Forums-->Off-game forum-->
<<|<|19|20|21|22|23|24|25|26|27|28|29|>|>>
| Author | Discussion polygon: LWM Staff - Moderators |
|---|
Actually, as it happens, I think a 2 month ban *is* excessive. Then again, in the past we have seen that sometimes excessive bans are reversed by other Mods (like when Kotrins 3 day ban against DEATHisNEAR was reversed, for example). Perhaps a more senior Mod would care to do so in this case, if they believe that the ban is excessive?
But then again there have been *many* other people that have reported that situation.
I'm reporting what I believe to be mishandling of thread movements by Pang. There is no reason we cannot all report what we perceive to be flaws with the actions of our Moderators, is there?
I would also like to, once again, point out that if Pang had acted properly in his capacity as a Moderator, then Queen_Amanda wouldn't have even had the opportunity to ban "cooum".
Finally, DAn-Panic. It seems you just can't help yourself but follow in others footsteps. Much like Kotrins favourite trick was to take a quote from somewhere else and mis-attribute it to me, you have chosen to simply misquote my words. In post # 460, you claim I said you guys do better job then me at showing to everyone how faulty they are at using rules at their own benefits or benefits of clanmates. The closest to this mangling of my words that I can find is I must say that Kotrin did a better job of trying to obfuscate the subject than you appear to be doing.
Or perhaps I am mistaken? I would be glad if you could quote me where I said what you claim I said. You will notice that at least I have the good grace to show when I have quoted someone (even myself!), frequently providing the post number in the process. I would consider it a personal favor if you can direct me to whichever post it was that I said what you claim I said.
Grunge | The longer this thread lasts the funnier it becomes. Grunge "putting things into perspective" and comparing a 3 days ban to a 60 days one. A mere factor of twenty :D
I'm comforted by the idea that a fair and balanced person like Grunge would have held the same appeasing tone should *I* had been giving an undue 60 days penalty. I'm sure. | Regarding the abuse of power allegations currently leveled at Queen Amanda...
The two examples cited in post #438 are both, in my opinion, good examples of a mod clearly crossing the line into abusive moderation. Based on other experiences with QA in WGW forums, I find neither to be surprising but rather consistent with her previous actions there, which for obvious reasons I cannot show here. Despite that, those actions on our internal forums, combined with what I see her doing now align with a moderator who is unable to accept criticism, who will not be questioned, and who if cornered will storm off in a fit of pique rather than explain her actions. That was unfortunate behavior on private forums, but here where she has power... instead of storming off in a fit of pique, she can simply wield the ban hammer and make the other person go away... that is truly dangerous.
In the case of the comments by ZenoMX, where he claimed corruption, I would agree that this is an insult... however, the existence of this very thread shows that such statements and accusations are not only allowed, they were welcomed by Arctic. Several people in this thread have leveled similar accusations at Kotrin, Pang, and Faithbringer. While worded perhaps slightly differently, the implication of corruption was still quite clear. So I would contend that ZenoMX is not guilty of insulting a mod as much as he is guilty of posting his thoughts in the wrong thread.
In the case of cooum, the ban is nearly indefensible. The same statement could have been made in this thread by cooum and he would probably, by Arctic's rules regarding this thread have been left alone. So he essentially received a 2 month ban for posting in the wrong place. That, in my mind, is beyond excessive and borders on insanity.
But, it remains consistent with the behavior previously witnessed by Queen Amanda. In my opinion, she lacks the nuanced judgement, emotional maturity, and stability of personality necessary to be a successful moderator in our community and I therefore ask for an official investigation by Arctic or the administration into her behavior. | In what way did I compare the bans. I showed that another excessive ban had been "relieved" in the past by a senior Moderator. The ban currently under discussion seems to be considered excessive. I mentioned that there is a way to relieve this current excessive ban.
By all means Kotrin, highlight the part of my post that makes the comparison.
Once again you are trying to obfuscate the issue by trying to create issues that don't really exist.
Peronsally, I think that Forum Rule 2.1 should be given some consideration in this thread. The user takes complete responsibility for the information he or she posts in forum messages.
When people deliberately *misrepresent* (that's a nice word that also means lying, boys and girls) what other people have said, perhaps they should receive a short forum ban to teach them to keep the falsehoods to a minimum.
I would challenge Kotrin to show exactly where I make the comparison. I would also like Dan-panic to show the post where I have written what he claims that I have written.
Otherwise I would kindly ask them to try using the truth, just for a change.
