Question on ban announcements

[Mr Miyagi]

Okay, I'd rather you played by the rules (even if you disagree with them) so you can stick around, but the choice is yours.

I do play by the rules (even where I disagree with them).

If calling someone a "bitch" repeatedly is only 5 points, I won't start any further 8 point threads if they'll leave home before trundler in future

 

[cpr]

Friendly reminder that there's a fundamental difference between questions about ban announcements and complaints about infractions.

If you have a question, a complaint, a rant, or a bit of whataboutery to get off your chest about an infraction, we encourage you to email moderators@cricketweb.net. If it's a genuine question we'll answer it, and if it's one of the other things we'll skim over it and then probably ignore it. Posting this sort of stuff for members of the forum to see and argue with you about never leads to good places.

I'll throw in a bit of a brief and general word on "ad hominems" for good measure. We have a rule against insulting other members that incurs a five point infraction, but if you call someone a name as a small part of a heated debate about an actual topic in the moment, you might indeed get away with it (either because the mods shows leniency for context occasionally, or much more likely because the mods just don't thoroughly read every post in real time scouring them for insults). It'd probably be best to think of this like running a red light -- if you do it a couple of times in your life you'll probably be okay, but if you make it a feature of your driving/posting whenever you're behind the wheel/keyboard, you're going to get pulled up enough to face some severe consequences. Bringing up a poster out of the blue in a thread he's not posted in just to insult him, or worse still starting a new thread just to insult someone, is more akin to driving your car into the side of a police station though -- you're not going to get away with that, and "but someone I don't like ran a red light earlier -- either sort out your **** or put me in prison" isn't a great defence.

I suppose in your scenario this post is the red light itself - the official warning to just ****ing stop that people completely ignore before causing a absolute wreck of a thread

 

[Shri]

Most people just leave you ****ing drama queen. Be a man.

 

[Mr Miyagi]

Most people just leave you ****ing drama queen. Be a man.

Aww cute.

Some tart is trying to impress the boys in the yard with expletives.

 

[sledger]

This is more unsightly than the times when I used to whine about my infractions/bans. Really wretched.

 

[cpr]

Theres no whinging about the infraction though beyond the first post, the rest of it is just continuing the name calling and general ****iness that got the infraction in the first place.

Its like pleading not guilty to a public order charge for urinating in the street, then your entire defence being co-ordinated whilst curling out a log in the witness box.

 

[Gnske]

Friendly reminder that there's a fundamental difference between questions about ban announcements and complaints about infractions.

I'm genuinely curious PEWS about the policy where individual mods are apparently barred from discussing with members these issues and instead one has to send a pathetic trivial whinge to the nameless man in the confession box who has an unfortunately unpaid job to read the dirty laundry of an entire forum.

 

[OverratedSanity]

I'm genuinely curious PEWS about the policy where individual mods are apparently barred from discussing with members these issues and instead one has to send a pathetic trivial whinge to the nameless man in the confession box who has an unfortunately unpaid job to read the dirty laundry of an entire forum.

They know their generally horse**** explanations for nonsensical infractions will be called out for what they are if posted here for everyone to see.

 

[Daemon]

Look at the bigger picture.

Keeping the forum atmosphere less toxic is their job. That's more important than getting 100% of all infractions handed out right. Discussing infractions out in the open has probably never led to a good atmosphere.

If you get an infraction, more likely than not you were being a ****. Doesn't matter who started it or whether you deserved 3 points or 8. Just cop it and move on.

 

[the big bambino]

Miyagi's a lot like Fiery isn't he?

fmd! was thinking exactly this.

 

[Gnske]

Look at the bigger picture.

Keeping the forum atmosphere less toxic is their job. That's more important than getting 100% of all infractions handed out right. Discussing infractions out in the open has probably never led to a good atmosphere.

If you get an infraction, more likely than not you were being a ****. Doesn't matter who started it or whether you deserved 3 points or 8. Just cop it and move on.

This post is bait, I hope you get 5 points.

 

[Daemon]

To add to that I think it's ok and perfectly understandable to want to get something off your chest (I know I've done it plenty) which is why mods generally turn a blind eye when we do it in this thread. But when it starts to get toxic I suppose that's where they draw the line.

