Moderators

[the sceptic]

The only one I remember was one of BPCs accounts - again, I would have no problem with them being allowed post as long as they were posting on topic or not going personal, but that is no longer their objective.

Im not as well versed in the forum history as you so ill take your word for that. I still think its dumb to ban people after 1 post though.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Im not as well versed in the forum history as you so ill take your word for that. I still think its dumb to ban people after 1 post though.

If its the one I remember they were sharing real life details (as well as making stuff up) about a poster here.
Is that ok by you?

 

[the sceptic]

If its the one I remember they were sharing real life details (as well as making stuff up) about a poster here.
Is that ok by you?

no of course not. If I saw someone do that I wouldnt be here arguing against a permaban.

 

[mewmewmew13]

Im not as well versed in the forum history as you so ill take your word for that. I still think its dumb to ban people after 1 post though.

You do understand that it is against forum rules to come back as a sock puppet..therefore if one post shows a previous banned member trying to come back they get banninated asap?

 

[the sceptic]

You do understand that it is against forum rules to come back as a sock puppet..therefore if one post shows a previous banned member trying to come back they get banninated asap?

Yes I am aware of that.

 

[straightjacker]

You do understand that it is against forum rules to come back as a sock puppet..therefore if one post shows a previous banned member trying to come back they get banninated asap?

You can't be serious... Who would do that?
It's just silly.

 

[mewmewmew13]

You can't be serious... Who would do that?
It's just silly.

lol
……….*wave*

 

[Granville57]

You can't be serious... Who would do that?
It's just silly.

Please. Allow me.

Armstrong thread here

Sky thread here

Don't disappoint me.

 

[BroDeal]

The groupthink here has become too stifling. Sometimes you have to burn down the forum to save the forum. It is time to bring back BPC. And also thehog.

 

[Granville57]

Oh I see.

Now the thread in question has been completely nuked.

OK. Well if you don't tell anyone about, then I won't tell anyone about it. Then we can all just pretend it never existed.

Awesome.

*sniped for size*

Haha! This really is awesome! I only just now realized that a mod had time to snip my post "for size" but couldn't be bothered to respond to the question of why the thread had been deleted. Priceless.

I take it this is the new standard? The mods just ignore us?

That's cool. We'll just ignore you guys too then.

That won't be a problem, will it?

 

[Netserk]

Haha! This really is awesome! I only just now realized that a mod had time to snip my post "for size" but couldn't be bothered to respond to the question of why the thread had been deleted. Priceless.

I take it this is the new standard? The mods just ignore us?

That's cool. We'll just ignore you guys too then.

That won't be a problem, will it?

If it wasn't said mod who closed the thread, how should he be able to respond?

 

[the sceptic]

The groupthink here has become too stifling. Sometimes you have to burn down the forum to save the forum. It is time to bring back BPC. And also thehog.

youll probably get banned soon for not following the Weather Radio herd.

 

[Granville57]

If it wasn't said mod who closed the thread, how should he be able to respond?

Presumably by typing a series of letter into the screen in front of him and then pressing "Submit."



You sure do spend a lot of time in this thread. Did getting voted off the island really leave that much of a scar?

 

[Netserk]

Presumably by typing a series of letter into the screen in front of him and then pressing "Submit."

And if said mod didn't know why the thread was closed?

 

[Granville57]

And if said mod didn't know why the thread was closed?

OK, I'm feeling generous at the moment. I'll respond.

I suppose he could've posted something along the lines of:



"As a moderater, I appreciate the concern expressed over the sudden and unannounced removal of a thread that was clearly generating some enjoyment for many of those participating, and didn't seem to be breaking any of the forum rules of conduct.

"My position as moderator, which does carry a certain degree of responsibility, means that I will usually have access to information as it relates to the closing or deletion of threads. I take my role, and the responsibility that goes with that, seriously, as it was my intention upon becoming a moderator to improve the overall quality of the forum for its users. I also hold the users of this forum in high regard as it is they who generate 100% of the content for free, and whose efforts are greatly appreciated by Daniel Benson and his superiors at Future Publishing because without such free contend providers, there would be no forum. This, in and of itself, is inconsequential to both Daniel Benson and his superiors at Future Publishing. However, it would mean less page views, and that would certainly translate to less advertising dollars—something they both care a great deal about. So on behalf of all them, I'ld like to say Thank You!

