Did you find this helpful?
Yes
48.8% (1202)
48.8% (1202)
No
3.7% (92)
3.7% (92)
Never put up irrelevant options, it's stupid and means that you won't get the results you created the poll for.
45.5% (1122)
45.5% (1122)
Want to vote? Register now or Sign Up with Facebook
The Banhammer and You: A User's Guide to the Forums

 Pages PREV 1 . . . 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 . . . 24 NEXT
 

Kross:

Lord Krunk:

Firstly, I will explain the lowest form of moderator wrath:

Warnings: Tier 4

Warnings are not a form of Moderator Wrath, as such, but a warning that is placed on your user record for further reference, should you break said rule you were warned about again. This can happen on the thread in which you have posted on, or via PM - be advised that these are generally given if the crime was not intentional, or merely an obvious mistake (in judgement or otherwise) made by the user.

[snip]

Please note that once you receive any form of moderator wrath, then these badges will be unavailable to you. Harsh, but fair.

Also note that having a thread of yours locked does not result in your inability to receive the badges.

Slight clarification, warnings shouldn't remove any badges. They are essentially a way of sending a moderator private message that saves a note on the user's profile as well.

Duly noted. I'll have it fixed up next chance I get.

I don't agree with this. Especially when people are subject to an infraction when stating a valid opinion that just happens to disagree with the arguably arbitrary views of others.

I have a question: Are we allowed to mention 4chan, or is that site such a frowned upon cesspool of porn and filth that we dare not speak of it here?

reaper660:
I have a question: Are we allowed to mention 4chan, or is that site such a frowned upon cesspool of porn and filth that we dare not speak of it here?

You're allowed to talk about it but... Use a little discretion. Don't make threads entirely about how it's "the worst thing on the internet" or whatever the kids are saying about it these days. Just as long as what you say isn't likely to provoke a response from their community, you'll be fine discussing it.

beddo:
I don't agree with this. Especially when people are subject to an infraction when stating a valid opinion that just happens to disagree with the arguably arbitrary views of others.

So you feel the rules are unfair? Come now lets discuss exactly what you mean by "valid opinion". I'm oh so eager to hear why these rules are unfair.

Sleekgiant:

beddo:
I don't agree with this. Especially when people are subject to an infraction when stating a valid opinion that just happens to disagree with the arguably arbitrary views of others.

So you feel the rules are unfair? Come now lets discuss exactly what you mean by "valid opinion". I'm oh so eager to hear why these rules are unfair.

You've possibly already broken these rules by 'trolling' or 'flaming' me.

When I say a 'valid opinion' I mean an opinion that a person could reasonably hold without having the sole purpose of offending others or merely being argumentative. For example, I could have an opinion that the BNP are racist, which I do, however, that group could find my comment offensive and it would then be against the rules.

If I justifiably believe a group behaves in an immoral, unethical or objectionable way, these rules stop me from voicing that opinion because they allow punitive measures to be taken on the basis of 'offence' which is entirely subjective.

Quite simply I believe the rules are too vague and allow moderators to treat a commenter unfairly if they disagree with their opinion and hide it under the 'it's offensive or inappropriate' rule. I would like to see much clearer and defined rules and a way of redressing the unbalanced power of moderators and administrators by having greater transparency and a more impartial system to deal with infractions that are contested by the user.

Sleekgiant:

beddo:
I don't agree with this. Especially when people are subject to an infraction when stating a valid opinion that just happens to disagree with the arguably arbitrary views of others.

So you feel the rules are unfair? Come now lets discuss exactly what you mean by "valid opinion". I'm oh so eager to hear why these rules are unfair.

Wow, you post a lot considering you've not been on here long.

beddo:

You've possibly already broken these rules by 'trolling' or 'flaming' me.

Usually I'd give some insightful comments to show how wrong you are, but since you think I am flaming you I'll just leave you to make mistakes.

