Reporting Posts

[Furball]

You didn't actually get a forum atmosphere ban though, did you? You accumulated infraction points.

From the ban reason given in my email:

GingerFurball, you've been a downer on the forum atmosphere for a long time now.

Given that one mod has publically said that they reckoned I was the worst offender in bringing down the forum atmosphere, I reckon it certainly played a part in my ban.

 

[grecian]

When Bun trolled, he was infracted and if he accumulated enough points, he copped a ban. We kept asking people to report his trolling posts, instead of reacting to him directly. In my personal opinion, people's reaction to Bun was worse than his actual posting. If instead of reacting to him directly, they would've kept reporting him, he would eventually have been banned for just being a troll.



Nothing gets under my skin more than this accusation that we have a bias for Indian posters. You are impugning the integrity of all the mods when you make that accusation, and that really offends me. This accusation has no basis in fact whatsoever. We treat each member, each reporting post, the same. GF and SS were recent mods, ask them if they ever received any instruction (direct or indirect) to favor a group of posters. Don't you think at least one mod would've spilled the beans if such bias was part of the policy?

My anger is not that it's racism, it's because your after the Indian millions in their policies. Sorry mate maybe I'm just trying to find a reason for the ridiculous inconsistenties of your policies, and coming up wrong.

Yet I will repeat Bun was an obvious Indian Troll. he made nearly 2000 posts, when most of us acknoweleged him as such about 16 hundred posts earlier, what are we meant to think?

Oh and you seriously think peoples reaction to Bun was worse then him, so you admit to him being a trolling multi, who has said vicious things about forum members yet you think we should all just go "what ho, he's a card", pathetic, and your a mod?

 

[Burgey]

Ahh, that's the way he works though, one, at least, already here, then he allows the established one to go mental, after its too ovious that it's him.

It would almost be admirable if trolling wasn't the most pointless, and least life-affirming existence in history, including solicitors.

WAC.

Made my thoughts known on this in the Staff Forum (the particular poster, not the issue of reporting). It's a crock of ****.

 

[grecian]

WAC.

Made my thoughts known on this in the Staff Forum (the particular poster, not the issue of reporting). It's a crock of ****.

Hey, I could have said "the Australian bowling coach", instead of solicitors as the most pointless, but I was being kind.

 

[Fusion]

My anger is not that it's racism, it's because your after the Indian millions in their policies. Sorry mate maybe I'm just trying to find a reason for the ridiculous inconsistenties of your policies, and coming up wrong.

Yet I will repeat Bun was an obvious Indian Troll. he made nearly 2000 posts, when most of us acknoweleged him as such about 16 hundred posts earlier, what are we meant to think?

We're after the Indian millions and that's why we favor them? Since you advocate transparency, do you mind sharing any proof you have on this?

Let me repeat once again - when we felt that Bun was trolling, we infracted him. I maintain that the reaction he got from some members was worse than his actual posting. Just because we don't agree with you on a reported post, doesn't make us bias.

 

[Burgey]

Because people have accused members of being multis in the past and were incorrect. We can't allow everyone to throw multi accusations around without sufficient proof. It derails multiple threads across the forum with the resulting back and forth. We have a system in place to deal with multis. Yes it's not perfect, but it's better than playing the guessing game. Let me remind you that it was this same system that eventually detected Bun as a multi. It took a while, I know, but we took immediate action when we got the proof we needed.

Perhaps, just perhaps, if obvious multis were rissoled straight away instead of having the online equivalent of a coronial inquest before they get banned, there might not be so much speculation.

 

[Fusion]

Perhaps, just perhaps, if obvious multis were rissoled straight away instead of having the online equivalent of a coronial inquest before they get banned, there might not be so much speculation.

I've seen people being very certain that a member was an obvious troll, and it turned out not to be the case. This was specially true during the period when Avada Kevada and his multis were leaving those vile VM's on people's walls. It's just not good policy IMO to ban people on a guess alone. When we have proof, we take action.

 

[HeathDavisSpeed]

I like Avada Kadavra.

His existence led to Zaremba's post along the lines of "Ava-ava Kadavra. I wanna reach out and grab ya." I nearly wet myself.

Other than that, I remember nothing of him.

 

[grecian]

We're after the Indian millions and that's why we favor them? Since you advocate transparency, do you mind sharing any proof you have on this?

Let me repeat once again - when we felt that Bun was trolling, we infracted him. I maintain that the reaction he got from some members was worse than his actual posting. Just because we don't agree with you on a reported post, doesn't make us bias.

I don't have any proof, I just see the inconsistency, so I've made a dumb point, but I'm failing to see how obviously intelligent people couldn't see Buns trolling, from the very first, so I'm stretching, By showing that he was a previous troll, you surely must know all the reactions he got was wanted, so I'M REALLY CONFUSED BY THAT ARGUMENT

 

[Burgey]

I've seen people being very certain that a member was an obvious troll, and it turned out not to be the case. This was specially true during the period when Avada Kevada and his multis were leaving those vile VM's on people's walls. It's just not good policy IMO to ban people on a guess alone. When we have proof, we take action.

