What And No Explanation?

[simcha]

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.



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]

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.

 

[simcha]

Yes, yes, let's be sheep and forget. Smell the poppies and sleep... Sleep...

 

[findfirefox]

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]

Yes, yes, let's be sheep and forget. Smell the poppies and sleep... Sleep...

Well they could have always said that they were never banned.

I'D BELIV IT!

 

[swordfishME]

Yes, yes, let's be sheep and forget. Smell the poppies and sleep... Sleep...

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.

 

[D_golden parachute]

Why are you such a cunt?

 

[findfirefox]

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.

 

[findfirefox]

Why are you such a cunt?

Who me? Long day, I'm a little tired, I guess that must be effecting my mood tonight.

 

[swordfishME]

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?

 

[findfirefox]

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

Most likely not, I know I have problems admitting to the smallest errors.

I like to admit while not really admitting. :redface:

 

[Northland]

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.

 

[seahorses]

Why are you such a cunt?

Now this guy always seems to have something obnoxious to say. It predates the return of Kevin Keegan, so it can’t be that? Can only put it down to resentment!

 

[D_Tintagel_Demondong]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

 

[Principessa]

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.


.

 

[simcha]

What, mindseye and Gillette? Still no explanations? What are you waiting for?