Sleekgiant:

beddo:

You've possibly already broken these rules by 'trolling' or 'flaming' me.

Usually I'd give some insightful comments to show how wrong you are, but since you think I am flaming you I'll just leave you to make mistakes.

That seems like an easy get out to me. You can't argue that you know better yet won't say why because you cannot validate that opinion to others.

Again though, this could be considered flaming.

beddo:
When I say a 'valid opinion' I mean an opinion that a person could reasonably hold without having the sole purpose of offending others or merely being argumentative. For example, I could have an opinion that the BNP are racist, which I do, however, that group could find my comment offensive and it would then be against the rules.

If I justifiably believe a group behaves in an immoral, unethical or objectionable way, these rules stop me from voicing that opinion because they allow punitive measures to be taken on the basis of 'offence' which is entirely subjective.

Quite simply I believe the rules are too vague and allow moderators to treat a commenter unfairly if they disagree with their opinion and hide it under the 'it's offensive or inappropriate' rule. I would like to see much clearer and defined rules and a way of redressing the unbalanced power of moderators and administrators by having greater transparency and a more impartial system to deal with infractions that are contested by the user.

Huh. Isn't that why I created this thread in the first place?

While these days I would have worded it differently, I covered it in greater depth on page 2 as well.

Lord Krunk:

beddo:
When I say a 'valid opinion' I mean an opinion that a person could reasonably hold without having the sole purpose of offending others or merely being argumentative. For example, I could have an opinion that the BNP are racist, which I do, however, that group could find my comment offensive and it would then be against the rules.

If I justifiably believe a group behaves in an immoral, unethical or objectionable way, these rules stop me from voicing that opinion because they allow punitive measures to be taken on the basis of 'offence' which is entirely subjective.

Quite simply I believe the rules are too vague and allow moderators to treat a commenter unfairly if they disagree with their opinion and hide it under the 'it's offensive or inappropriate' rule. I would like to see much clearer and defined rules and a way of redressing the unbalanced power of moderators and administrators by having greater transparency and a more impartial system to deal with infractions that are contested by the user.

Huh. Isn't that why I created this thread in the first place?

While these days I would have worded it differently, I covered it in greater depth on page 2 as well.

Perhaps but recent events have shown me that this is exactly what goes on.

Considering the fact that many forums I've been on in the past never had articles like this one, I found it a pleasant surprise to find this.

...Probably won't stop the Trolls from going about their usual business, though. Only time will tell.

Funny how there is an example of a banned user on the first post. Though overall this was a helpful thread. Even though it shattered my hopes of ever getting the Neo badge... :(

Well, this was informative. My first thread was a X vs Y thread, then, just after, decided to read this fine guide. Was not ideal, but at least I now know (and knowing is half the etc.)

i found it useful, it lets one know the boundaries that keep the escapist out of any of the chan territory. i like the forums here and they keep me looking for new threads to jump into

I just wanted to thank you for such a well thought out explanation of the rules. My only personal concern is that you state that trolls often use their personal experiences to inflame responses.... my problem is, I often use personal experience to clarify my thought processes (which I have been told can be a little random at times). I hope I'm not going to create a problem because of that. If it is, I hope someone tells me before I get myself in trouble.

newfiegirl 110:
I just wanted to thank you for such a well thought out explanation of the rules. My only personal concern is that you state that trolls often use their personal experiences to inflame responses.... my problem is, I often use personal experience to clarify my thought processes (which I have been told can be a little random at times). I hope I'm not going to create a problem because of that. If it is, I hope someone tells me before I get myself in trouble.

To be honest, so long as you know how to deal with trolls (with ignorance) you'll be fine. Just make sure you can identify them first.

The trick is not to let any topic get to you and to stay cool and collected.

NoMoreSanity:
Very helpful, thanks!

Oh the irony. This person is banned still! xD

NewClassic and claymorez have both been made mods now. There may be a few lot more joining the ranks at some point but those are the only ones I know of currently.

