Now that I am unbanned, let's talk...[Andy, answer post #32]

[AndyDufresne]

That's a dead thread, thanks though. What we need are mods who aren't vengeful teenagers. Perhaps that might help.

Vengeful teenagers? If that is your suggestion, perhaps you should make it in in the suggestions forum. I'm not sure what kind of traction it will get considering I'm not sure there actually are a lot of teenagers (vengeful or not) in the global moderator or discussion moderator crews.

1/5 of Global mods are teenagers for anyone interested.

I'm doing something wrong then. We should really get this number up to 9/5ths.


--Andy

[Victor Sullivan]

That's a dead thread, thanks though. What we need are mods who aren't vengeful teenagers. Perhaps that might help.

Vengeful teenagers? If that is your suggestion, perhaps you should make it in in the suggestions forum. I'm not sure what kind of traction it will get considering I'm not sure there actually are a lot of teenagers (vengeful or not) in the global moderator or discussion moderator crews.

1/5 of Global mods are teenagers for anyone interested.

I'm doing something wrong then. We should really get this number up to 9/5ths.


--Andy

Cuz 9/5 is more than 1! Haha... I get it. Math joke. Funny. Ah... Well... Um... No comment on what herk has said though, Andy? He seems to want answers... (I swear I am not taking sides on this matter)

-Sully

[thegreekdog]

That's a dead thread, thanks though. What we need are mods who aren't vengeful teenagers. Perhaps that might help.

Vengeful teenagers? If that is your suggestion, perhaps you should make it in in the suggestions forum. I'm not sure what kind of traction it will get considering I'm not sure there actually are a lot of teenagers (vengeful or not) in the global moderator or discussion moderator crews.

1/5 of Global mods are teenagers for anyone interested.

I'm doing something wrong then. We should really get this number up to 9/5ths.


--Andy

I think I would welcome being a teenager again.

[denominator]

I didn't click quote. Read the OP. As I told KingA, I was cleaning out my inbox, saw the PM which was titled Nietsche PM Abuse[KS], copied and pasted the text from the PM, deleted it, finished cleaning my inbox, then I went to the thread and pasted the quote. I added quote tags, and put KS in the quote tags. I didn't realize that it was KA who sent me the message. Simple mistake.

This one looks pretty black and white to me, herk.

If what you're saying is true, then I can see why you're upset. However, it seems rather far-fetched. Looking at it with no inside information (eg - not being you or KA who saw the original PM), it appears as though you changed the name on purpose. Furthermore, I'm not sure how you can make a mistake as simple as KingA vs KingS when the names in question are actually king achilles and king sam. I'm also not sure why you would set yourself up for an error in the quoting when there's such an easy process to put the quote tags on automatically, with the correct name, and it even saves you some time and keystrokes when you post it somewhere else, but to each his own.

Secondly,

I don't understand why you think you were ignored, 2 different people answered you within a day and a half of the ticket?

Both king achilles and AndyDufrense responded to your e-ticket almost immediately, and both posted what looks like closing comments. I'm not sure what else you were expecting from the e-ticket, but clearly in their minds it was closed at that point, and I'd have to say I agree with them there.

Finally, to the most distressing part of the whole saga.

You backed Juan publicly through his entire ordeal, claiming on multiple accounts that you believed his story, even started a thread disputing it, but the second that your ass was on the line, your story changed to fit the one told to you by the guy in charge. Well done, asshole.

That's a dead thread, thanks though. What we need are mods who aren't vengeful teenagers. Perhaps that might help.

Vengeful teenagers? If that is your suggestion, perhaps you should make it in in the suggestions forum. I'm not sure what kind of traction it will get considering I'm not sure there actually are a lot of teenagers (vengeful or not) in the global moderator or discussion moderator crews.

1/5 of Global mods are teenagers for anyone interested.

I'm doing something wrong then. We should really get this number up to 9/5ths.


--Andy

Seriously, Andy? You truly are one of the worst posters in the whole forum for posting meaningless, off-topic posts that derail the conversation. The Discussion Mods are all over everyone else for posting anything even close to off-topic, but because your name is red you seem to think that the same rules don't apply to you. This is another thread that you've derailed with meaningless drivel.

