What And No Explanation?

simcha

Sexy Member
Joined
Jul 16, 2007
Posts
2,173
Media
0
Likes
26
Points
268
Location
San Leandro, CA, USA
Sexuality
99% Gay, 1% Straight
Gender
Male
OK, I saw the message above from mindseye on the sticky thread that allows no comments. And what's with that?

Hey, an explanation and possibly an apology to the board would do a lot to repair things with those who were banned and those of us left behind who have been affected. Personally, I find this whole thing bizarre and it would behoove management to change the way this board is moderated and possibly some of the moderators.

These royal "Pronouncements" are draconian and in no way restores my confidence in being able to post and simply have fun here.

Without an explanation and possibly an apology this lifting of the bans seems empty.

:confused:

This is my opinion and not meant to be absolute. And it's not meant to insult anyone. Just thought I'd make that clear.
 

swordfishME

Expert Member
Joined
Sep 28, 2006
Posts
960
Media
0
Likes
137
Points
263
Location
DFW Texas
Sexuality
80% Gay, 20% Straight
Gender
Male
I am glad that the bans were lifted a day early. Lets take it as a gesture of goodwill and move on. And welcome back those of the reinstated members who choose to come back.
 

findfirefox

Sexy Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2005
Posts
2,014
Media
0
Likes
36
Points
183
Age
39
Location
Portland, OR
Sexuality
99% Gay, 1% Straight
Gender
Male
Well I guess a third thread will do, I do express a similar question of what was the rational behind lifting it early? Transparency Plz.

On another note here is my quick option:
Positive, some members return. Negative some members return.
:smile:
 

findfirefox

Sexy Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2005
Posts
2,014
Media
0
Likes
36
Points
183
Age
39
Location
Portland, OR
Sexuality
99% Gay, 1% Straight
Gender
Male
It seems like you are just trying to stir the pot. Unless you believe that being banned is some sort of badge of honor and are looking to get banned yourself.

Well this points out that the mods are very inconsistent and how do you depend on that? If anything the "good" they have done may just in turn cause more confusion and irritability among members.

Then again if they did it because the mods have seen the error of their "ways" then, well, that would be nice.
 

swordfishME

Expert Member
Joined
Sep 28, 2006
Posts
960
Media
0
Likes
137
Points
263
Location
DFW Texas
Sexuality
80% Gay, 20% Straight
Gender
Male
Well this points out that the mods are very inconsistent and how do you depend on that? If anything the "good" they have done may just in turn cause more confusion and irritability among members.

Then again if they did it because the mods have seen the error of their "ways" then, well, that would be nice.


If they have you don't really expect these mods to admit to it, do you?
 

Northland

Sexy Member
Joined
Oct 22, 2007
Posts
5,924
Media
0
Likes
40
Points
123
Sexuality
No Response
OK, I saw the message above from mindseye on the sticky thread that allows no comments. And what's with that?
Comments could lead to more less than a week long week long bans (it would be interesting to see if he or any of the others could find a way to explain how a week long ban is suddenly shorn of a day or two).


Hey, an explanation and possibly an apology... Personally, I find this whole thing bizarre and it would behoove management to change the way this board is moderated and possibly some of the moderators.


Without an explanation and possibly an apology this lifting of the bans seems empty.


This is my opinion and not meant to be absolute. And it's not meant to insult anyone. Just thought I'd make that clear.
Mindseyes, who is a co-administrator, same as Pecker, gave an explanation-it's in celebration of the 25th anniversary of the final episode of M*A*S*H.


Quote from Mindseyes: "25 years ago today, the final episode of M*A*S*H aired, and became the most watched television broadcast in history."

What could be so difficult to understand about that? Of course it also shows that the Moderators and Admins. are essentially worthless. Oh yes-they can ban; however, the bans are as useless and worthless as the boxes they type their messages into, since they are lifted at whim-even though there was a supposed full week length which had been initially imposed. Other bans, such as that of the now notorious Big Dirigible who formed his own site, are more permanent. The Ruling class of all empires has always been somewhat fickle and somewhat flakey-why should it be any different here? And isn't that part of what gives us all a chuckle now and then? Of course, as history has shown, empires eventually falter and then fall and crumble due to their instability.
 

D_Tintagel_Demondong

Sexy Member
Joined
Dec 9, 2005
Posts
3,928
Media
0
Likes
74
Points
193
If members have to obey a code of conduct, it seems fair that the moderators should also. How about this for a "Section IV"?
  1. Moderators will give members in conflict a warning before banning, and a chance to rectify the situation themselves.
  2. Moderators will be consistant with banning, always applying the same punishment for the same infraction for all members.
  3. Moderators will inform banned members of their infractions.
  4. Moderators will not let conflicts between members fester over weeks and get out of control.
  5. Moderators will not let personal feelings affect their decision to ban members.
I hate to flog a dead horse here, but it only seems fair that moderators use guidelines when banning members.
 

