Quote:
Originally posted by Hootie
Well I'm sorry you feel that way but a) it's not a threat and b) people around here know me and know that I am not so anal to call for banning on an individual that is speaking their mind. As a matter of fact I'm not even calling for the banning of you.
I guess since you seem to have it all thought out, perhaps you could make some suggestions in a list form that will enlighten us as to what should be done?
For instance if there is a person on here who has BEEN on here for a very long time, and they say something that goes against guidelines should they be banned? I personally think that's a HUGE step. That's why threads get locked instead!
|
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.
Threaded Mode