I suppose technically it can only describe the people who eat bans every week, but yes in spirit? Like, his post just now was to @ a mod who banned guy who eats bans every week to tell the mod he should recuse himself from banning guy who eats bans every week because banned guy who eats bans every week sent the abusive pm to that mod and that mod can’t be objective about it? I mean, maybe ideally the mod would recuse, and in a vacuum it’s a point worth discussing (although judges for example do not recuse themselves from holding people in contempt when they are abusive to them), but it feels like more agitation on behalf of the guys getting banned every week than a point of deep principle.
Just now waking up from a NyQuil induced sleep. Apologies for not letting another mod take care of the action but we discussed privately and had made the decision. The PM he sent was completely unacceptable. I just went ahead and posted the suspension but I’ll let a 3rd party do it next time. Sorry for stirring shit up.
4 Likes
The loophole is that if you’re abusive to all the mods at once, they’ll all have to recuse themselves and you’ll be unstoppable.
9 Likes
I’m just curious if I have been abusive to the mods on here?
3 Likes
It’s good to see you back, btw.
1 Like
You could pretty easily go through cassette and jbro’s recent posting history to see that they do a lot more than “tear at whatever tenuous peace that arises from time to time.” Not to mention the ridiculous claims that they’ve “sabotaged everything for a year” and have “started their own thing” (not to mention “be shady”, like what does that even mean?).
This thread is called “About Moderation” and it is, as I understand it, a place for people to talk about moderation. Cassette comes in here and restates an opinion that was previously agreed to by others (including a current mod, Rugby, if I understand ggoreo’s post correctly). He @'ed the mod but otherwise didn’t post in any way that could possibly be perceived as malicious or shit-stirring. Seriously, go re-read his post. It is a plain statement in plain language. Within minutes, three (!) posters immediately jump on him. Who is the one “tearing at a tenuous peace” here? If folks were to go back and reread that series of posts with the names redacted, everyone would see you as the agitator here.
Basically, I’m asking you to stop. Please. If @cassette actually stops posting here after this I’m going to be pretty fucking annoyed. Likewise for @anon10387340. Despite what you are trying to insinuate, they make a lot more posts here than just complaining about moderation, and I’m tired of people driving them off.
11 Likes
Well said Hokie!
1 Like
If you mean the one sabo started where he pretended to be a bunch of regs, yes I was aware of that but didn’t consider it an actual attempt at starting “their own forum.” If there is an actual place where these folks that have left are going off to, I’d love a link to it tbh.
2 Likes
Ok, so fuck off is no big deal, and certainly not abusive as indicated by Jman’s air quotes.
.
Confirmed by a mod as not suspendable and “not an issue”.
Here is my PM:
Oh…
Huh…
Almost like there are totally different rules for different people.
1 Like
I’m not doing this. Feel free to start a poll to have me removed if you believe I am unfit to be a mod. I will happily step aside.
Nice crop job
2 Likes
I see the same words repeated. Why does that make it banworthy while a single fuck you isn’t?
1 Like
Why do moderators have to tolerate abusive language from users, then defend their decisions while those same users carefully reveal the exact details they want to frame themselves as the good guy?
Seems pretty convenient to have just coincidentally cropped out the PM title.
5 Likes
Why indeed wasn’t the other abusive poster also banned?
Really, no one minds too much about getting a ban if it’s a) proportional to the offence and b) applied as fairly as possible to all posters.
Hard to believe these same mistakes are still being made.
I honestly don’t care about the ban and think my PM deserved it. But when I saw the discussion about how Jman told Rugby to fuck off with Jman’s use of air quotes on “abusive” and Rugby categorizing it as no big deal and not worthy of a ban, I wanted to understand the difference. Because in the context of that discussion with Tilted then stepping back in immediately after those posts to confirm that my PM was totally unacceptable, it could leave people to believe that my PM went beyond just telling him to fuck off.
Also, my main complaint in the PM is that I caught a ban for carrying on after the thread was warned when I made my post BEFORE I ever saw the warning. Perhaps moderate offensive posts so when people come across them they don’t respond “after a warning” when the warning came like a hundred posts later? Or are we supposed to read every post in a thread before responding to any of them?
jman’s “lol fuck off” was in response to Rugby saying
The original “jailerman” is low level trolling and deserves a knock it off
and was also after jman was already silenced for a week. The mods discussed it at the time and felt like the silencing was already good enough and it didn’t need to be changed to a ban because of “lol fuck off”.
4 Likes
Ok I accept that explanation.
My main objective in any case was to make sure it was clear that I didn’t send a PM that went beyond telling the mod to fuck off, because in the context of that series of posts it could lead people to believe the PM was a lot worse than it was.
2 Likes
One minor mystery I have long experienced (and Jal expeirienced this too recently) is a 7 day ban equates to a 9 day ban. Like last ban I had 7pm Wednesday (GMT) didn’t allow a log in til until Friday week, 8pm (GMT)?
Screenshot taken 3 Nov, 7 days after banhammer 
I mean, technically (if there’s a…) next time I’m banned, I already served the time… multiple times this has happened FYI (not the first occasion this happened the last time the ‘mod’ called it an obs CONSPIRACY)
Can’t be that a US week is 9 days, surely