The Mod Thread ("because for some reason,you think we actually care") (29 Viewers)
- Thread starter JCK
- Start date
- Status
Potential ceiling of the squad? How up his ass can you be? He was just a coward, that is all. He was afraid to damage his reputation by saying he has strong squad but failing in europe, he was just covering his tail.
How is this worth a 4 points infraction?
Seems X's love for conte has no limits. Going for most bans record as opposed to being a good moderator.
How is this worth a 4 points infraction?
Seems X's love for conte has no limits. Going for most bans record as opposed to being a good moderator.
1) My low post count is indicative of what, exactly? How is it relevant?
2) The last few I made have not been troll attempts. That's simply false. If you happen to think they are, that's your prerogative, but unless I break the rules, you don't get to ban me. Is there any part of that which is unclear to you?
3) "if it walks like a duck and talks like a duck BUT DOESN'T ACTUALLY BREAK THE RULES, WE DON'T BAN HIM." Is that what you were going for? Because your argument would be fallacious if you meant to say that I ought to get banned just because it seems like I might at some point break the rules.
This is actually hilarious from the administrators though, have you just completely lost all control of this guy?
If he donates a lot of money which keeps this place running, fair enough. Otherwise, what are you doing? I had to read some pages in this thread to find a post of his to reply to, and in the process found a lot of posters complaining about him just being entirely indiscriminate with the banning powers. At least two of them had +10k posts and mentioned "the old mods" implying that they've been here for a while, so clearly it's not just me who has an issue with him.
To use his genius reasoning - if it walks like a duck, and talks like a duck, it's probably some guy in a basement who is power tripping over the internet equivalent of the authority felt by a mall security guard. Get it sorted, @Marty
EDIT: Again, just to remind everyone, this is what I got a month-long ban for:
One fucking month!
2) The last few I made have not been troll attempts. That's simply false. If you happen to think they are, that's your prerogative, but unless I break the rules, you don't get to ban me. Is there any part of that which is unclear to you?
3) "if it walks like a duck and talks like a duck BUT DOESN'T ACTUALLY BREAK THE RULES, WE DON'T BAN HIM." Is that what you were going for? Because your argument would be fallacious if you meant to say that I ought to get banned just because it seems like I might at some point break the rules.
This is actually hilarious from the administrators though, have you just completely lost all control of this guy?
If he donates a lot of money which keeps this place running, fair enough. Otherwise, what are you doing? I had to read some pages in this thread to find a post of his to reply to, and in the process found a lot of posters complaining about him just being entirely indiscriminate with the banning powers. At least two of them had +10k posts and mentioned "the old mods" implying that they've been here for a while, so clearly it's not just me who has an issue with him.To use his genius reasoning - if it walks like a duck, and talks like a duck, it's probably some guy in a basement who is power tripping over the internet equivalent of the authority felt by a mall security guard. Get it sorted, @Marty
EDIT: Again, just to remind everyone, this is what I got a month-long ban for:
One fucking month!
X, you do need to take it easier at times, man. Let it go.
@Big Bang, stop your incessant whining. I got banned a while back by X and while I thought it was unnecessary, someone needs to do the dirty job. God knows I would never want to be a moderator. Unfortunately this forum needs them. And X is one of the few people actually willing to do the job. Cut him some slack.
@Big Bang, stop your incessant whining. I got banned a while back by X and while I thought it was unnecessary, someone needs to do the dirty job. God knows I would never want to be a moderator. Unfortunately this forum needs them. And X is one of the few people actually willing to do the job. Cut him some slack.
Did you seriously just give me ANOTHER infraction for that post?
"Reason: Insult other members, Juventus players and staff
-------
Stop with the insults"
Exactly where in that post did I "insult" a member, Juventus player, or staff?
- - - Updated - - -
It's really simple: there are rules, like "Don't insult members, players, or staff", and when they're broken, someone needs to punish the offender. I wouldn't be "whining" if I broke a rule. I'm "whining" because when I asked the question "Why was I banned?" the response I got was "Eh, you kinda seem like the type of poster who might break the rules at some point, so I'm just gonna take a preemptive strike."