Didn't we find out AK was himself a multi of someone else?

I get what you're saying mate, but I don't see why your standard of proof needs to be so high here. It's a website, not a court of law.

 

[Furball]

We're after the Indian millions and that's why we favor them? Since you advocate transparency, do you mind sharing any proof you have on this?

Let me repeat once again - when we felt that Bun was trolling, we infracted him. I maintain that the reaction he got from some members was worse than his actual posting. Just because we don't agree with you on a reported post, doesn't make us bias.

Given Bun's alleged previous identities, and what he posted under those identities, it really wasn't.

 

[grecian]

So just to reiterate, Fusion is really upset about some of us thinking that the forum is biased because of the light way Bun and others have been treated, that's why many of us got angry. It's since been proved that Bun is a multi and has been stirring, Fusion reckons the reaction to someone that has been banned many times, and entire existence is stirring has been worse then the people calling him for it. GIMP has been banned for stating the obvious, and yet despite mealy-mouthed admissions of fact, amongst the people ruling the site, we get nowt.

ho-hum

 

[grecian]

Given Bun's previous identities, and what he posted under those identities, it really wasn't.

Exactly, this doesn't seem to have been taken into account at all, I think you've been fairly restrained mate.

 

[Fusion]

So just to reiterate, Fusion is really upset about some of us thinking that the forum is biased because of the light way Bun and others have been treated, that's why many of us got angry. It's since been proved that Bun is a multi and has been stirring, Fusion reckons the reaction to someone that has been banned many times, and entire existence is stirring has been worse then the people calling him for it. GIMP has been banned for stating the obvious, and yet despite mealy-mouthed admissions of fact, amongst the people ruling the site, we get nowt.

ho-hum

Let me have a crack at reiterating as well. When you feel someone is trolling, report them. When you go after them directly, it ruins threads for others. Believe it not, there are many people on this forum who have zero interest in you or others "outing" a multi. They don't want to see a match thread turned into a flame war. That's the reaction I'm talking about.

I also don't know how else to emphasize it, but a guessing game on identifying multis just won't do. People have guessed incorrectly before, it will happen again.

Lastly conspiracy theories about going after "Indian millions" are just as trollish/offensive to me as any of Bun's trollish posts on the forum. How about we have a healthy and constructive debate without resorting to such attacks on our characters?

 

[HeathDavisSpeed]

When you feel someone is trolling, report them.

And now we're back to my original point.

 

[Burgey]

We're after the Indian millions and that's why we favor them? Since you advocate transparency, do you mind sharing any proof you have on this?

Let me repeat once again - when we felt that Bun was trolling, we infracted him. I maintain that the reaction he got from some members was worse than his actual posting. Just because we don't agree with you on a reported post, doesn't make us bias.

How can you say the reaction to his posts was worse than the posts themselves when members know he is a multi of someone who's been banned permanently before?

So UIMM, Bun = Sir Alex = Precam, among others. Was he also Avada Kedavra or whatever that user name was?

 

[Anil]

So UIMM, Bun = Sir Alex = Precam, among others. Was he also Avada Kedavra or whatever that user name was?

i swear more people on the forum obsess over this guy than any one cricketer..isn't this exactly the reaction he would be hoping to get by his actions? i would think he is exulting at the chaos he is causing on the forum...wouldn't this be all the more incentive for him to come back in another avatar?

how about if we report someone and then completely ignore that guy or if someone feels that strongly about it, email the mods and then completely ignore the guy? the mods will look into it when they have the time and take action when they have enough proof and in the meantime, if he doesn't get anywhere with provocation, wouldn't he simply run out of motivation at some point? i just feel it would be a better solution to make the guy (and others of his ilk) completely insignificant and have him fade away than what is happening right now...?

 

[Burgey]

i swear more people on the forum obsess over this guy than any one cricketer..isn't this exactly the reaction he would be hoping to get by his actions? i would think he is exulting at the chaos he is causing on the forum...wouldn't this be all the more incentive for him to come back in another avatar?

how about if we report someone and then completely ignore that guy or if someone feels that strongly about it, email the mods and then completely ignore the guy? the mods will look into it when they have the time and take action when they have enough proof and in the meantime, if he doesn't get anywhere with provocation, wouldn't he simply run out of motivation at some point? i just feel it would be a better solution to make the guy (and others of his ilk) completely insignificant and have him fade away than what is happening right now...?

How about you do that, and I'll ask what the **** I want to ask?

 

[Sanz]

How can you say the reaction to his posts was worse than the posts themselves when members know he is a multi of someone who's been banned permanently before?

So UIMM, Bun = Sir Alex = Precam, among others. Was he also Avada Kedavra or whatever that user name was?

Because the reaction was based on assumptions not facts. I am not sure if the moderators should be acting based on assumptions.

 

[Burgey]

Because the reaction was based on assumptions not facts. I am not sure if the moderators should be acting based on assumptions.

He's now been banned as a multi though. People see that poster for who and what they know him to be.

I see what you say about not acting on assumptions, but I think the mods go too far the other way, and don't react until they have a level of proof which seems disproportionate to someone being banned from a web site for being a multi.