Jump to content
Awoo.

Zero-Tolerance Concerns


gala

Recommended Posts

Doesn't change the fact that this wasn't clarified when that thread was typed up. We're concerned about the implications of the initial thread, and let's face it, it can be taken a lot of different ways, and taken at face value, yeah, it's extremist at best.

  • Thumbs Up 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Then my best advice is to get over it.

Sorry if that's too blunt, but it is what it is. We've clarified what we meant, and we haven't changed our minds on our decision. I am not lying or intending harm to you; in fact no one on this team is. If you need any further explanation, then re-reading over the posts made in this topic will probably do some good.

  • Thumbs Up 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I should probably clarify that my example was hyperbole. Obviously if it was going to lead to a ban, it would be a more subtle joke.

But with that said, while I commend you on the formal apologies, and I'm not trying to claim you are trigger happy, but you have to understand that is the impression the topic has given us, which is why I heavily disagree with your missing the point comment. The mod team knows clear as day what the correct intentions is meant to behind the topic. I don't. The other members don't. That's why I said the topic, because of how much of a change it's gonna have if it occurs should have been written with much more clarification as to what exactly "cracking down" means, rather than a topic that was more about trying to say "we're not putting up with this anymore, we're putting our foot down". When a bunch of people here are clearly agreeing with our worries and fears, that shouldn't be a sign of "you missed the point". It should be a sign of "the topic wasn't written in a good enough way to explain our intentions". 

I've seen the argument about mods not being robots brought up a lot of times, and I agree with it. You aren't robots. You aren't perfect, you do make mistakes, you are members with feelings, and thoughts, and morals too, but us normal members? We aren't robots either. We aren't on the same wavelength as mods. We don't know what intentions you might have with this. We can't be expected to catch onto something that's trying to explain more about it being serious, rather than actually explaining the implications of that. The sheer fact that the OP has gotten over 13 likes should be enough of a testament that it isn't just a simple minority of people worried about this. That is a clear indication that the topic was not written well enough to correctly clarify and explain such a massive rule to put in place.

And as I said, I also disagree with the following line:

11 minutes ago, Azoo said:

And now as soon as we're giving the heads up that we're going to be doing our jobs as intended, it's seen as crazy, corrupt or too strict?

Please don't do this. Please don't use the victim card. We aren't trying to point fingers, or place bad guys, or claim people as corrupt. By doing this, you're making it seem like the members who have reasonable concerns are just being paranoid assholes despite there being justification and reasoning for the concerns. Too strict would probably be the best way to put it and that's for one simple reason. Three. Strike. Rule. I don't think it's fair to completely bypass that rule and jump to an insta-ban, and that's where I think this is far too strict. I'd even argue jumping to a strike on the first offense would be a bit too strict as well. Maybe if it was a flat out Warning-Strike-Strike-Ban, I could get behind this rule, but as is? I cannot get behind it for the sheer fact I see it as being far too strict, and going against the main guideline this forum as employed for a while, said guideline being one of the main contributing reasons why many people see SSMB as a much more accessible forum when compared to other Sonic based forums, so why we're throwing that out entirely, and now trying to pretend it was never apart of the main ruleset of SSMB is what I seriously don't understand.

  • Thumbs Up 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Ryannumber1gamer said:

The rules also state that there is a three strike system in place before a ban. In which, unless it's an extremely serious case in which it occurs, you will be given a warning, strikes, and finally a ban for doing so. How is it fair to bring up one rule when this new one blatantly breaks one of this forum's main guidelines that have been in place for years?

The rules also simultaneously state that trolling, posting porn, and disrespecting staff are punishable by immediate bans. All three nonetheless co-exist with the strike system and all three have variable levels of offensiveness attached to them as dictated by community reaction to them. So do you think we should give three strikes for posting porn now? Or do you think we should ban immediately for sarcastic trolling in the statuses? Someone once told me "fuck you" to my face in the statuses and they weren't joking around: was I being a shitty staff member by not banning them for that?

The system has always been subject to judgement calls. Sometimes people get a suspension with their first strike despite the fact that the rules say we should wait for the second. Sometimes people get multiple strikes for their first offense. Sometimes people get banned for things members think are minor (but to us was the last straw since we actually keep a written tally of behavior versus recalling behavior anecdotally). What we're doing is nothing new, and trying to call out the strike system as a reason for why this is out of bounds is disingenuous.