EDIT: Sevre90210 is now one as well.

EDIT2: And me, as it turns out.

Zombie_Fish:
NewClassic and claymorez have both been made mods now. There may be a few lot more joining the ranks at some point but those are the only ones I know of currently.

EDIT: Sevre90210 is now one as well.

EDIT2: And me, as it turns out.

:P One big happy.... Family?

Zombie_Fish:
NewClassic and claymorez have both been made mods now. There may be a few lot more joining the ranks at some point but those are the only ones I know of currently.

EDIT: Sevre90210 is now one as well.

EDIT2: And me, as it turns out.

Bah, I am so out of the loop nowadays. Probably the reason I'm not a Mod, although current events in my life (the HSC, so to speak) would force me to decline anyway. That is, until September comes around.

Don't know how Lab does it, honestly.

That said, it's about time my thread got an update. It's been aaaaaages.

Oh, and congrats!

Hark! An Update!

17/8/10: Added NewClassic, claymorez, Sevre90210 and Zombie_Fish to the Mod list.

thanks for the info, alright now I won't get in trouble again ^_^...too bad I won't get the sweet badges *sighs* oh well

Lord Krunk:
Hark! An Update!

17/8/10: Added NewClassic, claymorez, Sevre90210 and Zombie_Fish to the Mod list.

Cheers m8

I don't know if this the right place to ask... but i just received a badge stating that one of my comments had been posted on the letters to the editor page.

I'm a little bit of a narcissist, and would really like to have a look and see which one, but i can't, for the life of me, find the page. Any help?

YesConsiderably:
I don't know if this the right place to ask... but i just received a badge stating that one of my comments had been posted on the letters to the editor page.

I'm a little bit of a narcissist, and would really like to have a look and see which one, but i can't, for the life of me, find the page. Any help?

It should appear in a few days when they post the new issue up. It looks something like:

Editor's Note
Letters to the Editor
*Article*
*Article*
*Article*
*Article*

At the top of the page.

YesConsiderably:
I don't know if this the right place to ask... but i just received a badge stating that one of my comments had been posted on the letters to the editor page.

I'm a little bit of a narcissist, and would really like to have a look and see which one, but i can't, for the life of me, find the page. Any help?

I believe those badges are handed out the day before the letters are actually published, so your letter should be in tomorrow's issue of the magazine.

This should be on the main page.

Persi:
This should be on the main page.

You realise this isn't the official rules?

Claymorez:

Persi:
This should be on the main page.

You realise this isn't the official rules?

I AM THE LAW.

It might as well be. :P

Lord Krunk:

Claymorez:

Persi:
This should be on the main page.

You realise this isn't the official rules?

I AM THE LAW.

It might as well be. :P

True in the sense that people read this more than the official rules but that partly down to the name of the thread.

Claymorez:

Lord Krunk:

Claymorez:

Persi:
This should be on the main page.

You realise this isn't the official rules?

I AM THE LAW.

It might as well be. :P

True in the sense that people read this more than the official rules but that partly down to the name of the thread.

Since May 2009.

One at a time, ladies.

Lord Krunk:

Claymorez:

Lord Krunk:

Claymorez:

Persi:
This should be on the main page.

You realise this isn't the official rules?

I AM THE LAW.

It might as well be. :P

True in the sense that people read this more than the official rules but that partly down to the name of the thread.

Since May 2009.

One at a time, ladies.

I distinctly remember someone saying the moderators words were "law" :P

Claymorez:
I distinctly remember someone saying the moderators words were "law" :P

I don't remember ever coming out of a Moderator's mouth, but hey. Anything goes, amirite?

Lord Krunk:
Hark! An Update!

17/8/10: Added NewClassic, claymorez, Sevre90210 and Zombie_Fish to the Mod list.

Add ColdStorage to that list. He should be the last new mod to my knowledge, but other staff members may know more than myself.

 Pages PREV 1 . . . 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 . . . 24 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here