Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next

I was thinking more negatively in my post but I think you knew that.

I like your generalizations much better.

   

please keep Fabio out of this conversation.

   

Ya but your not name calling, you're stating a fact

Like I mentioned, if it's directed at the poster and not the issue (BC Lions in this case) then it's different. Sure there will be some grey areas and issues that pop up but that will be up to the mods to discern.

   

don't the rules specify 'personal' attacks?

   

I think it has more to do with the fact that there are a lot veteran posters who have a history between each other and like you mentioned the mods may not feel it necessary to step in all the time particularly if its not affecting others. I also think the mods try not to step in any more than necessary. Over all they do a good job but if we're (CKA) are going to start banning members for the very things that in the past have been over looked then maybe we should take a look at changing the way in which the mods interact and how we enforce the rules.

I think just about everyone will agree things can get a bit silly and that it is time to maybe get things back under control a bit but shouldn't we (or the mods) first look at how the rules will be applied and a time frame in which to start with those changes. I'm sorry I but I don't think that it's fair to simply ban people for things that they did in the past when during that very same time frame others were just as guilty of committing such acts.

Yes I know there was the thread about being more courteous but I don't really count that. Some people started doing things a bit differently but I for one sure didn't notice much of a difference after Trev wrote it. It was business as usual as far as I could tell for most members. Lay out some new rules (or reiterate the old ones), lay down what the new consequences will be, and set a date when you will begin enforcing those rules in the manner you've described. That's only fair particularly when you consider that in the past most of the stuff being brought forward as justification for banning was considered some what acceptable or the rules regarding such behaviour weren't really being enforced in a consistent manner.

As far as the banning of the last few people I personally would like to see those people given a second chance under those conditions. Lay it out to them and give them an opportunity. To do otherwise seems somewhat ..... I'm not sure how to say it ..... rash.

   

perhaps they could come back as lily2, streaker2, and Mbtr2 by registering again?
it would symbolize something more than just a warning to all of us.

   

As it stands now they will not be allowed back. I think if you read Trevor's post carefully, you can tell there was more than just what you read every so often. What you don't see is even more important to us since we have to deal with it. It took ALL the Mods and Trevor over 3 hours yesterday to decide what to do and NONE of it was easy or welcomed by any of us.

   

The general discussion the last time the rules were majorly overhauled largely surrounded that very issue - if people wanted to get into pissing matches with each other, they'd be allowed, providing that both people are willing participants and they aren't interfering with the ability of others to participate in a topic of discussion. The "Flaming Dumpster" was created for that reason - to let the flame wars continue on their own if people wished, just not in the general forum. Mods were only supposed to intervene if someone participating in the discussion reported it if felt they were being harassed, or if they felt others were interfering with their discussion. If you weren't involved in the topic in any way, you were expected to just ignore it.

That never seemed to take hold much after the change, though; the flaming dumpster just turned into a place locked topics were tossed, and members report any post for any reason.

   

if this was a bar, and someone got blacklisted last night for fighting.....today, you wouldn't see anything more than the blacklist.

   

Well I think that the fact that I can't really what all transpired yesterday feeds into my feelings on this issue. I'm still aghast by the whole thing and I don't think I'll ever agree for the simple fact that I don't know all the reasoning behind it. And yes I've read Trev's post and it's still kind of foggy, call me dense .

   

Nope....and probaly never will.

   

If your boss fires someone, you may get the general explanation as to why, "he was fired because he wasn't doing his job".
But you'll never get the hole story behind it unless you were involved in the decision process.
Guess it protects the dignity if the one that got fired.

Same here. Probably there are a lot of things that went on behind the scenes, both before the banning and when it was decided.
Although we'd like to know the whole story, do we really need to know?

   

You can't handle the truth.

   

   

Umm, last I checked this isn't a place of work. The mods aren't my boss and why shouldn't we be given the reason for 3 people being banned? All I can tell is some rules were broken and that MTBR was banned for activity that occured in the past not for anything he had recently posted. And yes I would like to know, if those are the reasons you're going to give then doesn't logic dictate that pehaps shedding some light on the situation would help others be better informed on what is and is not acceptable? This isn't some employee who was sacked for doing something behind the bosses back, this is a public forum so it would only stand to reason that anything MTBR or Lilly were accused of were all ready public information.

What bothers me about it .... well there are a few things ... but mainly the lack of reasoning given. To say someone is a bit of a shit disturber is one thing but that statement could apply to a number of people on this site. Am I a shit disturber? Have I done something in the past that is considered unacceptable and is now on file for future use? Will be banned for openly talking about the issue? I saw Lilly's warning but I have no clue what she said in those posts. Is what I'm saying now crossing the line?

I'm sorry but I think it is relevent and I see no reason why we can't have an open discussion about the matter.

   

Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next