[Juan_Bottom]

I gave up posting in this forum b/c there is a two fold problem w/the system.

1. The system of 'justice' is warped and it gives mods entirely too much power to screw over members. The escalating ban system that they use is at the heart of that problem.

2. The mods/admin are inconsistent and beholden to none of us to do a proper job.

Given that this complaint speaks to the second issue that I pointed out, I'll give my relative thoughts.

First off, Herk I like you, but I can see how you have an immature streak so I think these types of problems would follow you. I'm not trying to judge you; I'm sure there are those that would say the same thing about me.

This is true of all of us who get routinely banned. It's also why we're the fun ones who make interesting posts that people want to read. Everyone else is just blah, and if we're not blah too, then we must be bad.

That regards changing the system dynamics, but there is still a huge issue though when a mod is caught glorying in another member's ban and then he's allowed to continue to be a mod and condescend to members. If he had any dignity, he'd resign or even at least apologize. But as it is, CC should still not tolerate that type of behavior from the mods. Basically the message has been sent that the mods are bulletproof and they can do what they want.

This is everything to me. You've just made a friend. This is what made me create the LOVO VS JUAN thread. He kicked me into Social Chat for a rule that didn't exist, and then I caught him up when he said that it did exist and I needed to learn the rules... When he told me it was a rule I felt embarrassed and I went and checked, and lo, there was no rule after all. So he tells me to shut up about it because he's the Mod and his decision is done. He escalated the situation and banned me because he could. I didn't send in a ticket, I didn't create an abuse thread, because none of it would do any good. It's just as he said, the Mods all protect each other. There is a reason that the community is so cynical towards certain Mods.
Then there was Pander who then said 'someday you will go over the line and you'll be perma-banned and I'll be so happy, but this isn't a threat.' That post was deleted later though.
And Insomnia who was mocking AoG in his "free AoG thread." It happens all the time.

[BigBallinStalin]

That's a dead thread, thanks though. What we need are mods who aren't vengeful teenagers. Perhaps that might help.

Vengeful teenagers? If that is your suggestion, perhaps you should make it in in the suggestions forum. I'm not sure what kind of traction it will get considering I'm not sure there actually are a lot of teenagers (vengeful or not) in the global moderator or discussion moderator crews.

1/5 of Global mods are teenagers for anyone interested.

I'm doing something wrong then. We should really get this number up to 9/5ths.


--Andy

Seriously, Andy? You truly are one of the worst posters in the whole forum for posting meaningless, off-topic posts that derail the conversation. The Discussion Mods are all over everyone else for posting anything even close to off-topic, but because your name is red you seem to think that the same rules don't apply to you. This is another thread that you've derailed with meaningless drivel.

It's not that OT posting seriously offends me until my face turns into the avatar to the right, but I do agree that Andy's post was pretty lame. He could've simply explained himself when herk's asking him too. He could've done the same with AoG, but he doesn't because he knows he's in the wrong.

It seems to be in their best interests to ignore the complaints and protests and pretend like nothing really happened. However, doing so only makes one appear to be an insensitive prick who deserves no respect (which explains a lot). Alternatively, in these kinds of situations if one were to admit to the wrong, that poster typically becomes slightly more respected.

[theherkman]

I didn't click quote. Read the OP. As I told KingA, I was cleaning out my inbox, saw the PM which was titled Nietsche PM Abuse[KS], copied and pasted the text from the PM, deleted it, finished cleaning my inbox, then I went to the thread and pasted the quote. I added quote tags, and put KS in the quote tags. I didn't realize that it was KA who sent me the message. Simple mistake.

Ok i will agree with you there it was a simple mistake now that you explain it like that, but at the time you are saying without a doubt that you received a pm and it was from person x, but you no longer have the pm or used this method to say who the pm was from...it is no longer a simple mistake.

I'm not sure what to say with this as you seem to contradict yourself in your post... Let me spell this out one more time really clearly.

