. Tee-hee!
BAD MODERATION: The guy I reported doesn't get a warning. Outrageous!
APPALLING MODERATION: I get a warning. Clearly there is a conspiracy against me.
Other than the oft-hazy application of the low content rule, there's little to complain about with the moderation here. It's not easy to moderate a forum of this size.
BAD MODERATION: The guy I reported doesn't get a warning. Outrageous!
APPALLING MODERATION: I get a warning. Clearly there is a conspiracy against me.
Other than the oft-hazy application of the low content rule, there's little to complain about with the moderation here. It's not easy to moderate a forum of this size.
<img src="http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m50lftYTAR1qcoc6y.gif" img src>
I'm sorry but let me back up abit in the comment below.
I'm sorry but let me back up abit in the comment below.
First thing first, were you on this site before the eight strike system? The old ban system was more like an four strike system, you get a warming, then a probation, then sespension (two weeks) and finally a banned. If you asked me, comparing the old banned system to the current one, the mods are alot more fairer these days.
Second thing, belive it or not but there is a appeal system to state your plea to come back to the site and the mods decided wheather or not to give that banned person a second chance. While I don't know the pecentage of the amount of banned persons has been let back in (that is if they plea in the first place) but I know for hell that someone got banned a few months ago for being a racist (Danyal I think? He hang around in the political threads) which it turn out he was banned for the second time. Goes to show some people are ungrateful for getting a second chance.
EDIT- It came to my knowledge that the infamous Zeel was recently unbanned well got banned again. Look like I'm stand corrected on some people are ungrateful for having second chances.
Beside how hard is it to stay polite and stick to the rule and gudieline as seen in the Good Job Citizen thread, there are people on here who never once gotten a warnings. By all means one or two time I had an unpopular opinions but in those cases, I worded my comment carefully to not offence anyone and also refrain myself into getting into an argument that result in name calling.
At the end of the day we are the guest on their site and it's their home (sure a website is build on community but not a foulmouth, hateful and disrepectful community unless it's 4chan), they have all the right for the mod warnings and if you don't like it, find another site more suitable for you as there are plenty of other sites out there.
Heck, I remember at one point there was a very much aboveground group of individuals trying to get the rules as written to reflect the way they were actually being enforced. I remember this because I was one of them XDAccursedTheory said:
If you've ever wondered why the rules explicitly mention piracy and the laws of the United States, that's why. A bunch of us complained because the rules didn't explicitly mention piracy, and that even the old illegal content rule wasn't enough to do it implicitly, because it didn't specify the country that the laws would come from (important because the US is unusual in just how strict its copyright and drug laws are), and besides, it only said advocating or linking, not admitting to. But even though it wasn't explicitly mentioned, you could still get banned for it. In fact, pre-health bar, it was pretty much an instant ban. That's why getting that rule actually spelled out in the TOS was a good thing.
So, yeah OP. The rules around here are much better and much more fairly enforced than they used to be. There's still room for improvement, but at least it's clear from reading the TOS what can and cannot get you in trouble. There was a time where you needed to both read the TOS and lurk for an extended period of time, because there were additional bannable offenses which weren't officially in the rules. For that matter, the health bar has cleared up the ban process. Time was, the mods had a lot more discretion as to how quickly to ban someone, which actually led to people getting banned more quickly, not less quickly. The system as it is isn't perfect, but it's nowhere near as bad as it was two or three years ago. Heck, thanks to the buyout, it's not enforced as strictly as it was six months ago. I can't be the only one who's noticed the quiet changes that have been going on here since Themis Media sold the place.
This is one of the only times I'll advocate for a ridiculous third option in the poll because the moderation on the forum is honestly bacon.
I could say the most horrible, racist, sexist, hurtful, hateful, reincarnating-of-Hitler-ly-terrible thing and get a warning for it.
While at the same time my seventh low content post will get me a permaban.
It's a bad system.
But the Moderators are lovely people and I want to please them in every way humanly possible because they are a higher class of people and deserve preferential treatment.
I'd like to see a return to the old form of forum moderation where you got a punishment that was on par with your offense instead of a "standard unit of punishment" every time you broke one of the rules no matter how pointless the rule was in the first place.
I could say the most horrible, racist, sexist, hurtful, hateful, reincarnating-of-Hitler-ly-terrible thing and get a warning for it.
While at the same time my seventh low content post will get me a permaban.
It's a bad system.
But the Moderators are lovely people and I want to please them in every way humanly possible because they are a higher class of people and deserve preferential treatment.
I'd like to see a return to the old form of forum moderation where you got a punishment that was on par with your offense instead of a "standard unit of punishment" every time you broke one of the rules no matter how pointless the rule was in the first place.