PDA

View Full Version : Did I Miss Something?



BOSS302
09-02-2013, 09:56 PM
Why is RobotChicken banned?

sandsjames
09-02-2013, 10:23 PM
Why is RobotChicken banned?

Because that's what the mods do now. They're in the process of trying to make examples of people, I'm guessing. What's probably more true is that they have been on here for a long time with other screen names and are getting rid of anyone who annoyed them during that time, or anyone who they deem too controversial. Look at the list...PYB, Joe, Tak, RobotChicken. It's almost as if they've made a list of those who posted a lot, then started checking them off one by one.

Vrake
09-02-2013, 10:39 PM
He was Robotspambot there for awhile plus right before he got banned he was necromancing the hell out of Threads. Mostly those of people who went to banned camp.

imnohero
09-03-2013, 02:02 AM
robot:spam:bot....it's funny cuz it's true! :laughin3: :oldnews:

FLAPS, USAF (ret)
09-03-2013, 04:08 AM
They're in the process of trying to make examples of people, I'm guessing.

Kinda hard to make an example out of someone when you don't explain what the example is all about.

sandsjames
09-03-2013, 12:50 PM
Kinda hard to make an example out of someone when you don't explain what the example is all about.

Exactly...

AlexCross
09-03-2013, 01:01 PM
Something to remember.... There are three sides to every story. In many cases of people who are banned you are only hearing their side of the story. Many were given chances through PM to correct the behavior. When they continue is when the ban happens and most know EXACTLY why they were given a ban. Just because they come in here acting like they weren't given warning doesn't mean it didn't happen.


I am not saying this is how it works EVERY time. But for the most part this is how we try to work it. It is not my place to explain why RC was banned. But he knows exactly why.

Absinthe Anecdote
09-03-2013, 01:05 PM
I thought I read that he was banned for helping Tak circumvent the ban.

I'm not sure what that means but it was an explanation given by FA in one of the 20 or so threads about Tak and/or how mean the news mods are.

On a separate note, I'm thinking about starting a rumor about one of the mods pushing a basket full of puppies over Niagara Falls.

sandsjames
09-03-2013, 01:11 PM
Something to remember.... There are three sides to every story. In many cases of people who are banned you are only hearing their side of the story. Many were given chances through PM to correct the behavior. When they continue is when the ban happens and most know EXACTLY why they were given a ban. Just because they come in here acting like they weren't given warning doesn't mean it didn't happen.


I am not saying this is how it works EVERY time. But for the most part this is how we try to work it. It is not my place to explain why RC was banned. But he knows exactly why.

The word I heard was that he received one message only, then was banned. Not sure how true it is, but that's the side I was told.

AlexCross
09-03-2013, 01:11 PM
I thought I read that he was banned for helping Tak circumvent the ban.

I'm not sure what that means but it was an explanation given by FA in one of the 20 or so threads about Tak and/or how mean the news mods are.

On a separate note, I'm thinking about starting a rumor about one of the mods pushing a basket full of puppies over Niagara Falls.


Aww... Not puppies.. I like puppies. Can't we make it something useless?

AlexCross
09-03-2013, 01:15 PM
The word I heard was that he received one message only, then was banned. Not sure how true it is, but that's the side I was told.

He received a message and ignored it. If they continue the behavior after a message asking them to stop a behavior...our actions have to get tougher. Think of it like verbal counseling, LOC, LOR, and Art 15. He got the verbal counseling, he received lighter bans, and still continued his behavior. There are several people here who have worked to get Tak back in much better ways.

Absinthe Anecdote
09-03-2013, 01:16 PM
What's the deal with that Veritas guy?

sandsjames
09-03-2013, 01:22 PM
He received a message and ignored it. If they continue the behavior after a message asking them to stop a behavior...our actions have to get tougher. Think of it like verbal counseling, LOC, LOR, and Art 15. He got the verbal counseling, he received lighter bans, and still continued his behavior. There are several people here who have worked to get Tak back in much better ways.

I'm not working to get him back. I'm just telling you the story I heard. One warning (verbal counseling), then the boot. But thanks for explaining to me how the process works in the AF.

AlexCross
09-03-2013, 01:26 PM
I'm not working to get him back. I'm just telling you the story I heard. One warning (verbal counseling), then the boot. But thanks for explaining to me how the process works in the AF.

