Please Unban Josh whoever did it.

[BottlesOf]

Apparently Josh was suspended for: "5-day suspension (11/2): starting a thread in WPT forum soley to call a player a douche."

First of all, that's kidn of what the WPT forum is for. Second of all, and much more importantly, of the 41k+ members of twoplustwo, there is no one who's suspension will adversely impact the quality of the forums more than Josh. He's a top strategy poster and continues to contribute more strategy than anyone else on a per day basis.

Let's not be so ridiculous here.

[Dynasty]

Josh is serving his suspension unless Mat himself overturns it. Josh can contact me when the five days are up and I'll reinstate him myself. Nobody else should interfere.

[ QUOTE ]
First of all, that's kidn of what the WPT forum is for.

[/ QUOTE ]

No forum here exists to call people douches, dykes, or whatever insult is popular at the time. Unfortunately, the WPT forum has outbreaks of this. Posters see players on TV make what they consider mistakes or act in a way they don't like and they come online and hurl curses and insults at them.

The post I started in this forum about 'tiffany" is an example of this. The woman who finished 15th in the 2005 WSOP is likely posting on these forums. Is she supposed to accept being called a dyke and douche by people who don't know her?

Nobody should have to post or read 2+2 in that kind of environment.

The 2+2 forums will be just fin if Josh (or any poster) takes a 5-day timeout.

[bobbyi]

If his post was out of line, then delete, edit or lock it. Banning someone like sthief for a post on the [censored] WPT forum is asinine.

[AngryCola]

[ QUOTE ]
If his post was out of line, then delete, edit or lock it.

[/ QUOTE ]

I would be surprised if he hadn't done this, but that's not the point.

He is undoubtedly a great poster, but everyone knows Dynasty's rule. It would be unfair to show favoritism in spots like this. If it's a rule for an average joe, then it should be a rule for the good posters too.

At the end of the day, the only thing that really matters is that Dynasty makes the rules in the WPT forum, so it's pretty much his call.

[MrWookie47]

I agree sthief is a great poster, but I also think that in this instance we shouldn't be overly leniant. If a great strategy poster makes a stupid post in OOT, that's one thing, but visciously insulting someone is another. I could perhaps see reducing his sentence somewhat, but any less than a day is would reflect poorly on the board.

[bobbyi]

[ QUOTE ]
It would be unfair to show favoritism in spots like this. If it's a rule for an average joe, then it should be a rule for the good posters too.call.

[/ QUOTE ]
My mistake. It would obviously be silly to take into account the actual posts that people have made when deciding whether to ban them or not. It would be unfair to the trolls and unproductive members of the forum to have more chance of being banned than the good posters.

[AngryCola]

[ QUOTE ]

My mistake.

[/ QUOTE ]

np

[BottlesOf]

[ QUOTE ]
but everyone knows Dynasty's rule.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, they don't, because there's no sticky. Josh doesn't post there often, so how would he know.

On another note, calling someone a douche is hardly that insulting. It's like calling someone an idiot, it's just a way of expressing you not liking someone. Calling someone a "dyke" is a completely different matter altogether, and I can understand why that would lead to a banning.

The kid was acting like a douche on TV by claiming he was the "best player in the world" or whatever. Josh called him out, IMO not a big deal, but whatever, lock the thread if nec.


[ QUOTE ]

At the end of the day, the only thing that really matters is that Dynasty makes the rules in the WPT forum, so it's pretty much his call.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, it's not. The WPT is not Dynasty's fiefdom. As moderators, we don't owen these forums. We are tasked by twoplustwo management to try and maintain and and improve their quality. Banning Josh does more to ruin that than any post calling another a douche possibly could. I agree, the post should be locked, and Josh should be told not to do it. WHy does it need to go further than that? Why is there a need to punish Josh and the forum community any futher?

Some of the mods here have gotten quite out of hand with what they see as their power.

[AngryCola]

[ QUOTE ]
On another note, calling someone a douche is hardly that insulting. It's like calling someone an idiot, it's just a way of expressing you not liking someone. Calling someone a "dyke" is a completely different matter altogether, and I can understand why that would lead to a banning

[/ QUOTE ]

This is an opinion, much like Dynasty's. If you don't like his, take it up with Mat.

[ QUOTE ]

Some of the mods here have gotten quite out of hand with what they see as their power.

[/ QUOTE ]

But Dynasty DOES make the rules in that forum. Again, if you don't like it, take it up with Mat.


Honestly, I wouldn't ban for something like this, but it's completely unfair to impose one set of rules on one group of people and another on the 'good' posters. It's not a good practice. It's either a rule, or it isn't. People should not be allowed to get by it simply because of who they are.


EDIT-
[ QUOTE ]
there's no sticky.

[/ QUOTE ]

:nod:

Yeah, there really should be a sticky in there.

[bobbyi]

[ QUOTE ]
But Dynasty DOES make the rules in that forum.

[/ QUOTE ]
I agree. That's why I suggested that something like deleting the thread would be reasonable since it is an action being taken by Dynasty in his forum. But he didn't do that. He banned the poster from all of twoplustwo, not just from his forum.

[ QUOTE ]
It's either a rule, or it isn't. People should not be allowed to get by it simply because of who they are.

