When Someone is Banned

Bloozcrooz · 06-12-2011, 10:25 PM

Lol how this thread manages to annoy so many is amusing

Paedantic Basterd · 06-12-2011, 10:30 PM

Okay, there has been discussion of closing this thread, so I am going to draw a line. If we can't get back on topic and make relevant, reasonable posts, then there's no reason to keep this open, and you'll be left without a thread for information on the matter of bans.

Neapolitan · 06-12-2011, 10:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Boozinbloozin

Lol how this thread manges to annoy so many is amusing

The amusing part is the OP got banned - maybe it was a self fulfilling prophesy.

crash_override · 06-13-2011, 12:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by duga

Some people have commented on how dumb this thread is. I'll come right out and say it: I love this thread.

It showcases just how bored most of us really are and how much we love drama. This is a lot of fun. I really do wish we could go back to insulting each others' taste in music. For now this works, I guess.

As for me...I infracted oojay for something I think was totally justified. Was it a direct insult? No, but it sure as hell was a passive one. It really annoys me when people toe the line and then expect there won't be anything done. He obviously wasn't banned and now hopefully he knows that **** won't fly, so was it really that big a deal that I did it?

I guess I'm supposed to forget all the times I've seen you insult people on this forum? Passive or otherwise?

My point is, oojay didn't say anything that you, or any other member of this forum (including most mods) wouldn't post in response to something they felt strongly about.

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****.

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.

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.

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.

That is all, I am now open for personal attacks from mods and regular members alike.

Howard the Duck · 06-13-2011, 12:27 AM

ban The Virgin for life and the mods are redeemed in my eyes

~~[MERIT]~~ · 06-13-2011, 12:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Urban Hatemonger

How would you know this anyway?

You have no knowledge of that persons history, you don't know how many friendly reminders, infractions or final warnings that person has been given beforehand.

Say someone has had lots of these in the past and is on a final warning and then they do something. A mod might say what the last thing they did before they were banned was or look at the fuller picture & say why they were in that position in the first place. 2 different reasons for the same ban and both legitimate. It's not a case of lack of continuity, it's a case of several factors adding up to the same result.

We were speaking of leniency vs. continuity. What do you mean "how would you know?" A user's history is irrelevant in that argument. She said it was moderators' leniency that was causing upheavel, I proposed that it was a lack of continuity in moderation (which really sounds worse than it is, more just different levels of temperment between different moderators).

Quote:

Originally Posted by crash_override

My point is, oojay didn't say anything that you, or any other member of this forum (including most mods) wouldn't post in response to something they felt strongly about.

What (mostly) pisses me off is that my "infraction-worthy" post was fact, not opinion. Like it's okay for someone to make stupid posts, but against the rules for someone else to point out that those posts exist (especially when those posts are made by a mod). I said that Vanilla posts about what flavor of frosting her vagina tastes like and which members she wouldn't kick out of her bed (content that was taken from HER OWN posts in HER OWN thread). Ever heard of not killing the messenger?

ThePhanastasio · 06-13-2011, 12:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pedestrian

Okay, there has been discussion of closing this thread, so I am going to draw a line. If we can't get back on topic and make relevant, reasonable posts, then there's no reason to keep this open, and you'll be left without a thread for information on the matter of bans.

Perhaps requiring posts to be openly approved would be a good thing? Or even just making it known that if threads go way off topic, they'll be deleted?

I just feel like closing a thread which 99.7% of users find to be a good source of information because .03% of users decide to be dicks isn't cool.

crash_override · 06-13-2011, 12:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ThePhanastasio

Perhaps requiring posts to be openly approved would be a good thing? Or even just making it known that if threads go way off topic, they'll be deleted?

I just feel like closing a thread which 99.7% of users find to be a good source of information because .03% of users decide to be dicks isn't cool.

I don't feel like that's a good idea. Whether it gets deleted, or switched to censorship monitoring, the quality of the thread, and the information it contains will both decrease.

Bloozcrooz · 06-13-2011, 12:52 AM

itll just move to different thread

Paedantic Basterd · 06-13-2011, 12:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ThePhanastasio

Perhaps requiring posts to be openly approved would be a good thing? Or even just making it known that if threads go way off topic, they'll be deleted?

I just feel like closing a thread which 99.7% of users find to be a good source of information because .03% of users decide to be dicks isn't cool.

I wouldn't like to have the thread moderated. I think it would subvert the entire discussion in the thread, and cause further mistrust of us. It's good for it to be wide open, but frivolous posts are merely wasting bandwidth and irritating the people who are attempting to have a discussion.

06-12-2011, 10:30 PM	#472 (permalink)
Paedantic Basterd Music Addict Join Date: Sep 2010 Posts: 5,184	Okay, there has been discussion of closing this thread, so I am going to draw a line. If we can't get back on topic and make relevant, reasonable posts, then there's no reason to keep this open, and you'll be left without a thread for information on the matter of bans.