Question for the mod staff....

[Guest Nelly's Bandaid]

I understand that this is a private forum and really you guys can do whatever you please, but I think if your gonna stick to that you should eliminate the guidelines you expect people to follow. I mean if people can go on the whim of a mod, there's not much reason for people to follow them at all.

 

So I was wondering, when it comes to decisions that negate the rules set, what is the precident? If a mod suspends me for an hour because he disagreed with what I was saying or the way I format my posts, what should I do? I followed the rules set and simply debated my point of view, yet still got suspended. That tells me I shouldn't listen to the rules, because there irrelevant, and I don't think that's what you guys were going for.

 

Thanks for any help.

[Lord of The Curry 0]

To all those who said that nothing would come of the Choken One banning.........

 

I give you this thread.

 

Valid questions that deserve answers, I'd say.

[Guest Dids]

I think that Choken's banning and Nelly's temporary suspension are EXACTLY the sort of thing that make TSM a better place.

 

Nelly was havning a mini Choken moment, beating a thread into the ground attempting to make the same point over, and over, and over again. AoO simply put him on time out. It was an hour, if an hour a way from a message board creates problems for you, you have issues.

 

Letting people know that stupidity will not be tolerated is the first step to making things less stupid.

[Guest Nelly's Bandaid]

If I believe in what I'm saying and people are saying things that tell me they've missed the point, why wouldn't I repeat it?

 

I can understand if there was a precident set or some rules enforcing the thought that if you don't like what someone's saying you can ban them, but from what I can tell there isn't.

 

And really, the opinion of what's stupid and what's not is irrelevant and pretty ridiculous.

[Guest Dids]

"7. Mods have full discresion to warn or ban posters they feel are out of line and acting like twits."

 

It's in the rules- you are subject to AoO's whims. It's a wonderful world.

[Guest whitemilesdavis]

It does get counteractive to good conversation to keep repeating yourself. I know there have been times when I would have appreciated someoene getting a temporary suspension when they were disrailing certain threads.

[Guest Nelly's Bandaid]

But shouldn't there be reasoning given to show how it relates to the rule?

 

How was I acting in a way that merited being suspended?

[Dr. Tom 0]

There is no reason to remove the guidelines. They're really not very inhibitive at all, and are there to impose a few basic standards of decency and common sense.

 

As the guidelines mention, staff members have full discretion to warn/suspend/ban users. If we didn't think they were up to the task, they wouldn't have the title.

[Slayer 0]

Mods to Lamers: STFU

 

Checkmate

[Guest Nelly's Bandaid]

"It does get counteractive to good conversation to keep repeating yourself. I know there have been times when I would have appreciated someoene getting a temporary suspension when they were disrailing certain threads."

 

I understand that, but I never got off any of the initial topics at hand, and there wasn't exactly a good conversation to derail. Keep in mind we're talking about a thread made to question someones masculinity.

[Guest Nelly's Bandaid]

"As the guidelines mention, staff members have full discretion to warn/suspend/ban users. If we didn't think they were up to the task, they wouldn't have the title."

 

But what happens when it's discouraging discussion or debate? I mean when it's a decision that's basically going against the very reason the forum exists it seems like a line has been crossed.

[Guest whitemilesdavis]

I'm betting the Mod thought he was furthering conversation by pulling you out for a while. Now I wasn't part of that thread, so I'll just move along now.

[Guest Dids]

Nelly- you'll notice that the thread went on for like another page, with the same basic discussion taking place between Tyler and yours truely. Neither of us got banned.

[Guest whitemilesdavis]

I just went and checked out the thread. On the last page, AoO made it clear why he suspended you. People were complaining, and he was giving you a warning.

[Guest Nelly's Bandaid]

Where was this warning? Where are the complaints? What was I doing differently from everyone else that warranted getting suspended? Thats what I don't understand.

[KingPK 0]

How about asking HIM about it, since it was HIS decision to do it?

[Dr. Tom 0]

Dude, you got sent to the e-corner for AN HOUR. Get over it.

[Guest whitemilesdavis]

Read his post on the last page of the thread.

[Guest Nelly's Bandaid]

I don't understand this, why do people think I'm all upset about this, all I wanted to do was open up some discussion so I can better understand why it happened....

 

And when someone makes a decision that I see as lacking reason there's no point going to that person for reasoning. I wanted a more fair perspective.

[Guest Nelly's Bandaid]

wmd I assume you mean:

 

"I suspended him for one hour so that he might learn the value of message board inconvenience. With any luck, he'll pull a Marney and leave forever.

 

I've got to moderate his crap because people actively complain about it as trolling, if he can't take a fucking hint, he's banned then. I really don't have the patience. "

 

The value of message board inconvenience? If the complaints were about me trolling, and I wasn't trolling, then why take action? I'm really struggling to understand this beyond 'he didn't like you so he suspended you'.

[nl5xsk1 0]

NB, the complaints are about you not using the quote feature. And for your refusal to use the correct your/you're and their/they're/there. The former complaint seems to be pretty you-specific, as I can't remember other people so adament about using "" instead of the quote box. The your/you're and their/they're/there debate is nothing new, and it's been asked in the past that the poster take the time to use the correct wording. Does it always have to be on point? No, we all make occasional typos. But is it asking too much to take the time to correctly spell the words in a post, to make reading it easier for everyone else? No, it shouldn't be.

 

I'm can't get into any trolling accusations, I actually don't read your posts (you repeatedly say "if you don't like my using quotes instead of the quote box, don't read my posts" so I tend to stop there and go to the next post).

 

Just my 2 cents, though.

[Guest Nelly's Bandaid]

But that's how I post, it's how I convey my thoughts, I'm not demanding or forcing anyone to read them, so why should I be reprimanded for it?

[Guest Fook]

You have to realize that this board is not a democracy, no matter how much you want it to be.

 

The mods have full discretion to ban you for whatever reason they choose. You have no say. Neither do I. And neither do 95% of the posters here. The only thing you can do is try to conform to their standards (which is not impossibly difficult) and hope they don't ban you.

[Guest Nelly's Bandaid]

If that's the answer than obviously I'll have no choice but to accept it and act accordingly, but some reasoning was presented and it wasn't very logical, I don't see the harm in questioning that reasoning.

 

I understand the private forum thing, but I think even a rule like 7 needs a certain set of boundaries, otherwise it's basically saying 'if a mod doesn't like you your banned', and really that's not gonna help this forum.

[Guest Dids]

Honestly- that rule has helped this forum more in the past month than any other rule possible could.

[Guest Nelly's Bandaid]

I don't see how a rule that allows mods to discourage discussion or debate can help a forum in anyway.

[the max 0]

I understand the private forum thing, but I think even a rule like 7 needs a certain set of boundaries, otherwise it's basically saying 'if a mod doesn't like you your banned', and really that's not gonna help this forum.

It's worked out for everyone else. Just act civilly and you'll be treated the same way.

[Guest Dids]

I don't see how a rule that allows mods to discourage discussion or debate can help a forum in anyway.

Because it doesn't do that. It allows the mods to remove those individuals who only serve to inhibit discussion and debate by acting like assholes.

[Guest Nelly's Bandaid]

I have acted civily, and haven't been treated the same way. That's basically why this thread is here.

[Guest Nelly's Bandaid]

"Because it doesn't do that. It allows the mods to remove those individuals who only serve to inhibit discussion and debate by acting like assholes. "

 

So then can you show me where I did that?