14 minutes ago, Ryannumber1gamer said:

I don't know about all of you, but I would hardly call an emotional outburst an full reason for outright banning somebody unless they were a repeat offender, in which case it would be determined that despite warnings that should not enter debates and such if they get easily riled up, then maybe a ban would be suitable.

If a new member has an emotional outburst that includes the use of racial slurs, under your argument you wouldn't ban them because A.) It was an emotional outburst, B.) They have no warn history because they're new, and C.) Racial slurs (under the umbrella of flaming) aren't stated to be directly punishable by a ban and thus have no precedent for arguing for such, and coupled with A and B doesn't really result in a sum of behavior that steps over the line. See how silly this is? You're arguing simultaneously that there should be hardline protocol we follow at all times (the strike system) while at the same saying that we should always understand the nuance of situation (warn history). So I don't know what I'm supposed to do now.

13 minutes ago, Ryannumber1gamer said:

We weren't told that the cases would still be looked at individually, we weren't told the mod team would still be doing any of this.

To be fair, you were told upon signing up that you would follow the rules or suffer the consequences. The rules also say that we're allowed to strike people at our own individual discretion, with no mention of discussing the cases of banned members actually being enshrined in forum law. So the fact that we even discuss things with each other as much as we do is a privilege we give you because we're nice; it's not a guaranteed right.

  • Thumbs Up 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, we were told the rules. Doesn't mean we can't bring up our concerns when something like this pops up.

Besides, you could tell them not to use the racial slurs, and put in a warning of a strike or (if it's really bad) ban if they say anything like that again.

What if he really was sorry? And I've heard stories of some people not entirely being aware certain words are slurs, and that would be especially true of younger members who are still learning. I remember one of you mods' admitting you get kids here; why not tell them it's not okay to say stuff like that, and tell them not to say it again?

Now, obviously, if they do it repeatedly despite warnings, then that's thrown out the window, and they should be punished appropriately. And yeah, maybe he is a hateful fellow saying this stuff. But first timers should be given a chance to learn from the mistake; after that, it's up to them whether or not they'll take it or blow it.

  • Thumbs Up 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As for kids, SSMB is not here to be a babysitter nor is it here to be mom. If kids are old enough to say half the stuff they are saying online then they're old enough to read the rules.

  • Thumbs Up 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Nepenthe said:

The rules also simultaneously state that trolling, posting porn, and disrespecting staff are punishable by immediate bans. All three nonetheless co-exist with the strike system and all three have variable levels of offensiveness attached to them as dictated by community reaction to them. So do you think we should give three strikes for posting porn now? Or do you think we should ban immediately for sarcastic trolling in the statuses? Someone once told me "fuck you" to my face in the statuses and they weren't joking around: was I being a shitty staff member by not banning them for that?

Except I already addressed that, in which I said, and I quote:

Quote

The rules also state that there is a three strike system in place before a ban. In which, unless it's an extremely serious case in which it occurs, you will be given a warning, strikes, and finally a ban for doing so.

And I'm sorry, but I do not see something like an emotional outburst being a serious matter that needs a ban right away. Your entire point here is made moot when I already stated there was some cases in which the ban is justified as being given right away.

3 minutes ago, Nepenthe said:

The system has always been subject to judgement calls. Sometimes people get a suspension with their first strike despite the fact that the rules say we should wait for the second. Sometimes people get multiple strikes for their first offense. Sometimes people get banned for things members think are minor (but to us was the last straw since we actually keep a written tally of behavior versus recalling behavior anecdotally). What we're doing is nothing new, and trying to call out the strike system as a reason for why this is out of bounds is disingenuous.

Being a mod, I can't exactly speak about half of this, because you haven't explained things like why you would feel a suspension is needed for a first strike, I can understand maybe the multiple strikes if it's a particularly bad instance (like for example a repeated string of passive-aggressive statuses), and I can't comment on what members consider minor that mods consider major.

7 minutes ago, Nepenthe said:

If a new member has an emotional outburst that includes the use of racial slurs, under your argument you wouldn't ban them because A.) It was an emotional outburst, B.) They have no warn history because they're new, and C.) Racial slurs (under the umbrella of flaming) aren't stated to be directly punishable by a ban and thus have no precedent for arguing for such, and coupled with A and B doesn't really result in a sum of behavior that steps over the line. See how silly this is? You're arguing simultaneously that there should be hardline protocol we follow at all times (the strike system) while at the same saying that we should always understand the nuance of situation (warn history). So I don't know what I'm supposed to do now.

