|
Post by Beeth on Jul 4, 2010 13:18:47 GMT
Apology accepted. I don't like seeing people upset, especially from a debate I inadvertently started in the first place. Here's a nice cake by way of a truce:
|
|
|
Post by Matt on Jul 4, 2010 14:03:23 GMT
Let's remember that one rule Retro put in a while back.
You know, the rule where the mods can make a call and make up a rule if they don't like something.
Can't that work positively too, theoretically?
Okay, the content was inappropriate. It was then removed. Did he really need to be banned for it?
No one was offended or affected, and now one of the most popular faces of the forum is never allowed to post here again for the sake of, essentially, beurocracy. Because that's exactly what it is.
Hearts are so incredibly set on keeping this place kid friendly, even when we haven't had a child on here in half a decade and it ends up with things like this happening. I'm not asking for the swear filter to be taken away or to allow us to post images- which he didn't; massive disclaimer and was behind a link- but it could have been deleted and someone could have said "none of that please".
Instead, he's banned for life. For the sake of a "system" that clearly doesn't work here.
And if you want to enforce it this much, by the freaking book and following the rules this closely and enforcing them thusly, ban yourselves. I could easily dig up several occasions of mods breaking rules, but no one really calls you on it because they're in situations that no one really cares.
So, essentially, you're trying to go by the book, but politely ignoring everything else.
This is a sham and I'm willing to bet a tenner that Retro was the one who banned him. I will say like I posted last night, was not aware on the context of the posting, following the posts here, I can see thier is more context then what was written in the mod zone, which helps to exlain the situation somewhat. for example I was not aware thier were warnings or disclaimers or the content of the thread, which make the situation not make sence. I would like to say though... this doesn't to me seem to be about the mod sticking to closley to the rules. A mod posted and said is this worth a ban? 4 other mods replied and agreed it was given ob's previous behaviour. The only people sticking to the redtape and exactities of the rules seem to be the people that don't want him banned and want him to be let of with a warning (and given the context of the post thier reasons for wanting this make more sence) But mitch if anything your renforcing my point, last night I was online talking to nam about his post trying to understand his reasons and explain what I think has hapened and why, and Nam has asked for loophole's to be cleared up and rule to be set in stone and laid out democratically (please correct me if i'm wrong nam). Your saying the opposite, don't stick to stupid rules, be sensible don't over react and use common sence. Really sticking us between a rock and a hard place, I agree that ob has added a lot to the forum and it's a shame to see him go, on the other hand if he wasn't banned others would have attacked us for playing favorites and not banning long term memebers just beacuse they have been here a while. Accusation we get a lot. On balance like I keep saying people, old and new boomers have been banned for far less so this seem to stike in the middle. also i'd like to point out this isn't about kid freindly or unfreindly, it's about the proffesional image of the comic, our responsibility to other boomers and imortantly our commitment to UK law, Rape is illegal, I know I keep mentioning it, but the content was graphic and illegal, and is clearly a break of the rule worth another warning. Unfortunatly that warning came after a another ban, the only solutions were temp ban or perma ban.
|
|
|
Post by Nam on Jul 4, 2010 15:03:15 GMT
But mitch if anything your renforcing my point, last night I was online talking to nam about his post trying to understand his reasons and explain what I think has hapened and why, and Nam has asked for loophole's to be cleared up and rule to be set in stone and laid out democratically (please correct me if i'm wrong nam). I want whatever solution shuts everyone up quickest to be honest. In my opinion that'd be proper majoritorially consented rules, and perhaps a set of mods chosen by the community rather than by individuals. There's a myriad of ways to resolve this, from the subtle (re-writing the rules, and starting anew), to the drastic (ban everyone), I just propose what I think looks best reading everything from everyone, and trying to see all sides. I still think posting rape, with or without warnings is a bannable offence. But the best way to judge it is to look at any given situation based on "What would be done if this was a new person, and there first post?" I genuinely think most people would've been perfectly okay to have someone banned uder that context, and part of the issue here is that it is someone who's been around for ages. But lets be honest, the problem here, as I see it, ultimately stems back to the mod situation being biased. Several of the mods do meet up regularly, and are BFF's with each other. If some mods were take from other parts of the community, maybe things would be better, and peace would be kept due to less accusations of mod bias, and maybe people from different experiences, with different views as to what is and what isn't acceptable would stop people shouting so much about biasedness. The rules themselves really need to be overhauled too. They're too focused on costraining the forum as a kid friendly place, when this isn't a kids forum. This is a forum for the adults who read Sonic the Comic whe they were a kid. We're no longer kids, (as much as some of us would like to stay that way for as long as we can), and we don't need to be treated like kids. Most of us are fully aware of the law, and can use common sense. The mods should respect that, and trust us to use our own abilities, only steppig in whe we make an error in judgemet, or get too heated. But yes, if anyone has better ideas that might stop all the infighting, I'm all for it.
