Firstly, "cashmoney" - re making such a thread 'about' me (or rather referencing me)
I will admit I was not best pleased. I am forced somewhat to post under my own name as you have already chose to bring me into it in the first few lines of your post. You did not choose to identify
yourself! But here are my thoughts anyway. Oh, one last thing I have used some names below - since anyone who browses the boards will know what I’m referring to anyway it’d just be an insult to people’s intelligence to do so otherwise. Cashmoney, I agree with some sentiments in your post which is not to say I endorse it all!
Firstly in reference to this "fight". Just so you know, to give you the background - I bumped the GreekChat Crush thread with a post, my post contained something like "It's all about page 54". That remark was a gently humorous play on page 66 of that aforementioned thread which had dialog ending with "It's all about page 66 baby!" or similar. Thus, me saying "[no!] it's page 54 baby" - (page 54 being my own on-topic post for that thread) was just a jokey reference to another post. All a throwaway comment that was scarcely worth talking about. Sadly this was taken a particular way or something was read into it that was lost on me. Sadder still some people chose to "applaud" the animosity... fortunately those later people were members I could use the
Ignore feature on. (As an aside I wouldn’t say it was just a picture, it was a comment
made by a picture). This particular exchange was, however, just another occurrence of the type of thing you describe, cashmoney. And I realise this hierarchy thread was created about a broad issue not a thread.
Unfortunately when I or others feel attacked or jumped upon for no reason at all - that I/they can see - especially more than once, it is darn difficult to 'be the better man' and
ignore it, more so if the same people are involved. Re the instigator comment, it can certainly occur that some people do pick holes in posts where perhaps there weren’t any. REAL flame posts subtle or not can be seen a mile off, harmless on topic posts should not be treated with the same contempt.
_ Some members can be ignored (via a setting), some cannot. And they know this.
I have thought in the past that there is a certain double standard or at least greater emphasis on rules being applied to some people than others. There are either Rules. Or there are not.
As for the idea that to blindly apply ALL the rules at ALL costs at ALL times would be draconian and restricting, well no I am not saying that every post should be checked by a mod with the rules in their hand, I am merely saying that I sometimes get a sense that there are people who openly flout the rules while berating others for not following them. I also see on a daily basis posts for which one member would be vilified but when another member posts such items it's "different". In other words there has to be discretion and common sense; I just tend to think sometimes that certain members get a whole heap of discretion!
I have seen situations, where someone either falls "out of favor" with the
mods or who comes back (perhaps after banning) - that person might either be "pushed" with inflammatory comments by
mods until s/he retaliates and that retaliation is held up as evidence of how terrible that member is. Personally I have noticed of late my threads and others, being jumped upon by certain members, regardless of which forum.
To give my own current thoughts on the banning topic... as I mention they are my own, the actual act of banning can only be performed by one person. However, as was pointed out there is naturally discussion between the moderators themselves and between them and John, I think the amount of weight they carry in such a decision being made might be being played down by some of them in this thread.
As far as returned
banned members go, I can think of at least one other person who is around and was in the past banned. Quote: Some people get banned and have posts deleted because they say things that shouldn't have been said. I know one of the times pike was banned, after it was a mass buildup, he said "fat rice eating mouth" to a girl that was asian [unquote]. Now that sort of remark is not called for. That is without question bannable. However, the subsequent screen-name of this person sverige **in and of itself ** did not say anything similar (rest assured if he had I would have had said something on principle
). Yet this screenname was banned for posts that were they made by other members might not have resulted in a banning? As not all "returned members" are banned summarily then therefore the conduct of the new screen name is considered; I think though some are "considered" more than others. I don’t type this with a tear rolling down my cheek mumbling “poor little critter never had a chance” I just think that sure he was (in the sverige incarnation if it was him) sexist, opinionated, not very politically correct or subtle **but nor are some other members!**. Again, clear racism (for example) is a different kettle of fish and banning/shooting is a good step.
For all the pm John comments, hmm. I do not doubt John Hammell's professionalism or ability to manage issues. However, to take a hypothetical scenario if a mod or two were to take a dislike to someone and hypothetically start a mini campaign and mud-slinging match about them on a moderator forum, other mod-members may be persuaded by their arguments. The animosity would spill over onto the general boards too. Eventually that person after being lambasted by all corners would be in a situation where relations had broken down and arguments would be everywhere. Were John to then look at the issue re banning, he would obviously ask the moderators first in the course of looking into it. I certainly get a sense the
mods team together. How fair would or could the process be? And yes, I have heard of the voting mentioned in this thread. Some of the remarks in this thread seem almost to suggest some
mods “lobby” against particular members?
I - and this is not an attack - wonder the level of impact a concern raised can have. There is no quick/easy way to write an open letter to the moderators, contacting one (not involved in the issue) is not fair on them, etc. I don’t doubt his ability to look into issues but, returning to the hypothetical scenario above, faced with one user vs. a team of
mods advocating a different view?!?
I have seen far far too much of "IF YOU DON'T LIKE IT LEAVE" type remarks.
That does work particularly well in five year old world but a blank refusal to examine ones behaviour is, unfortunate. Naturally there are limits to that. Commenting on a neighborhood one lives in does not always mean that one dislikes it/all the residents or wants to leave. I happen to stay here because I have an interest in the central theme of the board (i.e. I’m in an interest group which plans to - and is set up to - petition a GLO), I do not nor have not come here expressly to cause trouble. Any posts clearly attacking another have only ever been retaliatory/reactive (where made against me) or are made toward another post so contentious that to not speak up would be for me, wrong. Even when I defend myself… there are obviously lines I do not cross such as bringing that person’s affiliation into it to take a pop at them personally. If someone is prepared to follow a few rules on a private forum and is interested in its subject(s) then they may stay but the next person should also be subject to the same rules without ability to make like it or leave remarks following lack of concern for any rules.
In this post many times I have used the term moderators/mods - a plural term. There are many forum moderators here, the vast, vast majority do a difficult job which offers little reward, without complaint or incident and with outstanding success. There are a minority who on occasion act in a way that makes me uncomfortable.
Linear Mode