First off, that's bringing things to it's biggest height, and even then, I'd argue it's irrelevant, because this entire debate is discussing passive aggressive insults and drama stirring. At that point, I wouldn't call it an actual outburst they'd be banned for, I'd be banning them for being completely racist, and even then, if it was a member who joined that day doing this, I wouldn't place that under "emotional outburst". I'd be placing it under "Trolling". It's called determining what actually needs a harsh enough punishment such as insta-ban. Something that racism, sexism, and such would fall under, not emotional outcries of petty insults you'd throw at anyone. Next, are we going to begin banning people for statuses that say "What a idiot"? This was the exact thing I meant when I outright stated this quote:

Quote

 At the end of the day, situations aren't just black and white, and can be all thrown into the one category, and I think this decision hasn't been thought out at all from our perspective. This might make things easier for the mods, because they won't need to look at each individual case, but that means for all members, all of our problems and cases are being lumped together.

As in all of our situations shouldn't be lumped together, because there are those who have actual emotional outbursts with a reasonable explanation for having it, and don't go too far into it (The limit being racism, sexism etc in which case, I'd say that's a reasonable reason for an insta-ban), or are you going to tell me that someone who calls someone else an idiot deserves the exact same punishment as someone who throws out racial/sexist slurs? 

15 minutes ago, Nepenthe said:

To be fair, you were told upon signing up that you would follow the rules or suffer the consequences. The rules also say that we're allowed to strike people at our own individual discretion, with no mention of discussing the cases of banned members actually being enshrined in forum law. So the fact that we even discuss things with each other as much as we do is a privilege we give you because we're nice; it's not a guaranteed right.

Well no offense to the mods/admins, but I think that should be a given, not a privilege. Once again, we are all human, we all have bias against people, either subconsciously, or consciously. That's why I think it would be important to discuss something such as a ban with fellow staffers just so you can ensure that the ban isn't from bias, but from actual reasoned thoughts, the only exceptions being obvious shut and close cases like obvious trolls for example. 

3 minutes ago, Diogenes said:

I'm a little surprised people were thinking the mods were just going to rapid-fire ban anyone under the slightest suspicion of drama. It seemed clear enough to me that they're just tightening up the punishment once they've come to an agreement that someone's gone too far.

 Because it included lines such as:

Quote

if we see anything of this nature from now on, it will result in an immediate ban.

Quote

In short, if you start shit, you will be banned on the spot. Consider this a first and only warning, because we are tired of having to contain pointless drama that breaks out because a member got upset about the thing they like being called trash or whatever.

This is what I meant by the whole problem with the original topic. Instead of clarifying a rule that could change a lot on SSMB, it instead focused more on being a topic about "this is us putting our foot down", which lead to misunderstandings of the topic and rule.

  • Thumbs Up 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, SurrealBrain said:

Yeah, we were told the rules. Doesn't mean we can't bring up our concerns when something like this pops up.

And your concerns for the most part have been answered, but yet we're continuing to act as if they haven't?

Quote

Besides, you could tell them not to use the racial slurs, and put in a warning of a strike or (if it's really bad) ban if they say anything like that again.

What if he really was sorry? And I've heard stories of some people not entirely being aware certain words are slurs, and that would be especially true of younger members who are still learning. I remember one of you mods' admitting you get kids here; why not tell them it's not okay to say stuff like that, and tell them not to say it again?

Now, obviously, if they do it repeatedly despite warnings, then that's thrown out the window, and they should be punished appropriately. And yeah, maybe he is a hateful fellow saying this stuff. But first timers should be given a chance to learn from the mistake; after that, it's up to them whether or not they'll take it or blow it.

We already do this, and will be continuing to do this... under specific circumstances. Which, as mentioned by Nep, is something we have to look into every time a decision is made by any member of the mod team.

This is what I mean by people assuming we have absolutely no room for rationality or understanding that we know what our moderation job entails. We've actually been much softer than any moderation team has had to be, and the second we make it clear that we're taking no crap, we're looked at like we've come off as crazy or done someone wrong. Not to mention that any explanations we make from this point on seem to mean nothing!