Grunge | Oh dear Slynky. So you think Arctic welcomes insults to Moderators? In the case of the comments by ZenoMX, where he claimed corruption, I would agree that this is an insult... however, the existence of this very thread shows that such statements and accusations are not only allowed, they were welcomed by Arctic.
Perhaps you should review Artics post when he originally opened this thread.
This topic will not fall under rule 1.5 of the forum rules, you are free to discuss moderators' actions; nevertheless, messages containing flame, foul language and other improper content will still be severely moderated.
If anyone had directly insulted a Moderator in this thread previously, you can be sure that the post would have been appropriately Moderated, as has happened time-to-time in this thread.
Grunge | | Come on Grunge... don't play semantic games. In post #461 you referenced both the 60 day and the 3 day ban as excessive. By doing so in the same paragraph you created the implicit understanding of a comparison. A paragraph, by common understanding, is a single thought or stream of thought so the concurrence of these two statements within a paragraph implies comparison. If that implication was not your intention, perhaps instead of accusing others of misrepresenting your statements, you could consider that your intention was not clearly conveyed. I also read your statement as a comparison, simply because of the way in which it was structured. By suggesting a similar path for remediation, you imply some level of equality between the events. | I do like the new un-modded Kotrin :P
Anyway, I agree with Kotrin, I believe that QA is abusing her power, two month ban for upsetting her is kind of outrageous IMO.
I am also wondering if something is going on with the mods... Don't mods usually get a trial period to make sure that they aren't giving 2 month bans?
Anyway, good luck in your campaign Kotrin, you have my support :) | Grunge,
I didn't say Arctic welcomed insults, I said he welcomed such statements and accusations as "corruption". I was referring specifically to the word corruption, and I apologize if I failed to adequately convey that. This thread does welcome reports of corruption, abuse of power, etc. That is what
I was trying to say. I therefore contend that ZenoMX's use of the word corruption was allowed, IF it were posted in this thread. I also consider the accusation of abusing power to be insulting, as it can in many common uses be considered analogous to corruption, however this phrase has been tossed about within this thread very frequently.
Again, apologies for not clearly conveying my thoughts in my previous post regarding corruption. | Actually, as it happens, I think a 2 month ban *is* excessive. Then again, in the past we have seen that sometimes excessive bans are reversed by other Mods (like when Kotrins 3 day ban against DEATHisNEAR was reversed, for example). Perhaps a more senior Mod would care to do so in this case, if they believe that the ban is excessive?
This is the paragraph you are talking about?
In the first sentence I state that I think a 2 month ban is excessive. In the second I state that excessive bans in the past have been reversed, and I give an example of a case where an excessive ban was reversed. In the final sentence I ask a senior Mod to relieve the ban if they find it to be excessive.
Where is the comparison that I make between Kotrins ban and Queen_Amandas ban?
Grunge | People can abuse power without being corrupt. For example, a Parking Inspector could selectively apply fines only to expensive cars, because he believed the owners more than capable of paying the fines.
This doesn't gain the Parking Inspector any extra money or power. But it is, nonetheless, an abuse of power.
I don't think any of the Moderators employed their powers for their own direct benefit. I do think that some of them used their powers inappropriately on an infrequent basis, possibly for their own personal satisfaction.
Grunge | And I would like to ask who is playing the semantic games. You might be able to claim that I have misunderstood what you were intending to say, which is a potentially valid claim.
But Dan-Panic certainly appears to have *deliberately* misrepresented what I have said in the recent past. Once again, perhaps I have misunderstood what he was saying, but I am simply unable to find the words he claims I have written. I would be very happy for him to prove me wrong.
I think Kotrin might be hard pressed to make anyone believe that his previous effort of "misunderstanding" my questions wasn't deliberate (posts # 262 to 370). Clearly misrepresenting words as mine when they obviously belonged to someone else for example (post # 363).
Grunge | Post number # 271, paragraph 3, Brackets before the end of the first sentence should read "(posts # 363 to 370)."
Grunge | You are very articulate and therefore I assume you are aware that it is not possible to point out an implicit comparison, as opposed to an explicit comparison which could be pointed to. I stated that you made an implicit comparison. We both know it's quite easy, with the written word, to imply something without explicitly saying it. Writer's use this tool all the time to guide a reader's perception toward an understanding that the writer wishes to convey. I use it and I've seen you use it, and many others as well. To ask me to point out an explicit example of an implied idea is disingenuous.
