Originally posted by bbarrThanks for the advice ... or are you a moderator providing an official warning ?
A friendly word of advice: If you keep on insulting the moderators, you'll be banned.
Frankly, I consider it cowardly and insulting that the list of questions remain unanswered ... but I will be wary not to be directly insulting myself.
Originally posted by Sambo69No, I'm not a moderator, and this is not an official warning. I've been playing here long enough to know that:
Thanks for the advice ... or are you a moderator providing an official warning ?
Frankly, I consider it cowardly and insulting that the list of questions remain unanswered ... but I will be wary not to be directly insulting myself.
1) Belgianfreak is a really reasonable guy.
2) Moderators generally do not respond to public calls for explanations or justifications.
3) There is a good reason for (2): those who think themselves the victims of bias are never satisfied with the explanations or justifications that moderators provide, because they will be able to excavate from the forums other posts that weren't moderated that were as bad or worse than their own moderated post. So, instead of engaging in a process of endless debate, moderators here keep fairly quiet about their decisions.
4) In the vast majority of cases, those who are banned here could have made whatever point they were after in a manner that would not have resulted in their banning, and were aware prior to the ban of the type of behavior that would get them banned.
5) This site is not a democracy, and there is no right to free speech here. There are norms of freedom of speech here, but it would be a mistake to think that you or anybody else has some legitimate claim on the admins or moderators to provide you with an explanation or justification for their behavior.
6) The best way to bring issues such as these to the attention of the admins or the moderators is via the site feedback function or via personal message (in those cases where you know which moderator was responsible for the travesty of justice in question).
Originally posted by Sambo69If STANG was given any kind of warning about (a) repeatedly posting the same thing, or (b) posting material some people might find offensive, then frankly it doesn't matter whether he was specifically warned about that picture or not.
I saw STANG's protest against the killing of 16 innocent Afghans ... before BelgianFreak deleted it. If I remember correctly, I then protested and STANG messaged me. I'm not only protesting against the censorship and I'm sure others don't get banned for what appears to have been restrained and compliant action in STANG's case.
If you're wondering if I'm S ...[text shortened]... ys are raising it as a diversion.
Still no answers from BelgianFreak. What a coward !
Originally posted by bbarrYou yourself admit that there are exceptions. Have you read the first post ?
No, I'm not a moderator, and this is not an official warning. I've been playing here long enough to know that:
1) Belgianfreak is a really reasonable guy.
2) Moderators generally do not respond to public calls for explanations or justifications.
3) There is a good reason for (2): those who think themselves the victims of bias are never satisfied with ...[text shortened]... ases where you know which moderator was responsible for the travesty of justice in question).
Originally posted by Sambo69None of those questions have any relevance. STANG was given what was intended to be a permanent ban from the forums. There was a slip-up and he was allowed back briefly. The mods caught up with him and he was re-banned.
See the 15th post in this thread for the list of questions
Originally posted by XanthosNZSTANG claims that BelgianFreak lied when he said that it was a slip-up that STANG's ban was withdrawn.
None of those questions have any relevance. STANG was given what was intended to be a permanent ban from the forums. There was a slip-up and he was allowed back briefly. The mods caught up with him and he was re-banned.
I tend to believe STANG as I can see from an absence of posts from STANG that he was banned for months and that this was withdrawn very shortly after his correspondence with Chris from RHP management.
The guy is obviously emotional about the continued deaths of innocent people and deserves a break as he wasn't spamming this time and received no warning regarding his link to the picture of a dead person (which I believe people should see anyway).
Originally posted by Sambo69Dry up Sambo!
STANG claims that BelgianFreak lied when he said that it was a slip-up that STANG's ban was withdrawn.
I tend to believe STANG as I can see from an absence of posts from STANG that he was banned for months and that this was withdrawn very shortly after his correspondence with Chris from RHP management.
The guy is obviously emotional about the continued ...[text shortened]... regarding his link to the picture of a dead person (which I believe people should see anyway).
Originally posted by XanthosNZI've realised that the moderator approach on RHP is flawed.
😲
Those who are against something tend to protest, while those who are for something tend to remain quiet.
Moderators, with limited time, respond to the many who protest without taking time to consider what's actually fair.
If there can be no justice in the virtual world, how can we ever hope for justice in the real world ?
As I explained above, STANG should be given a break and his ban withdrawn. As should be the case for all visitors to RHP, this should be on the condition that STANG restrains himself when given a warning that is specific.
Originally posted by Sambo69A specific warning - one naming a particular picture, for example? So he can return and do the same thing with a different picture?
I've realised that the moderator approach on RHP is flawed.
Those who are against something tend to protest, while those who are for something tend to remain quiet.
Moderators, with limited time, respond to the many who protest without taking time to consider what's actually fair.
If there can be no justice in the virtual world, how can we ever hope ...[text shortened]... should be on the condition that STANG restrains himself when given a warning that is specific.
If he was warned not to repeatedly post the same thing, the fact that specific picture was not mentioned is irrelevant. Because he did repost the same thing, time and time again (it just happened to be that picture).
Originally posted by Sambo69You must be Stang aka Sambo.
I've realised that the moderator approach on RHP is flawed.
Those who are against something tend to protest, while those who are for something tend to remain quiet.
Moderators, with limited time, respond to the many who protest without taking time to consider what's actually fair.
If there can be no justice in the virtual world, how can we ever hope ...[text shortened]... should be on the condition that STANG restrains himself when given a warning that is specific.
Originally posted by Sambo69Let's say someone murders someone and is sentenced to jail for the rest of his life. 5 years later through a paperwork mixup he is released. While he is out of jail he doesn't murder anyone. When the mixup is found out should he be allowed to remain out of jail just because he hasn't murdered someone since he was released?
I've realised that the moderator approach on RHP is flawed.
Those who are against something tend to protest, while those who are for something tend to remain quiet.
Moderators, with limited time, respond to the many who protest without taking time to consider what's actually fair.
If there can be no justice in the virtual world, how can we ever hope ...[text shortened]... should be on the condition that STANG restrains himself when given a warning that is specific.
And in fact STANG didn't behave himself when the ban ended. He went back to doing almost exactly what got him banned last time.