|
On March 29 2014 05:19 DeepElemBlues wrote:
is being the typical flamebaiting bitch you've been all thread.
User was warned for this post
who gave this warning?
why isn't it a ban? look at palemans post and look at debs two posts.
On March 14 2014 04:11 JBright wrote:
I'm pretty sure PaleMan got stricter moderation because he already got warned and banned multiple times in the EuroMaidan thread - 3 bans and 2 warnings before this one from my count.
teleblubby
The action on him was significantly more severe given the repeat nature in such a short amount of time. Ie, clearly he isn't heeding the warnings we are giving him.
lol.
|
On March 30 2014 05:50 nunez wrote:Show nested quote +On March 29 2014 05:19 DeepElemBlues wrote:
is being the typical flamebaiting bitch you've been all thread.
User was warned for this post who gave this warning? why isn't it a ban? look at palemans post and look at debs two posts. Show nested quote +On March 14 2014 04:11 JBright wrote:
I'm pretty sure PaleMan got stricter moderation because he already got warned and banned multiple times in the EuroMaidan thread - 3 bans and 2 warnings before this one from my count. Show nested quote +teleblubby
The action on him was significantly more severe given the repeat nature in such a short amount of time. Ie, clearly he isn't heeding the warnings we are giving him. lol.
Correct me if I'm wrong, mods, but the way I understand it, moderator actions are generally doled out on an individual basis. By that, I mean different moderators will issue different actions depending on their involvement in a thread, their personal judgment, etc. It could very well be that the moderator who warned DEB was not very active in the thread and simply acted on a random report, preventing him from grasping the context and realizing DEB's past behavior (if any; I haven't followed the thread either).
I feel DEB definitely deserved a warning for his inflammatory remark in that post. I'm not so certain he deserved a ban; you may be right, but I also wouldn't be so quick to accuse incompetence from the staff for not issuing said ban. It's fine to call for a second opinion, but does it really need to be as snarky as you make it sound?
|
Aotearoa39261 Posts
Nunez, cut the snark or we'll send you on a trip to disneyland. I'll look into this, I must admit I haven't paid much attention to this thread so it may take some time to resolve things.
|
1001 YEARS KESPAJAIL22272 Posts
On March 30 2014 09:30 Archas wrote:Show nested quote +On March 30 2014 05:50 nunez wrote:On March 29 2014 05:19 DeepElemBlues wrote:
is being the typical flamebaiting bitch you've been all thread.
User was warned for this post who gave this warning? why isn't it a ban? look at palemans post and look at debs two posts. On March 14 2014 04:11 JBright wrote:
I'm pretty sure PaleMan got stricter moderation because he already got warned and banned multiple times in the EuroMaidan thread - 3 bans and 2 warnings before this one from my count. teleblubby
The action on him was significantly more severe given the repeat nature in such a short amount of time. Ie, clearly he isn't heeding the warnings we are giving him. lol. Correct me if I'm wrong, mods, but the way I understand it, moderator actions are generally doled out on an individual basis. By that, I mean different moderators will issue different actions depending on their involvement in a thread, their personal judgment, etc. It could very well be that the moderator who warned DEB was not very active in the thread and simply acted on a random report, preventing him from grasping the context and realizing DEB's past behavior (if any; I haven't followed the thread either). I feel DEB definitely deserved a warning for his inflammatory remark in that post. I'm not so certain he deserved a ban; you may be right, but I also wouldn't be so quick to accuse incompetence from the staff for not issuing said ban. It's fine to call for a second opinion, but does it really need to be as snarky as you make it sound?
Borderline posts and posts that require context are always discussed before acted upon. Only straight forward reports get actioned or non actioned immediately. Most of the time the mod with the most experience and involvement in the thread has a great say in the situation since he knows what's up. Mods don't just action any report they stumble upon.
|
i will make an attempt at curbing snark, it's an indicator of my frustration with teletubby, jbright and moonbear.
hell hath no fury like a newblet warned (/ banned).
|
Lalalaland34507 Posts
If you're frustrated with us, think of how frustrated we must be with that thread.
|
On March 19 2014 02:44 Zealously wrote:
I'm reasonably sure that the Ten Commandments make it very clear that moderation on TL is not necessarily unbiased (besides, there isn't a person anywhere who is), lending favours to older and/or contributing members.
Paleman created his account in 2002.
A mod note at the top of a page reads 'I understand that this is a touchy subject but please keep the personal attacks and insults out. Any attacks will be actioned from page 83 onwards.' And yet a post that starts with 'that you're a contemptible human being' and then proceeds to belittle, mock and throw out someones opinion just because they belong to another race/nation somehow gets a warning? It's racist and discriminatory and he has been personally attacking people since he (or she) join TL.
I would also love an explanation about PaleMan's banned post. He has made some pretty shit posts but his answer to DEB's obvious flame-baiting hardly deserves the disproportionate punishment compared to the flame-baiting.
On March 30 2014 19:07 Firebolt145 wrote:
If you're frustrated with us, think of how frustrated we must be with that thread.
