Moderators: Multi Hunters, Cheating/Abuse Team
Skoffin wrote: So um.. er... I'll be honest, I don't know what the f*ck to do from here. Goddamnit chu.


We do not have a system of collective responsibility here. Mods have a right to disagree with decisions made by other mods. Your suggestion that squishy should resign because she disagrees with one particular ruling is absurd.Metsfanmax wrote:Still, she feels as though this is a concerted effort by "the mods" to play favorites among themselves. If you object on principle to something structural in your organization, how can you legitimately still claim to be a member of the organization?Woodruff wrote: Nor does squishyg have anything to do with the moderator abuses, to my knowledge.


nagerous wrote:We do not have a system of collective responsibility here. Mods have a right to disagree with decisions made by other mods. Your suggestion that squishy should resign because she disagrees with one particular ruling is absurd.Metsfanmax wrote:Still, she feels as though this is a concerted effort by "the mods" to play favorites among themselves. If you object on principle to something structural in your organization, how can you legitimately still claim to be a member of the organization?Woodruff wrote: Nor does squishyg have anything to do with the moderator abuses, to my knowledge.
Anyway squishy never expressed that she had a particular disagreement with the ruling, if you read her words carefully she just stated that not necessarily everyone was happy with the ruling that was given.
Metsfanmax wrote:I'm not suggesting that she should resign because she disagrees with one ruling. I'm suggesting that she should resign because she believes that the current system is structured in such a way that mods are treated in a biased manner when it comes to the rules. If she was just saying "I think that this mod was treated in a biased manner in this particular case," then fine - you're right, it's just an isolated incident. But Woodruff specifically alluded to the idea of two separate classes on CC, where the staff members are generally treated differently, and squishy implied that she agreed with that statement. What's absurd is a mod continuing to hold her position, and therefore implicitly defend a system whose structure she openly objects to.
Becomesquishyg wrote:speak for yourself, clearly other posters in this thread do agree with Woody.
Mets. Stop trolling squishyg.Metsfanmax wrote:I'm not suggesting that she should resign because she disagrees with one ruling. I'm suggesting that she should resign because she believes that the current system is structured in such a way that mods are treated in a biased manner when it comes to the rules. If she was just saying "I think that this mod was treated in a biased manner in this particular case," then fine - you're right, it's just an isolated incident. But Woodruff specifically alluded to the idea of two separate classes on CC, where the staff members are generally treated differently, and squishy implied that she agreed with that statement. What's absurd is a mod continuing to hold her position, and therefore implicitly defend a system whose structure she openly objects to.
drunkmonkey wrote:I'm filing a C&A report right now. Its nice because they have a drop-down for "jefjef".
You would know how it became that, if you actually read what Woodruff said.jefjef wrote:How did thisBecomesquishyg wrote:speak for yourself, clearly other posters in this thread do agree with Woody.Mets. Stop trolling squishyg.Metsfanmax wrote:I'm not suggesting that she should resign because she disagrees with one ruling. I'm suggesting that she should resign because she believes that the current system is structured in such a way that mods are treated in a biased manner when it comes to the rules. If she was just saying "I think that this mod was treated in a biased manner in this particular case," then fine - you're right, it's just an isolated incident. But Woodruff specifically alluded to the idea of two separate classes on CC, where the staff members are generally treated differently, and squishy implied that she agreed with that statement. What's absurd is a mod continuing to hold her position, and therefore implicitly defend a system whose structure she openly objects to.
meh. I actually agree with owen here. You guys need to make up your minds on what is right & what is wrong.. its too boarder line and its becoming a joke for many as you can see already. Some are laughing, lots are NOTowenshooter wrote:my point is proven. if f*ck can't be on one avatar, than it shouldn't be allowed on any. mod or not, the rulings need to be fair and even across the board. just because King A finds a giraffe amusing and a picture of a black guy not amusing, shouldn't matter. my point is proven, i was found guilty for being owenshooter, period.-the black jesus