I understand that there are different versions of the story out there...just wanted to put out the reminder that there are at least two sides to the story. Those getting banned or whatever are not going to admit fault.

sandsjames
09-03-2013, 01:29 PM
I understand that there are different versions of the story out there...just wanted to put out the reminder that there are at least two sides to the story. Those getting banned or whatever are not going to admit fault.

Yes Sir. Thank you Sir.

AlexCross
09-03-2013, 01:31 PM
Yes Sir. Thank you Sir.

LOL. Not that serious.

Stalwart
09-03-2013, 01:41 PM
Because that's what the mods do now. They're in the process of trying to make examples of people, I'm guessing. What's probably more true is that they have been on here for a long time with other screen names and are getting rid of anyone who annoyed them during that time, or anyone who they deem too controversial. Look at the list...PYB, Joe, Tak, RobotChicken. It's almost as if they've made a list of those who posted a lot, then started checking them off one by one.

I think PYB, JoeB, and Tak/GF all were banned before Moderators started.

I think RobotChicken and Creaminess are the only ones that have been banned since Moderators came into play.

imnohero
09-03-2013, 01:46 PM
you forgot Jerry "Stolen Valor" Connors. But no one probably cares about him. After all, he wasn't "friends" with anyone.

Pullinteeth
09-03-2013, 01:54 PM
Something to remember.... There are three sides to every story. In many cases of people who are banned you are only hearing their side of the story. Many were given chances through PM to correct the behavior. When they continue is when the ban happens and most know EXACTLY why they were given a ban. Just because they come in here acting like they weren't given warning doesn't mean it didn't happen.


I am not saying this is how it works EVERY time. But for the most part this is how we try to work it. It is not my place to explain why RC was banned. But he knows exactly why.

Well DUH....once you ban them, the only side we can hear is yours....

AlexCross
09-03-2013, 02:01 PM
Well DUH....once you ban them, the only side we can hear is yours....

Not necessarily. Some are friends in other forums or in real life.

sandsjames
09-03-2013, 02:12 PM
I think PYB, JoeB, and Tak/GF all were banned before Moderators started.

I think RobotChicken and Creaminess are the only ones that have been banned since Moderators came into play.

No, the new mods were definitely here, at least whith JoeB and Tak. PYB was, however, before their time.

Absinthe Anecdote
09-03-2013, 02:19 PM
No, the new mods were definitely here, at least whith JoeB and Tak. PYB was, however, before their time.

Ok, but why does that matter? Those guys were flagrantly breaking the rules and the final decision rests with the FA on permanent bans.

Or are you saying Tak was a victim?

Bourne
09-03-2013, 02:22 PM
Kittens.

Also, RC was spamming in PM, creating threads about Tak, necromancing 4 year old threads, as well as aiding banned members in circumventing their bans and bumping their posts and threads. He was given several chances, I think the final count is: 4 private warnings - two directly from me, and two temp bans, a 2 day and a 15 day, which I let him off of early.
The only changes to his behavior that he made were to find new ways to be disruptive, so he has to face the consequences.

Lastly, the assumption that we are making an example is wrong. As stated, to make an example of someone, you have to tell people about the example. And that is precisely why none of you heard about it, until now.

I would like to move this thread to the "Questions," as it largely pertains to Moderation. Any objections before I do that?

imnohero
09-03-2013, 02:26 PM
JB banned about 7/5
PYB banned about 8/17
Tak/GF banned about 8/4
Mods started on or around 8/1

So, JB was before. GF was about the same time. And PYB was definitely after. It seems your memory is faulty.

sandsjames
09-03-2013, 02:32 PM
JB banned about 7/5
PYB banned about 8/17
Tak/GF banned about 8/4
Mods started on or around 8/1

So, JB was before. GF was about the same time. And PYB was definitely after. It seems your memory is faulty.

Ok...either way, 3/4 were after the 3rd Re...I mean, the Mods came on board so, yeah, I was way off.

sandsjames
09-03-2013, 02:34 PM
Ok, but why does that matter? Those guys were flagrantly breaking the rules and the final decision rests with the FA on permanent bans.

Or are you saying Tak was a victim?