With that, I'm backing out. If you're confused, rereading previous posts will aid you. Ta!

  • Thumbs Up 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

uhh quick question would these bans last for certain periods of time like 1 hour,24 hours,a week,1 month for example and may be different depending on the reason for the ban?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, kirby1up said:

uhh quick question would these bans last for certain periods of time like 1 hour,24 hours,a week,1 month for example and may be different depending on the reason for the ban?

I think you're thinking of a suspension, which is dealt out on the second strike. If it's a ban, it sticks, in which if it's a wrongly gotten ban, you can try explain how it's wrong, or if it sticks, you have to wait for months to appeal it. 

19 minutes ago, Mikyeong said:

As for kids, SSMB is not here to be a babysitter nor is it here to be mom. If kids are old enough to say half the stuff they are saying online then they're old enough to read the rules.

Because a lot of the rules would come under common sense? I want an honest answer. Did you read all of the rules before joining? As in every single one of them, or did you go by your common sense to know what would be accepted, and what wouldn't be accepted?

Even then, that's why I'm saying that unless it's an extreme situation, I think full insta-ban is too harsh for a emotional outburst that isn't overly bad. A warning/strike definitely, as Dio said, but full ban? I just don't think any emotional outburst would warrant it. The only outbursts that would warrant a full insta-ban being the ones that go too far.

  • Thumbs Up 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Ryannumber1gamer said:

 

Please don't do this. Please don't use the victim card. We aren't trying to point fingers, or place bad guys, or claim people as corrupt. By doing this, you're making it seem like the members who have reasonable concerns are just being paranoid assholes despite there being justification and reasoning for the concerns. Too strict would probably be the best way to put it and that's for one simple reason. Three. Strike. Rule. I don't think it's fair to completely bypass that rule and jump to an insta-ban, and that's where I think this is far too strict. I'd even argue jumping to a strike on the first offense would be a bit too strict as well. Maybe if it was a flat out Warning-Strike-Strike-Ban, I could get behind this rule, but as is? I cannot get behind it for the sheer fact I see it as being far too strict, and going against the main guideline this forum as employed for a while, said guideline being one of the main contributing reasons why many people see SSMB as a much more accessible forum when compared to other Sonic based forums, so why we're throwing that out entirely, and now trying to pretend it was never apart of the main ruleset of SSMB is what I seriously don't understand.

It honestly makes sense for them to use the victim card when you guys keep bringing up these crazy what if scenarios that just imply the moderators have no clue what they're doing and in some cases lack basic common sense. Has someone even being striked for a joke even something that's happened in the past few years? I know I've said some shit that's raunchy or borders on crossing some lines but I've never even had that misunderstanding happen. 

This topic honestly feels kind of ridiculous to me. You guys could have just asked for clarification on what the topic meant instead of all this. Now you're just fighting to change the rules basically, and a member that's been here for two years probably has less of an idea of what works and what doesn't than a moderator that's been around for a lot longer.

 

  • Thumbs Up 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

What if he really was sorry?

Just about every member who has been given ten chances by us because we didn't feel like being too hard on them before finally being banned was really, really sorry and would never do it again four, five, or six times. Apologies rarely have an affect on us.

Quote

And I've heard stories of some people not entirely being aware certain words are slurs, and that would be especially true of younger members who are still learning. I remember one of you mods' admitting you get kids here; why not tell them it's not okay to say stuff like that, and tell them not to say it again?

If a member uses a racial slur during an emotional outburst towards someone else, the context is automatically there that they know what the word meant and intended to use it to hurt the person being targeted, and I would be immediately justified by administration in dropping the hammer. On top of that, my job isn't to coddle children or adults who act like children. My job is to uphold the rules.

Quote

But first timers should be given a chance to learn from the mistake

Sometimes the learning experience is being banned for knowingly calling someone a racial slur.

2 minutes ago, Ryannumber1gamer said:

Being a mod, I can't exactly speak about half of this, because you haven't explained things like why you would feel a suspension is needed for a first strike, I can understand maybe the multiple strikes if it's a particularly bad instance (like for example a repeated string of passive-aggressive statuses), and I can't comment on what members consider minor that mods consider major.