[/ QUOTE ]
What is the "it" in the sentence? What rule? Is there a rule that if you use the word "douche" you are banned from these forums? I've never heard this.

[AngryCola]

[ QUOTE ]
What is the "it" in the sentence? What rule? Is there a rule that if you use the word "douche" you are banned from these forums? I've never heard this.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ask Dynasty for the specific wording of his rule.

But as I understand it, you aren't allowed to be make overtly insulting remarks about people. Right or wrong, this is something Dynasty has enforced for quite some time.

[BottlesOf]

[ QUOTE ]

But Dynasty DOES make the rules in that forum. Again, if you don't like it, take it up with Mat.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is just an incorrect statement of fact.

Let's say I make a rule that everytime a poster used a word I don't like, they get banned. Those words will include all those beggining with the letters "Ap..." or something else riiculous. Would that be ok? I doubt it. People would complain, and it would end, so clearly there is room for some value judgements.

Also, Just b/c we are mods of a particular forum, doesn't mean that's the only place we extend influence. I have banned people who have spammed forums besides my own. We can make decisions that impact the entire site (and when we ban someone, this is what we're doing), therefore we have to utilize some common sense and consider the well being of the entire forum when banning someone.

[BottlesOf]

[ QUOTE ]
Ask Dynasty for the specific wording of his rule.

[/ QUOTE ]

Good idea, I'll just check the forum sticky with all the rules in it. Oh wait....

[AngryCola]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Ask Dynasty for the specific wording of his rule.

[/ QUOTE ]

Good idea, I'll just check the forum sticky with all the rules in it. Oh wait....

[/ QUOTE ]

You know what I meant.

I'm not going to defend Dynasty anymore, but I want you both to think about one thing.

NOBODY was in here complaining about Dynasty banning regular joes for violations of this policy of his. But now as soon as someone you like gets banned, it's the end of the world. That is favoritism, and it's not something I think is good.

[[censored]]

without getting into the main issue as its obvious where I come out I would like to discuss the notion that the point of the WPT forum is to call players douche's which I don't take literally but rather meaning quality it not a concern there.

I think a moderator should strive to make their forum within 2+2 a place to get excellent information and particpate in interesting, entertaining and or intelligent discussion. The 2+2 label means something and I think we should work to make all the forums a cut above some other internet forum. Just as the 2+2 books are a cut above other poker books. If a forums purpose is only to call various players names then the forum should be deleted. Otherwise Dynasty or any mod is absolutely correct in working to make that forum into something worthwhile and meaningful. For the WPT forum that would mean a place where people can intelligently and maturely discuss the WPT can other TV poker happenings.

This isn't RGP or some scrub forum and I don't think we should hold ourself to that pathetic standard.

[BottlesOf]

[ QUOTE ]
NOBODY was in here complaining about Dynasty banning regular joes for violations of this policy of his. But now as soon as someone you like gets banned, it's the end of the world. That is favoritism, and it's not something I think is good.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're not understanding me. First of all, I was never aware of it going on before, I would be against it in that case as well. However, you're right in that I wouldn't care nearly as much. And you know what? There's nothing wrong with that.

It's not that I "like" sthief, it's that currently, he's the snigle most important contributor to twoplustwo. I would like to see anyone argue against that. He's a top strategy guy (I'm not saying he's the best poker player, but he's very good) and he posts a ton of strategy accross multiple forums, frequently throughout the day. He will explain beginning concepts to noobs and engage in more sophisticated discussion in Mid High.

This isn't a popualrity contest. As mods I believe we should always be looking out for how to make twoplustwo better. Period. That's our golden rule. How can we maintain the high quality here and make it better. Getting rid of dumbass threads may do that. Banning one of (if not the) best contributor really undermines that. This focus on "rules" and "bannings" and all this [censored] is retarded.

Bannings should be reserved for flagrant rule violations such as posting really offensive material or spamming. There's no reason to ban a respected long time poster unless he clearly goes off his/her rocker and is no longer worthwhile. I don't think calling a douche, a douche, comes anywhere close.

[[censored]]

[ QUOTE ]
[censored] is retarded

[/ QUOTE ]

Hey!

[AngryCola]

[ QUOTE ]
This isn't a popualrity contest

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly.


Now I've contibuted everything I possibly can to this, and since it's not my decision, I don't need to be in here responding to it anymore.

[BottlesOf]

You didn't refute any of my points, so I will interperet that as you coming to your senses and agreeing with me. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[GuyOnTilt]

Seriously. Dynasty, do you really honestly believe that banning Josh (temp or perm) is going to better 2+2 as a whole? If you do, you are an idiot. If you don't and you banned him anyway, you are an idiot.

GoT

[stabn]

Had you specifically warned sthief before this over calling people names in the WPT forum? If not even if it is the rule i think he deserved a PM warning along with the thread lock/deletion instead of an imediate 5 day ban. Five days is a very long time if this is his first offense.

[AngryCola]

I really thought that I would have nothing more to add to this thread, but I agree with stabn here.

Five days is too long for a first offense of this type.

[stabn]

[ QUOTE ]
I really thought that I would have nothing more to add to this thread, but I agree with stabn here.

Five days is too long for a first offense of this type.

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly. It's not like he's posting tubgirl pics or something. Obviously if he calls a pro a duche in the forum every day then you would have to do something more, like a 5 day or week suspension.

