|
This thread is for discussing recent bans. Don't discuss other topics here. Take it to website feedback if you disagree with a ban or want to raise an issue. Keep it civil.NOTE: For those of you who want to find the actual ABL thread where the bans are posted. Please look in here: https://tl.net/forum/closed-threads/ |
On March 02 2013 04:50 KwarK wrote:
We had a long PM exchange in which I argued that a piece of fluff journalism that focused on the basketball player was shit and largely irrelevant to everything.
you close the other thread because the op was terrible. you are of the opinion that the news presented in it is shit. you share all of this with defacer. he makes a new op about the same news which holds up to the general standards, but states that you think it's shit news in it.
this provokes a 30 day ban because he paraphrased your stated opinion, that the news is shit, in such a way that you interpreted it as a critique of your moderation in the previous thread on account of it's shitty OP, but not the shitty news.
do i need to check my reading comprehension? am i looking at this like a dimwit? these are the questions...
|
On March 02 2013 05:25 nunez wrote:Show nested quote +On March 02 2013 04:50 KwarK wrote:
We had a long PM exchange in which I argued that a piece of fluff journalism that focused on the basketball player was shit and largely irrelevant to everything. you close the other thread because the op was terrible. you are of the opinion that the news presented in it is shit. you share all of this with defacer. he makes a new op about the same news which holds up to the general standards, but states that you think it's shit news in it. this provokes a 30 day ban because he paraphrased your stated opinion, that the news is shit, in such a way that you interpreted it as a critique of your moderation in the previous thread on account of it's shitty OP, but not the shitty news. do i need to check my reading comprehension? am i looking at this like a dimwit? these are the questions...
Pretty sure the answer to both questions is yes because you posted this here instead of website feedback.
|
On March 02 2013 05:25 nunez wrote:Show nested quote +On March 02 2013 04:50 KwarK wrote:
We had a long PM exchange in which I argued that a piece of fluff journalism that focused on the basketball player was shit and largely irrelevant to everything. you close the other thread because the op was terrible. you are of the opinion that the news presented in it is shit. you share all of this with defacer. he makes a new op about the same news which holds up to the general standards, but states that you think it's shit news in it. this provokes a 30 day ban because he paraphrased your stated opinion, that the news is shit, in such a way that you interpreted it as a critique of your moderation in the previous thread on account of it's shitty OP, but not the shitty news. do i need to check my reading comprehension? am i looking at this like a dimwit? these are the questions...
Web site feedback is thataway my friend.
|
United States41934 Posts
On March 02 2013 05:28 Cokefreak wrote:Show nested quote +On March 02 2013 05:25 nunez wrote:On March 02 2013 04:50 KwarK wrote:
We had a long PM exchange in which I argued that a piece of fluff journalism that focused on the basketball player was shit and largely irrelevant to everything. you close the other thread because the op was terrible. you are of the opinion that the news presented in it is shit. you share all of this with defacer. he makes a new op about the same news which holds up to the general standards, but states that you think it's shit news in it. this provokes a 30 day ban because he paraphrased your stated opinion, that the news is shit, in such a way that you interpreted it as a critique of your moderation in the previous thread on account of it's shitty OP, but not the shitty news. do i need to check my reading comprehension? am i looking at this like a dimwit? these are the questions... Pretty sure the answer to both questions is yes because you posted this here instead of website feedback.
I'll allow it.
If he was to write about how the modern phenomena of the cult of the celebrity is impacting the way international relations and news reporting are evolving to the point in which a sports player can have a significant diplomatic incident and present views on that issue then that'd be one thing. Instead what he did was grossly simplified and paraphrased a point I made with regard to my actions as a moderator and asked for the general forum to debate it. The opinion that caused me to do an action as a moderator are not up for debate in the general forum, that is a moderation criticism that belongs in website feedback. It was a continuation of a debate we had in private about moderation in the general forum.
|
On March 02 2013 00:46 tomatriedes wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2013 22:19 MasterOfPuppets wrote:On March 01 2013 22:02 imallinson wrote:avilo was just temp banned for 2 days by Waxangel.