1. I saw KingS mark the case as closed.
2. I didn't remember the PM when I read the case was closed.
3. I decided to not say anything about it.
4. I went to clean out my inbox.
5. After cleaning out 30 or so messages I came across one with "Neitsche PM Abuse[KS]" in the subject line.
6. I clicked on the PM.
7. I read the message.
8. I went and checked the thread and saw it was closed instead of noted.
9. I went back to my inbox.
10. I copied the text.
11. I deleted the message.
12. I finished cleaning my inbox.
13. I pasted into the thread and put quote tags around the message. (KS instead of KA)
14. I was PM'd by KA where he told me that he had sent the message.
15. I explained, apologized, and went to post in the thread that I had made a mistake.
16. The thread was locked and I was banned shortly.

Is that clear enough? Geeze!

That's a dead thread, thanks though. What we need are mods who aren't vengeful teenagers. Perhaps that might help.

Vengeful teenagers? If that is your suggestion, perhaps you should make it in in the suggestions forum. I'm not sure what kind of traction it will get considering I'm not sure there actually are a lot of teenagers (vengeful or not) in the global moderator or discussion moderator crews.

Let me rephrase. What we need are mods who aren't don't act like vengeful teenagers. Perhaps that might help.

I'm doing something wrong then. We should really get this number up to 9/5ths.


--Andy

Really? I ask you to explain yourself in private and you refuse to oblige. Now I am asking you to explain yourself in public and you respond by spamming/trolling? In what world is it okay for you to do the things we will be banned for? Answer that question, Andy, instead of spamming some more. Do you realize that even your moderating team talks bad about you? Do you not thing people notice your off-topic spam posting and trolling behavior? Do you really think this is okay? (BTW - That is a question for you to answer too.)

Cuz 9/5 is more than 1! Haha... I get it. Math joke. Funny. Ah... Well... Um... No comment on what herk has said though, Andy? He seems to want answers... (I swear I am not taking sides on this matter)

-Sully

Yes, Victor. It is a joke. When I am trying to have a serious discussion he derails the conversation with his spam. I also understand that you are not taking sides. I do want some answers.

I think I would welcome being a teenager again.

Yet another fine example of a bulletproof mod. Unless he is being banned for off-topic trolling/spamming.

If what you're saying is true, then I can see why you're upset. However, it seems rather far-fetched. Looking at it with no inside information (eg - not being you or KA who saw the original PM), it appears as though you changed the name on purpose. Furthermore, I'm not sure how you can make a mistake as simple as KingA vs KingS when the names in question are actually king achilles and king sam. I'm also not sure why you would set yourself up for an error in the quoting when there's such an easy process to put the quote tags on automatically, with the correct name, and it even saves you some time and keystrokes when you post it somewhere else, but to each his own.

You want to know the real reason why I made that mistake? I don't know how to spell King Achilles without looking it up. Notice how in all my e-tickets/elsewhere I use KingA and KingS. I also wanted to continue to clean out my inbox before posting. Between some PMs about dubs games and the New Brairsburg Mafia thread, I had a shit ton of PMs. I know that it is kinda' lame, but see my response to Ljex above for a detailed explanation of what happened.

Both king achilles and AndyDufrense responded to your e-ticket almost immediately, and both posted what looks like closing comments. I'm not sure what else you were expecting from the e-ticket, but clearly in their minds it was closed at that point, and I'd have to say I agree with them there.

This is the key. This wasn't reviewed or reconsidered. This wasn't even a process of appeal. The ban was backed up IMMEDIATELY without considering my side of the story. When I gave a plausible explanation and asked specific questions, I didn't receive a response until a few hours before my ban ended. This means I was ignored for 5-6 days. Which was the majority of my ban. I love how you post, "In their minds it was closed at that point." I agree. That point was before I even sent in the e-ticket.

You backed Juan publicly through his entire ordeal, claiming on multiple accounts that you believed his story, even started a thread disputing it, but the second that your ass was on the line, your story changed to fit the one told to you by the guy in charge. Well done, asshole.

I didn't have a reason to consider him untruthful. When my e-ticket was responded to right away I did have reason to doubt him. When my e-ticket was ignored I then realized that the same most likely happened to Juan Bottom and Andy was not telling the truth.

First off, Herk I like you, but I can see how you have an immature streak so I think these types of problems would follow you. I'm not trying to judge you; I'm sure there are those that would say the same thing about me.

This is true of all of us who get routinely banned. It's also why we're the fun ones who make interesting posts that people want to read. Everyone else is just blah, and if we're not blah too, then we must be bad.