Exactly. You are not a mod. You have not had the experience of reading members' warn logs of instances long forgotten by members, of constantly corroborating staff action with said warn log and other staffers' opinions, of having to reconcile conflicting criticisms ("mods are too strict!/too ineffective!"), of understanding the community's historical context, having to repeat the same shit over and over, and in general dealing with people day in and day out- old members- who have proven time and time again that they don't really care about warnings and strikes because, A.) We keep having this same conversation on this board in the form of these topics, and B.) Every staffer who's been promoted since I've been here without fail has lamented that being nice and doting and coddling doesn't work, and in many cases gets them bit from ungrateful members, which is why I or Sean have to be the ones to start being mean. There's an entire world of context that is added to the job pretty much upon promotion that you, as a member, aren't actually privy to in any meaningful way, and yet you're trying to tell us what you would do in any given situation while also admitting that you have no idea why we might deviate from the three-strike system. Being told how to do your job from people who have never even seen the staff forum got tired ages ago.

2 minutes ago, Ryannumber1gamer said:

Well no offense to the mods/admins, but I think that should be a given, not a privilege. Once again, we are all human, we all have bias against people, either subconsciously, or consciously. That's why I think it would be important to discuss something such as a ban with fellow staffers just so you can ensure that the ban isn't from bias, but from actual reasoned thoughts, the only exceptions being obvious shut and close cases like obvious trolls for example. 

It's a privilege because this is a superfluous Sonic forum on the Internet with which we have allowed you the benefit of accessing completely free of charge, a superfluous Sonic forum that has the legal right to moderate membership however it wants to. Again, staff are nice because we want to be, not because we have to be, despite the fact that being nice gets us slapped and makes cleaning up the forum a whole lot slower than it could be.

  • Thumbs Up 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

To also add to what Dio said, suspended might also be a better alternative as I've seen members get a week suspension 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Ryannumber1gamer said:

Even then, that's why I'm saying that unless it's an extreme situation, I think full insta-ban is too harsh for a emotional outburst that isn't overly bad. A warning/strike definitely, as Dio said, but full ban? I just don't think any emotional outburst would warrant it. The only outbursts that would warrant a full insta-ban being the ones that go too far.

Like I also said, though, I assume they've already tried softer punishments, and they haven't been working. If warnings and strikes aren't working, what's the next step?

  • Thumbs Up 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, SurrealBrain said:

Now, obviously, if they do it repeatedly despite warnings, then that's thrown out the window, and they should be punished appropriately. And yeah, maybe he is a hateful fellow saying this stuff.

I already addressed that part. I agree that if they do it repeatedly despite warnings, they should be punished.

But that's because they've essentially run out of excuses for it. There's no reason they wouldn't know. But at least with warnings, they've had their chance, and they blew it.

You give them a chance to just stop with the insults and slurs and carry on. I'm not saying it'll stop, though.

They don't take it, and keep going, then by all means deal with them as deemed appropriate. But I think they should have a chance to stop while they're ahead. Yeah, many don't, but what about those who do? Surely for every thousand that don't stop, there's a few that do, right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Wraith said:

It honestly makes sense for them to use the victim card when you guys keep bringing up these crazy what if scenarios that just imply the moderators have no clue what they're doing and in some cases lack basic common sense. Has someone even being striked for a joke even something that's happened in the past few years? I know I've said some shit that's raunchy or borders on crossing some lines but I've never even had that misunderstanding happen. 

This topic honestly feels kind of ridiculous to me. You guys could have just asked for clarification on what the topic meant instead of all this. Now you're just fighting to change the rules basically, and a member that's been here for two years probably has less of an idea of what works and what doesn't than a moderator that's been around for a lot longer.

 

No one is bringing up crazy what if scenarios. I already said once that my example was an hyperbole example, and outright said obviously it'd have to be something more subtle to be taken the wrong way. Tell me something, what do you think a "concerns" topic would be? A place where members could reasonably give their concerns, and if the mods chose to do so, they can explain and clarify to help calm those concerns down. Now you are seriously going to go down the route of "we're all trying to alter/change the rules" when we want to have our fucking fears eased, and feel secure in posting without the risk of a rule infracture because the original topic was easily misunderstood? Seriously?