Case in point: I was just given an infraction for my previous post because I apparently insulted a member in it. When you stay quiet, that's when people like him have free reign and act without restrictions. Your attitude and the fact that you're attacking me despite knowing that he's doing something wrong is exactly the problem. You are facilitating his bullying and allowing it to exist.
"Reason: Insult other members, Juventus players and staff
-------
Stop with the insults"
Exactly where in that post did I "insult" a member, Juventus player, or staff?
- - - Updated - - -
It's really simple: there are rules, like "Don't insult members, players, or staff", and when they're broken, someone needs to punish the offender. I wouldn't be "whining" if I broke a rule. I'm "whining" because when I asked the question "Why was I banned?" the response I got was "Eh, you kinda seem like the type of poster who might break the rules at some point, so I'm just gonna take a preemptive strike."
Case in point: I was just given an infraction for my previous post because I apparently insulted a member in it. When you stay quiet, that's when people like him have free reign and act without restrictions. Your attitude and the fact that you're attacking me despite knowing that he's doing something wrong is exactly the problem. You are facilitating his bullying and allowing it to exist.
Infraction without a warning got for this
I was talking about X, but man if this is infraction 90% of forum would be banned. Not to mention how this is pure censorship about a mod.
Abuse of power, nothing done? Nothing new, just same old same old at the tuz.
I was talking about X, but man if this is infraction 90% of forum would be banned. Not to mention how this is pure censorship about a mod.
Abuse of power, nothing done? Nothing new, just same old same old at the tuz.
1) My low post count is indicative of what, exactly? How is it relevant?
2) The last few I made have not been troll attempts. That's simply false. If you happen to think they are, that's your prerogative, but unless I break the rules, you don't get to ban me. Is there any part of that which is unclear to you?
3) "if it walks like a duck and talks like a duck BUT DOESN'T ACTUALLY BREAK THE RULES, WE DON'T BAN HIM." Is that what you were going for? Because your argument would be fallacious if you meant to say that I ought to get banned just because it seems like I might at some point break the rules.
This is actually hilarious from the administrators though, have you just completely lost all control of this guy? If he donates a lot of money which keeps this place running, fair enough. Otherwise, what are you doing? I had to read some pages in this thread to find a post of his to reply to, and in the process found a lot of posters complaining about him just being entirely indiscriminate with the banning powers. At least two of them had +10k posts and mentioned "the old mods" implying that they've been here for a while, so clearly it's not just me who has an issue with him.
To use his genius reasoning - if it walks like a duck, and talks like a duck, it's probably some guy in a basement who is power tripping over the internet equivalent of the authority felt by a mall security guard. Get it sorted, @Marty
EDIT: Again, just to remind everyone, this is what I got a month-long ban for:
One fucking month!
2) The last few I made have not been troll attempts. That's simply false. If you happen to think they are, that's your prerogative, but unless I break the rules, you don't get to ban me. Is there any part of that which is unclear to you?
3) "if it walks like a duck and talks like a duck BUT DOESN'T ACTUALLY BREAK THE RULES, WE DON'T BAN HIM." Is that what you were going for? Because your argument would be fallacious if you meant to say that I ought to get banned just because it seems like I might at some point break the rules.
This is actually hilarious from the administrators though, have you just completely lost all control of this guy?
If he donates a lot of money which keeps this place running, fair enough. Otherwise, what are you doing? I had to read some pages in this thread to find a post of his to reply to, and in the process found a lot of posters complaining about him just being entirely indiscriminate with the banning powers. At least two of them had +10k posts and mentioned "the old mods" implying that they've been here for a while, so clearly it's not just me who has an issue with him.To use his genius reasoning - if it walks like a duck, and talks like a duck, it's probably some guy in a basement who is power tripping over the internet equivalent of the authority felt by a mall security guard. Get it sorted, @Marty
EDIT: Again, just to remind everyone, this is what I got a month-long ban for:
One fucking month!