D_Gunther Snotpole

Account Disabled
Joined
Oct 3, 2005
Posts
13,632
Media
0
Likes
76
Points
193
If members have to obey a code of conduct, it seems fair that the moderators should also. How about this for a "Section IV"?
  1. Moderators will give members in conflict a warning before banning, and a chance to rectify the situation themselves.
  2. Moderators will be consistant with banning, always applying the same punishment for the same infraction for all members.
  3. Moderators will inform banned members of their infractions.
  4. Moderators will not let conflicts between members fester over weeks and get out of control.
  5. Moderators will not let personal feelings affect their decision to ban members.
I hate to flog a dead horse here, but it only seems fair that moderators use guidelines when banning members.

I like it, rec. The only thing is that the second point might not be wise to set in stone. It's like having rigid guidelines for prison sentences; too often, justice is injured rather than improved.
 

D_Gunther Snotpole

Account Disabled
Joined
Oct 3, 2005
Posts
13,632
Media
0
Likes
76
Points
193
The Ruling class of all empires has always been somewhat fickle and somewhat flakey-why should it be any different here? And isn't that part of what gives us all a chuckle now and then? Of course, as history has shown, empires eventually falter and then fall and crumble due to their instability.

Someone should remind you ... this is a big dick site.
Tempest. Teapot. Farce.
If someone wants to say there should be more transparency, more consistency, and sometimes earlier intervention by mods ... I can see all that.
But we don't need any Tom Paines or Paul Reveres here ... and I don't see any anyway.
 

dong20

Sexy Member
Joined
Feb 17, 2006
Posts
6,058
Media
0
Likes
28
Points
183
Location
The grey country
Sexuality
No Response
If members have to obey a code of conduct, it seems fair that the moderators should also. How about this for a "Section IV"?
  1. Moderators will give members in conflict a warning before banning, and a chance to rectify the situation themselves. -
  2. Moderators will be consistant with banning, always applying the same punishment for the same infraction for all members.
  3. Moderators will inform banned members of their infractions.
  4. Moderators will not let conflicts between members fester over weeks and get out of control.
  5. Moderators will not let personal feelings affect their decision to ban members.
I hate to flog a dead horse here, but it only seems fair that moderators use guidelines when banning members.

I see no problems with any of those in principle, and no problem with 1,3 and 4 in practice, and while 5 should be an aim it may not be entirely achievable.

Number 2 is the problem - absolute rules are fine in theory but surely the determination of when someone has crossed a line depends on a number of factors not necessarily just the events occurring at that moment.

I don't believe it's as easy to be 100% consistent and yet still let the boards function without fear of having a ban for an insult or two in a heated exchange, as opposed one from a deliberate attack - as a 'mere' rule would make it appear.

It seems easy to tell the difference in the abstract (and with hindsight), but in reality, especially if one is embroiled in it, I think it may be rather less so. It requires a degree of judgment, and therefore is almost certain to be inconsistent, to some degree.

keeping that level of inconsistency to a minimum is the tricky thing, I'd think.
 

D_Gunther Snotpole

Account Disabled
Joined
Oct 3, 2005
Posts
13,632
Media
0
Likes
76
Points
193
Number 2 is the problem - absolute rules are fine in theory but surely the determination of when someone has crossed a line depends on a number of factors not necessarily just the events occurring at that moment. I don't believe it's as easy to be 100% consistent and yet still let the boards function without fear of having a ban for an insult or two in a heated exchange, as opposed one from a deliberate attack - as a 'mere' rule would make it appear.

It sounds easy to tell the difference in the abstract, but in reality, especially if one is embroiled in it, I think it may be rather less so. It requires a degree of judgment, and therefore is almost certain to be inconsistent, to some degree.

keeping that level of inconsistency to a minimum is the tricky thing, I'd think.

Dong, you phukhur ... once again you stole the words from my mouth.:cool:
 

Principessa

Expert Member
Joined
Nov 22, 2006
Posts
18,660
Media
0
Likes
146
Points
193
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Female
If members have to obey a code of conduct, it seems fair that the moderators should also. How about this for a "Section IV"?
  1. Moderators will give members in conflict a warning before banning, and a chance to rectify the situation themselves.
  2. Moderators will be consistant with banning, always applying the same punishment for the same infraction for all members.
  3. Moderators will inform banned members of their infractions.
  4. Moderators will not let conflicts between members fester over weeks and get out of control.
  5. Moderators will not let personal feelings affect their decision to ban members.
I hate to flog a dead horse here, but it only seems fair that moderators use guidelines when banning members.

QFE-Quoted For Emphasis

Everything you stated above was mentioned and allegedly under consideration by Rob_E in, "become part of the solution". I am saddened and a bit disillusioned to see that none of the above items have been implemented yet.


.