That account was created on 2007-11-09 03:19:04 and had 3129 posts.
Reason: don't use LR threads as a podium for balance whine Satiinifi was just temp banned for 2 days by Waxangel.
That account was created on 2010-09-07 22:36:08 and had 163 posts.
Reason: "Same shit different day,hurray blizzard balance team."
no balance whine in LR threads please Looks like some pros wanted to get one last balance whine in before the end of WoL. Can avilo really be considered a "pro" anymore? I mean as far as I know he's not signed on any pro team (and Liquipedia confirms this), and let's face it he was never particularly relevant in the scene, in terms of either results or stream viewership count. :/ He's certainly a pro balance whiner.
What's funny is that what he complained about isn't even a problem rofl.
|
scarlett_is_a_man was just banned by heyoka.
That account was created on 2013-03-02 06:45:35 and had 1 posts.
Reason: Oh you!
anyone else have an austin power's moment when reading the name?
+ Show Spoiler +
|
I just have a facepalm moment.
|
On March 02 2013 06:55 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +scarlett_is_a_man was just banned by heyoka.
That account was created on 2013-03-02 06:45:35 and had 1 posts.
Reason: Oh you! anyone else have an austin power's moment when reading the name? + Show Spoiler +http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WgOIEGz7o_s
Hey look it's this reference again... for like the 9001st time. Movies were pretty funny though, I should probably watch them again in the near future.
On a different note, how bitter does someone have to be to still pull this kind of shit? Who even cares? She's not even hyped as the best thing ever, anymore...
|
Every time I see someone get banned for a comment about Scarlett/LeiYa or a username pertaining to the player, I quietly chortle in my head. Folks don't know to keep certain opinions in their heads and off of the forums. I know it's tempting, but never worth the wrath of the moderation team. It's occasionally humorous what they come up with, however. I'm not sure why I laugh, but I do find it funny anyways. 
|
On March 02 2013 05:36 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On March 02 2013 05:28 Cokefreak wrote:On March 02 2013 05:25 nunez wrote:On March 02 2013 04:50 KwarK wrote:
We had a long PM exchange in which I argued that a piece of fluff journalism that focused on the basketball player was shit and largely irrelevant to everything. you close the other thread because the op was terrible. you are of the opinion that the news presented in it is shit. you share all of this with defacer. he makes a new op about the same news which holds up to the general standards, but states that you think it's shit news in it. this provokes a 30 day ban because he paraphrased your stated opinion, that the news is shit, in such a way that you interpreted it as a critique of your moderation in the previous thread on account of it's shitty OP, but not the shitty news. do i need to check my reading comprehension? am i looking at this like a dimwit? these are the questions... Pretty sure the answer to both questions is yes because you posted this here instead of website feedback. I'll allow it. If he was to write about how the modern phenomena of the cult of the celebrity is impacting the way international relations and news reporting are evolving to the point in which a sports player can have a significant diplomatic incident and present views on that issue then that'd be one thing. Instead what he did was grossly simplified and paraphrased a point I made with regard to my actions as a moderator and asked for the general forum to debate it. The opinion that caused me to do an action as a moderator are not up for debate in the general forum, that is a moderation criticism that belongs in website feedback. It was a continuation of a debate we had in private about moderation in the general forum.
the website feedback choir jumped the gun. who are the dimwits now? maybe those closing questions were intended for you all along.
i read your previous post as you closing a thread for having a unacceptable presentation, but with an acceptable, albeit poor topic in your opinion. then sending defacer to the dungeon for paraphrasing your opinion on the topic in a way you interpreted as a critiscism of the moderation of the thread, not your opinion on the topic.
an important distinction in most cases.
your interpretation of his comment was not immediately clear to me and i wanted you to connect the dots between the one and the other. it seems now that they are intertwined in a way you don't feel comfortable posting, which is a bummer because i was of course hoping for more liquileaks pm cables. i can only see the contours of what went down.
