Dynasty, give me a fvcking break!

[Evan]

I know banning people is fun, but banning jason_t for telling you to stfu because you called Journey gay, you need to relax!

Here's some more people you may want to ban though:
TSC (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=&Number=3546857&page=&view=&s b=5&o=&vc=1)
jakethebake (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=&Number=3550247&page=&view=&s b=5&o=&vc=1)
Patrick del Poker Grande (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=&Number=3409082&page=&view=&s b=5&o=&vc=1)

Honestly, do you really think banning jason was necessary to moderate OOT?

p.s. Can you please respond to this post unlike the last one I made?

[Dynasty]

There is a difference between banning and suspending. And, it's entirely consistent with the way I treat every poster. Thinman was recently given the same suspension for regularly doing the same thing to jakethebake.

I didn't give the suspension because he told me to STFU. I did it because he has been regularly trolling OOT with STFU posts directed at me. The most recent one made about half a dozen in the past week or so.

It was entirely justified.

[Evan]

"stfu, your attempt at a witty comeback blew about as abad as a poor crack whore suckig dick for money."

Jason's behvior was worse than TSC's? Why can't you just admit that you moderate on a clique-based basis? We all do it in some regards (giving titles, color changes, etc), but banning/suspending based on who you like and don't like is absurd.

I'll even give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you never saw TSC's post until now. So go ahead and suspend him, ok?

[Evan]

[ QUOTE ]
Thinman was recently given the same suspension for regularly doing the same thing to jakethebake.

[/ QUOTE ]


From an IM conversation with jason_t:

[02:10] jason_t: the thinman/jakethebake thing was completely different
[02:11] jason_t: other posters pointed out that thinman was being a douche to jakethebake
[02:11] jason_t: taking it much further than just a simple disagreement
[02:11] jason_t: but actually being hostile
[02:11] jason_t: katyseagull and many others asked thinman in the forum wtf is problem in and he responded like a jackass
[02:11] jason_t: it was a really different situation


I am less familiar with the Thinman incident than either of you. If what he says is true than I'm inclined to agree with his conclusion.

[Evan]

[ QUOTE ]
he has been regularly trolling OOT with STFU posts directed at me

[/ QUOTE ]
I just did a search and found 4 times he's said it in the last month. Considering I've gone out of my way twice in that same time span to post in a forum a rarely open about poor moderation on your part in a forum a rarely read, I have a hard time finding a lot of fault in his opinions--even if they may not have been presented in the most cognitive manner.

[wacki]

I can barely read OOT anymore but I do know that thinman is able to troll. AngryCola disagree's with me but I can find dozens of posts where he intentionally twists my words just to piss me off. How people do not see what he is doing baffles me.

As far as jason_t's bannings:
This one is a really lame post by jason (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=exchange&Number=3476113&Fo rum=f20&Words=STFU&Searchpage=0&Limit=25&Main=3475 413&Search=true&where=bodysub&Name=21723&daterange =1&newerval=1&newertype=m&olderval=&oldertype=&bod yprev=#Post3476113)

This is another (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=exchange&Number=3476437&Fo rum=f20&Words=STFU&Searchpage=0&Limit=25&Main=3472 129&Search=true&where=bodysub&Name=21723&daterange =1&newerval=1&newertype=m&olderval=&oldertype=&bod yprev=#Post3476437)

I wouldn't of banned him myself but whatever. Those two posts contribute nothing IMO. On the other hand banning jason after he told you to shut the [censored] up after insulting journey was a very bad move. Now him telling you to STFU after asking a question is a totally different situation. You made a bad move IMO Dynasty.

Also, he's only told you to STFU like 4 times and only 2 of which are out of line by being completely random. He's very far from the worst thing in OOT. Posters should be able to insult mods IMO. This is not the army.

I can understand why Evan would want TSC banned but I think there is nothing wrong with Patricks post for the same reason why jason_t's most recent STFU is ok. Then again that probably wasn't the point he was trying to make.

My vote is jason_t shouldn't of been banned and it wasn't very justified. There are far far far easier targets.

[AngryCola]

[ QUOTE ]
I do know that thinman is able to troll. AngryCola disagree's with me but I can find dozens of posts where he intentionally twists my words just to piss me off.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ah, but I never said that he didn't troll your posts. In fact, I completely agree about him coming after you all the time. It's almost like Voltron and my posts. That guy loves to come after me, but I've never felt a need to recommend a ban or anything like that.

My only point was that Thinman didn't seem to be trolling in every post he made. There were some people he did go after (like you), but on the whole his behavior wasn't overt enough to warrant a ban or suspension. However, I have not been keeping up with his posts nearly as much as I was at the time I originally said all of this. If something's changed since then, I wouldn't be surprised.