|
|
|
Post by The Tikal who had no Toes on Jul 4, 2010 16:09:00 GMT
If it had been some new person, they'd have been warned. DS had two strikes against him. If they spammed every single forum on here with rape vids or whatever, they'd get instabanned like those guys who raided us, but not if it was just the once. Some new people have slipped up before. [censored] happens, and they don't make the same mistake again. I admit now that I personally am cagey about having to be very specific about what isn't allowed here, as I worry that it may come across as patronising and that surely most Boomers have enough common sense to know what not to post here. And Nam, you're right that most of the Boomers do use their common sense. I don't want to treat you all like idiots because that would be doing you all a disservice. But then, not everyone does use their common sense, sadly. As I said, we're currently reviewing the rules.
|
|
|
Post by Moo on Jul 4, 2010 18:55:07 GMT
Can I ask if any of the mods are prepared to look into reversing their decision?
|
|
|
Post by Matt on Jul 4, 2010 19:36:54 GMT
I didn't make one so can't change it, however if anyone one wants to dicuss the direction of the forum, reresent ob, or put foward a case for him, i'd be happy to talk to anyone and someone to help support them in trial by combat (it the name of an old board we have in the mod zone based on the sonic story i'm not suggesting anyone is one trial)
my time I very limited this week i'm doing my driving test and running three session at night this week (ironically 2 of the about staying sfae online and how to kee other young people safe) so sorry it would have to be around my availibility but i'm happy to talk to anyone and keep an open mind.
|
|
|
Post by Sam on Jul 4, 2010 19:58:12 GMT
Jesus, are we bashing around this old chestnut again?
|
|
|
Post by Moo on Jul 4, 2010 20:08:14 GMT
I didn't make one so can't change it, however if anyone one wants to dicuss the direction of the forum, reresent ob, or put foward a case for him, i'd be happy to talk to anyone and someone to help support them in trial by combat (it the name of an old board we have in the mod zone based on the sonic story i'm not suggesting anyone is one trial) my time I very limited this week i'm doing my driving test and running three session at night this week (ironically 2 of the about staying sfae online and how to kee other young people safe) so sorry it would have to be around my availibility but i'm happy to talk to anyone and keep an open mind. Well I'd be happy to put forward the case to let Ob back, though most of it is in here now anyway. I spose the mods can now know I officially want to put the case forward for him to come back.
|
|
|
Post by madhair60 on Jul 4, 2010 20:15:48 GMT
Jesus, are we bashing around this old chestnut again? Can we delete this pointless, reductive post? And then this one highlighting it? Respec'
|
|
|
Post by Sam on Jul 4, 2010 20:22:11 GMT
It's not overly pointless. It doesn't go in to any detail no, but here we are again. We go over this time and time again, I don't understand why this stuff needs to keep happening.
|
|
|
Post by Moo on Jul 4, 2010 20:35:58 GMT
Ob gets banned time and time again? What?
|
|
|
Post by Matt on Jul 4, 2010 20:40:32 GMT
Ob gets banned time and time again? What? i think sam/mule mean about the mod's the rule and what should change as the conversation comes up once a month or so.
|
|
|
Post by Balls on Jul 4, 2010 20:45:12 GMT
Can I do it with Moo? I promise to keep my tone respectful.
Haha, do it with Moo. Like [censored]ing.
|
|
|
Post by Matt on Jul 4, 2010 21:03:13 GMT
Can I do it with Moo? I promise to keep my tone respectful.
Haha, do it with Moo. Like [censored]ing. Well i've just PM'd moo, i'd like not to get the trial to crowded just because of time restraints, so if it's ok i'll give moo the right of first refusal to chose if she wants you or some one or no one else to come with her to trial by combat after that, i'll sort out you joining the tribal by combat or holding another after moo's, if thats cool with you. As soon as Moo's replied to me, i'll send you a PM with details
|
|
|
Post by Balls on Jul 4, 2010 21:08:52 GMT
Cheers, Kimbotron.
|
|
|
Post by Charles on Jul 4, 2010 21:45:19 GMT
I apologise to the mods for this, but having just finished going through this: I cannot have the website link to the board if there's a guy who has posted rape clips on it. Linking means we associate with and endorse the board, and that can't be done if a guy can post that on here and then come back for it. I can't trust something else that's horrible wouldn't get posted later.