Nope...not saying anyone is a victim. What I'm saying is it's a little harsh to permaban any of those members, including JoeB and PYB and, trust me, I am no friend of theirs.

RFScott
09-03-2013, 02:34 PM
I also thought that PYB left on his own accord before the ban...or "taking a break" as he called it.

sandsjames
09-03-2013, 02:36 PM
I think PYB, JoeB, and Tak/GF all were banned before Moderators started.

I think RobotChicken and Creaminess are the only ones that have been banned since Moderators came into play.

Weren't you the one who gave Tak his infraction? As a Mod? After voting, in the poll, against having mods at all?

sandsjames
09-03-2013, 02:37 PM
I also thought that PYB left on his own accord before the ban...or "taking a break" as he called it.

He did, then he came back, then he got the hammer.

RFScott
09-03-2013, 02:41 PM
He did, then he came back, then he got the hammer.

Ah ok. I never even realized he came back...must have been a swift drop of the hammer for him then.

imnohero
09-03-2013, 02:55 PM
The point still stands that you aren't whining about others that have gotten permabans. Just the people you "liked"...though in your case, SJ, you liked watched the sideshow they created.

All this high-minded BS about freedom of speech, permanent bans, censorship, heavy-handedness, etc. is just that, BS. You all just don't like that the people you "liked" got hammered along with all the others.

TJMAC77SP
09-03-2013, 03:29 PM
The point still stands that you aren't whining about others that have gotten permabans. Just the people you "liked"...though in your case, SJ, you liked watched the sideshow they created.

All this high-minded BS about freedom of speech, permanent bans, censorship, heavy-handedness, etc. is just that, BS. You all just don't like that the people you "liked" got hammered along with all the others.

I read SJ's comments as not being in favor of the creation and/or implementation of the current 'moderation' process. I agree with him on those points and I don't think anyone would accuse me of being 'friends' with most of the people banned. Am I whining too?

RS6405
09-03-2013, 03:30 PM
Well DUH....once you ban them, the only side we can hear is yours....

You have to appreciate his logic there!

AlexCross
09-03-2013, 03:36 PM
You have to appreciate his logic there!

Except we all know many communicate offline. It really doesn't matter. I am just saying that the bannings aren't arbitrary. Actually the only person I banned was a spammer.

imnohero
09-03-2013, 03:48 PM
key word: most

so, yes.

RS6405
09-03-2013, 03:59 PM
When I've advocated for THE Bans to be lifted. I only mention 3 members, but I grouped them all together. No one can say I'm a friend of PYB, and I would expect him to be included.

You maynot like it, but it's my opinion. The MTF was not created for only a select few, but for anyone that falls into the group. I'm not saying no bans but timed bans that increases as needed from days to weeks to months and even a year if there is a need. If a member is banned so often that it becomes a year, then that member night learn his or her lesson.

TJMAC77SP
09-03-2013, 04:02 PM
key word: most

so, yes.

Actually that isn't the key word. It was a desparate attempt to bolster an illogical position. You can agree with the moderation........that's fine. It is specious to dismiss SJ's comments because he doesn't mention each and every banned member in his posts.

Edit: I assumed you were responding to my post. Wasn't immediately certain.

imnohero
09-03-2013, 04:06 PM
Actually that isn't the key word. It was a desparate attempt to bolster an illogical position.

Did you mean disparate. Or maybe desperate? Either way, I agree, your position is illogical.

Pullinteeth
09-03-2013, 04:08 PM
From my perspective... It wasn't the Mods, it was the new FA. I personally saw Tak/GF and RC go off the rails and they KNEW and SAID that what they were doing was going to lead to them being banned and kept doing it until they were sent off to banned camp permanently. Most of the evidence was removed because...well, it wasn't supposed to have been posted in the first place. Joe? Meh... I think he was the most valuable contributor of all those banned. I am not sure what Joe or PYB did to get perma-banned. Not a huge fan of the perma ban anyway. I would say a month would be enough to let 'em cool their heels.

As to the Mods....some of them have lost their fucking minds. Editing posts, deleting posts, closing threads...just cause they get a little butt-hurt. Get over yourselves.

imnohero
09-03-2013, 04:11 PM
When I've advocated for THE Bans to be lifted. I only mention 3 members, but I grouped them all together. No one can say I'm a friend of PYB, and I would expect him to be included.