I agreed with this also, but refrained from tooting my own horn by highlighting this statement. But you deserve a horn toot, so...

It's not that OT posting seriously offends me until my face turns into the avatar to the right, but I do agree that Andy's post was pretty lame. He could've simply explained himself when herk's asking him too. He could've done the same with AoG, but he doesn't because he knows he's in the wrong.

Let's be more specific. It isn't because he knows he is wrong, even though this is the case. It is because he doesn't want to humble himself enough to admit it.

[thegreekdog]

Let me rephrase. What we need are mods who aren't don't act like vengeful teenagers. Perhaps that might help.

I think you should add your thoughts in a comprehensive suggestion. That would be the most constructive way to effectuate changes.

Yet another fine example of a bulletproof mod. Unless he is being banned for off-topic trolling/spamming.

I did get a warning once for trolling (it was politically related...). I'm not sure "I think I would welcome being a teenager again" is something I would ban someone for if we're talking about off-topic trolling or spamming, regardless of the person's moderator/non-moderator status.

[theherkman]

Let me rephrase. What we need are mods who aren't don't act like vengeful teenagers. Perhaps that might help.

I think you should add your thoughts in a comprehensive suggestion. That would be the most constructive way to effectuate changes.

Let's be honest here. There is no effective way to make changes when our complaint is that mods abuse their powers and the mods can veto these suggestions.

Yet another fine example of a bulletproof mod. Unless he is being banned for off-topic trolling/spamming.

I did get a warning once for trolling (it was politically related...). I'm not sure "I think I would welcome being a teenager again" is something I would ban someone for if we're talking about off-topic trolling or spamming, regardless of the person's moderator/non-moderator status.

The topic of this thread is not about being a teenager. You were off-topic, spamming, and trolling. These are against the forum rules and are ban-worthy offenses. My point is that because your name is green, nothing will be done about your post.

[thegreekdog]

Let's be honest here. There is no effective way to make changes when our complaint is that mods abuse their powers and the mods can veto these suggestions.

I disagree. And if there is no effective way to make changes, then why did you create this thread? I type that with absolute conviction. If the forum-goers (myself included) offer constructive suggestions instead of posts about whether or not the moderators are vengeful, power-mad, teenagers, I believe things could be improved. I am supportive of any constructive efforts.

The topic of this thread is not about being a teenager. You were off-topic, spamming, and trolling. These are against the forum rules and are ban-worthy offenses. My point is that because your name is green, nothing will be done about your post.

So because this thread was not about being a teenager, and I indicated I wish I was a teenager again, I was off-topic, thus violating the rules? Can we apply this logic to other posts? Do you want us to start applying this logic to other posts? I'm a little concerned about the precedent this will set.

[theherkman]

Let's be honest here. There is no effective way to make changes when our complaint is that mods abuse their powers and the mods can veto these suggestions.

I disagree. And if there is no effective way to make changes, then why did you create this thread? I type that with absolute conviction. If the forum-goers (myself included) offer constructive suggestions instead of posts about whether or not the moderators are vengeful, power-mad, teenagers, I believe things could be improved. I am supportive of any constructive efforts.

Reread the OP for why this thread was created.

The topic of this thread is not about being a teenager. You were off-topic, spamming, and trolling. These are against the forum rules and are ban-worthy offenses. My point is that because your name is green, nothing will be done about your post.

So because this thread was not about being a teenager, and I indicated I wish I was a teenager again, I was off-topic, thus violating the rules? Can we apply this logic to other posts? Do you want us to start applying this logic to other posts? I'm a little concerned about the precedent this will set.

Don't de-rail topics, don't spam them, don't flame them, don't bait them, don't drive a topic into a negative spiral.

Posting controversial or irrelevant messages or topics with the intent to provoke someone else into a contest of over-manly confrontation, emotional response, flame fest or to generally disrupt the discussion, community or user is not cool. Prompting or provoking others (Baiting) to do that is just as bad.

Posting about yourself in a forum topic that is not specifically about you.

If the main point of your post is about something other than what the OP intended, it's not on topic, even if you did post about how you agree with the OP.

Just because everyone in the forum topic doesn't mind it going off topic does not mean that it's okey doky.

Ask yourself if your post is actually contributing to the topic, or is it off topic or just plain spam? If it's not contributing, find somewhere else to post.

