Issues and Concerns

Quote from: Lord Wilmore on September 30, 2009, 03:27:44 AM

Like Hara said, moderators cannot 'moderate' other moderators. We can make our opinions clear (and we do), but ultimately enforcement is Daniel's call and Daniel's alone.

  Why can't mods moderate other mods?  Is it a limitation of the board software or is it just not Daniel's policy to do so?

most d youshoulc be able to mod other mods

I dont' ses any reason hw not
i mean the ban sthit doesn't stop it

  Why can't mods moderate other mods?  Is it a limitation of the board software or is it just not Daniel's policy to do so?  I've said it before and I'll say it again: in my opinion, since they are in a position of authority, the mods should be held to a higher standard than the regulars.

As far as I know, both. Besides, that's the way it should be. I agree that moderators should be held to a higher standard, however it is simply bad policy to have mods modding mods unless they are given the specific authority to do so. It leads to bad vibes and bad decisions. On every forum I've ever moderated at, admins have always made those kind of calls.

Not both, you can delete other mods posts and such. You can also ban them. It's just against SOP.

Oh really... 


(>_>)


(<_<)


*ban*

Oh really... 


(>_>)


(<_<)

Fixed.

As far as I know, both. Besides, that's the way it should be. I agree that moderators should be held to a higher standard, however it is simply bad policy to have mods modding mods unless they are given the specific authority to do so. It leads to bad vibes and bad decisions. On every forum I've ever moderated at, admins have always made those kind of calls.

You were an admin for a while Wilmore. If you still had any admin powers what would you do to levee?

He shall promote him to admin and rule FES together.

Has someone with a sense of humour taken over Jack's account?

Has someone with a sense of humour taken over Jack's account?

Oh no you di'ent!

Quote from: Lord Wilmore on September 30, 2009, 06:43:59 AM

As far as I know, both. Besides, that's the way it should be. I agree that moderators should be held to a higher standard, however it is simply bad policy to have mods modding mods unless they are given the specific authority to do so. It leads to bad vibes and bad decisions. On every forum I've ever moderated at, admins have always made those kind of calls.

You were an admin for a while Wilmore. If you still had any admin powers what would you do to levee?

I was an admin in name only. I had/have no more authority than any other moderator. I was given admin privledges so stuff like users with pornographic avatars could be dealt with quickly (mods cannot adjust that kind of stuff). It isn't, and never was, my call.

Is it just me, or is the use of alts on the rise or something?  We've had two regulars get caught with alts over the past two weeks or so.  Maybe we should increase the punishment of alt use in the future.  I'm not trying to hint that we should do something retroactive to Johannes or Wendy, but a five-day ban really doesn't really seem like much of a deterrent to me.  I'm not exaggerating when I say that about a year ago, this site was literally dying from, among other things, way too many alts.

  I thought that alts were a permaban offense.

Oh really... 


(>_>)


(<_<)


*ban*

*pulls out my robe and wizard hat*

Unbant

  I thought that alts were a permaban offense.

Permaban for making an alt?  That would be a little harsh.  Anyway, Johannes only got five days, and presumably so did Wendy.

Sorry Guest, you are banned from posting or sending personal messages on this forum.
Ban, 7 days, Breaking posting rules in upper fora twice, Repeat offender

Will the mod who banned me please indicate:

1) Which rule I broke the first time, and where I broke it.

2) Which rule I broke the second time, and where I broke it.

Quote

Sorry Guest, you are banned from posting or sending personal messages on this forum.
Ban, 7 days, Breaking posting rules in upper fora twice, Repeat offender

Will the mod who banned me please indicate:

1) Which rule I broke the first time, and where I broke it.

2) Which rule I broke the second time, and where I broke it.

Seeing as it's you, it'd be low content posts both times.

Seeing as it's you, it'd be low content posts both times.

My question was addressed to the moderator who banned me. Your speculation is not sought here.

Thanks awfully!

Quote from: General Douchebag on October 13, 2009, 08:31:47 AM

Seeing as it's you, it'd be low content posts both times.

My question was addressed to the moderator who banned me. Your speculation is not sought here.