You maynot like it, but it's my opinion. The MTF was not created for only a select few, but for anyone that falls into the group. I'm not saying no bans but timed bans that increases as needed from days to weeks to months and even a year if there is a need. If a member is banned so often that it becomes a year, then that member night learn his or her lesson.

Even if I accept your logic, the members mentioned repeatedly haven't even been banned for more than a few weeks. Except JoeB, but given his admitted shenanigans with alt accounts, how would you justify letting him back? Further, the 'let them back' crap started like the day it happened. So it's not like it's been 6 months and they might have "learned a lesson."

Rusty Jones
09-03-2013, 04:24 PM
I am just saying that the bannings are arbitrary.

There you have it, ladies and gentlemen!

Pullinteeth
09-03-2013, 04:26 PM
Even if I accept your logic, the members mentioned repeatedly haven't even been banned for more than a few weeks. Except JoeB, but given his admitted shenanigans with alt accounts, how would you justify letting him back? Further, the 'let them back' crap started like the day it happened. So it's not like it's been 6 months and they might have "learned a lesson."

How about the fact that almost everyone that has been here for any length of time has used another SN at one point or another (except TJ/MM/Shrike). Granted the REASONS for doing so vary greatly-Rusty did it so he could be a douche, I did because I decided to protect my ID a bit more after the "Mel unplesantness."....

AlexCross
09-03-2013, 04:30 PM
There you have it, ladies and gentlemen!

Thanks for pointing out my typo... It has been fixed.

Rusty Jones
09-03-2013, 04:34 PM
Thanks for pointing out my typo... It has been fixed.

It was a typo? I kid you not when I say this... I actually thought that that's what you meant.

TJMAC77SP
09-03-2013, 05:20 PM
Did you mean disparate. Or maybe desperate? Either way, I agree, your position is illogical.

Of course I meant desperate, much like using that as an introduction to a post refuting what I say but offering no substance.

BTW: Was that post the equivalent of "I know you are but what am I"?

TJMAC77SP
09-03-2013, 05:22 PM
How about the fact that almost everyone that has been here for any length of time has used another SN at one point or another (except TJ/MM/Shrike). Granted the REASONS for doing so vary greatly-Rusty did it so he could be a douche, I did because I decided to protect my ID a bit more after the "Mel unplesantness."....

Which is the only acceptable use of an alt account IMO

TJMAC77SP
09-04-2013, 12:04 PM
Which is the only acceptable use of an alt account IMO

And I still think using alt accounts is asshattery.

DocBones
09-08-2013, 06:52 PM
Nice statement, TJMACandCheese!

So, I have been off doing other stuff, precluding me from being around my computer. What happened to the old whatever you call the status thing under our names on the upper right hand corner?

Also, some of the old timers seem to be missing?

Lastly, the alt accounts. Are they gone now? I know, I am a pest, because when it comes to computators, I am really unschooled, so my searching is kind of like Columbus looking for the fountain of youth and beer.

BENDER56
09-09-2013, 08:11 PM
Okay, so speaking of missing something; is we're-not-kidding-around-he's-banned-forever-and-a-day-and-he'll-never-ever-be-heard-from-again Tak back?

If so, welcome back, Tak.

Pullinteeth
09-09-2013, 08:44 PM
Okay, so speaking of missing something; is we're-not-kidding-around-he's-banned-forever-and-a-day-and-he'll-never-ever-be-heard-from-again Tak back?

If so, welcome back, Tak.

It was determined that perma-ban was not the way to go. "They" did make them pretty stiff penalties though. I think the bans were measured in months for all offenders....

imnohero
09-09-2013, 09:00 PM
Though I can't offer an explanation for the change of mind on the ban length for specific individuals, there are several that remain permanently gone, aside from the spammers, I mean.

Rusty Jones
09-09-2013, 09:10 PM
It was determined that perma-ban was not the way to go. "They" did make them pretty stiff penalties though. I think the bans were measured in months for all offenders....

So Joe might be back soon?

Pullinteeth
09-10-2013, 01:17 AM
So Joe might be back soon?

I don't think he was one lobbying for it but if I am not mistaken, his ban is already up-though he might not know it. I kinda miss Joe. The OLD Joe before he went all Yggy...if you know what I mean....