TOS Suggestions anyone?

ManlyBanisters

Sexy Member
Joined
Mar 19, 2007
Posts
12,253
Media
0
Likes
58
Points
183
As a former Mod I can say that this is categorically untrue. What happpens is that some members do not like it when people they like get banned or break rules and are caught. HUGE difference.

Sorry Lex - but read the section I'm talking about, I don't want to insult you by posting it for the 17th time (I'm going to, but not for the purposes of insulting you):

Accounts- Members here are discouraged from having multiple accounts. We realize that sometimes several members of a family will use the same computer and we encourage that. However, if a member sets up multiple accounts to post from for the purpose of disrupting the board, that will be considered trolling. Members who post from multiple accounts for the purpose of trolling the board will be banned without warning.

Tell me - show me - where that states in no uncertain terms that all members posting from more than one account will be considered disruptive / trolling - It says 'for the purpose of disrupting' (what if the user really believes that's not their purpose), it says 'discouraged', that's not the same thing as 'forbidden' or 'not accepted'.
This paragraph does not reflect the practice of the Mods in realation to multiple accounts - it just doesn't.
 

Lex

Expert Member
Joined
Jun 11, 2004
Posts
8,253
Media
0
Likes
118
Points
268
Location
In Your Darkest Thoughts and Dreams
Sexuality
99% Gay, 1% Straight
Gender
Male
Posting from multiple accounts IS trolling. Period. If you post from two accounts at once, you have trolled.

You can have multiple accounts as long as you do not post from them--this goes back to the days when a user could only view 10 gallery pics a day and many had multiple accounts for the purposes of viewing the gallery, but not posting. I did and so did many others I eventually asked the former site owner to merge my accounts into one).

I agree that the wording can be a little misleading but no so much so as ti cause someone to do wrong and get banned and cry foul--ignornace of the law is not an excuse anywhere. As you were not here, I will share that the original ToS was drafted by the first group of Mods who were new and longstanding members and had seen the site grow and evolve from its humble beginnings. We tried to be mindful of that when this was drafted.

As far a user accounts, keep in mind that Mods can check users by IP and that two or more people posting from the same computer will have the same IP address. For example, my IP will overlap with Typhu31, bigmanjon, DC DEEP, among others. The Mods and many others know I am friends with them all and that we have visited each other and used each other's computers. Without that context, it can look as if someone has multiple accounts, even if they don't.

All that being said, a good rule to follow is: When in doubt ASK.

When I was a Mod, many members would PM us to ask about clarifications before they did things that they felt might violate the ToS. That seems simple enough to me.
 

ManlyBanisters

Sexy Member
Joined
Mar 19, 2007
Posts
12,253
Media
0
Likes
58
Points
183
Posting from multiple accounts IS trolling. Period. If you post from two accounts at once, you have trolled.
I don't have a problem with that as a rule - but the ToS needs to say exactly that, cos at the moment it doesn't

You can have multiple accounts as long as you do not post from them--this goes back to the days when a user could only view 10 gallery pics a day and many had multiple accounts for the purposes of viewing the gallery, but not posting. I did and so did many others I eventually asked the former site owner to merge my accounts into one).
Grey area at the moment - needs to be stated that one account only can be posted from at ANY time, identities can't be killed and then resurrected - or words to that effect

I agree that the wording can be a little misleading but no so much so as ti cause someone to do wrong and get banned and cry foul--ignornace of the law is not an excuse anywhere. If the law is not written how does one inform oneself of it? As you were not here, I will share that the original ToS was drafted by the first group of Mods who were new and longstanding members and had seen the site grow and evolve from its humble beginnings. We tried to be mindful of that when this was drafted.

As far a user accounts, keep in mind that Mods can check users by IP and that two or more people posting from the same computer will have the same IP address. For example, my IP will overlap with Typhu31, bigmanjon, DC DEEP, among others. The Mods and many others know I am friends with them all and that we have visited each other and used each other's computers. Without that context, it can look as if someone has multiple accounts, even if they don't.
I am fully aware of IP technology, and how to get around it - I do not abuse that knowledge on this forum

All that being said, a good rule to follow is: When in doubt ASK.
Another good line to add to the ToS

When I was a Mod, many members would PM us to ask about clarifications before they did things that they felt might violate the ToS. That seems simple enough to me.

I appreciate your feedback Lex.

Can I just point out to the board at large that I am unaware of anyone who has been banned for using multiple accounts who has cried foul, to borrow Lex's terminology, after the fact. I'm questioning this part of the ToS because I had totally misunderstood it before recent events.
 