However, this suspension is not equal to the crime.

[Dynasty]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Ask Dynasty for the specific wording of his rule.

[/ QUOTE ]

Good idea, I'll just check the forum sticky with all the rules in it. Oh wait....

[/ QUOTE ]

It's ironic that late last night (before the problem with Josh), I made post in the WPT forum asking for help in creating a rules and FAQ post.

It really blows me away that anybody would need it explicity stated that you can't come on the forums and start a thread for no purpose whatsoever other than to insult someone. If you needed it in writing, here it is from the Terms and Conditions.

While using 2+2 website, you may not post or transmit any unlawful, threatening, abusive, libelous, defamatory, obscene, pornographic, profane, or otherwise objectionable information of any kind


Josh was not the only person suspended. There were 4 (or maybe 5) overall in a rash of flame posts that went up since last night.

[stabn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Ask Dynasty for the specific wording of his rule.

[/ QUOTE ]

Good idea, I'll just check the forum sticky with all the rules in it. Oh wait....

[/ QUOTE ]

It's ironic that late last night (before the problem with Josh), I made post in the WPT forum asking for help in creating a rules and FAQ post.

It really blows me away that anybody would need it explicity stated that you can't come on the forums and start a thread for no purpose whatsoever other than to insult someone. If you needed it in writing, here it is from the Terms and Conditions.

While using 2+2 website, you may not post or transmit any unlawful, threatening, abusive, libelous, defamatory, obscene, pornographic, profane, or otherwise objectionable information of any kind


Josh was not the only person suspended. There were 4 (or maybe 5) overall in a rash of flame posts that went up since last night.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you really think that 5 days is a just punishment?

[Dynasty]

[ QUOTE ]

Five days is too long for a first offense of this type.

[/ QUOTE ]

Five days is no big deal. It's my standard suspension.

[BottlesOf]

If you are going to be a strict constructionist about the TOS, then half the threads in OOT should be gone. Josh may have wantedto start a thread about this WPT player's inappropriate behavior on WPT, so calling him a douche may not have been the sole purpose of the thread.

Also:

Calling someone a douche, once is not abusive. It's not profane, as its said on South Park, and that seems to be a standard around here, and in this case it's not defamatory, as the kid was clearly a douche.

"Otherwise objectionable material of any kind" as I said would throw out half of OOT.

[Dynasty]

[ QUOTE ]
Seriously. Dynasty, do you really honestly believe that banning Josh (temp or perm) is going to better 2+2 as a whole? If you do, you are an idiot. If you don't and you banned him anyway, you are an idiot.

GoT

[/ QUOTE ]

I have no clue where all your hostility comes from. But, you've got no creddibility with me anymore. All you ever do is whine.

Josh was way out of line. Starting a thread for the sole purpose of insulting another person is completely unacceptable. He deserved the suspension.

I assume I'll see Josh at the MGM on Saturday. Hopefully, I can talk to him in person.

[[censored]]

[ QUOTE ]
If you are going to be a strict constructionist about the TOS, then half the threads in OOT should be gone. Josh may have wantedto start a thread about this WPT player's inappropriate behavior on WPT, so calling him a douche may not have been the sole purpose of the thread.

Also:

Calling someone a douche, once is not abusive. It's not profane, as its said on South Park, and that seems to be a standard around here, and in this case it's not defamatory, as the kid was clearly a douche.

"Otherwise objectionable material of any kind" as I said would throw out half of OOT.

[/ QUOTE ]

Fair enough I will make an effort to double the normal amount of bannings in OOT. I'm glad I will have your support with JBB.

I'll have 5 people banned by the end of the day.

[Dynasty]

[ QUOTE ]
Josh may have wantedto start a thread about this WPT player's inappropriate behavior on WPT

[/ QUOTE ]

I wish I had saved the post rather than deleting it. The post was way out of line. It was not a simple matter of him saying "what a douche". Josh went out of his way to be very insulting and offered nothing along with it.

[stabn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Five days is too long for a first offense of this type.

[/ QUOTE ]

Five days is no big deal. It's my standard suspension.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your standard suspension is too long.

[BottlesOf]

As you know I think this is retarded and I think you and Dynasty are both mad with mod powers. However, it is important to be consistent, so I look forward to this.

Also, please go back and delete old threads, I can help you, by giving you titles of threads if you like, and the names of posters to ban. I expect you to adhere to all of these (or at least most).

[BottlesOf]

While he was hostile, you didn't answer the question. However, we all know what the answer is, and for some reason, you don't seem to care.

[Dynasty]

[ QUOTE ]
While he was hostile, you didn't answer the question.

[/ QUOTE ]

I suspended Josh for a clear violation of the T&C of 2+2.

Was that a clear answer?

[BottlesOf]

Any time a thread starts where the masses overwhlemingly express their displeasure of the too liberal banning of real posters it gets silenced. You guys just insist you're right and will hear nothing to the contrary, huh? Good policy we're cultivating here.

[Dynasty]

[ QUOTE ]
Any time a thread starts where the masses overwhlemingly express their displeasure of the too liberal banning of real posters it gets silenced. You guys just insist you're right and will hear nothing to the contrary, huh? Good policy we're cultivating here.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're making assumptions. I haven't deleted or locked a thread like that in OOT in months.


