Please Unban Josh whoever did it. - Page 5

[censored] · #41 11-02-2005, 06:53 PM

[ 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

[/ 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 · #42 11-02-2005, 06:57 PM

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 · #43 11-02-2005, 06:57 PM

[ 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. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

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] · #44 11-02-2005, 06:59 PM

[ 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 · #45 11-02-2005, 06:59 PM

[ 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. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

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 · #46 11-02-2005, 07:00 PM

[ 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 · #47 11-02-2005, 07:10 PM

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 · #48 11-02-2005, 07:52 PM

[ 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 · #49 11-02-2005, 09:15 PM

[ 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! [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

GuyOnTilt · #50 11-02-2005, 09:28 PM

[ 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