The Banhammer and You: A User's Guide to the Forums

[Lord Krunk]

Ah well, I shall still look upon his Account with Respect, unless he somehow gets Banned (Again if I'm not mistaken)

Well, actually... [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/profiles/view/Almightyjoe]

 

[Vault Citizen]

I chose my username because it is also my cybernations name but now "rightwingisgood" just makes me sound like I'm a raving nutter, could someone please tell me how to either change my username or get it changed?

 

[Roxas1359]

I chose my username because it is also my cybernations name but now "rightwingisgood" just makes me sound like I'm a raving nutter, could someone please tell me how to either change my username or get it changed?

You can actually change your name by going to your profile and clicking on the link that says "Update Account Information". You can then change your username, but you only get to change your username once so make sure you like it.

 

[Vault Citizen]

I chose my username because it is also my cybernations name but now "rightwingisgood" just makes me sound like I'm a raving nutter, could someone please tell me how to either change my username or get it changed?

You can actually change your name by going to your profile and clicking on the link that says "Update Account Information". You can then change your username, but you only get to change your username once so make sure you like it.

thank you ^^

 

[kickyourass]

Great guide, thanks for all the tips, hopefully with this I'll at least be able to get up to the Trinity badge. Although I do have a question, why does the OP say "User banned for this post"?

 

[Lord Krunk]

Although I do have a question, why does the OP say "User banned for this post"?

[small]Just having fun with BB Code.[/small]

 

[Doinstuffman38]

Very helpful. Now that I know what's kosher... TO THE FORUMS!!!

 

[Adrahoth[FTFD]]

I found this thread to be very helpful.

 

[Kross]

Firstly, I will explain the lowest form of moderator wrath:

[HEADING=2]Warnings: Tier 4[/HEADING]​

Warnings are not a form of Moderator Wrath, as such, but a warning that is placed on your user record for further reference, should you break said rule you were warned about again. This can happen on the thread in which you have posted on, or via PM - be advised that these are generally given if the crime was not intentional, or merely an obvious mistake (in judgement or otherwise) made by the user.

[snip]

Please note that once you receive any form of moderator wrath, then these badges will be unavailable to you. Harsh, but fair.

Also note that having a thread of yours locked does not result in your inability to receive the badges.

Slight clarification, warnings shouldn't remove any badges. They are essentially a way of sending a moderator private message that saves a note on the user's profile as well.

 

[TheUnkn0wngamer]

Thanks. This really helped. I was put on Probation and thought I should look over the guidelines again.

 

[Snownine]

Thanks for this thread.

 

[Lord Krunk]

Firstly, I will explain the lowest form of moderator wrath:

[HEADING=2]Warnings: Tier 4[/HEADING]​

Warnings are not a form of Moderator Wrath, as such, but a warning that is placed on your user record for further reference, should you break said rule you were warned about again. This can happen on the thread in which you have posted on, or via PM - be advised that these are generally given if the crime was not intentional, or merely an obvious mistake (in judgement or otherwise) made by the user.

[snip]

Please note that once you receive any form of moderator wrath, then these badges will be unavailable to you. Harsh, but fair.

Also note that having a thread of yours locked does not result in your inability to receive the badges.

Slight clarification, warnings shouldn't remove any badges. They are essentially a way of sending a moderator private message that saves a note on the user's profile as well.

Duly noted. I'll have it fixed up next chance I get.

 

[beddo]

I don't agree with this. Especially when people are subject to an infraction when stating a valid opinion that just happens to disagree with the arguably arbitrary views of others.

 

[reaper660]

I have a question: Are we allowed to mention 4chan, or is that site such a frowned upon cesspool of porn and filth that we dare not speak of it here?

 

[Sleekgiant]

I don't agree with this. Especially when people are subject to an infraction when stating a valid opinion that just happens to disagree with the arguably arbitrary views of others.

So you feel the rules are unfair? Come now lets discuss exactly what you mean by "valid opinion". I'm oh so eager to hear why these rules are unfair.

 

[beddo]

I don't agree with this. Especially when people are subject to an infraction when stating a valid opinion that just happens to disagree with the arguably arbitrary views of others.

So you feel the rules are unfair? Come now lets discuss exactly what you mean by "valid opinion". I'm oh so eager to hear why these rules are unfair.

You've possibly already broken these rules by 'trolling' or 'flaming' me.

When I say a 'valid opinion' I mean an opinion that a person could reasonably hold without having the sole purpose of offending others or merely being argumentative. For example, I could have an opinion that the BNP are racist, which I do, however, that group could find my comment offensive and it would then be against the rules.

If I justifiably believe a group behaves in an immoral, unethical or objectionable way, these rules stop me from voicing that opinion because they allow punitive measures to be taken on the basis of 'offence' which is entirely subjective.

Quite simply I believe the rules are too vague and allow moderators to treat a commenter unfairly if they disagree with their opinion and hide it under the 'it's offensive or inappropriate' rule. I would like to see much clearer and defined rules and a way of redressing the unbalanced power of moderators and administrators by having greater transparency and a more impartial system to deal with infractions that are contested by the user.

 

[beddo]

I don't agree with this. Especially when people are subject to an infraction when stating a valid opinion that just happens to disagree with the arguably arbitrary views of others.

So you feel the rules are unfair? Come now lets discuss exactly what you mean by "valid opinion". I'm oh so eager to hear why these rules are unfair.

Wow, you post a lot considering you've not been on here long.

 

[Sleekgiant]

You've possibly already broken these rules by 'trolling' or 'flaming' me.

Usually I'd give some insightful comments to show how wrong you are, but since you think I am flaming you I'll just leave you to make mistakes.

 

[beddo]

You've possibly already broken these rules by 'trolling' or 'flaming' me.

Usually I'd give some insightful comments to show how wrong you are, but since you think I am flaming you I'll just leave you to make mistakes.

That seems like an easy get out to me. You can't argue that you know better yet won't say why because you cannot validate that opinion to others.

Again though, this could be considered flaming.

 

[Lord Krunk]

When I say a 'valid opinion' I mean an opinion that a person could reasonably hold without having the sole purpose of offending others or merely being argumentative. For example, I could have an opinion that the BNP are racist, which I do, however, that group could find my comment offensive and it would then be against the rules.

If I justifiably believe a group behaves in an immoral, unethical or objectionable way, these rules stop me from voicing that opinion because they allow punitive measures to be taken on the basis of 'offence' which is entirely subjective.

Quite simply I believe the rules are too vague and allow moderators to treat a commenter unfairly if they disagree with their opinion and hide it under the 'it's offensive or inappropriate' rule. I would like to see much clearer and defined rules and a way of redressing the unbalanced power of moderators and administrators by having greater transparency and a more impartial system to deal with infractions that are contested by the user.

Huh. Isn't that why I created this thread in the first place?

While these days I would have worded it differently, I covered it in greater depth on page 2 as well. [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/jump/18.112832.2028045]