Malfeasance in Moderation: An Evaluation of Kwark - Page 5

On October 25 2012 05:59 Mandini wrote:

He should get a glowing hammer. I nominate pink in honor of this topic.

On October 24 2012 15:10 Hot_Bid wrote:
Here's my reasoning, since you asked for it so nicely. The ban was justified, reasons for ban were correct. You guys then exchange some PMs, and you feel its unfair because the basis of the ban is refuted by you. Unfortunately, simply stating that the ban was incorrect does not make this fact.

You are right in the sense that Kwark could have been nicer in his PMs to you, but the first PM you sent to him justified the tone that he took with you.

If I were the person receiving this paragraph:

...especially after your original ban reason, I'd just perm you. That'd be it.

But since we're so nice and transparent, we're having this discussion in Website Feedback. Judging by the length and frequency of your replies in this thread I feel like you will argue this forever, so I'm just going to say that this is the last post I'm going to write about this topic.

On October 25 2012 07:24 Cokefreak wrote:
You can just leave the site and come back when you've matured a bit, otherwise you won't last long here.

On October 25 2012 07:22 neversummer wrote:


Thanks for your reply. I did, in fact, state WHY I thought the ban was unjustified, then asked him to review my ban, to which he had no knowledge of such responsibility, then dismissed my case altogether without reasoning.

Based upon your initial response in this thread, and this as well, it appears TL is just the "good ole boys" who just look out for one another and have no real intention of creating a set of universal ground rules, which everyone (including mods) must abide by. You've completely ignored my second request, which was to explain how I could be banned for a perceived homophobic statement when Kwark can insult the mentally deficient and physically handicapped without so much as a warning.

I suppose I'll retract my original purpose, since there's no chance of a one-hundred post user to challenge the establishment. Instead, I'll ask for a list of subjects that are bannable and unbannable, so that I may avoid this conflict in the future.

So far here is the list I've created:

Bannable Offenses:
1. Stating opinions which may be perceived as homophobic

Unbannable Offenses:
1. Insulting the mentally deficient
2. Insulting the physically handicapped

Edit: It appears the vast majority of contributors to this thread have completely missed the purpose of my post. It is NOT to exonerate myself. It is to examine the behavior and moderation of Kwark.

On October 25 2012 07:38 Cokefreak wrote:

We already examined the behavior and moderation of KwarK on this case and the general consensus and more importantly the staff's opinion was that everything KwarK did was completely justifiable and you're just digging a deeper hole for yourself with this, just swallow your pride and let it go.

On October 25 2012 07:22 neversummer wrote:


Thanks for your reply. I did, in fact, state WHY I thought the ban was unjustified, then asked him to review my ban, to which he had no knowledge of such responsibility, then dismissed my case altogether without reasoning.

Based upon your initial response in this thread, and this as well, it appears TL is just the "good ole boys" who just look out for one another and have no real intention of creating a set of universal ground rules, which everyone (including mods) must abide by. You've completely ignored my second request, which was to explain how I could be banned for a perceived homophobic statement when Kwark can insult the mentally deficient and physically handicapped without so much as a warning.

I suppose I'll retract my original purpose, since there's no chance of a one-hundred post user to challenge the establishment. Instead, I'll ask for a list of subjects that are bannable and unbannable, so that I may avoid this conflict in the future.

So far here is the list I've created:

Bannable Offenses:
1. Stating opinions which may be perceived as homophobic

Unbannable Offenses:
1. Insulting the mentally deficient
2. Insulting the physically handicapped

Edit: It appears the vast majority of contributors to this thread have completely missed the purpose of my post. It is NOT to exonerate myself. It is to examine the behavior and moderation of Kwark.

On October 25 2012 07:41 dAPhREAk wrote:

actually, i will agree with you about the good ol' boys group and different standards applying to different people. its relatively clear that low post users are moderated more heavily than high post users, and if you are a part of the good ol' boys network (admins, mods, old ass users, progamers), you can almost get away with murder. the only problem with your objection to this double standard is that (1) they dont give a shit, and (2) they say in their tl.net commandments (or whatever they call it) that they can totally do the double standard and they don't give a fuck-all to your objections. so, although you made a valid point philosophically, it means nothing because their house, their rules.

On October 25 2012 07:43 Cokefreak wrote:

Fine, I resign...for you have bested me in the great battle of internet wits oh great neversummer, how can I ever get past such humiliation!

+ Show Spoiler +

On October 25 2012 07:22 neversummer wrote:


Thanks for your reply. I did, in fact, state WHY I thought the ban was unjustified, then asked him to review my ban, to which he had no knowledge of such responsibility, then dismissed my case altogether without reasoning.

Based upon your initial response in this thread, and this as well, it appears TL is just the "good ole boys" who just look out for one another and have no real intention of creating a set of universal ground rules, which everyone (including mods) must abide by. You've completely ignored my second request, which was to explain how I could be banned for a perceived homophobic statement when Kwark can insult the mentally deficient and physically handicapped without so much as a warning.

I suppose I'll retract my original purpose, since there's no chance of a one-hundred post user to challenge the establishment. Instead, I'll ask for a list of subjects that are bannable and unbannable, so that I may avoid this conflict in the future.

So far here is the list I've created:

Bannable Offenses:
1. Stating opinions which may be perceived as homophobic

Unbannable Offenses:
1. Insulting the mentally deficient
2. Insulting the physically handicapped

On October 25 2012 07:48 Myles wrote:

You clearly have no idea how TL works. You should have read the commandments thread before assuming people on TL are equals and everyone gets treated 'fairly'. It's never worked like that, and it likely never will.

TL also doesn't abide by 'black and white' or 'zero tolerance' rules, except martyring. However, there is something almost as hardline; intolerance of opinions that can be perceived as bigoted. So unless it's written more eloquently than Shakespeare(I'm generalizing here, writing something in iambic pentameter isn't what I mean), you're likely to be warned/banned. And if you write something offensive and get flamed for it(by anyone) they're not going to be treated the same. I've told a person that 'You're a fucking piece of shit' and 'So go die a fire' because of they thought terrorism on civilians was justified. Had the mods disagreed that it was justified I would have been warned/banned, as I was in another case when I called someone an idiot. If the mods think you deserved what you got, then that's how it going to be.

I already agreed that I think Kwark goes too far sometimes, but this is an old boys club and he has been a longtime member that has earned the respect of far more people around here than you or I.

On October 25 2012 07:36 JBright wrote:


http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=17883#cmd06

You're not wrong that veteran members get preferential treatment. They have earned their positions by contributing for a long time. When someone new comes along and thinks s/he knows how to run TL better than the staff members, the veterans will put them in their place. Some mods go about it in a nicer manner but the message is still the same - you get warned/banned for writing stupid stuff.

edit: No one knows how you think. But if you write something that for some reason the majority of the people reading it took it to be homophobic, then it just means you should have written it in a non-ambiguous way.

On October 25 2012 07:51 neversummer wrote:


I suppose it is characteristic of the sheep to blindly follow the herd.

On October 25 2012 07:51 neversummer wrote:


I suppose it is characteristic of the sheep to blindly follow the herd.