on a related note: in ABL the topic of the moderation that was being questioned is an unrelated topic, but in the actual thread it is the previous topic, which i thought was related. what am i missing here?
|
Man, and I thought I waste a lot of my time. He made a exception for you, he didn't say that was allowed normally.
|
On March 02 2013 07:45 Jaaaaasper wrote:
Man, and I thought I waste a lot of my time. He made a exception for you, he didn't say that was allowed normally.
i don't have any intention of contesting the ban, but it left me confused. what was he actually banned for? was kwark and defacers conversation of such a manner that it would be obvious or was i misreading something. i am assuming that kwark understood this and deemed my post within bounds, his remark notwithstanding. if i am actually pushing my bounds this would however not be a worthwhile pursuit.
i do 'waste a lot of time' on a weekly basis. it's my favourite thing to do.
|
On March 02 2013 07:58 nunez wrote:Show nested quote +On March 02 2013 07:45 Jaaaaasper wrote:
Man, and I thought I waste a lot of my time. He made a exception for you, he didn't say that was allowed normally. i don't have any intention of contesting the ban, but it left me confused. what was he actually banned for? was kwark and defacers conversation of such a manner that it would be obvious or was i misreading something. i am assuming that kwark understood this and deemed my post within bounds, his remark notwithstanding. if i am actually pushing my bounds this would however not be a worthwhile pursuit. i do 'waste a lot of time' on a weekly basis. it's my favourite thing to do.
It has been stated that you can discuss bans, but not heavily comment on moderation here. That is for website feedback or pm's, as it just derails and causes crap when posted in here.
|
On March 02 2013 07:58 nunez wrote:Show nested quote +On March 02 2013 07:45 Jaaaaasper wrote:
Man, and I thought I waste a lot of my time. He made a exception for you, he didn't say that was allowed normally. i don't have any intention of contesting the ban, but it left me confused. what was he actually banned for? was kwark and defacers conversation of such a manner that it would be obvious or was i misreading something. i am assuming that kwark understood this and deemed my post within bounds, his remark notwithstanding. if i am actually pushing my bounds this would however not be a worthwhile pursuit. i do 'waste a lot of time' on a weekly basis. it's my favourite thing to do.
he was banned for discussing moderation issues in a thread unrelated to moderation issues, and not in website feedback despite the fact that he should know better because he has an extensive moderation history. this is not unsurprising, nor is it the first time it has happened (both with lemonhead and other mods). =)
i feel i just repeated what kwark's ban reason said....
|
On March 02 2013 06:55 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +scarlett_is_a_man was just banned by heyoka.
That account was created on 2013-03-02 06:45:35 and had 1 posts.
Reason: Oh you! anyone else have an austin power's moment when reading the name? + Show Spoiler +http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WgOIEGz7o_s
Hahah this made me laugh, thank you!
|
On March 02 2013 08:00 Jaaaaasper wrote:Show nested quote +On March 02 2013 07:58 nunez wrote:On March 02 2013 07:45 Jaaaaasper wrote:
Man, and I thought I waste a lot of my time. He made a exception for you, he didn't say that was allowed normally. i don't have any intention of contesting the ban, but it left me confused. what was he actually banned for? was kwark and defacers conversation of such a manner that it would be obvious or was i misreading something. i am assuming that kwark understood this and deemed my post within bounds, his remark notwithstanding. if i am actually pushing my bounds this would however not be a worthwhile pursuit. i do 'waste a lot of time' on a weekly basis. it's my favourite thing to do. It has been stated that you can discuss bans, but not heavily comment on moderation here. That is for website feedback or pm's, as it just derails and causes crap when posted in here.
yes, exactly. now you get to read between the lines and maybe draw some lines on your own, seperating discussion of bans and heavy commentary of moderation. maybe scrawl out all that which falls in between.