27 minutes ago, Nepenthe said:

Exactly. You are not a mod. You have not had the experience of reading members' warn logs of instances long forgotten by members, of constantly corroborating staff action with said warn log and other staffers' opinions, of having to reconcile conflicting criticisms ("mods are too strict!/too ineffective!"), of understanding the community's historical context, having to repeat the same shit over and over, and in general dealing with people day in and day out- old members- who have proven time and time again that they don't really care about warnings and strikes because, A.) We keep having this same conversation on this board in the form of these topics, and B.) Every staffer who's been promoted since I've been here without fail has lamented that being nice and doting and coddling doesn't work, and in many cases gets them bit from ungrateful members, which is why I or Sean have to be the ones to start being mean. There's an entire world of context that is added to the job pretty much upon promotion that you, as a member, aren't actually privy to in any meaningful way, and yet you're trying to tell us what you would do in any given situation while also admitting that you have no idea why we might deviate from the three-strike system. Being told how to do your job from people who have never even seen the staff forum got tired ages ago.

Nep, would you please stop placing words in my mouth in regards to this to justify your point? First off, I've never told the mods how to do their job, even during times where I felt they've gotten too involved with certain debates, and other things that caused other members to leave SSMB for good. I've never said they're too strict until now. I've never said they're ineffective. I haven't said any of this. On top of that, your explanation of infractures, warn logs and such are overall irrelevant when the entire purpose is being one emotional outburst is enough to have a member threw out. First Timer or not. You're changing my viewpoint entirely to attempt to make it look like I'm saying repeat offenders should be getting three strikes, which is something I've outright disagreed with multiple times, in which if you look back to my arguments, I've said multiple times, "the exception being repeat offenders". Tell me something Nep, What if wasn't a member who was in trouble before. What if it was someone who's been on years, and end up doing something by mistake? Should they be told to get out? Despite following the rules for years? Because of one slip up? Because of one mistake? You said it yourself Nep. We aren't robots. We aren't perfect.

As for your claims that I don't understand about dotting, coddling, and such doesn't work, and having no choice but look the villain? Let me tell you now Nep, I probably know that better than anyone, because I've been placed in the exact same position as you and Sean. Where I have to play the villain. Not in a mod sense, but helping fellow members with emotional problems? I've been in multiple group PMs where something didn't change until someone stepped up to play the bad guy and snap at the behavior. Take a wild guess who had to do it? Me. So this discussion about how I don't get you and Sean's situation? I get it better than most. I fucking hate being stuck in that situation, and yet every time it comes up, I'm still the one who plays the bad guy regardless. 

In that same regard Nep, we aren't saying any of this because we want to belittle you, or make the mods feel like they never do anything right. We're discussing reasonable concerns because we as members were fearful of this. Again, you said it. You weren't perfect. No mods are. No members are. No human being is perfect, so it's seems unfair that we can explain any concerns we may have over a new rule coming into place, and considering the OP alone has gotten a good share of likes, it's a good number of members having the exact same worry. 

Nep, I haven't had issues with the mod team. I said multiple times that I have a respect for them, and I respect what they do for SSMB, and I even said it in this exact thread. I'm friends with a few of them for goodness sake. I'm not trying to tell you how to do your job. I'm trying to explain my point of view. A point of view that spent the last 7 hours worried to even post much on SSMB because of this new rule being under-explained, under-clarified, and in my opinion, overly strict. I'm not saying there should be no punishment. I'm saying there should be a reasonable balance, something that the three strike rule was all about. I've even said that a strike/warning in terms of emotional outbursts wouldn't be the worse idea either, but I think going straight into a ban is going overboard.

  • Thumbs Up 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll just say this. Honestly I was angry at first because the way it was worded made me concerned a bit of course, but I dunno, just reading the staff replies and how they actually did clarify quite well on this situation has made me feel much better about it and I think it's not nearly as bad as I initially thought of it. I realize now that any bannings will result from people actually instigating and trying to start arguments with others and staff can realize what are jokes or whatever. It won't be just BAM! Instaban out of nowhere and for nothing. I wanted clarification, and that's what I got. 

I still think that bannings may be a bit too far for some cases, but I feel it's more justified with what's going into it now. I will cool off and see where this all goes now. 

  • Thumbs Up 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Tara said:

By the way, you're all banned for strarting drama in this topic.