Edit: I wasn't even aware until just a minute ago that a thread in OOT was started about this.

[[censored]]

[ QUOTE ]
Any time a thread starts where the masses overwhlemingly express their displeasure of the too liberal banning of real posters it gets silenced. You guys just insist you're right and will hear nothing to the contrary, huh? Good policy we're cultivating here.

[/ QUOTE ]

WTF are you talking about?

[nolanfan34]

[ QUOTE ]
As you know I think this is retarded and I think you and Dynasty are both mad with mod powers. However, it is important to be consistent, so I look forward to this.

Also, please go back and delete old threads, I can help you, by giving you titles of threads if you like, and the names of posters to ban. I expect you to adhere to all of these (or at least most).

[/ QUOTE ]

Clarkmeister, for example, started a hot chick thread, which always leads to borderline porn. He should be the first to go.

This whole issue is silly. If people can't handle 5 days away from the forums, they have some problems. And the value of the forums isn't going to come crashing down because one long-time poster is suspended. I think it should be common sense that if you START a thread to basically flame someone, using derogatory terms, without attempting to discuss anything relating to poker, you should expect a short leash.

I realize that Josh and others who have been banned add tremendous value to the forum. But you know what? They're long time posters, meaning they should realize that starting a low/no content thread that clutters things up only turns the forum into what those very same people complain about all of the time - a big heap of flaming posts.

It's the long time posters who should be held to a HIGHER standard, because people look up to them, and they should have some pride in keeping a certain level of decorum in the forums. We don't own these forums - Chuck, and Mason, and David do, because it's their brand on the line here. They strive to make this the top discussion forum on the web - above the noise and din of RGP, Pocket Fives, etc. If you don't respect that, then you don't have to post here.

I'm not just trying to pick on Josh here either. These are my thoughts for others as well. And I didn't see the post in question, but if the content is as Dynasty says it was, then a couple of days off isn't really that harsh. Remember too that he's applying this policy across the board - you just only hear about the long time posters.

Agree or disagree with the moderating styles of Dynasty and [censored], but the fact is they have the highest noise forums (even the Zoo isn't that bad), and I think setting a certain level of posting expectation in those forums isn't a bad thing. You have to admit, OOT has been a lot better now that people are afraid of being banned if they make stupid posts.

My 2 cents.

[BottlesOf]

The thread that Dave made in OOT about Josh being banned. It's on my page 3 now. If it wasn't one of you that locked the thread I apologize and withdraw my comment, but it's locked as I'm looking at it.

link (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=0&Number=3843427&an=0&page=2# Post3843427)

[[censored]]

[ QUOTE ]
As you know I think this is retarded and I think you and Dynasty are both mad with mod powers. However, it is important to be consistent, so I look forward to this.

Also, please go back and delete old threads, I can help you, by giving you titles of threads if you like, and the names of posters to ban. I expect you to adhere to all of these (or at least most).

[/ QUOTE ]


If you have a problem with an OOT thread you should press the notify moderator button like everyone else.

I'll go ahead and decide on my own who I ban and when. Please consult my original thread as to how I decide. I was pretty clear that I ban at my discretion and will not be requiring your assistance at this time.

Also I can't even believe you are lumping me and Dynasty together. I ban way more people than him, I don't really strive to be fair and I much more unreasonable.

[[censored]]

[ QUOTE ]
The thread that Dave made in OOT about Josh being banned. It's on my page 3 now. If it wasn't one of you that locked the thread I apologize and withdraw my comment, but it's locked as I'm looking at it.

link (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=0&Number=3843427&an=0&page=2# Post3843427)

[/ QUOTE ]

OK yes I did lock that and I supplied my reasoning which was basically he wasn't banned in OOT so it doesnt make sense to discuss it here. I also have a stated policy that says there a threads (linked in the sticky) to complain about OOT moderating. Even so when it comes to a particular ban that is highly controversial of my own (Ajo for example) I let people express their opinions even with a new thread.

I hardly go out of my way to silence criticism.

[BottlesOf]

I don't have problems with many threads. Barely any. I'm just replying to your comment where you think you have my endorsement for stricter enforcement, when I clearly wasn't saying that.

As for lumping you and Dynasty together: You are booth OOT moderators who ban way too many people (valuble contributors) and are both really into exercising your power even to the dtriment of the forums. Seems like a fit to me.


You also ignored what I pointed out previously, which is that you or Dynasty locked a thread in which it was pretty clear 2+2 doesn't like the job you're doing re: bannings of valuble contributors.

[Dynasty]

[ QUOTE ]

Also I can't even believe you are lumping me and Dynasty together. I ban way more people than him, I don't really strive to be fair and I much more unreasonable.

[/ QUOTE ]

I was going to say that...but I didn't want to start a fight between the two of us. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

My OOT modding is usually reserved to moving threads and deleting spam. I don't think I've banned an OOT poster in the past month. In fact, I don't like [censored]'s OOT policies. I think they go too far (but that's a seperate issue).

[[censored]]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't have problems with many threads. Barely any. I'm just replying to your comment where you think you have my endorsement for stricter enforcement, when I clearly wasn't saying that.

As for lumping you and Dynasty together: You are booth OOT moderators who ban way too many people (valuble contributors) and are both really into exercising your power even to the dtriment of the forums. Seems like a fit to me.


