Member Suspension Appreciation/Depreciation Thread

[Don't be late Pedro]

If you look at those definitions, then our forums, without preconceptions, you will quickly realize that half of the posts, or more, fit the definition of trolling. And many posters are trolls in that sense. They are looking to create a response in the reader. Is the troll well-intentioned, and looking for rational discussion? Or, are they seeking to create a hostile environment, and drive posters away from a real discussion.

The mods are people, we have slightly different opinions of where the line is. If the rule were followed to the letter, not much would get said. We try to work with our forum to keep the discussions going.

The post I quoted was from a thread that clearly had no aim to have rational discussion and you defend it. In fact a few posts later it was closed by another mod because it was nonsense.

The problem is that you follow the letter of the law for some people and not others. It is so blatant such that people that don't even agree with the views of MR are posting in his defence. And the fact that mods now are making decisions based on threats of posters not posting undermines you further.

 

[Christian]

It's good to be the king.

Would I get banned if I called a member of the moderation team a sarcastic peice of crap?

Some great posts in this recent discussions.

I have not been on the forum for a week due to lack of time so I just found out about airstream's ban. I have called out Netserk on one example of his moder-baiting. A ban against someone like airstream was exactly what I feared would happen with such modship. Again I have not followed the forum that closely lately but I got the impression there were a few similar incidents with this moder-baiter involving other users.

I fear that I too will soon go the way of my great heroes Fränk Schleck (humour, not trolling) and airstream.

Is it against forum rules to publicly ask for the demodation of a mod?

 

[RownhamHill]

Think on that a bit. A key word in your last sentence is "similar". A key word in the bit you quoted is "intent". Now please check out the definition of troll and trolling on Wikipedia and/or the Urban Dictionary.

If you look at those definitions, then our forums, without preconceptions, you will quickly realize that half of the posts, or more, fit the definition of trolling. And many posters are trolls in that sense. They are looking to create a response in the reader. Is the troll well-intentioned, and looking for rational discussion? Or, are they seeking to create a hostile environment, and drive posters away from a real discussion.

The mods are people, we have slightly different opinions of where the line is. If the rule were followed to the letter, not much would get said. We try to work with our forum to keep the discussions going.

I'm not sure which particular troll Pedro's original quote was describing. My initial thought is that it sounds a lot like a defence of the hog. Regardless of whether that's true, I'm going to take the hog as a paradigm exemplar for the posting culture, and defence thereof by 'moderators', on these boards. And if you think, for one nano-second, that the hog is well intentioned and looking for rational discussion then you must be stupid, dishonest, or both. Sorry, but there it is.

Apologies if that's rude. But I think I'm allowed to say that within the rules of the forum because I'm paraphrasing something I made up earlier to make my point look stronger.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

As to why your responder said what he said but.. may in fact still be open to a debate

 

[sittingbison]

I have reconsidered the permaban on mastersracer, and reduced the permaban to one month including time already served. For trolling and baiting.

 

[BYOP88]

I have reconsidered the permaban on mastersracer, and reduced the permaban to one month including time already served. For trolling and baiting.

Glad that the mastersracer's ban has been downgraded. Although a month ban still seems harsh.

 

[Caruut]

Also glad the ban's been downgraded. Good to see the moderation team listening and responding to the community.

I think in light of this and other recent incidents a non-binding code of conduct for moderators might be a good idea. Not because I think that mods are necessarily behaving inappropriately, but because there seem to be a lot of different ideas about what constitutes reasonable behaviour from a moderator. I think it would suit everyone if the role of moderator were clarified a little.

Also, a more codified system of bans might be useful. Right now I think there is a certain element of disproportionality to some decisions, and I think that it would aid the legitimacy of moderators if they could point to a section in the rules that justified the pan length.

 

[sittingbison]

without making any comment on those very reasonable observations, mods sometimes have to make decisions using information that is not privy to the wider community which can give the impression of "disproportionality" even with a more codified procedure.

 

[Zam_Olyas]

without making any comment on those very reasonable observations, mods sometimes have to make decisions using information that is not privy to the wider community which can give the impression of "disproportionality" even with a more codified procedure.

Don't you go Airstream on us.

 

[ebandit]

impressed

without making any comment on those very reasonable observations, mods sometimes have to make decisions using information that is not privy to the wider community which can give the impression of "disproportionality" even with a more codified procedure.

as that a fancy way of saying mods will continue to do as they choose?

but it's good to see masteracers ban was correctly reduced

how about extending the good will to airstream and letting them back

earlier?

Mark L

 

[Eshnar]

as that a fancy way of saying mods will continue to do as they choose?

ofc we will. What exactly should we do?

 

[sittingbison]

Don't you go Airstream on us.

if I did I would be somewhat more unintelligible

as that a fancy way of saying mods will continue to do as they choose?

no

...how about extending the good will to airstream and letting them back earlier?

is there more than one airstream? Perhaps airstream has already had "goodwill" extended?

 

[18-Valve. (pithy)]

without making any comment on those very reasonable observations, mods sometimes have to make decisions using information that is not privy to the wider community which can give the impression of "disproportionality" even with a more codified procedure.

That's also a textbook excuse to "justify" questionable leadership decisions. Something leaders can hide behind, no matter what.

