Quote:
Originally posted by cashmoney
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.
|
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.