FAQ |
Members List |
Calendar |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
Announcements / Suggestions / Help Announcements from Admin, member suggestions and forum help |
Closed Thread |
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
06-04-2018, 01:07 AM | #301 | ||
|
|||
0_o
|
I remember when I gave a poster 1 point..and it knocked them into a 3 week ban I was planning on being soft and making it shorter given it really was a minor thing but then they sent me a PM telling me to kill myself. So, nope.
__________________
Quote:
|
||
06-04-2018, 01:08 AM | #302 | ||
|
|||
Senior Member
|
Quote:
Members got infractions by you, several leading to bans for going 'off topic' --- Niamh had posted: "Back ontopic please" - that was it, 3 little words which I have never seen leading to infractions if some don't listen immediately - there was none of the usual "listen up now! infractions will be given if people continue to go off topic", which is the way it is normally handled, which gives people a fair chance of taking note and cooling off. But you have said those words 'Back on topic please' were a WARNING which they were NOT and you handed out 3 point infractions. Why? I don't believe Niamh or Vicky would have done this, imo, so really its a problem if mods don't have definite guidelines to follow and stick to it, for the sake of fairness, otherwise its going to cause bad feeling. Last edited by jet; 06-04-2018 at 01:09 AM. |
||
06-04-2018, 01:21 AM | #304 | ||
|
|||
Banned
|
Quote:
Say, if someone reports someone else for baiting in SD and I'm online to read the report thread, I'll go into the topic, look at the post in question and then I tend to go back and forth to understand the context, more often than not I'll find that both sides broke the rules and I infract both, it doesn't matter if you're right or wrong in the argument itself, I have to base it on rule breaks if I want to be impartial. With all the transphobia stuff in the last CBB, I came up with a rule of thumb. I think it's okay to accuse someone of, in this example, being transphobic as long as you explain why in a reasonable manner IE 'I think you're transphobic because of this and that.' I think that's perfectly fine, the problem occurs if someone goes like 'YOU'RE A TRANSPHOBIC TROUT! GO CHOKE!'. When faced with bigotry, you've got to preferably report or, if you want to discuss, do so in a way that doesn't reduce the discussion to people insulting each other. |
||
06-04-2018, 01:36 AM | #305 | ||
|
|||
Banned
|
Quote:
The fact that the argument was also very intense and insult heavy also played into the points given. I came in into that thread to hand out those infractions about two or three pages after Niamh cleaned it and stated that she had cleaned it and, tbh, three points was probably not enough for some of the things that were said but since I decided to go with continuing a deleted argument as the infraction reason, which everyone was guilty of, that's why I went with a universal three pointer. Three points isn't really a heavy infraction in all honesty and I personally thought it was a fair amount given how heated the argument had become. In future, I shall remember to deliver a warning for the benefit of newer members but in the case of members who have been here long enough to know the rules, it should be common knowledge that once an argument is deleted, it should be considered be over or else infractions are dealt out. . Last edited by Tom4784; 06-04-2018 at 01:39 AM. |
||
06-04-2018, 01:44 AM | #307 | ||
|
|||
Banned
|
Depends on the infractions, Serious infractions tend to have longer expiration dates. A one pointer or a minor infraction might only be active for one month but depending on if the person is a frequent rulebreaker or their offences are particularly bad, they'll get longer lasting infractions that will keep them at a higher number of points for longer which means they need to be on their best behavior for longer.
I think the longest expiration date I've given on a non permaban infraction is a year. Usually the average for most mods is probably around 1-3 months per infraction, I'd say. |
||
06-04-2018, 02:02 AM | #308 | |||
|
||||
Senior Member
|
I still have a warning from 2014 it expires in 2020
|
|||
06-04-2018, 02:05 AM | #309 | ||
|
|||
Banned
|
Bit of a shady warning too! |
||
06-04-2018, 02:05 AM | #310 | ||
|
|||
Banned
|
I'll reverse it if you want but if it was me I'd wanna keep it tbh.
|
||
06-04-2018, 02:11 AM | #311 | |||
|
||||
Senior Member
|
I'm riding it out & clearly sticking to what it says
|
|||
06-04-2018, 02:13 AM | #312 | ||
|
|||
Banned
|
Imagine if we gave out 6 year infractions and warnings for saying 'Leave ha alone' these days. C&G would be DEAD.