For users who break the above Guidelines, as they say, "there will be consequences and repercussions."

Better?

[jcalebmoore]

The whining about the mods crew sure has gotten more verbose....

If you say that someone is acting like a teenager, a reply of, I wish I was a teenager doesn't seem very off topic.

Posting something, like, "I wish I were a choo-choo train" on the other hand would be off topic. Unless however, you were commenting on examples of things that were off-topic in a thread about being off-topic. However, I worry I have digressed into a negative spiral...

[Arama86n]

[removed drunken nonsense]

[thegreekdog]

I was not "[p]osting controversial or irrelevant messages or topics with the intent to provoke someone else into a contest of over-manly confrontation, emotional response, flame fest or to generally disrupt the discussion, community or user[.]"

If I ask myself if my post contributed to the topic, I would say yes. If, instead, I had posted something like "Hey, check out this link for this other thread about politics," that would be off-topic. Would I ban someone for that? Of course not. I might say, "get back on topic."

In any event, if you would like to discuss further, let's do so over pm so as not to take up any more thread space here. Although, I would again urge everyone to think of some good suggestions to improve the community and put them in the suggestions forum.

[jefjef]

This post was made by jefjef who is currently on your ignore list. Display this post.

This has been considered by CC as baiting in the past. Shall we find out if it still is?

He could've done the same with AoG, but he doesn't because he knows he's in the wrong.

Inaccurate. AoG deserved his ban for a bigoted inflammatory post. the.killing posted the same thing first and was also punished.

As for theherkmans early release it seems that since both the 3 day and 7 day ban was issued almost simultaneously the 7 day over rode the 3 day. CC needs to change that policy. If someone is issued bans for separate offenses each one should have to be served.

and why isn't this thread locked and why isn't herkman banned again for it?

[Timminz]

Herk, I'll say the same thing to you here, that I said to Sulli earlier.

[theherkman]

I was not "[p]osting controversial or irrelevant messages or topics with the intent to provoke someone else into a contest of over-manly confrontation, emotional response, flame fest or to generally disrupt the discussion, community or user[.]"

If I ask myself if my post contributed to the topic, I would say yes. If, instead, I had posted something like "Hey, check out this link for this other thread about politics," that would be off-topic. Would I ban someone for that? Of course not. I might say, "get back on topic."

In any event, if you would like to discuss further, let's do so over pm so as not to take up any more thread space here. Although, I would again urge everyone to think of some good suggestions to improve the community and put them in the suggestions forum.

The point of this thread is to not discuss this kind of thing behind closed doors where mods can just say, "Deal with it." You only picked ONE rule to defend yourself against. What about the others? Also, the way the sentence is structured means that either of the three actions are transgressions. The second is the one you violated. I am willing to overlook this if you will respond to the numerous other rules quoted.

[thegreekdog]

I was not "[p]osting controversial or irrelevant messages or topics with the intent to provoke someone else into a contest of over-manly confrontation, emotional response, flame fest or to generally disrupt the discussion, community or user[.]"

If I ask myself if my post contributed to the topic, I would say yes. If, instead, I had posted something like "Hey, check out this link for this other thread about politics," that would be off-topic. Would I ban someone for that? Of course not. I might say, "get back on topic."

In any event, if you would like to discuss further, let's do so over pm so as not to take up any more thread space here. Although, I would again urge everyone to think of some good suggestions to improve the community and put them in the suggestions forum.

The point of this thread is to not discuss this kind of thing behind closed doors where mods can just say, "Deal with it." You only picked ONE rule to defend yourself against. What about the others? Also, the way the sentence is structured means that either of the three actions are transgressions. The second is the one you violated. I am willing to overlook this if you will respond to the numerous other rules quoted.

What? I addressed all the rules you quoted in red type.

In other news - let's stop the flaming folks. This is not constructive discussion and I really don't want to lock this thread.

[oVo]

Let's be honest here. There is no effective way to make changes when our complaint is that mods abuse their powers and the mods can veto these suggestions.

