Banned from Games Forum

Talliesin

CiaranC wrote:

An indefinite ban for such a piffling infringement is laughable

It's not a piffling infringement, it's a direct and repeated contravention.

oscarBravo

Actually, there's an interesting juxtaposition of points:

Arabel wrote:

Here its becoming too much like school.

CiaranC wrote:

...some moderators see themselves as police instead of janitors...

I wonder how many people believe that schools would benefit from the removal of disciplinary procedures, to be replaced instead by an increase in janitorial staff? I mean, why bother enforcing rules, as long as there's someone there to clean up the mess afterwards...?

CiaranC

This is not a school, its a public discussion forum...

Tar.Aldarion

oh nice reply,how did that answer his point.

Talliesin

No, it's a private discussion forum, open to the public.

oscarBravo

CiaranC wrote:

This is not a school, its a public discussion forum...

But actually "discussing" things is beneath you, yeah?

Draupnir

Jeez, this got going big time!!

All I was trying to point out was that common sense should prevail in all cases. A topic shouldnt instantly considered off topic, just because there is somewhere more directly related to its content. Granted, very off topic stuff, rugby in the soccer forum, pets in the motors forum etc. are darn right obvious and if bans for off topic threads is the way you wanna run it, then these are fine circumstances to use the rules in.

However, I think in a situation where someone is talking about a new forum for a game in the games forum, common sense should prevail. Its a games topic of sorts, so a lock and info. remark to the user would do the trick.

In this case, it just almost seemed to me like Amp banned the guy because he could not because it was entirely necessary.

CiaranC

Talliesin wrote:

No, it's a private discussion forum, open to the public.

Thanks Captain Semantics!

Tar.Aldarion wrote:

oh nice reply,how did that answer his point.

It answered it by pointing out that the analogy was flawed...

Tar.Aldarion

no his point was that you see mods as people who are there to clean up your messes, they are not

CiaranC

1. I dont create 'messes'.
2. Mods are responsible for cleaning up 'messes'.

oscarBravo

CiaranC wrote:

Thanks Captain Semantics!

It's not a semantic difference, it's a substantive one.

CiaranC wrote:

It answered it by pointing out that the analogy was flawed...

In other words, you found an excuse to duck out of actually discussing the issue.

When you have something to contribute besides pointless sniping, let us know.

oscarBravo

CiaranC wrote:

Mods are responsible for cleaning up 'messes'.

...and good mods proactively work to prevent messes from happening. If this upsets the timewasters who enjoy creating work for others, tough.

Tar.Aldarion

CiaranC wrote:

2. Mods are responsible for cleaning up 'messes'.

sure they do it,but they are meant to be there to like,moderate what you say.ie enforce the rules not clean up after idiots.so bannage.

ecksor

Arabel wrote:

I'll try not use them in my own posts but I was alwasy under the impression that a good example works downwards (i.e. mods set an example and ordinary posters see that as the way to post here) Maybe I'm wrong, maybe ordinary posters have to set the example and mods will follow, but I highly doubt that.

I think you're missing my point. Condescension and arrogance on this forum are up to the admins to decide action upon, and up to now I haven't acted on any of it. I'd just rather you acknowledge the double standard if you're going to preach with any sort of conviction.

But on a side note, is there any sort of code of conduct that mods should abide by or is it assumed that they will not abuse their power?

There's a few general guidelines, but in the end each moderator has their own personal style and that shapes each forum. Users tend to react if they feel they've been harshly treated, sometimes in private in which case they usually get a private response or sometimes in public, like here, in which case they get a public response and not always from the admins. The case here hasn't really been put very well though and on balance the user did break the rules and therefore got a ban.

CiaranC

oscarBravo wrote:

It's not a semantic difference, it's a substantive one.

It is a semantic difference in the context of the discussion. Boards provides a forum for people to share ideas, through posting opinions. That is not analogous to a school environment.

oscarBravo wrote:

When you have something to contribute besides pointless sniping, let us know.

Ok, heres the appropriate action for such a minor infringement as this.

- Point out to the poster that their thread contravenes the charter.
- Move the thread to the appropriate section.
- Tell the poster to read the charter, and that further breaches will result in more strict action, possibly including a ban.

Simple really.

ecksor

CiaranC banned. This thread isn't going to remain open long. Neither side are really making a case in such a way that that prompts any sympathy from me but it boils down to a clearly stated rule being broken and the user getting banned: Everyday occurance but it doesn't usually prompt 100+ posts of argument.

Dinner

Your right. Nothing would change anyway. Probably best to lock it soon.

ecksor

You're still doing it!

Thread locked.