Call me misinformed, call me paranoid, call me what you will, this place is so trivial and unimportant it don’t matter… But I sure got the impression that any criticism on why someone was banned was now considered a no-no around here.
How, exactly, we’re supposed to take conversations held in e-mail and repost them on the board isn’t exactly clear to me, since I thought that was against the rules too, but hey, if that’s what you want, then fine by me.
First off, thanks John C.
No, because the majority of the bannings are certainly seen (or would certainly be seen, as many of them aren’t even noticed normally) as just by most posters. However, should you still disagree with a banning decision, you can always let us know per e-mail. The reasons for keeping these discussions off the boards are mentioned by John Corrado.
I’ve re-read this paragraph five times now. And I still don’t know where it came from. No “new rules” were introduced, CNote, so I guess I’ll sum up my response by simply saying, “Huh?”.
“Huh?” number two. I was implying “don’t worry about these bannings, it’s probably OK, enjoy the boards already instead of worrying about every tiny detail about how it’s run”. Somehow, you managed to interpret it as a personal insult. It wasn’t one.
Because, for the reasons John Corrado stated, keeping these discussions off the boards means our lives are just a tiny bit easier. If that makes any difference to you.
None whatsoever.
I fully agree with you here. I hope we’ve succesfully demonstrated how it isn’t an “idiotic rule”, and how the logic behind it isn’t faulty. As for being condescending, I don’t know whether you’re in a position to judge, going by this post.
Hokay.
**PLEASE E-MAIL A MODERATOR OR ADMINISTRATOR IF YOU WANT TO KNOW WHY A CERTAIN POSTER WAS BANNED. **
Dixit.
So, wait… why was Wildest Bill banned?
(oh shit)
[exit stage left]
>> Of course, you could just assume that we had a damn good reason for banning a poster, and get on with your life.
What would make you assume we all have a life around here?
This is why I’m confused, Coldfire. In John Corrado’s post, he states that criticisms of bannings are if fact allowed, as hawthorne speculated, but asking why a person was banned is not.
OK. I can kind of understand that. You should first ask a moderator why someone was banned and then, if you feel strongly about it, you can open up a thread on it. It still seems a bit silly to me that it’s kept quiet like that (And let’s be honest here, it’s kept in e-mail to keep things quiet. How e-mailing any number of people who are questioning why someone was banned is less troublesome to you guys than a simple thread or reply to a thread asking about the matter is beyond me, especially when it’s a well known poster. But hey, whatever). Furthermore, how well it’s going to go over starting a thread that was- up until that point- entirely kept in e-mail I can’t quite understand either- I thought that was frowned on too.
But again, hey, if that’s the rule, fine.
But right after that you say that in fact we’re not allowed to talk about why so-and-so was banned, that it too should be kept in e-mail.
It’s not paranoia, it’s the conflicting messages that gets me this way.
Not a bad point. Let’s rephrase it a little, then.
[ul][li]If you want to know why a poster was banned, you e-mail a staff member to find out. Let’s say the answer is “We banned GenericPoster because he posted links to pictures of nekkid wimmins”.[]The acceptable pit thread you could post as a result of that would be titled: Why I think posters shouldn’t be banned when they merely post links to nekkid wimmins.[]The unacceptable pit thread that you might post would be titled: “You fucking bastards, bring back my buddy GenericPoster!! RAAAAHHHH!!!”[/ul]Now, the reason for this is, as said, threads (especially Pit threads) about bannings tend to atract trolls and socks. This means more work for us, and we’d rather spend our time reading the lastest love story in MPSIMS than stomping out flaming trolls (well, maybe not a love story, maybe an IMHO poll on nail polish or something). [/li]Threads that don’t debate a banning, but the underlying policy, tend to be more civil and constructive, which in the end is best for all.
Therefore, we don’t mind debating the policies of the board, but we certainly discourage debating a particular banning.
Hope that helps.
It does.
This is my recollection as well.
The ironic thing with regard to the OP is that DitWD dug himself a hole by accusing another poster of making up lies about him (and making that accusation in a highly obnoxious way).
The Ryan appears to have the story backwards.
Ah, The Big Lie. I remember it well.
Since CNote forgot, I’ll say it. Thank you for clearing things up, Coldfire.
Come again, andros?
Just what do you think that “It does” from me up there reference? If it isn’t obvious to you, it’s in direct response to his “Hope that helps”. “It does”.
There was no slight on my part implied, or intended. I can’t possibly see how it could be read otherwise.
Oh, the irony …
OK, I’ll bite Sauron. Where’s the irony in my post?
[QUOTE]
Originally posted by Coldfire *
[ul][li]If you want to know why a poster was banned, you e-mail a staff member to find out. Let’s say the answer is “We banned GenericPoster because he posted links to pictures of nekkid wimmins”.[]The acceptable pit thread you could post as a result of that would be titled: Why I think posters shouldn’t be banned when they merely post links to nekkid wimmins.The unacceptable pit thread that you might post would be titled: “You fucking bastards, bring back my buddy GenericPoster!! RAAAAHHHH!!!”[/ul][/li][/QUOTE]
You missed one Coldie, and I think it could use a little clarification. Is it acceptable to comment on whether a particular poster was banned? As in, “GenericPoster should not have been banned because the links he posted barely even showed any butt crack!” Many bannings are going to be fact-specific, so it seems less than productive to discuss or complain about a generic rule in when it’s a specific application that merits specific attention.
In what language does it does mean “thank you”?
Of course, my question should have been whether is is appropriate to comment on whether a particular poster should have been banned. Oops.
If Coldfire doesn’t mind me answering-
We don’t have a problem with that as a specific example being brought up so long as the facts have already been checked with a Moderator.
That is- “GenericPoster should not have been banned because the links he posted barely even showed any butt crack!” is fine as an OP so long as you’ve gotten confirmation that GenericPoster was banned over posting those specific barely-any-butt-crack-showing links. On the other hand, if you’re just assuming that GenericPoster was banned over those links, we will close the thread with the explanation “That is not the reason GP was banned”; you’d be starting from a faulty premise, and debating from that would be pointless.
My apologies, CnoteChris. My comment wasn’t directed at you, but rather at the post by andros. He castigated me a couple of weeks ago for going off the handle regarding the lack of a thank-you in a different thread. He was right then. To see him now essentially do the same thing he was berating me about is ironic to me.
Obviously I missed the big ‘Thank You’ fiasco that recently besieged this board. Mea Culpa Sauron.
Jeff Olsen, et al…
If Coldfire misinterpreted my comments as being jerkish or somehow lacking in enthusiasm, then he can… e-mail me for clarification.
<SNORT>
I know what I said, and I know how I said it. I was appreciative of the clarification both then and now. Anything short of that wasn’t my intention.
If you, Jeff Olsen, et al, have a problem with how I worded it or phrased it, then that’s your problem. I assume he’s smart enough to figure out what I meant.
You’re comparing apples and rotary engines, Sauron, and if you’re too dense to see that, then you can go ahead and enjoy your little self-righteous masturbation by yourself.
Cnote, I’m sorry to sound snippy. It seems to me that you came in like gangbusters, liberally dosing your post with sarcasm and some venom, equating “get on with your life” with “get a life” (which I think was unwarranted), and generally sounding upset. Corrado responded in kind, admittedly, but Coldfire was patient and polite, and provided ytou with a comprehensive and satisfactory answer.
I think that deserves thanks. Again, my apologies for being jerkish instead of saying that outright.