I'll answer you in the order of each paragraph:

It's not about my feelings or what-not. A) it was an implied threat, if you didn't have moderator status then nobody would have understood the comment and b) I highly doubt most members on GC actually know you, the way you portray yourself on GC sends out an image as to what you're like. Somebody who registered today could have read that comment and thought you were anal towards someone who spoke their mind. It's kinda like being greek, you have a positive image to uphold as a moderator. And as for the banning comment it really wouldn't matter, I'd just get a new name.

The list:

You break the rules, you suffer the consequences. The terms of agreement are set by John. Repremanding should take place for anyone who breaks the rules, no matter which ones they break or who the person is. The person who has been a member of GC for 2 months, should his/her post be given less lienentcy because he hasn't been around as long as person X? NO! Thats wrong! Thats basically saying a newcomers opinions and feelings don't mean squat when compared to say, someone like yourself.

If someone has BEEN here for a long time and lets say they get into a mudslinging contest with a newcomer and they both start going at it, whats there to discerne? They broke the rules. Ban them both. The individual who's been here for a long time knows the rules but thinks that since they have seniority they can get away with things, the person whos the new comer should have read the rules before they clicked the agree button. There should be nothing to debate in that situation. If either of them want to come back they can then get a new screen name. Maybe next time they'll play by the rules. That goes for profanity or flamatory posts, which are both on the "Not allowed" list.

Threads do get locked, some screen names tend to have more threads locked than others. I would think that if administration actually stood behind it's word/code of conduct on here, ZetaAce and other mods would have a lot less work to do deleting posts. Once people started getting banned for not being good people would then learn to play nice and there would be no need for moderators. Yet, I can understand that John would be busy banning people and would probably loose whatever hair he still has left. So, maybe then he should designate 3 other individuals who would then assist him in banning rule breakers. Discerning the banning would be simple, if you break any of the rules your gone.

Truth alert! Great post...

Someone call me a cab - looks like the curtain's coming up on some DRAMA and I don't want to be late

I agree. He is "provoking" other people.

The one thing I would like to know is why I can't ignore a mod. I have big issues with this one.

Re: Re: Hierarchy on GC?
 

Nodbody said that. In no way did anyone say that. Don't make things up or twist what I said. You're totally missing the message and point I'm trying to make clear.

Re: Re: Hierarchy on GC?
 

Shoot, if the credentials to be a mod were fighting with UFPike, over half this board would be mods :)

Sorry guys, I'm going to double-post here - please don't ban me!

Look dude/dudette, whoever you are - take off the sock-puppet account name, and tell us what the hell got your goat. Your rules are ridiculous - and here's why:

HOW MANY PEOPLE HAVE ACTUALLY BEEN BANNED IN THE LAST CALENDAR YEAR?

You probably don't even have to take off your socks to count that high. It's just not a problem, it's a non-issue, NO ONE should even be giving it a second thought. The 'old regulars' aren't out to get you, the mods aren't out to get you - don't be a douche bag, and soon you'll be one of us. Word?

word.

This isn't an attack so don't take it as such. But who or what gives you the authority to say what is right or wrong on this site? John runs the site, John pays for the site, so to sum, John says what does and does not go. Since John does pay for this site, and I don't see any of us paying a membership fee, I think he is entitled to handle the site in a manner in which he sees fit.

I don't much agree in banning people, even those that I do not care for. UF pike was the ultimate exception. Just the way he talked and acted toward some of the female members should have had him banned. But he was given chances, and still kept at it. That is how he was banned in the end. Only to come back again, still given more chances and when those were gone, he was banned again. ONLY to come back a third time, I think we see the pattern here.


In all, John makes the final decision in everything.

Cashmoney
 

People on here do know me, and do know each other because a lot of us converse off of GC too. If you are a faithful member under a different name, you would know that.

Personally I'm not going to say another word about defending Billy anymore because we obviously don't see eye-to-eye.

It seems to me, from your list, you would only be happy if there were a strict set of guidelines that were followed all the time? Am I correct? If that is so, then tell me, what sort of environment would that make? I'm just curious because you talked about this not being a fun environment NOW, then what sort of BIG BROTHER environment would this be if you suggest we ban everyone who messes up?

And furthermore, like you said, "I'd just get another name". So what does that solve?

I honestly don't understand where you're coming from. You either are someone on here who has had posts edited, threads deleted, or been banned...OR, you just like to argue?!?! I don't know? If you have a problem, and are like the first person I suggested, then you need to take your issues up with John. He is the ONLY person that can help you. If you have been banned before and warned and don't agree with it, then I suppose you're not agreeing to the rules John has set forth, so why should the rules you're suggesting be considered?

Just something to think, nothing personal okay :)

LOL and ditto.

Haha, I saw that and I was like "Kiwi is going to go crazy."

Also, Kiran and I aren't the same person, contrary to popular belief. zntke711 jokingly stated it in chat, and some other people apparently thought it was true - but trust me, we aren't the same person.

I definitely agree with everything said here also...especially the mods that take behavior that should obviously be kept in the "mod's corner" or whatever it is called and bring it on to the boards by calling people out. This goes back to wanting to have the ability to ignore mods, but hey, for what I pay for GC, I'm getting a pretty good deal. ;)

http://rogersmantalk.com/images/beer_mug_great.html.jpg

A+++ post of the year.

LOL at the sock-puppet reference.

GP, I know we talked about the ignoring mods before, and I tried and was able to do it (this is before I was a mod) but another poster couldn't. We came to the conclusion that it was some sort of glitch in the GC system. If you want, you can try to ignore me and see if it works. :p I'll even PM you.

Thanks Amy-Good looking out.

Deja-I'll never forget.

hahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahhaahahahah ahahahahhahahahaaahahahahahahahahaahhhahahhahaahah haahahahha