She said no such thing.Metsfanmax wrote:Still, she feels as though this is a concerted effort by "the mods" to play favorites among themselves. If you object on principle to something structural in your organization, how can you legitimately still claim to be a member of the organization?Woodruff wrote: Nor does squishyg have anything to do with the moderator abuses, to my knowledge.
You said that, and she agreed with you. Why are you playing semantics?Woodruff wrote:She said no such thing.Metsfanmax wrote:Still, she feels as though this is a concerted effort by "the mods" to play favorites among themselves. If you object on principle to something structural in your organization, how can you legitimately still claim to be a member of the organization?Woodruff wrote: Nor does squishyg have anything to do with the moderator abuses, to my knowledge.
I'm not at all playing semantics. She said that I wasn't the only one...which was patently clear to anyone reading the thread. All her statement meant for certain was that she had read the thread.Metsfanmax wrote:You said that, and she agreed with you. Why are you playing semantics?Woodruff wrote:She said no such thing.Metsfanmax wrote:Still, she feels as though this is a concerted effort by "the mods" to play favorites among themselves. If you object on principle to something structural in your organization, how can you legitimately still claim to be a member of the organization?Woodruff wrote: Nor does squishyg have anything to do with the moderator abuses, to my knowledge.
The tone of the message ("speak for yourself") made it abundantly clear that she agreed with you.Woodruff wrote:I'm not at all playing semantics. She said that I wasn't the only one...which was patently clear to anyone reading the thread. All her statement meant for certain was that she had read the thread.Metsfanmax wrote:You said that, and she agreed with you. Why are you playing semantics?Woodruff wrote:She said no such thing.Metsfanmax wrote:Still, she feels as though this is a concerted effort by "the mods" to play favorites among themselves. If you object on principle to something structural in your organization, how can you legitimately still claim to be a member of the organization?Woodruff wrote: Nor does squishyg have anything to do with the moderator abuses, to my knowledge.

drunkmonkey wrote:I'm filing a C&A report right now. Its nice because they have a drop-down for "jefjef".
but it isn't jesus or an accepted image of christ by the catholic church. with this ruling i am linking below, the fact that AoG's was not of buddha so it is left alone shows the double standard and "owen" moderation that goes on around here. 2 avatars.. one offensive and forcibly removed under threat of a 6 month ban, the other deemed ok... please explain:king achilles wrote:Owen, if a moderator was wearing your previous avatar, he would have also been told to remove it. If you were wearing Calidmr's avatar, you would have been left alone.

It's been changed Owen,as you can see...king achilles wrote:Evil Semp took your report as spurious because you just copied and pasted the wordings from another previous report and then you followed it up with a "I could care less how this is ruled,...".
Next time be more careful of what you say or we could take it another way.
I am re-opening this case. Army of GOD, PM sent. You should know better than to do this.
xxtig12683xx wrote:yea, my fav part was being in the sewer riding a surfboard and wacking these alien creatures.
shit was badass
owenshooter wrote:my point is proven. if f*ck can't be on one avatar, than it shouldn't be allowed on any. mod or not, the rulings need to be fair and even across the board. just because King A finds a giraffe amusing and a picture of a black guy not amusing, shouldn't matter. my point is proven, i was found guilty for being owenshooter, period.-the black jesus
do you deliberately miss the point, or are you actually just incapable of retaining more than one post at a time in your head?owenshooter wrote:but it isn't jesus or an accepted image of christ by the catholic church. ...-the black jesus
owenshooter wrote:go ahead and report me, you will get nowhere...-0

playing dumb doesn't strengthen your casejbrettlip wrote:a lot of people are named Jesus in hispanic culture. Owen (in real life) is half puerto rican and half black. That is why he is the Black Jesus. Want to guess his middle name?? JESUS.
owenshooter wrote:go ahead and report me, you will get nowhere...-0
That's his last name. Duh.Army of GOD wrote:I thought it was Shooter...