Board index › Administration › WrongPlanet.net discussion

Banned members

Page 4 of 7 [ 110 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

TheMachine1
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Jun 2006
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,011
Location: 9099 will be my last post...what the hell 9011 will be.

06 Sep 2007, 9:58 pm

calandale wrote:
TheMachine1 wrote:
calandale wrote:
Don't think that we are ALL
asexual.


People are free to talk about sex and they do.


So, praytell, how do you consider what
I say as out of line?


Moderators remove a post that is a TOS violation. You then run and start posting threads/posts about overmoderation. You get alot people upset thinking legit speech was suppressed. Obscenity works into the equation because thats what you complain about being removed.



calandale
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 9 Mar 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,439

06 Sep 2007, 10:34 pm

TheMachine1 wrote:
Moderators remove a post that is a TOS violation. You then run and start posting threads/posts about overmoderation. You get alot people upset thinking legit speech was suppressed. Obscenity works into the equation because thats what you complain about being removed.


You're high. I can't think of a post of mine which
was removed for obscenity. Nor can I remember
complaining about other's posts being so. Indeed,
when I moderated the adult section, I was removing
pornographic stuff, until a (former) mod posted something
there which I considered such - and since I did not publicly
question or reverse others' decisions, I loosened up a bit.

No, my complaints came from posts which had little or nothing
to do with obscenity. On my own part, the whole DataSage issue
was a matter of disagreeing with him. That was the last post of
MINE which I complained about removal (the only other since,
of which I'm even aware, was trying to calm a flame war, and
it needed to be cut). The only issue surrounding possible obscenity
which I griped about had NOTHING to do with moderators, rather
a member flooding the adult section, in order to bury the posts
which were being discussed.

Other complaints tended to be around the PPR section, where
sometimes posts disappeared. But, I don't think I've ever supported
either obscenity nor hate speech there.

You have a VERY interesting memory.



TheMachine1
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Jun 2006
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,011
Location: 9099 will be my last post...what the hell 9011 will be.

06 Sep 2007, 10:50 pm

calandale wrote:
Other complaints tended to be around the PPR section, where
sometimes posts disappeared. But, I don't think I've ever supported
either obscenity nor hate speech there.


Those missing posts being obscene and/or hate speech and you complaining about them being missing is the entire issue.



larsenjw92286
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Aug 2004
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,062
Location: Seattle, Washington

07 Sep 2007, 12:02 am

What are you all thinking?


_________________
Jason Larsen
gameshowdude1986@yahoo.com


michel
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Aug 2007
Age: 55
Gender: Male
Posts: 735
Location: Ecuador

07 Sep 2007, 1:29 am

Whatever



Last edited by michel on 07 Sep 2007, 2:45 am, edited 1 time in total.

greenblue
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Mar 2007
Age: 50
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,896
Location: Home

07 Sep 2007, 2:05 am

TheMachine1 wrote:
I ban people for 3 reasons: repeated offensive posts, flooding with spam , using sockpuppets.

I agree with Hadron about the warnings, a few people may not realise why they are banned and get surprised, that could really happen if you actually think about it, my opinion on this is that out of the three reasons "repeated offensive posts" would be the one with a warning, a single warning, after the person failing to comply then the banning (kinda like the yellow and red cards from soccer or football or whatever you want to call it), the other two, it is obvious there is no need for warning there. That's my thought.


_________________
?Everything is perfect in the universe - even your desire to improve it.?


gwenevyn
l'esprit de l'escalier
l'esprit de l'escalier

User avatar

Joined: 6 May 2007
Age: 43
Gender: Female
Posts: 5,443

07 Sep 2007, 2:19 am

greenblue wrote:
TheMachine1 wrote:
I ban people for 3 reasons: repeated offensive posts, flooding with spam , using sockpuppets.

I agree with Hadron about the warnings, a few people may not realise why they are banned and get surprised, that could really happen if you actually think about it, my opinion on this is that out of the three reasons "repeated offensive posts" would be the one with a warning, a single warning, after the person failing to comply then the banning (kinda like the yellow and red cards from soccer or football or whatever you want to call it), the other two, it is obvious there is no need for warning there. That's my thought.


I'd like to second that. There are certainly times when an immediate banning is in everybody's best interest, but providing warnings in the sort of case that greenblue describes would both protect the mod from certain accusations and prevent the banning of ignorant but good-intentioned posters.


_________________
The machine does not isolate man from the great problems of nature but plunges him more deeply into them. -Antoine de Saint Exupéry


Hadron
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 Aug 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 957
Location: IntensitySquared or Zomg

07 Sep 2007, 6:14 am

greenblue wrote:
TheMachine1 wrote:
I ban people for 3 reasons: repeated offensive posts, flooding with spam , using sockpuppets.

I agree with Hadron about the warnings, a few people may not realise why they are banned and get surprised, that could really happen if you actually think about it, my opinion on this is that out of the three reasons "repeated offensive posts" would be the one with a warning, a single warning, after the person failing to comply then the banning (kinda like the yellow and red cards from soccer or football or whatever you want to call it), the other two, it is obvious there is no need for warning there. That's my thought.

