Quote:
Originally Posted by crash_override
I see the posts for which he was infracted have now been deleted, nice move, so now all we're left with is your account that it was "totally justified". Some people might buy that, but not me. I had a chance to read the posts, and back and forth that followed, I'm calling bull****.
|
It's actually a policy the mods have adopted to delete posts that people are infracted for. The reason being, we constantly get people ragging us saying that we're being unfair because the comment wasn't addressed. Obviously, the community doesn't get notification that we infracted someone, nor can they see the infractions. I think most folks agree that it's better that way, but it creates a catch-22 because then we're accused of hiding "evidence".
Believe me, it sucks when you get pestered non-stop because an offensive comment that has already been dealt with has been left displayed only for a mob of people accusing us of being unfair because they're ignorant about the steps we took to address it. Easy solution: Address the situation and remove the post.
But also, we remove the posts we think are offensive (and especially at the request of the person being offended), because... um... they're offensive. That's our job, and that, for damn sure, is stated in the rules and is not a recent addition, although it may have been paraphrased, but I'm sure most people with a normal level of intelligence will understand the concept if they took the time to read and understand them.
Quote:
|
Now is the time to go back and ammend the rules to include whatever rule you think he broke, by the way. This is exactly what I'm talking about everytime in this thread, although to a lesser degree. It's this kind of selective enforcement of self-made rules that are causing these problems, or "drama" as you like to put it. Enforce the ****ing rules, as they're written, and provide REAL justification if your actions are really justified. Empty explanations come cheap.
|
Not sure if you realize this, but the mods write the rules. They weren't handed down by the Moses of this website's creators. They're a result of activity that moderators have deemed important to address, and serve simply as something to both guide members, and point to when actions are taken to rectify situations that go against the standard set. Not sure if you caught the part that states "these rules are subject to change at any time", but we weren't entrusted as moderators simply to uphold a written rule... we were entrusted as moderators to do whatever we felt was necessary to make sure this place didn't go to sh
it. We've got a pretty good collection of intelligent adults that are capable of making decisions to this effect. When we justify our decisions, we do that amongst the moderators... but don't think we don't take the community reactions into consideration.
Quote:
In a rare case where I got to see the unfoldings of the situation before it was systematically removed from public eye, it's obvious that by looking at the actual happenings that you were in the wrong. Yet, the posts are deleted, and you claim justification. At this point, it's your word against his, and the threat of a perma-ban is waiting if he pursues the issue further. A gross misuse of mod power if I've ever seen one.
In short, yes, it's a big deal that you acted like a bullying hypocrite because someone said something off-color that you didn't like. Please, MB, if we're going to have BS rules, apply them fairly.
|
1. Systematically removed from the public eye:
Do you think spam shouldn't be systematically removed from the public eye? Insults? Trolling? I'm just wondering whether you understand the concept of what moderators do on an internet forum...
2. Your opinion versus an entire team of moderators, PLUS insulted members who have complained REPEATEDLY about those insults and occurrences. I'm sorry, I like you a lot man but I just gotta go with the obvious choice here.
3. The threat of perma-banning is a result of continued behavior that goes along with number 2 above, plus the rules and all. I haven't seen any moderator post that he'll get perma-banned if he pursues the issue of his banning. I could have missed it, but I was under the impression that the concept involved pursuing continuity of his behavior that got him banned. Maybe you could clear that up for me.
Quote:
|
p.s. Yes I know this is an internet forum, and that I'm over-reacting in almost every post I've made in this thread, including this one. But that doesn't mean I don't believe every word of it. I see something I don't like, I'm going to comment on it. I know the mods don't have sinister intentions, and I don't think they're evil. I've been around long enough to remember nearly all of them when they were regular members before they were modded, and they seem like decent people for the most part. I just hate how when someone gets banned, it's turned into this big to-do. A he-said, she-said nightmare.
|
Good point here. That's why it may be even better if we close this thread, and simply tell users that if they have questions, they can PM moderators. But I, and none of the other mods, would just close the thread, because then we know we'd be accused of trying to suppress public inquiry and get tossed into the pit again.