Let's be honest here, this thread is a waste of bandwidth as well as anyone's time who bothers reading it. Ok, assuming you are correct in the assumption that mods abuse their powers, bellyaching and rehashing the fact that you made a mistake by (1) misquoting a mod and (2) then magnified that error by calling him a liar doesn't change anything and it doesn't prove your point either. One blatantly obvious fact is: This site consistently supports it's mods. Deal with it. You want to see something change? Start a thoughtful thread in suggestions and discuss how to improve the way things are done here.

Yet another fine example of a bulletproof mod.

A bulletproof mod? Why not? Since they're the ones donating time and energy to this site it doesn't seem at all peculiar that the administrators back them 110%. This site has guidelines to follow and posters have been given a wide berth to navigate. Then again, he doesn't require bulletproofing here since your accusation is without merit.

The topic of this thread is not about being a teenager. You were off-topic, spamming, and trolling. These are against the forum rules and are ban-worthy offenses. My point is that because your name is green, nothing will be done about your post.

Let's be honest here again... it was you who said, "What we need are mods who don't act like vengeful teenagers," so it wasn't an off topic response at all. Had this been a moderator try out, you would have just failed the audition. Nothing will be done about his post because there is no action required. It isn't off topic, spam or trolling.

You want sympathy? Try an apology to those you slighted and accept the consequences of your actions. You screwed up and failed to correct your mistake before it snowballed
into a vacation.

If you believe the moderators here continuously overstep the authority of their positions then start a thread in the appropriate forum and discuss it. If you have an issue with an individual mod I suggest you PM them instead of dragging your dirty laundry through this forum.

[theherkman]

What? I addressed all the rules you quoted in red type.

If you will only answer me when my post is in red then here you go!

Don't de-rail topics, don't spam them, don't flame them, don't bait them, don't drive a topic into a negative spiral.

Posting controversial or irrelevant messages or topics with the intent to provoke someone else into a contest of over-manly confrontation, emotional response, flame fest or to generally disrupt the discussion, community or user is not cool. Prompting or provoking others (Baiting) to do that is just as bad.

Posting about yourself in a forum topic that is not specifically about you.

If the main point of your post is about something other than what the OP intended, it's not on topic, even if you did post about how you agree with the OP.

Just because everyone in the forum topic doesn't mind it going off topic does not mean that it's okey doky.

Ask yourself if your post is actually contributing to the topic, or is it off topic or just plain spam? If it's not contributing, find somewhere else to post.

For users who break the above Guidelines, as they say, "there will be consequences and repercussions."

Better?

In other news - let's stop the flaming folks. This is not constructive discussion and I really don't want to lock this thread.

I see! So I call you out, then you lock the thread. Real original.

[ljex]

I didn't click quote. Read the OP. As I told KingA, I was cleaning out my inbox, saw the PM which was titled Nietsche PM Abuse[KS], copied and pasted the text from the PM, deleted it, finished cleaning my inbox, then I went to the thread and pasted the quote. I added quote tags, and put KS in the quote tags. I didn't realize that it was KA who sent me the message. Simple mistake.

Ok i will agree with you there it was a simple mistake now that you explain it like that, but at the time you are saying without a doubt that you received a pm and it was from person x, but you no longer have the pm or used this method to say who the pm was from...it is no longer a simple mistake.

I'm not sure what to say with this as you seem to contradict yourself in your post... Let me spell this out one more time really clearly.

1. I saw KingS mark the case as closed.
2. I didn't remember the PM when I read the case was closed.
3. I decided to not say anything about it.
4. I went to clean out my inbox.
5. After cleaning out 30 or so messages I came across one with "Neitsche PM Abuse[KS]" in the subject line.
6. I clicked on the PM.
7. I read the message.
8. I went and checked the thread and saw it was closed instead of noted.
9. I went back to my inbox.
10. I copied the text.
11. I deleted the message.
12. I finished cleaning my inbox.
13. I pasted into the thread and put quote tags around the message. (KS instead of KA)
14. I was PM'd by KA where he told me that he had sent the message.
15. I explained, apologized, and went to post in the thread that I had made a mistake.
16. The thread was locked and I was banned shortly.

Is that clear enough? Geeze!

Yes i understand that but please add step 13.5) Tell everyone that a moderator is lying and defend it like it is without a doubt the truth without checking to make sure it was actually him who said it. Even after he said i double checked and i didn't send it...