B_big dirigible

Experimental Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2005
Posts
2,672
Media
0
Likes
12
Points
183
Sexuality
No Response
Posting under another ID in the third person about himself on a thread all about his not being here... if that's not disruption, I don't know what is.
How is that "disruptive"? It's just a poster being a putz. If that was cause for banning, there would be about three members left standing.
 

B_big dirigible

Experimental Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2005
Posts
2,672
Media
0
Likes
12
Points
183
Sexuality
No Response
The amount of times this thread has been looked at is likewise an exercise in minimalism, as indeed is the number of times that the TOS themselves have been clicked on.
And how may of those clicks would you guess lead to the TOS actually being read? Click; TOS comes up; Look, think "BORing"; click something else.
 

ManlyBanisters

Sexy Member
Joined
Mar 19, 2007
Posts
12,253
Media
0
Likes
58
Points
183
My terse phrases are part of my charm. :cool: :rolleyes:
Indeed they are :smile:

The above reads like an attempt to validate ChicagoSam's behavior.
It is not intended as an attempt at anything - I liked Sam, but as I said in my other thread I'm not talking about one case as I don't know all the facts. Sam's banning surprised me as I had no idea he was doing anything wrong. I twigged his alter-ego straightaway - I just assumed everyone else had too and that what he was doing was OK.

What I will add, though, is this: a major underlying issue here is one of general membership apathy; the same kind of apathy which causes problems in getting people to vote in elections, etc. The thread I linked to above from December 2006 regarding the wording of the new TOS... has been looked at just 354 times as of this posting. Which is pathetic. The amount of times this thread has been looked at is likewise an exercise in minimalism, as indeed is the number of times that the TOS themselves have been clicked on.
I agree with you there - 'now shut up and show us more cock' is my summary of the attitude

Most people are online for a 'quick fix' and don't give a shit about the workings of the TOS or the mod squad. Perhaps that's understandable, as it's the nature of the medium to offer 'quick relief with no questions asked'. But I *do* think having the TOS thrust in people's faces at sign-up would at least be a useful (albeit tokenistic) gesture at ensuring members are aware of their existence, if nothing else. Of course, you are right that a few 'retouches' to the wording wouldn't go amiss, in order to remove the ambiguities that currently exist.

Yes , well - if there is a review and I'm knocking around you'll certainly get my 2c - for what it is worth.
 

D_alex8

Member
Joined
Dec 15, 2005
Posts
8,055
Media
0
Likes
1,380
Points
208
Location
Germany
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
How is that "disruptive"? It's just a poster being a putz. If that was cause for banning, there would be about three members left standing.

You may well prefer a different term to 'disruptive' to describe the situation. At any rate it constitutes an exercise in misleading members through the establishment of multiple accounts and the wilful non-disclosure of this fact.

ChicagoSam's numerous posts as 1GR8Fokker were doubtless intended to amuse [on this thread], but by presenting himself as someone else while at the same time talking about his main ID... he sadly fell into the trap of disrupting/disturbing/unsettling the board ethos of 'one member, one voice'.

A previous and more sinister attempt at something similar can be found in an old thread discussing Stronzo's having been temporarily banned.. on which Stronzo posted from the account time2fly in order to defend himself in the third person, while pretending to be someone else [link].

Although the intentions behind ChicagoSam's and Stronzo's multiple IDs were clearly distinct, the net result in both cases was a wilful act of deception.
 

madame_zora

Sexy Member
Joined
May 5, 2004
Posts
9,608
Media
0
Likes
52
Points
258
Location
Ohio
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
You may well prefer a different term to 'disruptive' to describe the situation. At any rate it constitutes an exercise in misleading members through the establishment of multiple accounts and the wilful non-disclosure of this fact.

ChicagoSam's numerous posts as 1GR8Fokker were doubtless intended to amuse [on this thread], but by presenting himself as someone else while at the same time talking about his main ID... he sadly fell into the trap of disrupting/disturbing/unsettling the board ethos of 'one member, one voice'.

A previous and more sinister attempt at something similar can be found in an old thread discussing Stronzo's having been temporarily banned.. on which Stronzo posted from the account time2fly in order to defend himself in the third person, while pretending to be someone else [link].

Although the intentions behind ChicagoSam's and Stronzo's multiple IDs were clearly distinct, the net result in both cases was a wilful act of deception.