It's not a good look, IMO. The main issue here is that you choose not to be transparent. You could easily share that information, when asked to justify a ban, leaving possible personal details out. Let's be clear that it is a choice.

 

[Don't be late Pedro]

without making any comment on those very reasonable observations, mods sometimes have to make decisions using information that is not privy to the wider community which can give the impression of "disproportionality" even with a more codified procedure.

This is the kind of statement that Pat and the UCI would come up with.

 

[Netserk]

This is the kind of statement that Pat and the UCI would come up with.

Don't worry. For only a small amount I can make sure you'll never test positive officially

And for a little more I can even make your enemies test positive.

 

[Eshnar]

That's also a textbook excuse to "justify" questionable leadership decisions. Something leaders can hide behind, no matter what.

It's not a good look, IMO. The main issue here is that you choose not to be transparent. You could easily share that information, when asked to justify a ban, leaving possible personal details out. Let's be clear that it is a choice.

The problem isn't that simple. For example, what if we ban someone for heavy insults. Ofc we have to delete those insults, but by doing so normal users can't see what the guy got banned for. In that case what can we do, more than saying "User xxx got banned for insults."
We can't show you those insults, otherwise the whole point in deleting them would go to hell.

 

[ebandit]

insult ya!

The problem isn't that simple. For example, what if we ban someone for heavy insults. Ofc we have to delete those insults, but by doing so normal users can't see what the guy got banned for. In that case what can we do, more than saying "User xxx got banned for insults."
We can't show you those insults, otherwise the whole point in deleting them would go to hell.

very well..............but recent discussions have not been about members who

were banned for heavy insults

in such a case there would be no questioning of bans.............most members

would understand and accept

where reason for ban is more subjective...baiting ....trolling etc of

course some will disagree and question

Mark L

 

[Eshnar]

very well..............but recent discussions have not been about members who

were banned for heavy insults

in such a case there would be no questioning of bans.............most members

would understand and accept

where reason for ban is more subjective...baiting ....trolling etc of

course some will disagree and question

Mark L

But many baiting posts are deleted too, for the same reason as above...

 

[ebandit]

errrrrrrr..............

But many baiting posts are deleted too, for the same reason as above...

errrrrrr...................deflect and divide..............................

Mark L

 

[Zam_Olyas]

Can snackattack be unban or ze woman from germania will have none of it?

 

[18-Valve. (pithy)]

But many baiting posts are deleted too, for the same reason as above...

The main reason to delete those kind of posts in a thread would be to get the discussion back on track, or to keep it on track ...in that particular thread. Or in the "on-topic" sub-forums, if you want to take it further.

A mod or admin can still discuss the actual reasons for what were (highly) controversial bans, in the About the forum section... a completely different sub-forum. That doesn't defeat the purpose of those previously edited or deleted posts, IMO. And no-one asked for actual posts / quotes to be re-posted. But it's possible to go beyond "user x got banned for "trolling" or "baiting" when a mod decision is clearly controversial and raises (legitimate) questions.

 

[LaFlorecita]

Can snackattack be unban or ze woman from germania will have none of it?

Zam good point, i dont see any reason to keep snack attack banned

 

[Eshnar]

The main reason to delete those kind of posts in a thread would be to get the discussion back on track, or to keep it on track ...in that particular thread. Or in the "on-topic" sub-forums, if you want to take it further.

A mod or admin can still discuss the actual reasons for what were (highly) controversial bans, in the About the forum section... a completely different sub-forum. That doesn't defeat the purpose of those previously edited or deleted posts, IMO. And no-one asked for actual posts / quotes to be re-posted. But it's possible to go beyond "user x got banned for "trolling" or "baiting" when a mod decision is clearly controversial and raises (legitimate) questions.

In his (last) post MR basically revealed to be here only to troll. whether or not it was a "true" experiment doesn't really matter, since we're not guinea pigs anyway. Pure trolls have to be permabanned, so the only reason why we reconsidered is only that maybe it was just an exaggerate or sarcastic post. In any case everyone should have a second chance so that's it.

 

[hiero2]

To stay on topic - I depreciate the ban of Michele Scarred Pony for having an awesome nickname

I agree - that is an awesome screen name.

I appreciate this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k37HOam7E-g

And THIS one even has a bicycle - and a babe!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2GZmuQt9Z3o

So I'll toss y'all a depreciate, too:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=njZVDh4nopY&list=PL8229D30FE30069BF

See if you can make it past the first 20 seconds!

Or - I could find some youtubes of the Raspberries? That might be appropriate!

 

[Dr. Maserati]

In his (last) post MR basically revealed to be here only to troll. whether or not it was a "true" experiment doesn't really matter, since we're not guinea pigs anyway. Pure trolls have to be permabanned, so the only reason why we reconsidered is only that maybe it was just an exaggerate or sarcastic post. In any case everyone should have a second chance so that's it.

What?
Ok, the mods have overturned a heavy handed ban, but comments like this make it seem that you are out of touch with reality.

MR said they were doing some 'informal' study, substitute informal for BS and it is more accurate. And even if the were doing a 'formal' (whatever that is) study, so what?

And also you have put MRs BS as 'pure trolling' because they admitted it? What about people who are pure trolling but not admitting it? Why are they still here if this is the new rule of perma banning pure trolls?!