|
Register | Blogging | Today's Posts | Search |
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
10-03-2012, 10:58 AM | #11 (permalink) | |||
D-D-D-D-D-DROP THE BASS!
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 1,730
|
Quote:
Or, to use your own terms - Answering this question from the first post: Quote:
__________________
Quote:
|
|||
10-03-2012, 12:15 PM | #12 (permalink) | ||
Music Addict
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 3,565
|
Quote:
yeah man don't FUCK with us MAN just TELL THE TRUTH. i swear on my children's graves so help me jah i will destroy you if you try to stop everyone from being happy! |
||
10-03-2012, 12:41 PM | #13 (permalink) | |
The Aerosol in your Soul
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: New South Wales, Australia
Posts: 1,546
|
Quote:
Spam is subjective, it's junk. So it's decided what constitutes its relevancy.
__________________
last.fm |
|
10-03-2012, 04:06 PM | #14 (permalink) |
Born to be mild
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: 404 Not Found
Posts: 26,992
|
If you're attm, or previously were, I know what you're talking about, and you were warned at least twice about putting links for advertising in your sig. The fact that you a) didn't understand or b) didn't agree that this WAS advertising is irrelevant, as it was pointed out to you. Judge Dredd once warned that ignorance of the law is no excuse for breaking it, but you were told what the law was and went back to breaking it (putting in the advertising again. Twice.)
You then complained that you didn't realise what we regarded as "advertising" or "promotion", or what was or wasn't allowed. I then posted the relevant part of the rules where it clearly shows and delineates what that is. I think that was my only contribution to the thread, along with a rather incredulous comment to the effect that I couldn't see how you could be confused by very clear rules. If that was seen as rude, I apologise but really I fail to see how anyone could take it as such. All of this is meaningless of course if you were not attm in a previous life (with an avatar of some guy with headphones on, I think drumming?), but I think you were. That being the case, it wasn't just one infraction, it was several, and they would have come across as deliberate and perhaps arrogant, like putting back in something you had been told to leave out after it had been taken out. Sort of like someone saying "put that down you're not supposed to have that" and you taking it up again. A second time they say it and a second time you pick it up. See how the person telling you to put it down would quickly get annoyed and fed up, having better things to do? Rules are there for a reason. It doesn't matter if you don't agree with them, that doesn't change them, allow you to break them or decide to interpret them in a way that allows you to circumvent them. And as you said yourself, had YOU PM'd a mod instead of making a thread, this probably could have been sorted out. You could have taken a proactive stance instead of a reactive one, and then putting all the responsibility for your situation on the shoulders of the mods for not talking to you personally in private. Nothing was stopping you making the first move. It's unfair to blame the lawmakers just because you don't like the laws, and what's sauce for the goose, may the force be with you and the road rise before you etc.
__________________
Trollheart: Signature-free since April 2018 |
10-03-2012, 07:21 PM | #16 (permalink) | |
Make it so
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 6,181
|
Quote:
__________________
"Elph is truly an enfant terrible of the forum, bless and curse him" - Marie, Queen of Thots
|
|
10-04-2012, 01:13 AM | #19 (permalink) | ||||
Facilitator
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Where people kill 30 million pigs per year
Posts: 2,014
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
* * * * * * * * * * * Moderators, this thread and Vanilla's post before mine remind me that I want to raise a concern with all of you, which is that some of the rules are not enforced consistently or even followed consistently by moderators themselves, such as our site's first rule: • While debating and discussion is fine, we will not tolerate rudeness, insulting posts, personal attacks, trolling, purposeless inflammatory posts or members deliberately provoking another member into committing any of these acts. It often seems to me that the main job of moderators here is to delete posts that contain advertisements, and I can imagine that is a big job. I see the clean-up in action and do appreciate it. Using MusicBanter to banter about music in a substantive way would be much harder if the posts of people who join only to advertise or promote weren't cleaned up. So, thank you, Mods, for that. Yet I feel the occasional nasty comments by moderators and some members are much more harmful to the community than "spam" is. When I see moderators are breaking one rule while telling people to follow another, I no longer trust any of the moderators because I don't trust them to police each other. For example, Vanilla, I wish you wouldn't tell midnight-spree that he can **** off. If you really *are* drunk when you are posting, then I think it would be better if you wait until you aren't, because I feel you are violating the first rule of MusicBanter by being intentionally rude and hurtful: "We will not tolerate rudeness, insulting posts, personal attacks, trolling, purposeless inflammatory posts." Midnight_spree's feedback is actually a good thing because it shows she or he has hope that the concern will be listened to and has not given up hope that the moderators will be fair and decent.
__________________
Quote:
Last edited by VEGANGELICA; 10-04-2012 at 01:20 AM. |
||||
|