Okay, I finally understand what's been going on around here for the last few days. I was wondering why a veritable n00b would be so concerned about the inner workings of our policies and procedures- now I get it.

I was around for the first draft of the ToS, and I can assure you that I chose that wording for very good reasons- things exactly like this! Words like "discouraged" and phrases like "for the purpose of trolling" were inserted purposely, to differentiate instances like Sam's- which was clearly an attempt to be funny, from instances where someone's feelings were being jerked around, or someone was trying to meet people under false pretenses. Good god, what have we come to?

As a for instance, I offered up my own alternate persona of Dokter_RAWK, which was a spoof of a former member (who was still here at the time). It was not mean-spirited, and I had confessed it was me both to the real Dr. Rock privately, and in an open post on the board before we even had mods- but I have posted from it on occasion since. I figured since it was already known that it was me there was no deception involved, but anyone who could have read any intention to do harm into Sam's alter ego would have to be daft indeed.

Should he have notified a mod first? Yeah, probably. Is that an issue about which I'd want to lose a member of his calibre? Definitely not! That was the exact type of issue that the ToS was left purposely ambiguous about, so that the mods would be forced to apply a group consciousness to individual situations. Hard-and-fast rules lead to idiocy, and banning Sam is clearly just that- who was he EVER going to hurt?

Zero tolerance policies lead to zero intelligence. Any decent set of rules needs interpretation, and if the members of said group don't like the conclusions, they are free to leave. I may do exactly that. I can't vote as a mod anymore, but the stupidity around here is making it less and less attractive to remain as a member. The real Dr. Rock left because of the influx of fucktards and shitwits, I think (as usual) he was the wisest of all. It's not a decent place to have a conversation anymore with all the pc bullshit.:mad:
 

biguy2738

Experimental Member
Joined
Mar 27, 2007
Posts
2,310
Media
7
Likes
22
Points
183
Location
Johannesburg, South Africa
Sexuality
50% Straight, 50% Gay
Gender
Male
but anyone who could have read any intention to do harm into Sam's alter ego would have to be daft indeed.

Should he have notified a mod first? Yeah, probably. Is that an issue about which I'd want to lose a member of his calibre? Definitely not! That was the exact type of issue that the ToS was left purposely ambiguous about, so that the mods would be forced to apply a group consciousness to individual situations. Hard-and-fast rules lead to idiocy, and banning Sam is clearly just that- who was he EVER going to hurt?

Zero tolerance policies lead to zero intelligence. Any decent set of rules needs interpretation, and if the members of said group don't like the conclusions, they are free to leave. I may do exactly that. I can't vote as a mod anymore, but the stupidity around here is making it less and less attractive to remain as a member. The real Dr. Rock left because of the influx of fucktards and shitwits, I think (as usual) he was the wisest of all. It's not a decent place to have a conversation anymore with all the pc bullshit.:mad:


I hope that what I am about to say doesn't ruffle any more feathers or inflicts a greater sense of loss or pain to some members.

Fact is, I openly admit that I belonged to Sam's Post-Whore faction and upon the time of his banning, tried to plead his case or at least encourage some more thought about that matter. A lot of my posts on this site of late have been though subtle, reflective of how I feel and my own sense of loss and pain.

However there are a few points that I feel need to be raised:

1) Sam is gone. Regardless of whether his ban is lifted or not, he has left
the building and I am certain he does so with a great sense of
happiness and appreciation for the time that he has spent on this site
as well as for the members that he encountered during the course of
his stay. Sam is gone, one thing that we may have overlooked is the
possibility that he may have left, out of his own choice as well.
Operating from a place of hurt, anger or disappointment - I mention
these emotions because that is how I have been feeling of late...to
the point of considering leaving as well (Madame Z, though I am
certain that you will you are going to whip the shenanigans out of me
for saying this, but if you leave, I will be forced to hunt you down and
drag you back) however the question remains, will it be for any good?
I doubt that Sam is willing to come back and possibly for reasons other
than his being banned.

2) I am certain that he didn't intend for all of this division and opposition
to break out, and I admit to being part of it. I apologise to the mods
the members for any "problems" or unpleasantness that it may have
caused. It was not deliberate, I was operating from a real sense of
loss and pain. I know that if I were in Sam's shoes he would want for
this war on his behalf to stop (though names and issues haven't been
said out loud until of late, they have been alluded to)...in the process
of trying to defend him, we are in the process of tarnishing his memory
where we have much to be grateful for by way of his posts, his
kindness and the laughs that he brought (though he clearly suffered
from "multiple personality disorder" :biggrin1:) . Sam was a gift and we can
either choose to focus on the gift, or we can ruin the memory by
indulging in upheavals to the point of at the mention of his name, all
that we will be able to associate with it is our sense of hurt and the
division that came about because of his being banned.