[Dynasty]

[ QUOTE ]

Also, he's only told you to STFU like 4 times...

[/ QUOTE ]

If you want to know, he's done it more than a dozen times. He's making a point of trolling some of my posts now because he thinks he'll be backed up by other mods like Commodus.

jason_t's initial suspension should have stood. It's an extremely bad practice for mods to overule another mod's suspension in this way.

[Mike Haven]

[ QUOTE ]
It's an extremely bad practice for mods to overule another mod's suspension in this way.


[/ QUOTE ]

As we all know, this is a statement of opinion; not of fact.

For what little it's worth, I don't think that it's bad practice for a mod to overrule another mod in this way, and I hereby give my "permission", (even though, by definition, I don't think I need to), for any mod to delete or amend anything I post, and to reverse any decision I make, if the obvious general consensus of opinion is that I have made a mistake.

Although I am proud within myself to be a mod, I try to keep the actuality of the position in proper perspective and remember that I should merely be carrying out basic cleaning duties in an easily duplicatable way that so would any other reasonable person.

As the Great Mat Himself wrote in another post, we are supposed to enjoy our role, and if it becomes a chore or if it creates discontentment then perhaps we should decide not to remain in the position.

[Greg J]

I'm not gonna get in the middle of the whole jason_t thing, but I did want to comment on Mike's comments.

Mike there was one time a few days ago you (properly) banned one of my ML guys. He broke a clearly posted rule, but he was/is a good ML poster. He did a stupid thing, but I knew him well enough to know that even being banned from 2p2 for a few hours was plenty punishment/lesson learning for him. Now, I went to you and asked if it was okay to remove the ban, and you acted in a reasonable manner that respected my judgement. I appreciated that.

I think this is how we mods should interact with each other. I feel pretty strongly we should not be going over each other's heads. We try to should respect each other, and act in ways that reflect that. (That assumes we are making good decisions though. Again, I'm not trying to involve myself in a direct discussion of the original topic.)

[Mat Sklansky]

Mods shouldn't overrule one another without discussion. I had just assumed that Commodus and Dynasty had an agreement and Dynasty told him to go ahead with the reversal.

In a case where there is no agreement, I should be asked to make the final decision.

Mat

[Evan]

[ QUOTE ]
Mods shouldn't overrule one another without discussion. I had just assumed that Commodus and Dynasty had an agreement and Dynasty told him to go ahead with the reversal.

In a case where there is no agreement, I should be asked to make the final decision.

Mat

[/ QUOTE ]

I have no idea who unbanned jason_t, but if I had known he was banned I would have done it because I disagree with Dynasty's reasoning and jason_t is a great contributor to the important part of this forum (read NOT OOT).

Dynasty, you are totally off base in your "mods shouldn't go over other mods heads" thinking. Just because you got there first to do something completely absurd no one else should be allowed to remedy the situation? Let's say tomorrow schneids tells me to "stfu" when I say the Yankees can come back to win the ALDS and that pissed me off, so I banned him? Should no one be allowed to unban one of the best posters on this forum for fear of conflicting mod decisions? No way.

I've said this before and I'll say it again now; there SHOULD be a certain degree of leniency granted to well-established posters, particularly those whose reputaions have been established in strategy forums. I'm not saying that people should be allowed to post affiliate spam or racially offensive material, but I do think that something on the level of "stfu" regarding disagreement on musical tastes is well within reason. This is still a marketing tool for 2+2 Publishing, right? The forums are supposed to help the company sell more books. Insightful strategy posts do that, not Patrick del Poker Dumbass' steaming pile of feces picture.

[Evan]

[ QUOTE ]
I can understand why Evan would want TSC banned but I think there is nothing wrong with Patricks post for the same reason why jason_t's most recent STFU is ok. Then again that probably wasn't the point he was trying to make.

[/ QUOTE ]
You're right, I don't think either of them should be banned. My point was that we can probably all agree that there's no point in banning them since they are in the OOT clique. So wtf are we banning jason_t?

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
I've said this before and I'll say it again now; there SHOULD be a certain degree of leniency granted to well-established posters, particularly those whose reputaions have been established in strategy forums.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with Evan 100% on this. In fact, this should be common sense.

On the other hand Patrick (the real life rocket scientist) may be silly, but he's very far from dumb.

[Evan]

[ QUOTE ]
On the other hand Patrick (the real life rocket scientist) may be silly, but he's very far from dumb.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm sure he's not dumb, I was joking in my earlier post. But from an objective point of view, the vast majority of his posts are lacking content imo. He does not contribute to improving that forum in a meaningful way. I know a lot of you like him, and honestly I have no problem with him either, I just felt like he made a good example of the point I was trying to make.