You also ignored what I pointed out previously, which is that you or Dynasty locked a thread in which it was pretty clear 2+2 doesn't like the job you're doing re: bannings of valuble contributors.

[/ QUOTE ]

My orginal post about banning more people was meant as a joke. It was your reply which I take offense to.

As for silencing people who disagree with me what im saying JBB is that I go out of my way to allow people to voice their opinions when it comes to OOT actions. I believe my history verifies that.

[BottlesOf]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Also I can't even believe you are lumping me and Dynasty together. I ban way more people than him, I don't really strive to be fair and I much more unreasonable.

[/ QUOTE ]

I was going to say that...but I didn't want to start a fight between the two of us. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

My OOT modding is usually reserved to moving threads and deleting spam. I don't think I've banned an OOT poster in the past month. In fact, I don't like [censored]'s OOT policies. I think they go too far (but that's a seperate issue).

[/ QUOTE ]

I am equating your banning of Josh to many of [censored]'s bannings as they involve banning people for minor offenses and it irks me when it's a good poster banned for a stupid reason he may or may not be aware of.

[Dynasty]

[ QUOTE ]

As for lumping you and Dynasty together: You are booth OOT moderators who ban way too many people (valuble contributors) and are both really into exercising your power even to the dtriment of the forums. Seems like a fit to me.

[/ QUOTE ]

I was the first 2+2 moderator. Since then, I've banned exactly one non-spammer poster- Dead.

Everyone else who has commited an infraction has received only a temporary suspension. I'd estimate that I've averaged between 2-3 suspensions a week.

[BottlesOf]

I have been using the word banning to mean suspensions in this dicussion as I believe others have. Sorry if this has caused some confusion. I do feel however that even suspensions of valuble contributors are often unnecessary.

[Surfbullet]

[ QUOTE ]
If his post was out of line, then delete, edit or lock it. Banning someone like sthief for a post on the [censored] WPT forum is asinine.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree 100%. There are only a handful of posters who contribute as much as him in terms of pure strategy/content for such a long period of time.

Delete the post, send him a PM saying it's not acceptable...hell impose a "no sthief in WPT forum" ban for awhile where you tell him if he posts there at all it will be deleted...but this is overboard IMO.

Edit: It's like an EV calc for the greater good of the forum. Deleting his WPT threads and warning him that any further posts in that forum in the next 5 days will also be deleted (effectively a single-forum ban) does exactly the same thing for THAT forum as a 5-day ban. However, since so many srategy forums are harmed by the actual banning, the overall good for 2+2 would be to restrict his access to the one forum.

Surf

[Greg J]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It would be unfair to show favoritism in spots like this. If it's a rule for an average joe, then it should be a rule for the good posters too.call.

[/ QUOTE ]
My mistake. It would obviously be silly to take into account the actual posts that people have made when deciding whether to ban them or not. It would be unfair to the trolls and unproductive members of the forum to have more chance of being banned than the good posters.

[/ QUOTE ]
I was just going to argue that perhaps treating different posters differently (i.e. showing a little favoritism) was not necessarily a bad thing. But yeah, sarcasm works too! /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[GuyOnTilt]

[ QUOTE ]
Dynasty, do you really honestly believe that banning Josh (temp or perm) is going to better 2+2 as a whole?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes or no please?

I'm only "hostile" toward a few people on these boards, but yes you have turned into one of them. Becoming a moderator seems to have put you on this power trip thing, imo. Why couldn't you delete Josh's post/thread and PM him telling him not to start threads like that again? He's a very, very, very valuable day to day contributor to the strat boards here and has done enough for those boards to deserve at least that. Is it really that hard to see why not choosing to instaban him (temp or not) was the best thing to do?

Re: your constant defense of T&C -

If it was the mods' job to instaban any poster who used any words or images which could be construed as "obscene, pornographic, or profane" we'd be banning maybe half of the daily-used accounts. Calling someone a douchebag is simply NOT A HUGE DEAL. People get called pussies, douchebags, etc all the time. It happens. Being in a position of authority/leadership is NOT about following the letter of the law; it's about trying to do what's in the group's best interest. Unless you're on a power trip, which imo you seem to be.

So which of these two scenarios would be better for the 2+2 community?

A) Josh's thread is deleted, he is warned via PM not to start threads solely to insult people again, and he is allowed to continue being arguably the most valuable overall poster in the strat forums.

B) Josh's account is insta-suspended with no warning.

GoT

[GuyOnTilt]

[ QUOTE ]
All you ever do is whine.

[/ QUOTE ]
If even a couple other mods or several good posters want to agree with you and think "all I ever do is whine" and I don't contribute positively to 2+2, I'll not only give up my mod spot, you can ban me too.

GoT

[BottlesOf]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Dynasty, do you really honestly believe that banning Josh (temp or perm) is going to better 2+2 as a whole?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes or no please?

I'm only "hostile" toward a few people on these boards, but yes you have turned into one of them. Becoming a moderator seems to have put you on this power trip thing, imo. Why couldn't you delete Josh's post/thread and PM him telling him not to start threads like that again? He's a very, very, very valuable day to day contributor to the strat boards here and has done enough for those boards to deserve at least that. Is it really that hard to see why not choosing to instaban him (temp or not) was the best thing to do?