|
||
06-04-2018, 02:15 AM | #313 | ||
|
|||
Senior Member
|
Quote:
I've been here a long time and have never had a ban, and to get banned for well, nothing really is annoying...petty on my part really, but still... |
||
06-04-2018, 02:22 AM | #314 | ||
|
|||
Banned
|
Quote:
|
||
06-04-2018, 06:15 AM | #316 | |||
|
||||
Senior Member
|
This ^
__________________
RIP Pyramid, Andyman ,Kerry and Lex xx https://www.facebook.com/JamesBulgerMT/?fref=photo "If slaughterhouses had glass walls, most people would be vegetarian" |
|||
06-04-2018, 06:28 AM | #317 | |||
|
||||
Senior Member
|
I have no problem with the forum or rules at all, it's the way some of us are spoken to ,there are ways of talking to people without being condescending and rude. There should be somewhere we can air our grievances too so I think the appeals section is a good move or even just a named person we could talk to.
__________________
RIP Pyramid, Andyman ,Kerry and Lex xx https://www.facebook.com/JamesBulgerMT/?fref=photo "If slaughterhouses had glass walls, most people would be vegetarian" |
|||
06-04-2018, 07:13 AM | #318 | |||
|
||||
Zumi Zimi Zami
|
Quote:
i wouldn't abuse my mod powers like that honestly
__________________
Taking part in Strictly Jake's Tibb does Strictly Game. No.1 Fan of Queen Anastasia ''Nastia'' Stan!!!!!! |
|||
06-04-2018, 07:13 AM | #319 | |||
|
||||
Senior Member
|
All seems fair to me. Rules and modding needs to be as transparent as possible and what has been suggested seems to be the best way to do things
__________________
|
|||
06-04-2018, 07:37 AM | #320 | |||
|
||||
This Witch doesn't burn
|
Quote:
__________________
'put a bit of lippy on and run a brush through your hair, we are alcoholics, not savages' |
|||
06-04-2018, 07:49 AM | #321 | |||
|
||||
This Witch doesn't burn
|
I also don't think there would be much of an issue with night time arguments on SD as it is mostly used during the day, I've rarely logged on to a new SD thread made overnight and is is barely posted in late at night
__________________
'put a bit of lippy on and run a brush through your hair, we are alcoholics, not savages' |
|||
06-04-2018, 08:19 AM | #322 | |||
|
||||
Quand il pleut, il pleut
|
..I fairly much haven’t really had anything to add to the thread...which might feel odd as I made it....but it’s just because I haven’t been on the forum much to be aware of specific grievances as such and to comment on personally...so it’s really for others to be able to voice things which they feel are contributive atm to so much negativity being felt...anyways one think I thought though...some seems to be the removal or editing of posts without being given a reason for this and the confusions/irritations etc that causes..?...could those edits/removals of specific posts etc be given a ‘one chance’ to the poster who made them to self edit or remove...like, what was ‘wrong’ with this post in terms of being insulting or personal to a member, you tell me..you go look, type thing, you go look at the ‘issue’ here and remove or self edit..?...could that be a possibility maybe...?...
...it may still result in an infraction etc but it may help to stop feelings of ‘bias’ with staff of...’you’re just trying to shut me down’, type thing...and focusing of people taking their own self responsibility..?....also of someone refuses to self edit or remove an obvious personal insult or inference..then the infraction is obvious to all other members as to why it was given as the ‘personal’ post is still there, while that person continues to post in that thread etc...so rather than yep it’s gone or been edited and you’re infracted..it’s more, take a look yourself at the changes/removal/edititing needed or you will be infracted...?... |
|||
06-04-2018, 08:21 AM | #323 | |||
|
||||
Quand il pleut, il pleut
|
...it could be a preset thing to send to a member, rather than type it out each time by staff..?...just press a button and that ‘one chance’ is given to self edit..?...
|
|||
06-04-2018, 08:28 AM | #324 | |||
|
||||
Quand il pleut, il pleut
|
...anyways for any staff member to be ‘given’ SD to moderate atm would be like being given the groups or the overs in the XFactor in a series where they were awful acts......I think Niamh and Vicky are both great de-escalators and great diffusers as an active contributing presence in particularly ‘heated’ thread topics...but admin I think would be good to make infraction/sanction decisions overall in that section atm...they just can’t necessarily be here to diffuse etc while the thread is active ...
|
|||
06-04-2018, 08:47 AM | #325 | |||
|
||||
Can I get a witness?
|
I think I speak for many when I say this drama is distracting from the mods installing a like button and quote notification feature
__________________
|
|||
Closed Thread |
|
|