Here's a link to a post that I have made to that effect in the place where I felt it fitted best:

http://www.lpsg.org/874173-post143.html

3) I don't see anything constructive coming out of this if we are going
to place emphasis on Sam as opposed to the ToS. I really do feel
that yes, we can look at this in the light of what has transpired of
late, but from a place of "What can we learn from this? What can we
do to ensure that should this situation ever happen again, it doesn't
lead to division and upheaval which in turn affects everyone? What
can I learn from Sam that will enable me to be as great a contributor
to this site that he has been."
This is the greatest issue at hand, certainly not Sam's being banned.
Let's agree to let Sam rest in peace.
 

ManlyBanisters

Sexy Member
Joined
Mar 19, 2007
Posts
12,253
Media
0
Likes
58
Points
183
Thank you for your explanation of the wording as drafted and the reasons for that, Zora - I see that Mod practice has deviated from the original intent, which is why there is a discrepancy.

Zero tolerance policies lead to zero intelligence. Any decent set of rules needs interpretation, and if the members of said group don't like the conclusions, they are free to leave. I may do exactly that. I can't vote as a mod anymore, but the stupidity around here is making it less and less attractive to remain as a member. The real Dr. Rock left because of the influx of fucktards and shitwits, I think (as usual) he was the wisest of all. It's not a decent place to have a conversation anymore with all the pc bullshit.:mad:

I have no experience of the board before I joined - I have read a few threads that go back a year or two, but not enough to get a feel of the place from back then. I do get the feeling that there is a line that can't be deviated from too far and I have noticed a sense of dissatisfaction in some of the longer standing members with the way things have evolved.

3) I don't see anything constructive coming out of this if we are going to place emphasis on Sam as opposed to the ToS. I really do feel that yes, we can look at this in the light of what has transpired of
late, but from a place of "What can we learn from this? What can we
do to ensure that should this situation ever happen again, it doesn't
lead to division and upheaval which in turn affects everyone? What
can I learn from Sam that will enable me to be as great a contributor
to this site that he has been."

I opened this thread to get clarification on the issue - not to bitch about about one case - although I freely admit, and no one could fail to notice, that this was initiated by Sam's banning - of course it was. But thank you, biguy, for getting the point.
 

basketbulge

Sexy Member
Joined
Jul 30, 2004
Posts
353
Media
10
Likes
56
Points
248
Location
Canada
Sexuality
No Response
Should he have notified a mod first? Yeah, probably. Is that an issue about which I'd want to lose a member of his calibre? Definitely not! That was the exact type of issue that the ToS was left purposely ambiguous about, so that the mods would be forced to apply a group consciousness to individual situations. Hard-and-fast rules lead to idiocy, and banning Sam is clearly just that- who was he EVER going to hurt?

Zero tolerance policies lead to zero intelligence. Any decent set of rules needs interpretation, and if the members of said group don't like the conclusions, they are free to leave. I may do exactly that. I can't vote as a mod anymore, but the stupidity around here is making it less and less attractive to remain as a member. The real Dr. Rock left because of the influx of fucktards and shitwits, I think (as usual) he was the wisest of all. It's not a decent place to have a conversation anymore with all the pc bullshit.:mad:

I wholeheartedly agree.
 

Lex

Expert Member
Joined
Jun 11, 2004
Posts
8,253
Media
0
Likes
118
Points
268
Location
In Your Darkest Thoughts and Dreams
Sexuality
99% Gay, 1% Straight
Gender
Male
...

Should he have notified a mod first? Yeah, probably. Is that an issue about which I'd want to lose a member of his calibre? Definitely not! That was the exact type of issue that the ToS was left purposely ambiguous about, so that the mods would be forced to apply a group consciousness to individual situations. Hard-and-fast rules lead to idiocy, and banning Sam is clearly just that- who was he EVER going to hurt?