Re: your constant defense of T&C -

If it was the mods' job to instaban any poster who used any words or images which could be construed as "obscene, pornographic, or profane" we'd be banning maybe half of the daily-used accounts. Calling someone a douchebag is simply NOT A HUGE DEAL. People get called pussies, douchebags, etc all the time. It happens. Being in a position of authority/leadership is NOT about following the letter of the law; it's about trying to do what's in the group's best interest. Unless you're on a power trip, which imo you seem to be.

So which of these two scenarios would be better for the 2+2 community?

A) Josh's thread is deleted, he is warned via PM not to start threads solely to insult people again, and he is allowed to continue being arguably the most valuable overall poster in the strat forums.

B) Josh's account is insta-suspended with no warning.

GoT

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm curious: is there anyone besides Dynasty who would choose B here?

[Entity]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
All you ever do is whine.

[/ QUOTE ]
If even a couple other mods or several good posters want to agree with you and think "all I ever do is whine" and I don't contribute positively to 2+2, I'll not only give up my mod spot, you can ban me too.

GoT

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree 100%, but I suppose I'm just one of Josh's cronies as well.

Then again, I could give two shits less about the WPT or other forums, but I basically only ban spammer. I just lock/delete threads unless the infraction is so severe that I really think it warrants booting someone, albeit temporarily, from the forums.

Rob

[BottlesOf]

i liked the old spelling.

[Jim Kuhn]

[ QUOTE ]

Quote:
All you ever do is whine.


If even a couple other mods or several good posters want to agree with you and think "all I ever do is whine" and I don't contribute positively to 2+2, I'll not only give up my mod spot, you can ban me too.

GoT

[/ QUOTE ]

I would be in GoT's corner on this one! I also think warnings should be much more frequent than bannings. Do other mod's feel that warnings do not work?

I think common sense should be utilized rather than strictly following the t&c. Rules and laws need to be made for people that lack the ability to utilize common sense. I also think we should show favortism towards regular and valuable posters and ask ourselves if 2+2 would be a better place with the action we are about to take.

Thank you,

Jim Kuhn
Catfish4u
/images/graemlins/spade.gif /images/graemlins/diamond.gif /images/graemlins/club.gif /images/graemlins/heart.gif

[durron597]

I prefer warning people before banning them too, unless it's really bad like blatant spam etc.

My $.02

[AngryCola]

[ QUOTE ]

I think common sense should be utilized rather than strictly following the t&c. Rules and laws need to be made for people that lack the ability to utilize common sense.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ah, now this is something different.

I believe Jim is thinking along the right lines. Utilizing our own judgement is usually a much more effective means of moderation than coming up with strict rules for each forum. However, once these rules are created, they must apply to everyone. Essentially I am saying that the mods who create their own specific guidelines for their forums are actually limiting their own ability to make judgement calls.

If these standard 'policies' and 'rules' (apart from what is already spelled out in the site's T&C) were not created in the first place, all the moderators would have to use their own judgement on how to handle a situation.

If a rule would require that you sometimes ban or suspend a person, don't put it in your own guidelines.

Wouldn't that be better?

Also, think about how moderators would no longer be able to fall back on, "It's my policy, so it had to be done." No, any bans or suspensions they make will be about their own judgement of the situation. If that were the case, they could be held more directly accountable for these decisions.

Let's face it...
All situations and posters are not equal. So why should the moderators of these forums be creating rules which limit their own ability to make the right calls and use their own judgement? Isn't our supposed better than average judgement why we were made mods in the first place?

Once you make something a rule or policy, it must apply to everyone.

My solution: Don't make new rules. Use your judgement. If a decision isn't good, the only fault is that of the decision maker.

Simple.

[Surfbullet]

[ QUOTE ]

My solution: Don't make new rules. Use your judgement. If a decision isn't good, the only fault is that of the decision maker.

Simple.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree wholeheartedly, and this is how I understand my responsibility as a moderator. If I cannot come to a satisfactory conclusion I'll come here for assistance.

Surf

[AngryCola]

One clarification/correction:

Guidelines are fine when written well. New rules and policies are the problem here.

Mat is good at creating guidelines and the occasional rule, but you guys always write them in a much more specific and inflexible fashion. I think you should just drop all of that and let your judgement do the work.

[Greg J]

I think this was one of the best posts on modding this forum has had. I agree wholeheartedly with Cola again which frankly is starting to freak me out (j/k dude).

It's all about excercising judgment, and that often means case by case decisions. I honestly can't imagine banning someone without firing off a warning pm first, which I have done to a few ML posters. Often I get a responce that is less than jovial (I've even been called names). But I'm still slow to ban. (I remember responding to one smartass via pm telling him he could talk all the smack he wanted via pm, but if he didn't knock off his BS in the forum I would nuke his ass.)

I think being a good mod is akin to playing good poker -- you have to make good decisions. I think hard and fast "policies" are not a great way to mod. Warning pms are effective, and sometimes public chastizement of especially bad children tends to work, especially when you use your regular posters to your advantage. Yeah, using your contributing regulars effectively can help you be a good mod. I often say that Microlimits does a pretty good job of modding itself. I have a lot of good posters there that act in a civilized way, and if someone gets out of line that person has often been corrected before me or Wookie can even to get to them! And if we need to we just quote one of the repsected posters that put the offender in line and say something like "listen to XXXXX." The name in green can tend to offer some weight to the wise words of your best posters. I think your good, respected regular posters are one of the best modding resources you could ever ask for!