Ok, corruption and abuse of power are not synonymous. I agree, but they are often analogous as I stated. I would also agree that some former mods used their power inappropriately in the past, and that was bad. Now I see a current staff mod possibly doing the same thing and that is also bad. That's what I'm trying to call attention to. | *Sigh*. Typing too fast.
Post number # 471, paragraph 3, Brackets before the end of the first sentence should read "(posts # 363 to 370)."
Grunge | You put under the same foot a 3 days ban and a 60 days one, while labeling them both "excessive".
A more factual depiction of these two bans would be calling the 3 days one "excessive" while the 60 days one "MUCHO MUCHO GRANDE VERY (x3) EXCESSIVE"
Something like that. Do you spot the subtle difference?
Now, I'd like you to blather for a dozen posts regarding Queen_Amanda's abuse of powers - just for consistency - if you dare. But I have the impression you won't. | | LOL - I do the same all the time. I get lost in a stream of thought when writing and end up messing up minor details. Fingers and brain in a race... fingers usually outpace the brain. | Well, I guess it depends on your basis for comparison.
*Warning! Warning! What follow is an honest-to-God comparison.*
Someone receives a 60 day ban for an obvious, honest-to-god Forum Rule infringement = Excessive.
Someone receives a 3 day ban for a manufactured Forum infringement, not really supported by the rules = Excessive.
Excessive=Excessive
*Comparison has finished. Thanks for your attention.*
See Kotrin, I can grossly exaggerate for the purpose of theatre and emphasis too! (Hope I don't have to do this too often)
The *length* of the ban might not be equivalent, but when you factor in the surrounding circumstances I would have to say that both Bans appear excessive.
No-one seems to be disputing that the post Queen_Amanda penalised was a Forum Rule infringement.
There has been a great deal of discussion regarding whether the Topic Title issue was actually ever a real Forum Rule offense. Even when queried, Mods were unwilling or unable to provide even the most simple guidelines. Certainly Sven91 tried to make it a rule retroactively. A 3 day ban for something that wasn't even as over-the-top as other Topic Titles in the same forum that didn't receive a warning in the same time-frame? Is this not excessive?
A 3 day ban for essentially nothing. Compared with a 60 day ban for an actual Forum Rule infringement. The numbers may not be comparable, but the results are. Both are excessive IMO. (Another actual comparison boys and girls!)
However, I was reporting the improper actions of a Moderator when this thread was once again de-railed by Dan-Panic, Kotrin and others. In fact the person that started making comparisons between bans was Kotrin in post # 457. He repeats this in post # 462. Post # 475 is probably a continuation of this tactic. I would like to step away from the inconsequential non-issue of comparisons.
This thread is about Moderator actions. I'll try to get this thread back on track by asking "Does anyone actually think that Pang moving those threads was appropriate Moderator behaviour?"
Grunge | And, the 2nd on-topic moderator abuse question(s)...
Did Queen Amanda overstep her bounds?
Was the 2 month ban excessive?
Was posting a comment that would likely have been allowed in this thread worthy of a 2 month ban merely because it occurred in the wrong place?
Was a ban for using the word corrupted warranted? It also would seem to have been allowed in this thread, would it not?
Why did she chat ban Sven? (this was asked earlier, but I've seen no answer) | @Slynky. The fact that this thread exists, means that anyone could argue that taking a dig at a mod was just a mispost and thus should be considered a small infringement. That's just silly. Post here, or don't post mod criticism at all.
I also think 2 months is pretty harsh. The only question is, how many bans has he had for that behaviour before? If it's a lot, then it may be appropriate. | I don't think Queen_Amanda overstepped her bounds. I still believe that a penalty for the thread was appropriate. At the very least it was a Forum Rule 1.5 violation. Please note the way the post wasn't deleted out of hand, as has happened in the past.
I personally believe the 2 month ban was excessive. However I don;t know the circumstances surronding the penalty. Perhaps cooum is a habitual reoffender or Illegal Multi. That could certainly explain what seems to be an excessive Forum ban. Perhaps Queen_Amanda simply applied a penalty of Months that was intended to be days? Has anyone actually asked?
Posts in CaA that would be allowed anywhere else are deleted all the time. If cooum can;t take the time to learn the rules so he knows the right place to post, he deserves to receive a penalty.
I don't know that calling someone corrupt in this thread would be permitted. It would surely result in at least a small penalty ban. Using the word corrupt may not necessarily be a problem 'though. Otherwise several posts could be a problem, including # 478. And this one. :P
I have no idea why Sven91 was banned from chat.
Grunge |
<<|<|19|20|21|22|23|24|25|26|27|28|29|>|>>Back to topics list
|