Zero tolerance policies lead to zero intelligence. Any decent set of rules needs interpretation, and if the members of said group don't like the conclusions, they are free to leave. I may do exactly that. I can't vote as a mod anymore, but the stupidity around here is making it less and less attractive to remain as a member. The real Dr. Rock left because of the influx of fucktards and shitwits, I think (as usual) he was the wisest of all. It's not a decent place to have a conversation anymore with all the pc bullshit.:mad:

Another example was *so and so*. He switched accounts ad nauseum to duck ex-GFs, etc. and wound up posting from more than one account within a few days. The consenus then was to sen dhim a PM letting him know he had to choose a single account and stick to it.

As with most policies, a different team of enforcers will lead to differential enforcement.

I see Sam's avatar is still up--was that a mistake or purposeful? When I was a Mod--leaving an avatar meant that a ban was temporary, while deleting an avatar and a gallery meant it was permanent.
 

madame_zora

Sexy Member
Joined
May 5, 2004
Posts
9,608
Media
0
Likes
52
Points
258
Location
Ohio
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Another example was *so and so*. He switched accounts ad nauseum to duck ex-GFs, etc. and wound up posting from more than one account within a few days. The consenus then was to sen dhim a PM letting him know he had to choose a single account and stick to it.

But he was a nutcase!

Haha, Lex that's exactly what I meant. You know how it pained me to ever put ANY rules on this place, I just wanted to make sure people like you and I who KNEW what was special about this board did it, or we could have wound up with a Nazi-like set of rules that would have rendered the board wholly impotent. My fear is that it will happen anyway. Free exchange can't be fostered by rules I guess, nomatter who writes them or how hard they try. I remember how hard we ALL laboured over that ToS in the hopes of "getting it right". Did we fall short? Certainly- it was a lofty goal.

As with most policies, a different team of enforcers will lead to differential enforcement.

Mods were installed to solve a temporary set of problems. Those problems are over, but because of having "mommies and daddies" in the form of mods, the membership itself is not showing the necesary maturity to survive unmoderated. There's a whole shitload of stuff now that you just can't say, whereas when you and I joined, there was very little- and the group would let you know when you'd gone too far, not a mod. We had an owner who supported free speech far above individual feelings, which was superb.

I see Sam's avatar is still up--was that a mistake or purposeful? When I was a Mod--leaving an avatar meant that a ban was temporary, while deleting an avatar and a gallery meant it was permanent.

I think a lot could be solved by having a way to delete accounts. While I know there is a method described, it doesn't always work, as I have tried it myself. If there were a simple and effective way to delete an account, many of our multiples could be avoided.
 

dong20

Sexy Member
Joined
Feb 17, 2006
Posts
6,058
Media
0
Likes
28
Points
183
Location
The grey country
Sexuality
No Response
As far a user accounts, keep in mind that Mods can check users by IP and that two or more people posting from the same computer will have the same IP address. For example, my IP will overlap with Typhu31, bigmanjon, DC DEEP, among others. The Mods and many others know I am friends with them all and that we have visited each other and used each other's computers. Without that context, it can look as if someone has multiple accounts, even if they don't.

First, I'm disappointed that Sam was banned. I was unaware but then I don't pay a lot of attention to these things, and stay out of these type of threads, after all, people come and go and some come back again.

On the IP thing - even without that 'friends' context it's not that conclusive unless the MODs partake of heavy duty packet sniffing. No innuendo intended, well maybe a little.
  • Two or more people could be sharing the same IP gateway innocently using their own personal LPSG accounts at the same time. LPSG server logs would see only the gateway address - not those of the end user's PCs. Not the most common scenario but home networking is far from rare and not all businesses ban LPSG.
  • Residential IP's assigned by ISPs are sometimes static, more usually dynamic, so user A could post from their PC with an IP address that user B with the same ISP (or one sharing the same netblock) in another house may have thirty minutes later. This is a far more likely situation.
In either or both of the above scenarios (and others) it would be easy, but incorrect, to conclude that a single PC was being used by a single user with multiple accounts.

Back on topic

I agree with what's been said, that if as Lex said using multiple accounts is considered a 'de jure' case of trolling, the TOS should perhaps be altered to say so sans the (evident) ambiguity.

MZ's valid point regarding such 'intentional' ambiguity and absolute rules negating their intelligent application notwithstanding, surely it's easier for all that way?

For sure, 'ambiguity' offers scope for flexibilty, but therefore also for abuse. I'd have thought the Mods have enough BS to deal with without leaving themselves open accusations of using said ambiguity to play favourites.

After all, that charge is hardly without precedent.:rolleyes:
 

madame_zora

Sexy Member
Joined
May 5, 2004
Posts
9,608
Media
0
Likes
52
Points
258
Location
Ohio
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Just curious, Lex. Is there a statute of limitations after which you feel you are able to reveal what is meant to be confidential information?