in this scenario i felt it boiled down to my intent. i didn't think i was pushing the boundary because my intent was to ask kwark to clarify what the actual reason for the ban was.
|
On March 02 2013 08:06 nunez wrote:Show nested quote +On March 02 2013 08:00 Jaaaaasper wrote:On March 02 2013 07:58 nunez wrote:On March 02 2013 07:45 Jaaaaasper wrote:
Man, and I thought I waste a lot of my time. He made a exception for you, he didn't say that was allowed normally. i don't have any intention of contesting the ban, but it left me confused. what was he actually banned for? was kwark and defacers conversation of such a manner that it would be obvious or was i misreading something. i am assuming that kwark understood this and deemed my post within bounds, his remark notwithstanding. if i am actually pushing my bounds this would however not be a worthwhile pursuit. i do 'waste a lot of time' on a weekly basis. it's my favourite thing to do. It has been stated that you can discuss bans, but not heavily comment on moderation here. That is for website feedback or pm's, as it just derails and causes crap when posted in here. yes, exactly. now you get to read between the lines and maybe draw some lines on your own, seperating discussion of bans and heavy commentary of moderation. maybe scrawl out all that which falls in between. in this scenario i felt it boiled down to my intent. i didn't think i was pushing the boundary because my intent was to ask kwark to clarify what the actual reason for the ban was.
Then why not PM him?
|
On March 02 2013 08:07 Cokefreak wrote:Show nested quote +On March 02 2013 08:06 nunez wrote:On March 02 2013 08:00 Jaaaaasper wrote:On March 02 2013 07:58 nunez wrote:On March 02 2013 07:45 Jaaaaasper wrote:
Man, and I thought I waste a lot of my time. He made a exception for you, he didn't say that was allowed normally. i don't have any intention of contesting the ban, but it left me confused. what was he actually banned for? was kwark and defacers conversation of such a manner that it would be obvious or was i misreading something. i am assuming that kwark understood this and deemed my post within bounds, his remark notwithstanding. if i am actually pushing my bounds this would however not be a worthwhile pursuit. i do 'waste a lot of time' on a weekly basis. it's my favourite thing to do. It has been stated that you can discuss bans, but not heavily comment on moderation here. That is for website feedback or pm's, as it just derails and causes crap when posted in here. yes, exactly. now you get to read between the lines and maybe draw some lines on your own, seperating discussion of bans and heavy commentary of moderation. maybe scrawl out all that which falls in between. in this scenario i felt it boiled down to my intent. i didn't think i was pushing the boundary because my intent was to ask kwark to clarify what the actual reason for the ban was. Then why not PM him?
i thought it was better suited for this thread. i thought that was obvious considering the post you quoted just now.
edit:
i guess i needn't be so snarky. my point was that you are being overbearing. i am perfectly capable of posting on tl until proven otherwise, i don't need your advice. i am at least capable. you'll have to give me that.
|
On March 01 2013 20:11 Cokefreak wrote:
Well all those bans make it very clear what happened in today's TaeJa vs RorO matches...
And this is why LRs for big games and tournaments are a no go zone.
|
United States41934 Posts
nunez, the ABL is typically used for entertainment value and not as a way for judging, commenting on and criticising moderation. Basically the only acceptable use is for laughing about ban reasons or the stupidity of the banned, not because we ban all criticism but because there are channels for it, such as website feedback or contacting a moderator by PM. A moderator may make an exception, such as I did here to explain why I did it, but unless such an exception is made then I wouldn't risk it. Whether or not it is acceptable is not up to you.
I felt Defacer's comment posed my reasons for moderating as part of the discussion for that topic. Our PM exchange was with regard to my moderation of the topic I closed which was a moderation issue and as such not a topic for the general forum.
If there are any further questions regarding this then feel free to PM me, I consider my reasons thoroughly clarified and if you disagree with them then website feedback is the place to go. Normal ABL rules are reinstated.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/A5fbu2g.jpg)