Also my statement is yeah its a small mistake but the situation and parties involved made it a much bigger one. Sending an email to the wrong person is in most cases a very simple mistake that wont have huge consequences. But at the same time if you send an email to your wife that was meant for your mistress or something like that there are more sever consequences for the same small mistake. Yes this is not the same thing, but you made a simple mistake that due to its nature had more sever consequences is what i am saying.

[thegreekdog]

If you will only answer me when my post is in red then here you go!

I didn't do any of those things. Further, I will urge you again to consider whether disciplinary action is warranted such that we set a precedent. In other words, if I discipline myself for an innoccuous comment such as this, the moderators will have the precedent to discipline others for the same thing. Is this something you want?

I see! So I call you out, then you lock the thread. Real original.

I have no reason to lock this thread for anything you've typed. I was referring to the tenor of others who may disagree with you.

[rdsrds2120]

theherkman, I read your original post, and I'm unaware of what your intended topic is. I see that you have talked about imperfections within the moderator group, which is fine, but you've spoken about your case specifically involving the e-ticket as well. Then there seems to be the issue with the semantics of the community guidelines...but I imagine that isn't the topic of this thread.

You misquoting kingsam appears to be an honest mistake, one that anyone could make. What exactly do you want to be done about it? What ideas/aims do you have about conflict resolution that could fix/prevent this in the future? If it is really that bad, you would want to make sure it doesn't happen to other CC members I hope. Let's try to work on a productive, reasonable approach to resolve these problems you may have, assuming that they are resolvable. I don't want this thread to turn into a post barrage of pointing fingers or accusatory remarks. No, that probably won't get anyone anywhere.

If we find a common ground, 'we' being 'the mods' and 'you/CCommunity', we can go from there and try to expand/edit our practices to find equilibrium between the two groups. As thegreekdog has said before, build these ideas into a constructive suggestion once they are well thought out (which discussion here may aid in) to be able to assist ConquerClub to further better itself in a way that only members can.

I know you have a standing issue with me, but please do not let our past differences blind the eye when reading this post. Take them as plain text and consider them as equivocally as you would another source. We can't progress far if the only discussion we have is banter, if the only problems that are presented are only opinionated and bias to that user. Give us some iron, and we'll try to match it's weight with an appropriate amount of force to forge something grand. Give us some impure metal, and we can only make so much.

-rd

[ljex]

What? I addressed all the rules you quoted in red type.

If you will only answer me when my post is in red then here you go!

Don't de-rail topics, don't spam them, don't flame them, don't bait them, don't drive a topic into a negative spiral.

Posting controversial or irrelevant messages or topics with the intent to provoke someone else into a contest of over-manly confrontation, emotional response, flame fest or to generally disrupt the discussion, community or user is not cool. Prompting or provoking others (Baiting) to do that is just as bad.

Posting about yourself in a forum topic that is not specifically about you.

If the main point of your post is about something other than what the OP intended, it's not on topic, even if you did post about how you agree with the OP.

Just because everyone in the forum topic doesn't mind it going off topic does not mean that it's okey doky.

Ask yourself if your post is actually contributing to the topic, or is it off topic or just plain spam? If it's not contributing, find somewhere else to post.

For users who break the above Guidelines, as they say, "there will be consequences and repercussions."

Better?

In other news - let's stop the flaming folks. This is not constructive discussion and I really don't want to lock this thread.

I see! So I call you out, then you lock the thread. Real original.

Well, if we moderated based on those rules i don't really think you would be a fan. Also topics evolve and new points are made, i don't think you intended in your op to be involved in the current discussion but then again should you be baned for this...no. The rules are broad so that they can be applied on a case by case basis and while this may cause more complaints, I'll take all the complaints of biased moderating over a strict set of rules. Also you might want to consider that TGD said he doesn't want to lock this topic, which is true. But at a point there is blatant flaming/baiting/trolling, what other option do we have but to lock the thread?

[jcalebmoore]

Wow, look at all the mods. Since you're all around...

I'm confused about the semantics of flaming a thread versus flaming an actual user. Would I, in point of reference, be contributing to the 'flaming' that may get this thread locked, were I to point out the utter and contemptible fail of this thread as a whole irrespective of the users and specific comments involved in said thread, or is that still seen as a semantic differentiation which is allowable?