You've got to be kidding, right?

Someone who posts the same face and cock picks with his multiple versions of his profiles is not trying to remain a secret, nor is there any need for privacy for an online persona.

We aren't handling ANYTHING that is covered in a confidentiality issue- no real names, home addresses, ss numbers or the like. This whole "confidentiality" issue is just a case of the mods gone power-mad, and it's getting ridiculous.

None of us- mods or members- have signed any sort of a confidentiality agreement, and I for one have no desire, interest or intention of keeping anybody's secrets, unless I have expressly promised to do so, and that's an agreement that must be made in advance of sharing information. It's a complete absurdity to just assume that anything published on an internet forum is "confidential" to any degree. I've gotta call bullshit.:rolleyes:
 

D_alex8

Member
Joined
Dec 15, 2005
Posts
8,055
Media
0
Likes
1,380
Points
208
Location
Germany
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
Just curious, Lex. Is there a statute of limitations after which you feel you are able to reveal what is meant to be confidential information?

The multiple IDs of the member who was being referred to have been posted about publicly on these boards at least eight times previously. The member has indeed openly connected all his own IDs in writing in his own past posts. As a non-mod who's not been privy to any behind-the-scenes confidential information,I've certainly named all his IDs before in at least two posts. This was one that played out in the public arena (what with the identical photos and all, as Zora notes), so Lex wasn't revealing anything that has ever been confidential in his post.
 

DC_DEEP

Sexy Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2005
Posts
8,714
Media
0
Likes
97
Points
183
Sexuality
No Response
You assume that people READ the ToS? :rolleyes: For SHAME, Doc.

I have said for Years that the ToS should pop up upon your first log in (and again whenever it is revised) like an Acceptable User Agreement, so that everyone has to click on is and say that they agree.

Therefore, when rules are broken and enforced, no one could point fingers or say that they did not get it.
I agree. I think that the registration process should NOT go through to completion unless the potential member actually clicks a button that says "I have read, understand, and agree to the Terms of Service". Additionally, the ToS really really really should be on its own page, with a link at the top along with the CP, Gallery, Chat, Arcade, FAQ, Members, New, etc. etc. links. Having the ToS as a sticky, hidden in one of the sub-fora, is not good.

And how may of those clicks would you guess lead to the TOS actually being read? Click; TOS comes up; Look, think "BORing"; click something else.
That's not the issue. If someone chooses not to read the ToS when they affirm that they have, that's their problem, not mine. The caveat "Never sign something you have not read" would certainly apply here. If they claim to have read the ToS in order to join, then they have no standing to break the rules then claim, "I didn't know!" That would make them liars either at the front end or at the back end. Either way, it would give the Mods firmer, less ambiguous ground to stand on when someone DOES troll repeatedly.
 

Lex

Expert Member
Joined
Jun 11, 2004
Posts
8,253
Media
0
Likes
118
Points
268
Location
In Your Darkest Thoughts and Dreams
Sexuality
99% Gay, 1% Straight
Gender
Male
Just curious, Lex. Is there a statute of limitations after which you feel you are able to reveal what is meant to be confidential information?
What I said is NOT confidential and you know it. Even Stronzo sniffed out Knight/Wonderboy's thousand accounts (imagine that).

Now, if you guys want to draft rules that address Mod behavior, please do so (because there really aren't any). Please also keep in mind that those rules won't apply to Me, Zora, Matthew and Dee as we are just members.

You need to take note from the other mods who try to keep you from looking like a power crazed woman. You also, obviously, need to learn the meaning of Confidential.

MadameZora said:
...This whole "confidentiality" issue is just a case of the mods gone power-mad, and it's getting ridiculous....

And LOOK, none of us even need be privy to the Mod Forum to know that. And by "power-mad," I mean that you, Gillette, spend more time trying to throw your weight around than doing the SIMPLE things that keep the forum great, like moving threads to appropriate sections so that ETC, for example, is not littered with BS that way it has been since you were installed.

You are a HUGE part of the problem. I know it, members know it, and the other mods have to know it. I guess you'll want to ban me now that I have hurt your poor little feelings again. :rolleyes:

It's incredible that the level of your defensiveness surpasses Pappy. It really is. Sad, too.

Instead of being upset that there have been instances that make your draconian stance look hyporcritical, try reforming policy or practice. That seems simple enough.