[Mat Sklansky]

In my opinion, my single greatest strength as a moderator/admnistrator on this site is my willingness to be flexible in the light of new evidence.

Josh has been warned, and it is no longer necessary to enforce a five day suspension. Out of respect for Dynasty, I will only recommend that the ban be lifted. That said, if Dynasty follows my advice, and Josh comes right back with similar behavior, a longer suspension will be enforced by me.

[Mat Sklansky]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I think common sense should be utilized rather than strictly following the t&c. Rules and laws need to be made for people that lack the ability to utilize common sense.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ah, now this is something different.

I believe Jim is thinking along the right lines. Utilizing our own judgement is usually a much more effective means of moderation than coming up with strict rules for each forum. However, once these rules are created, they must apply to everyone. Essentially I am saying that the mods who create their own specific guidelines for their forums are actually limiting their own ability to make judgement calls.

If these standard 'policies' and 'rules' (apart from what is already spelled out in the site's T&C) were not created in the first place, all the moderators would have to use their own judgement on how to handle a situation.

If a rule would require that you sometimes ban or suspend a person, don't put it in your own guidelines.

Wouldn't that be better?

Also, think about how moderators would no longer be able to fall back on, "It's my policy, so it had to be done." No, any bans or suspensions they make will be about their own judgement of the situation. If that were the case, they could be held more directly accountable for these decisions.

Let's face it...
All situations and posters are not equal. So why should the moderators of these forums be creating rules which limit their own ability to make the right calls and use their own judgement? Isn't our supposed better than average judgement why we were made mods in the first place?

Once you make something a rule or policy, it must apply to everyone.

My solution: Don't make new rules. Use your judgement. If a decision isn't good, the only fault is that of the decision maker.

Simple.

[/ QUOTE ]

We have our terms and conditions in writing. I consider it my job to apply these terms and conditions using my own judgment. It was the directive given to me by Mason about three years ago, and I believe it is the only directive I've passed on to moderators asking what was expected from them. So I agree with Cola. On the other hand, I have trusted the judgment of those who felt that in certain instances specific rules should be posted, and I still do. People may want to consider, however, that they may be restricting themselves unecessarily

[BottlesOf]

[ QUOTE ]

I think common sense should be utilized rather than strictly following the t&c. Rules and laws need to be made for people that lack the ability to utilize common sense.
[ QUOTE ]

Ah, now this is something different.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

Not really, it's what sane people have been doing for quite some time.

[ QUOTE ]
However, once these rules are created, they must apply to everyone.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Let's face it...
All situations and posters are not equal.

[/ QUOTE ]

These two seem to conflict a bit. FWIW, I'm much more into the second one.

[ QUOTE ]
My solution: Don't make new rules. Use your judgement. If a decision isn't good, the only fault is that of the decision maker.

[/ QUOTE ]

This seems right to me, but I'm not quite sure what is different about it than we currently have. Is it just that we're getting rid of newer/mod imposed rules?

[Evan]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Ask Dynasty for the specific wording of his rule.

[/ QUOTE ]

Good idea, I'll just check the forum sticky with all the rules in it. Oh wait....

[/ QUOTE ]

It's ironic that late last night (before the problem with Josh), I made post in the WPT forum asking for help in creating a rules and FAQ post.

It really blows me away that anybody would need it explicity stated that you can't come on the forums and start a thread for no purpose whatsoever other than to insult someone. If you needed it in writing, here it is from the Terms and Conditions.

While using 2+2 website, you may not post or transmit any unlawful, threatening, abusive, libelous, defamatory, obscene, pornographic, profane, or otherwise objectionable information of any kind


Josh was not the only person suspended. There were 4 (or maybe 5) overall in a rash of flame posts that went up since last night.

[/ QUOTE ]
LOLLERSKATES!

I hate to point out the elephant in the room, but...JOEYBITCH? Honestly, you know as well as any of us that these rules are useless when examined in a vacuum.

I'm not going to get into the specifics of why banning Josh was a bad idea or how theses actions correlate perfectly with previous poor moderation on Dynasty's part, because that's already been covered (both in this thread and by me in the past).

[Dynasty]

[ QUOTE ]
Josh has been warned, and it is no longer necessary to enforce a five day suspension. Out of respect for Dynasty, I will only recommend that the ban be lifted. That said, if Dynasty follows my advice, and Josh comes right back with similar behavior, a longer suspension will be enforced by me.

[/ QUOTE ]

Suspension lifted.

I was probably going to do it after two days, anyway.

[AngryCola]

Mat and the others understood it just fine, and nothing about my post is conflicting.

Note: When I said "This is something different," I meant that this is a different discussion than we had been having.

[BottlesOf]

I misunderstood. However, I think it is kind of I've been implying all along. There is too much banning b/c ppl are reading into the letter of the law. But, yes that hadn't been the topic of discussion in this thread.

[BottlesOf]

Thanks Dynasty. I think you did the right thing.

[AngryCola]

[ QUOTE ]
There is too much banning b/c ppl are reading into the letter of the law.

[/ QUOTE ]

That wasn't the point of my post at all. It was about people creating new rules and policies.