Seriously tho, what is the limit to up to our discussion? Because that post he quoted seriously is not banworthy whatsoever let alone a whole month. I used to say this forum mods are too lenient but examples like this seems quite overboard man.
If someone is suspected of being a double it should be verified with IP check or long term assessing of behaviour if they using proxy. Jumping the gun immediately and assume double account does more harm then good. Has happend in the recent past too, had to vouch for Pavluska that I knew from elsewhere and who was banned on the spot because he was new and assumed double account. Slippery slope territory to be so trigger happy.
- - - Updated - - -
You defenitely deserve your bans, even if become bit personal between you and him later on.
If someone is suspected of being a double it should be verified with IP check or long term assessing of behaviour if they using proxy. Jumping the gun immediately and assume double account does more harm then good. Has happend in the recent past too, had to vouch for Pavluska that I knew from elsewhere and who was banned on the spot because he was new and assumed double account. Slippery slope territory to be so trigger happy.
- - - Updated - - -
You defenitely deserve your bans, even if become bit personal between you and him later on.
Then why ban on pure guess or whim? Thats reckless and leads to innocent regular posters getting banned because of paranoia, leads to scaring away new posters from the forum if this becomes the norm. IP checks and reading behaviour in terms of similarity with banned posters/othe regulars is least one can expect (they arent Einsteins, they give themselves away eventually), over rash unfair banning others who have no reason to be suspected of being double accounts, except for low post account? Seriously flawed way to go about it.
Also seriously, I realize there's nuances to trolling that one needs to look out for, but infracting or banning for opinions is over the top. I would NOT be infracted for talking about Allegri and Conte like that guy did, regular stuff, so why should a new guy just becuase he has low post account? Its more prudent to act in moderating capacity with guidance from rules, aka insults/provocative/instigating or just down right heinous comments. But infracting for opinions and then also infracting for questioning said (lack of) reasons one got it shouldnt be reason enough to dole out even further.
Defenitely lots of jackass posters here who are childish and try or tried to be sly in their trolling by pushing buttons constantly (that used to be allowed or let slide because mods were too chummy with most offenders). And most of them have been dealt with very well and shown the boundary and that no one is untouchable, done mostly by you. Less of spamming/immature cesspool then it used to be.
But now examples like this is more and more noticeable around here and it derails some of the top work you did when it becomes more common posters get censored/banned for simply questionning or sharing an opinion? I know its easier to just assume the worst and react quickly, but it gets in too much of murky waters when instead of following/acting out on the set rules, instead go with "better safe then sorry" harsh overboard approach like this. Becomes pure subjective censorship thats bound to turn uglier and uglier IMO.
Just my 2 cents. Which I'm giving you since you arent paid enough
Also seriously, I realize there's nuances to trolling that one needs to look out for, but infracting or banning for opinions is over the top. I would NOT be infracted for talking about Allegri and Conte like that guy did, regular stuff, so why should a new guy just becuase he has low post account? Its more prudent to act in moderating capacity with guidance from rules, aka insults/provocative/instigating or just down right heinous comments. But infracting for opinions and then also infracting for questioning said (lack of) reasons one got it shouldnt be reason enough to dole out even further.
Defenitely lots of jackass posters here who are childish and try or tried to be sly in their trolling by pushing buttons constantly (that used to be allowed or let slide because mods were too chummy with most offenders). And most of them have been dealt with very well and shown the boundary and that no one is untouchable, done mostly by you. Less of spamming/immature cesspool then it used to be.
But now examples like this is more and more noticeable around here and it derails some of the top work you did when it becomes more common posters get censored/banned for simply questionning or sharing an opinion? I know its easier to just assume the worst and react quickly, but it gets in too much of murky waters when instead of following/acting out on the set rules, instead go with "better safe then sorry" harsh overboard approach like this. Becomes pure subjective censorship thats bound to turn uglier and uglier IMO.
Just my 2 cents. Which I'm giving you since you arent paid enough
- Status