I agree that the General forum is the least pleasant place on TL 
|
@firebolt yes, and i hope the feeling is mutual from the specific mods i am irked with, that's the point.
i said earlier i think the moderation in the thread has been good (besides this).
@zeo according to teletubby to me in pm he was banned for nationbashing.
|
On March 30 2014 19:55 nunez wrote:
@firebolt yes, and i hope the feeling is mutual from the specific mods i am irked with, that's the point.
i said earlier i think the moderation in the thread has been good (besides this).
@zeo according to teletubby to me in pm he was banned for nationbashing.
no one cares about the russian opinion of british and american historians
no one cares about the russian opinion of british and american historians
Looks like nation bashing and discrimination to me. I don't know why people can't debate without resorting to petty personal attacks, I've lost count of the amount of times I've been personally attacked in that thread. Its like people are physically unable to listen to other peoples opinions and actually respond in a calm manner without being ganged up on.
I've never reported anyone, much less someone I'm having a heated discussion with. If they resort to name calling and spreading hate speech they have already lost. Unfairness though and double standards are something I am vehemently against, I feel that the TL mod staff have done well in that thread but maybe a tougher stance should be taken regarding the mod note. Maybe change it, write it in a larger font and red letters. Personal attacks are unacceptable.
|
Russian Federation1953 Posts
On March 30 2014 19:51 zeo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 19 2014 02:44 Zealously wrote:
I'm reasonably sure that the Ten Commandments make it very clear that moderation on TL is not necessarily unbiased (besides, there isn't a person anywhere who is), lending favours to older and/or contributing members. Paleman created his account in 2002.
huh, i was a member since teamliquid.cjb,net
i bet some mods wasn't even born when i started to post on TL
somehow i'm a guest here and they are "the house" - funny stuff
|
Osaka27179 Posts
On March 30 2014 20:12 PaleMan wrote:Show nested quote +On March 30 2014 19:51 zeo wrote:On March 19 2014 02:44 Zealously wrote:
I'm reasonably sure that the Ten Commandments make it very clear that moderation on TL is not necessarily unbiased (besides, there isn't a person anywhere who is), lending favours to older and/or contributing members. Paleman created his account in 2002. huh, i was a member since teamliquid.cjb,net i bet some mods wasn't even born when i started to post on TL somehow i'm a guest here and they are "the house" - funny stuff
You and nunez are so passive aggressive that it makes me not want to read through the problem and just remove it altogether. Mods have a responsibility to do their job, and you have a responsibility to help them. Don't treat people like crap and you will get better results.
|
the responses i have gotten from moderators bar zatic have left unsatisfactory explanations and then promptly left.
the post that spawned this thread is a menacing insult, so is the other post at the top of this page, yet you chastize me and paleman for being passive agressive to the point where you can't be bothered to fullfill your responsibility.
is me getting annoyed that unreasonable? mispelling teletubby is overly dickish, i will admit, but besides that i think my passive agressiveness have been kept to reasonable levels, and i have been fairly overt and precise with my complaints. i also admitted to my gripes with jbright, teletubby and moonbear might be colored by those 3 actioning me in the past (not that i carry that much of a grudge, and any fuss was made in good spirits).
but you will admit that when deb gets another warning for another explicit remark (way more explicit than anyone else in the thread, besides 'fuck you' rant a guy was banned for), the previous explanations about paleman getting harsher treatment because of previous moderation in the same thread look silly.
|
Osaka27179 Posts
I admit nothing. As an outside observer looking into your posting, I just see you being a jerk. Stop being a jerk. How hard is this? Receiving an explanation that you don't find satisfactory does not give you license to be a dick.
|
On March 30 2014 21:19 Manifesto7 wrote:
I admit nothing. As an outside observer looking into your posting, I just see you being a jerk. Stop being a jerk. How hard is this?
Nunez has just has his jimmies rustled the past few days here. He is already calming down, I've been warned in that thread for debunking a poll as simple disinformation, its not a nice feeling and it happened to nunez too. He has let the trolls get to him, which is what they wanted to do all along, for him to get himself banned because of them. Is it a nice feeling to always get the short end of the stick only because you defend your justified position against an endless stream of personal attacks? No, but backing down to the people who only resort to personal attacks and hate speech is even worse.
The point of this thread is that is it acceptable to call someone a contemptible human being in a thread that has a mod note saying any personal attacks will be actioned and get only warned for it. Then proceed to say 'being the typical flamebaiting bitch you've been all thread', and again only get warned for it while others are being banned and warned for far less in the thread.
|
i already make efforts to be a decent poster, but i don't mind feedback, and yes, i was being overly dickish, but you, the outside observer, can take it to nunez feedback thread.
this topic is not about me, it's about biased moderation. a more important topic than your personal feelings towards me or paleman. if you, like you say, can't see past that, you will, no, you must admit that you are excluding yourself from contributing positively to this thread.
edit: kadaver closed it, but you can always pm me.
|
Osaka27179 Posts
Well, now you've learned that even when you have an important topic to talk about, going about it in a poor way doesn't get you the results you might have hoped for! TL.net, providing a forum for personal growth since 2002.
I'll lock this now to save you from yourself. PM me directly the next time you have a problem.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