[BottlesOf]

Well the banning has resulted because of newly created rules and old rules being newly enforced. To me, it all stems from the same thing.

[AngryCola]

[ QUOTE ]
Well the banning has resulted because of newly created rules and old rules being newly enforced. To me, it all stems from the same thing.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're still missing my point. I'm talking about 'standard 5 day suspensions' and the like.

Once you make something a rule, you remove your own ability to make judgement calls related to it. That was my my main point.

If a mod follows my 'no new rules' style, any ban they make will be about their own decision making, not some rule, policy, or 'standard' they have come up with.

When you make new policies, you're only restricting yourself from making good decisions.

[BottlesOf]

I see. Well I think we're kind of arguing semantics here. Whenever someone bans another person, a decision was made. Whether it's because they were deciding the ban was appropriate because an existing rule was violated or whether they decided to ban someone b/c it was a judgement call based on what should or shouldn't be tolerated.

However, we can't eliminate all rules, as the site TOS is what it is and we are all tasked with trying to enforce it. THe mod arguments pop up when people disagree about how to interpret those terms and/or apply them, and I think some disagreement over judgement is inevitable.

[AngryCola]

[ QUOTE ]
I see. Well I think we're kind of arguing semantics here. Whenever someone bans another person, a decision was made. Whether it's because they were deciding the ban was appropriate because an existing rule was violated or whether they decided to ban someone b/c it was a judgement call based on what should or shouldn't be tolerated.

[/ QUOTE ]

I completely disagree, and we aren't talking semantics.

Example:

Dynasty's standard suspensions. Once you make something a standard or rule, it is unfair to show favoritism to certain people. It removes his ability to make a judgement about the individual situation, simply because he created the 'standard' in the first place.

Don't make it a standard. Don't make new rules. That's all I'm saying, and I have no idea how to explain it any better than I have already.

Mat seems to agree that new 'rules' probably limit a mod's ability to use jugdement, and that's enough for me.

[ QUOTE ]
However, we can't eliminate all rules, as the site TOS is what it is and we are all tasked with trying to enforce it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes? Where did I ever say we shouldn't enforce the T&C? In fact, I specifically mentioned it in my first post.

[ QUOTE ]
I think some disagreement over judgement is inevitable.

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course! But it's more difficult to hold a mod directly accountable for an actual decision when a rule has been created in advance of the situation. Once the policy is created, you can really only blame the person for the rule, not the bans.

[BottlesOf]

I agree with all your points there. These self-imposed rules that can't be deviated from are stupid and do limit yourself from effective modding.

Actually, one thing I do disagree with. I do think your insistence on "having to treat everyone equally" is a little weird. It's not the way the world works, and it's not the way things work here. Respected posters get away with more, that happens over and over again and it really doesn't irritate me in the slightest.

[AngryCola]

[ QUOTE ]
I do think your insistence on "having to treat everyone equally" is a little weird.

[/ QUOTE ]

:sigh:

That's still not what I'm saying. Let me be as short about this as possible.

- Rules must be enforced equally once they are created. It is unfair to ban someone for posting "1234" and let another person slide for posting "1234" if you have made a rule about not posting "1234".

- So don't make new rules. That way you can use your judgement to be objective about each poster and their individual situation.

Once you create the rule, you basically remove your own ability to make judgement calls about it. Rules must be enforced on everyone equally once they go up, so mods shouldn't make new rules and policies, IMO.

That's as simple as I can make it.

[BottlesOf]

[ QUOTE ]
Rules must be enforced on everyone equally once they go up

[/ QUOTE ]

No, they don't. That's as simple as I can put it.


I don't know what you mean by "go up." THese aren't real rules anyway. They're rules we're creating. Therefore, we can change them as needed.

I have no problem agreeing to disagree on this point.

[AngryCola]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Rules must be enforced on everyone equally once they go up

[/ QUOTE ]

No, they don't. That's as simple as I can put it.


[/ QUOTE ]

Yes they do, or you're doing a bad job.
That's as simple as I can put it.

Because if you aren't going to enforce a rule on some people, it shouldn't be a rule at all. To say otherwise is truely laughable.

We will have to agree to disagree, but you're completely wrong.

[BottlesOf]

Ok, but you're wrong. /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[AngryCola]

[ QUOTE ]
Ok, but you're wrong. /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

Mat doesn't think so. /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

But yeah, let's just end this line of posting.

[stabn]

This should be moved to OOT so i can hijack it into a taco bell discussion.

[BottlesOf]

You keep telling me what Mat thinks, but I don't see him saying as much.

You were the one who thought Josh's ban should've remained because it was "Dynasty's call," even though you disagreed with it. Mat came and posted in the thread that it shouldn't remain. Dynasty made the right choice and reversed it. It seems you were the one who was limited to act in what you saw as the correct way, b/c you had to rigidly adhere to some rule that didn't evene exist in any official cpacity. The rest of the mods (including Mat) chimed in and voted for common sense to prevail (that the banning was unecessary and/or too severe).

[AngryCola]

Okay, JBB. But that's not what I was talking about. /images/graemlins/confused.gif

[ QUOTE ]
You were the one who thought Josh's ban should've remained because it was "Dynasty's call," even though you disagreed with it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Mat said it was Dynasty's call, too.

If you want the last word, you've got it.