Thanks awfully!

It's not speculation if evidence backs it up. And one need only look as far as "View Recent Posts" to find some really low-content ones of yours.

Quote from: General Douchebag on October 13, 2009, 08:31:47 AM

Seeing as it's you, it'd be low content posts both times.

My question was addressed to the moderator who banned me. Your speculation is not sought here.

Thanks awfully!

I can ban you, then I'd be able to answer your question.

I don't know if this has been mentioned before, but the first rule, the one against racism:"-DO NOT post anything ironically, satirically, humorously, or blatantly racist in nature. No hate speeches or encouragements of hate are to be tolerated. Any member found posting racist comments or pictures will be banned immediately, without warning."

The "without warning" at the end is mostly understandable, but what if you do something that someone considers racist, but you didn't think it was, and didn't mean it to be? What if they are just being oversensitive? I understand that most posts under this category should be easily seen to be racist, but what if it was an honest mistake?
A company called "TrekStor" once produced an mp3 player, with their typical "i", then "beat" for the "hip beats" it would play, and then "blaxx", due to it's black design. The company was made to change the name, but I don't think that TrekStor was meaning to be racist, I just believe it was an honest mistake, and they fixed it.
Without a warning, then a person doesn't get a chance to fix their mistake.

I don't know if this has been mentioned before, but the first rule, the one against racism:"-DO NOT post anything ironically, satirically, humorously, or blatantly racist in nature. No hate speeches or encouragements of hate are to be tolerated. Any member found posting racist comments or pictures will be banned immediately, without warning."

The "without warning" at the end is mostly understandable, but what if you do something that someone considers racist, but you didn't think it was, and didn't mean it to be? What if they are just being oversensitive? I understand that most posts under this category should be easily seen to be racist, but what if it was an honest mistake?
A company called "TrekStor" once produced an mp3 player, with their typical "i", then "beat" for the "hip beats" it would play, and then "blaxx", due to it's black design. The company was made to change the name, but I don't think that TrekStor was meaning to be racist, I just believe it was an honest mistake, and they fixed it.
Without a warning, then a person doesn't get a chance to fix their mistake.

Whether or not it is blatantly racist is left to the discretion of our (somewhat insensitive) mods. If it's a grey area, it's probably going to be left alone or at worst casually warned against.

I don't know if this has been mentioned before, but the first rule, the one against racism:"-DO NOT post anything ironically, satirically, humorously, or blatantly racist in nature. No hate speeches or encouragements of hate are to be tolerated. Any member found posting racist comments or pictures will be banned immediately, without warning."

The "without warning" at the end is mostly understandable, but what if you do something that someone considers racist, but you didn't think it was, and didn't mean it to be? What if they are just being oversensitive? I understand that most posts under this category should be easily seen to be racist, but what if it was an honest mistake?

The new "no racism" rule, which comes from Daniel himself, states very clearly that you get banned for posting comments that are considered racist by people, even if you did not mean to be blatantly racist. I know there could be some gray areas that are up for interpretation, but I think overall this rule is pretty straightforward: just don't post anything that are normally considered racist, in jest or not. If you want to post something (e.g. in a debate about race) and you're not sure whether or not it is considered racist, feel free to ping the staff about it.

It's not speculation if evidence backs it up. And one need only look as far as "View Recent Posts" to find some really low-content ones of yours.

My question was addressed to the moderator who banned me.

I can ban you, then I'd be able to answer your question.

I repect your mighty powaz Raist. Long may they prevail. But I humbly submit that that would not explain the original ban.

hehehe I beat blaxx. Thats a brilliant name

Crusty, what raist meant to say was

stop being all inferior

(i hope you get that)

hehehe I beat blaxx. Thats a brilliant name

RACISM! It's a horrible name. >:I

Does he beat them to make them better?

Does he beat them to make them better?

Gayer would.

Quote from: Raist on October 14, 2009, 01:14:07 PM

Does he beat them to make them better?

Gayer would.

That doesn't make them better, that makes them limp and flacid.

Why are Bimbly2 and Frostee not banned yet? They, as well as dr0wningprincess, are the same person, as was admitted on IRC.