"But back to the topic of my response, or lack thereof, in this thread.
I was not privy to the exact details surrounding the deletion of the highly entertaining that you referred to, but clearly you deserve an answer as to why it was deleted without so much as note left under your pillow.

"My role as a moderator does allow me to interact with other moderators on this site, so it shouldn't be too much trouble for me to ascertain exactly what happened and why. Of course I will be more than happy to share that information with you so long as it does not violate any confidentiality agreements between myself and Future Publishing.

"Furthermore, I would just like to add that since my being a moderator was never the result of any elective process on the part of the forum members themselves (in reality, very few people actually want the job. I just happened to raise my hand when the call went out) I am willing to accept that some of the decisions made here will be viewed with a certain degree of skepticism, if not outright disdain. With that in mind, I will do my very best, in the spirit of making the forum as enjoyable and rewarding for everyone, to offer clear and reasonable explanations for the decision that are made, whenever the information is available to me. In the absence of such knowledge, I am confident that one of my co-moderators—who share equally in their desire to make this forum enjoyable for everyone—will provide such information in a timely manner."



Ya' know. Something like that.

But that's just off the top of my head.

EDIT: snipped by sittingbison for brevity

 

[sittingbison]

Probably closed because seasoned members were taking the mickey Out of a fellow member and not contributing to a serious effort at discussion. That's my guess.

 

[sittingbison]

The groupthink here has become too stifling. Sometimes you have to burn down the forum to save the forum. It is time to bring back BPC. And also thehog.

But BroDeal, BPC and thehog have never left

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Probably closed because seasoned members were taking the mickey Out of a fellow member and not contributing to a serious effort at discussion. That's my guess.

It should have nothing to do with 'seasoned members' - or any members.

Nor do I think an opening post of that size can be considered 'a serious effort at discussion'.

 

[sittingbison]

...That's cool. We'll just ignore you guys too then.

That won't be a problem, will it?

No problemo... Situation normal

 

[Race Radio]

But BroDeal, BPC and thehog have never left

Nor has Whiteboytrash or Damiano Machiavelli

 

[sittingbison]

It should have nothing to do with 'seasoned members' - or any members.

Nor do I think an opening post of that size can be considered 'a serious effort at discussion'.

It does have something to do with all members.... Taking the Mickey that is.

I offered no comment on the OP, or the poster.

And it was my guess.

 

[mewmewmew13]

I hate to mention this but I do think the animosity between the mods/admins and other members of this forum have a lot to do with the tone..

but the mods can't get banned and the forumites do on a regular basis..

bare bones modding such as consistent bans and warnings for ALL members would be ideal…

it's too late at this point..agitation has set in..
and some seem to keep coming back

khaos

 

[Dr. Maserati]

It does have something to do with all members.... Taking the Mickey that is.

Sure, but if that was the case remove any 'offensive' posts.
(I didn't see anything offensive in any post)

I offered no comment on the OP, or the poster.

And it was my guess.

Thats all fine.

I will add - that I appreciate that you at least attempt to have some communication here.
Also - it is pretty bad form that you appear to be left alone on a lot of things.
Its unfair on the members, the forum - but especially on you, its not right.

 

[Granville57]

Probably closed because seasoned members were taking the mickey Out of a fellow member and not contributing to a serious effort at discussion. That's my guess.

Thanks for chiming in, dude.

Speaking only for myself here:
It definitely wasn't a serious effort at "discussion." The reasons? The claims that the OP made regarding having been a longtime lurker were instantly revealed to be BS because any longtime lurker would've known that:

A) There is an explicit sticky thread titled "Opening a new Armstrong thread" which explains what not to do.

B) There is a long-running Armstrong thread already active where such a "discussion" would go.

C) The very discussion the OP was proposing was already taking place within the aforementioned Armstrong thread, so the shock and awe that the OP was expressing over the fact that we weren't discussing such things was...well you get the idea.

And then there was the repeated use of the term"Mr" as a prefix to the name "Armstrong."

But that's totally normal of course. I'm sure the OP was sincere.

Lost in all this, however, was the very real attempt to convey the absurdity of unnecessarily quoting lengthy posts in their entirety which can make any thread difficult to read. Fortunately, this hasn't happened since then.

So perhaps my concern was misplaced.

 

[sittingbison]

...It definitely wasn't a serious effort at "discussion." ... I'm sure the OP was sincere....

Im going to do a thehog:

...I offered no comment on the OP, or the poster...