[BottlesOf]

[ QUOTE ]
It's an extremely bad practice for mods to overule another mod's suspension in this way.

[/ QUOTE ]

I do strongly agree with this. We need to try and be understanding and respectful of one another's decisions, and debate policy here.

That being said, I think OOT is going down the shitter and insta-bans are a bad idea.

[[censored]]

Part of being a mod is that you are going to take abuse. I don't think this is a big deal even if you get followed around as long as that does not include the poker forums, or creating a bunch of new threads.

That being said I think once a banning has been done, the banned users who have AIM access or similar to other mods should not get special treatment. If someone disagrees there is Mat and there is this forum. In that regard I agree with Dynasty overruling a mod without going through the proper channels is bad practice.

[BottlesOf]

[ QUOTE ]
there SHOULD be a certain degree of leniency granted to well-established posters, particularly those whose reputaions have been established in strategy forums.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with this even more.

[Dynasty]

[ QUOTE ]
Mods shouldn't overrule one another without discussion. I had just assumed that Commodus and Dynasty had an agreement and Dynasty told him to go ahead with the reversal.

[/ QUOTE ]

For the record, there was no discussion. Commudus lifted jason_t's suspension (not ban) almost immediately. In a PM sent immediately after the lift, Commodus gave this as his reason.

I reversed his ban, he needs his account for important matters.

When I inquired as to what these "important matters" were, Commodus was unable to provide what I considered a sufficient answer. He just responded.

he didn't disclose to me what the matters were, but I trust him.

I wasn't interested in provoking a "mod fight". So, I didn't press Commudus much more on his reasoning. I did, however, ask Commodus to speak to jason_t in order to encourage him to stop his trolling of OOT. Hopefully, he's done this

[Dynasty]

[ QUOTE ]
Let's say tomorrow schneids tells me to "stfu" when I say the Yankees can come back to win the ALDS and that pissed me off, so I banned him?

[/ QUOTE ]

You just don't seem to be listening to me.

I did not suspend (not ban) jason_t because he made a comment towards me. I've been on these forums for more than four years and have had plenty of disagreements with most of the most respected posters here. I've got no problem with people disagreeing with me (and certainly not about some 1980's band).

I've been very clear about my reasons. jason_t was trolling OOT by constantly responding to my posts with his STFU posts (and euphemisms) over and over again. I'd say his count is approaching two dozen now. You found four yourself and there were deleted posts when that search was done. After Commodus basically gave him a "go" to continue doing it, he made another 7-9 similar trolling posts afterwards.

As an OOT mod, I wouldn't allow any poster to constantly troll and attack another poster. If it's brought to my attention, I would suspend any poster for doing that. The fact that it happens to be me that's being attacked is irrelevent (other than it's allowing you to make unwarranted assumptions).

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
But from an objective point of view, the vast majority of his posts are lacking content imo.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow, I just came back in here to post this.

Linky (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=&Number=3619132&page=0&view=c ollapsed&sb=5&o=14&vc=1)

I guess I just haven't been reading the same threads you have.

[[censored]]

Can we please not talk about posters who do not have some specific issue?

It seems unfair to randomly discuss whether various posters suck or if they are stupid when there is not a specific issue/concern with that poster resulting from a mod action or potential action when they have no way of defending themselves.

[Evan]

Isn't this the basis of your "I will ban a whole bunch of you" campaign?

Anyway, the poster was relevant because he was mentioned earlier in this thread AND he's a paradigm of the type of poster that is unreasonably glorified in that forum.

Also, since when did defending yourself become important. Did jason_t get to defend himself before he was suspended? Come on guys, get real. This is such elementary school bullsiht.

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]

It seems unfair to randomly discuss whether various posters suck or if they are stupid when there is not a specific issue/concern with that poster resulting from a mod action or potential action when they have no way of defending themselves.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree, the only reason I made that last post is because I am addicted to correcting myself.

sorry.

[Mike Haven]

[ QUOTE ]
I think this is how we mods should interact with each other

[/ QUOTE ]

agreed 100% - "should" being the operative word

whilst, personally, i wouldn't object to a justifiable correction to one of my posts or actions, per se, in fact it would need extraordinary circumstances for me to contemplate overruling an action by another mod without contacting him first

(i think i may have amended or deleted a couple of mods' posts in the zoo, but, against this, i have also later deleted a couple of my own posts after making ill-considered immediate off the top of the head responses on occasion)

incidentally, i have found every one of the (few) relevant pm's between myself and other mods about such matters to have been very pleasant and professional experiences, and long may this continue