You're banned for banning the king of key-

oh right i don't have my profile repping Kingdom Hearts Mickey

*puts on fake mustache*

Knock Knock

It's Fingers

Might as well clarify this again, just in case. I'm not arguing the point of this rule anymore. I'm arguing that I feel the bannings are going too far with it, and I think Warnings/Strikes would be enough.

  • Thumbs Up 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Ryannumber1gamer said:

No one is bringing up crazy what if scenarios. I already said once that my example was an hyperbole example, and outright said obviously it'd have to be something more subtle to be taken the wrong way. Tell me something, what do you think a "concerns" topic would be? A place where members could reasonably give their concerns, and if the mods chose to do so, they can explain and clarify to help calm those concerns down. Now you are seriously going to go down the route of "we're all trying to alter/change the rules" when we want to have our fucking fears eased, and feel secure in posting without the risk of a rule infracture because the original topic was easily misunderstood? Seriously?

 

 

Admittedly you were the source of a lot(but not all) the what-if's I was talking about, but if it's hyperbole, why even bring it up? It only serves to muddle your post and make it hard to understand where you're coming from, which is something you were bitching at them for in the first place.  

There's a difference between bringing up your concerns with the new rule and flat out begging them to get rid of something they think will help clean up the boards just for your peace of mind. If you guys just asked for clarification I could understand that, since  I was wondering about that myself. They've clarified it, and you guys are still contesting. How else can they "erase your fears" other than taking away the rule before they even see how things go? Making sure you're comfortable isn't part of the job description.

  • Thumbs Up 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Wraith said:

 

Admittedly you were the source of a lot(but not all) the what-if's I was talking about, but if it's hyperbole, why even bring it up? It only serves to muddle your post and make it hard to understand where you're coming from, which is something you were bitching at them for in the first place.  

There's a difference between bringing up your concerns with the new rule and flat out begging them to get rid of something they think will help clean up the boards just for your peace of mind. If you guys just asked for clarification I could understand that, since  I was wondering about that myself. They've clarified it, and you guys are still contesting. How else can they "erase your fears" other than taking away the rule before they even see how things go? Making sure you're comfortable isn't part of the job description.

Except I just said not 20 minutes ago:

14 minutes ago, Ryannumber1gamer said:

You're banned for banning the king of key-

oh right i don't have my profile repping Kingdom Hearts Mickey

*puts on fake mustache*

Knock Knock

It's Fingers

Might as well clarify this again, just in case. I'm not arguing the point of this rule anymore. I'm arguing that I feel the bannings are going too far with it, and I think Warnings/Strikes would be enough.

On top of that. A lot of the what-ifs directly tied into the point that was mentioned in the main OP of this thread. Those What-Ifs were based upon what was given from the topic, which you yourself just said could have been clarified, and considering many people in this thread had the same concerns and reasonings as I did, I don't know why you're trying to claim most of the what ifs came from me and only me.

  • Thumbs Up 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

They clearly haven't been enough, because shit's still happening.

Granted, I think you'd have a point in saying that not every circumstance would require a ban, but as Sean has stated before, we discuss these things amongst ourselves beforehand, so I doubt anyone's going to be banned over a comparatively minor offense.

  • Thumbs Up 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Tara said:

They clearly haven't been enough, because shit's still happening.

Granted, I think you'd have a point in saying that not every circumstance would require a ban, but as Sean has stated before, we discuss these things amongst ourselves beforehand, so I doubt anyone's going to be banned over a comparatively minor offense.

If that's the case, fair enough. But you have to admit yourself Tara, that isn't what we were told with the topic. We were told any and all examples of that behavior would be bans. At this point, the only things I'm simply trying to state my opinion, which is the following

  • The original topic wasn't as clarified as it could have been
  • Not every in-fracture of the rules should be a ban (As said, a warning/strike would suffice, unless it seriously went over the line)
  • I'm not trying to tell the mods how to do their jobs/trying to paint them as villains. I just wanted to bring my own concerns up, and very clearly, due to the existence of this topic, and lot of other people wanted to as well.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was waiting to post this, but I will now; I'm not defending racists or racist comments. In fact, I think they're scummy myself, and I wouldn't even wanna associate myself with them.

I'm merely saying they should have a chance to stop with the commentswhile they're ahead. However, I thought about it further; it should be only one chance. They blow that lone chance to stop, they should be gone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

You must read and accept our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy to continue using this website. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.