 

[dontcloseyoureyes]

In other words he is a Volvo driving, wine sipping, sweater wearing stuck up shallow pig, already knew that.

Having spent some time with the man in question I have to unfortunately confirm that he is not this interesting.

Just pull Burgey and ***** into line, or let the forum goto crap.

"don't let the forum go to crap!" says man who's posted here for all of 1.5 months. Or has he?

 

[cnerd123]

#DaemonForMod

I've wanted open discourse on Moderating decisions for a while, but I do think they've become better. They all use warnings a lot more now so you know when to stop, and I really like that. I knew I was treading dangerous waters, and I could even ask what I was going to cop before I did it. And when they told me to stop after that, I did. Before it felt like you copped an infraction, didn't understand why, and then had no way of having it explained to you (I've tried the email channel before and got no response).

They've also allowed us a lot of liberty with ****** posting in this thread, and given us more explanations, which is all good and draws the drama away out of other CW threads.

 

[Prince EWS]

I'm genuinely curious PEWS about the policy where individual mods are apparently barred from discussing with members these issues and instead one has to send a pathetic trivial whinge to the nameless man in the confession box who has an unfortunately unpaid job to read the dirty laundry of an entire forum.

Mods aren't actually barred; we can give details about individual infractions on the forum when we think it might help. It's the members who are actually barred.

But there are effectively three reasons for this. The first two reasons are related to the nature of a very high percentage of the complaints. Rarely do the complaints come in the form of quoting the rules to show how what they posted wasn't against them, but instead just complaints about other members. "Okay I can accept that what I did was maybe worthy of an infraction, but surely this other **** who I hate should've got 400 infractions for the same thing by now if that's how you're viewing it" is basically the crux of most of the complaints we get. Even ignoring the fact that these are naturally very biased takes of the issue and also tend to ignore the 'red light' type of way insults are moderated, this would make dealing with them on-forum a problem for two reasons.

Firstly, whether or not the complainer is correct -- and in fact probably especially if they are -- the members they complain about are just going to argue with them and probably get involved in a ****fight inside the Site Discussion forum, as we've seen in this thread. This doesn't really advance any sort of good debate on moderation either generally or in specific terms, and usually just make the problem worse by heating up the feud.

Secondly, if members have genuine questions to raise, mods can sometimes give better, much more informative answers in private, especially if their gripes do concern other members.

And finally, in a weird sort of cut down way, OS is actually right. Moderating the forum is a big job that pays nothing as it is, and spending hours every day arguing with massive groups of members in SD about each and every individual infraction would just get mentally exhausting and take up way too much time, to the point where it could make us reluctant to give infractions to the best complainers to avoid what would follow. And while less infractions may sound nice to anyone reading this who has copped a ban, it'd also mean we would have been living with some of our less popular, now banned members for a lot longer as well. It's not like we've had many Everyone vs The Mods cases here before either; what usually happens in the worst times is that cliques tend to form, and Group X thinks we've been too harsh on Group X members and too lenient on Group Y members, but Group Y thinks the exact opposite. In this case the mods really can't win, and would end up spending countless hours arguing with a bunch of people no matter which direction they went in. The best way to avoid this is to avoid having these feuds and cliques forming or heating up in the first place, and avoiding the airing of dirty laundry tends to be a good start.

 

[Prince EWS]

"don't let the forum go to crap!" says man who's posted here for all of 1.5 months. Or has he?

Skype Daddy over there has clearly been reading the forum for a very long time. Whether he's been a member in that time under another name or just lurked and joined recently, we don't have any evidence for either way.

 

[dontcloseyoureyes]

Skype Daddy over there has clearly been reading the forum for a very long time. Whether he's been a member in that time under another name or just lurked and joined recently, we don't have any evidence for either way.

These sure are some fiery takes, Cribbapple.

 

[Howe_zat]

Skype Daddy over there has clearly been reading the forum for a very long time. Whether he's been a member in that time under another name or just lurked and joined recently, we don't have any evidence for either way.

 

[Mr Miyagi]

I wonder why unambiguous pricks always feel the need to make up their own psychology of the forum and categorise all the people within into groups that are beneath them, as though that somehow explains their behaviour.

http://www.cricketweb.net/forum/members/*****.html



Aristotle, Book 1

 

[sledger]

Thread still not locked, itstl.