There might be a rare case where a member may need warning about spamming the forums as well, coming to think of it.



calandale
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 9 Mar 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,439

07 Sep 2007, 7:01 am

TheMachine1 wrote:
calandale wrote:
Other complaints tended to be around the PPR section, where
sometimes posts disappeared. But, I don't think I've ever supported
either obscenity nor hate speech there.


Those missing posts being obscene and/or hate speech and you complaining about them being missing is the entire issue.


My 'complaints', in the case of such posts,
are probably either about ones that I haven't
seen, suggesting that the poster bring it to the
overmoderation thread, IF THEY BELIEVED the
post was innocuous, OR the post really was so.

I'd really like an example of where I knowingly
supported such crap. Again, you have a selective
memory - and a spiteful nature, towards those you
choose to dislike - something I pointed out to you
LONG before you disliked me.



calandale
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 9 Mar 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,439

07 Sep 2007, 7:02 am

Hadron wrote:
greenblue wrote:
TheMachine1 wrote:
I ban people for 3 reasons: repeated offensive posts, flooding with spam , using sockpuppets.

I agree with Hadron about the warnings, a few people may not realise why they are banned and get surprised, that could really happen if you actually think about it, my opinion on this is that out of the three reasons "repeated offensive posts" would be the one with a warning, a single warning, after the person failing to comply then the banning (kinda like the yellow and red cards from soccer or football or whatever you want to call it), the other two, it is obvious there is no need for warning there. That's my thought.

There might be a rare case where a member may need warning about spamming the forums as well, coming to think of it.


gwenevyn wrote:
I'd like to second that. There are certainly times when an immediate banning is in everybody's best interest, but providing warnings in the sort of case that greenblue describes would both protect the mod from certain accusations and prevent the banning of ignorant but good-intentioned posters.


Take it up with Alex. He's the one opposing warnings.
I'm sure he has his reasons.



Hadron
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 Aug 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 957
Location: IntensitySquared or Zomg

07 Sep 2007, 7:11 am

calandale wrote:
Hadron wrote:
greenblue wrote:
TheMachine1 wrote:
I ban people for 3 reasons: repeated offensive posts, flooding with spam , using sockpuppets.

I agree with Hadron about the warnings, a few people may not realise why they are banned and get surprised, that could really happen if you actually think about it, my opinion on this is that out of the three reasons "repeated offensive posts" would be the one with a warning, a single warning, after the person failing to comply then the banning (kinda like the yellow and red cards from soccer or football or whatever you want to call it), the other two, it is obvious there is no need for warning there. That's my thought.

There might be a rare case where a member may need warning about spamming the forums as well, coming to think of it.


gwenevyn wrote:
I'd like to second that. There are certainly times when an immediate banning is in everybody's best interest, but providing warnings in the sort of case that greenblue describes would both protect the mod from certain accusations and prevent the banning of ignorant but good-intentioned posters.


Take it up with Alex. He's the one opposing warnings.
I'm sure he has his reasons.

I assume he reads this bit of the site.



calandale
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 9 Mar 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,439

07 Sep 2007, 8:05 am

Uh huh. :roll:



larsenjw92286
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Aug 2004
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,062
Location: Seattle, Washington

07 Sep 2007, 9:46 am

We should care about all this!


_________________
Jason Larsen
gameshowdude1986@yahoo.com


kevv729
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Sep 2005
Age: 63
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,872
Location: SOUTH DAKOTA

07 Sep 2007, 1:45 pm

larsenjw92286 wrote:
We should care about all this!
Yes We should.


_________________
Come on My children lets All get Along Okay.


kevv729
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Sep 2005
Age: 63
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,872
Location: SOUTH DAKOTA

07 Sep 2007, 1:47 pm

gwenevyn wrote:
greenblue wrote:
TheMachine1 wrote:
I ban people for 3 reasons: repeated offensive posts, flooding with spam , using sockpuppets.

I agree with Hadron about the warnings, a few people may not realise why they are banned and get surprised, that could really happen if you actually think about it, my opinion on this is that out of the three reasons "repeated offensive posts" would be the one with a warning, a single warning, after the person failing to comply then the banning (kinda like the yellow and red cards from soccer or football or whatever you want to call it), the other two, it is obvious there is no need for warning there. That's my thought.


I'd like to second that. There are certainly times when an immediate banning is in everybody's best interest, but providing warnings in the sort of case that greenblue describes would both protect the mod from certain accusations and prevent the banning of ignorant but good-intentioned posters.
I third it.


_________________
Come on My children lets All get Along Okay.


Hadron
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 Aug 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 957
Location: IntensitySquared or Zomg

07 Sep 2007, 1:58 pm

kevv729 wrote:
gwenevyn wrote:
greenblue wrote:
TheMachine1 wrote:
I ban people for 3 reasons: repeated offensive posts, flooding with spam , using sockpuppets.

I agree with Hadron about the warnings, a few people may not realise why they are banned and get surprised, that could really happen if you actually think about it, my opinion on this is that out of the three reasons "repeated offensive posts" would be the one with a warning, a single warning, after the person failing to comply then the banning (kinda like the yellow and red cards from soccer or football or whatever you want to call it), the other two, it is obvious there is no need for warning there. That's my thought.


I'd like to second that. There are certainly times when an immediate banning is in everybody's best interest, but providing warnings in the sort of case that greenblue describes would both protect the mod from certain accusations and prevent the banning of ignorant but good-intentioned posters.
I third it.

Fourth.