|
|
|
Post by Moo on Jul 4, 2010 21:56:27 GMT
I apologise to the mods for this, but having just finished going through this: I cannot have the website link to the board if there's a guy who has posted rape clips on it. Linking means we associate with and endorse the board, and that can't be done if a guy can post that on here and then come back for it. I can't trust something else that's horrible wouldn't get posted later. I can't even begin to form a response to that. Do you even look at these forums? Seriously? This situation is not in your jurisdiction and you have no right to interfere with threats.
|
|
|
Post by Super Sonic on Jul 4, 2010 21:57:34 GMT
I didn't see the clip in question but if this were my board I'd have banned him outright for posting it, even if he'd had no previous warnings. There is a line and he crossed it.
|
|
|
Post by Beeth on Jul 4, 2010 22:04:48 GMT
I apologise to the mods for this, but having just finished going through this: I cannot have the website link to the board if there's a guy who has posted rape clips on it. Linking means we associate with and endorse the board, and that can't be done if a guy can post that on here and then come back for it. I can't trust something else that's horrible wouldn't get posted later. Let me just say one thing: this was a single, isolated incident, which was witnessed by very few people and dealt with swiftly and correctly by the moderation team, a testament to their abilities. And it could've happened on any board in existence. I've said my piece, I'm saying no more on the matter.
|
|
|
Post by Matt on Jul 4, 2010 22:10:21 GMT
I apologise to the mods for this, but having just finished going through this: I cannot have the website link to the board if there's a guy who has posted rape clips on it. Linking means we associate with and endorse the board, and that can't be done if a guy can post that on here and then come back for it. I can't trust something else that's horrible wouldn't get posted later. I can't even begin to form a response to that. Do you even look at these forums? Seriously? This situation is not in your jurisdiction and you have no right to interfere with threats. Please moo chalres, and everyone else. I know everyone is giving thier opnion and so far nothing has got overly uncivil, but it could easily go that way. I know there are a lot of different opnion which could get heated. I and the other mods are doing thier best, Moo and Nights are comming to Trial by Combat, were are holding discussions with Chalres and are happy to talk to other people. However I have no more time to spend on here tonight, this is not a mod warning, but can I ask that pelase no more dicussion about this situation is had untill tomorrow, as thier is no more I can do tonight as i'm very busy and I respect you guy's to leave off this please untill we can sort it. Thanks for your time and understanding Kimbo
|
|
|
Post by Retro on Jul 4, 2010 22:21:00 GMT
Just to clarify guys, I've spoken with Charles on AIM. His post was not intended as an imminent "we are breaking off."
What he meant was "If Ob came back" then that would happen. Which is something I'd do as well in his place if said forumer ever returned to this forum.
As to the questions of whether there is any discussion about bringing him back. The answer is pretty straightforward. No.
|
|
|
Post by Alex on Jul 4, 2010 22:22:40 GMT
I didn't see the clip in question but if this were my board I'd have banned him outright for posting it, even if he'd had no previous warnings. There is a line and he crossed it. ^^^^^
|
|
|
Post by Moo on Jul 4, 2010 22:26:47 GMT
Just to clarify guys, I've spoken with Charles on AIM. His post was not intended as an imminent "we are breaking off." What he meant was "If Ob came back" then that would happen. Which is something I'd do as well in his place if said forumer ever returned to this forum. As to the questions of whether there is any discussion about bringing him back. The answer is pretty straightforward. No. Why are me and kimbo discussing a trial by combat then?
|
|
|
Post by Balls on Jul 4, 2010 22:31:10 GMT
As to the questions of whether there is any discussion about bringing him back. The answer is pretty straightforward. No. Yeah, why are we discussing it in trial by combat?
|
|
|
Post by ShayMay on Jul 4, 2010 22:33:14 GMT
To Kimbo, sorry. You can clean this up when you have time, I'm just here to post my views. Firstly, let it be known that I love Dungeon Shaker (in a manly, internet-palsy way). He's funny, sound, and you can talk to him. And I will miss him on the boards. However, whether it was in the rules or not, he should have known that he would be banned were he to post that link, due to a previous incident (which I was warned for and he was temp-banned for) which I will not describe here, lest people start complaining about that, too. But, from that incident, Shaker should have realised that linking that kind of thing, even behind multiple warnings and a filter, is not acceptable. Whether it's in the rules or not, it's not like he had no experience in the matter. Now, the whole thing's been and gone, and I honestly feel that dragging it on any further on both sides is just pointless bickering, which is getting downright venomous in some cases. He's banned, that's all there is to it, and although I'll miss him, there's obviously no way the mods are changing their minds. Oh, and nobody's going to listen to this, I realise that.
|
|