It's obvious it shouldn't have been moderated in the first place, so why don't you just put it back now. Why do you have to wait for permission when it is so clearly the right thing to do. Whoever moderated that post has no idea what they're doing. There really should be some established criteria what constitutes a moderable post.
You know, it's not part of the Moderator's job description to determine whether an apology was sincere. The job of a Moderator is to remove posts that contain overtly offensive content. Removing an apology because it struck you as sarcastic is an abuse of power, and a violation of the spirit of these forums.
Dave, you gave me a couple of lessons while playing games late last year, in particular prompting me to familiarise myself with openings beyond the ruy lopez and giuco piano. My chess has improved as a result of your input, which you offered without my seeking it. You contribute a lot here at RHP and I hate to see you go because of a couple of idiots. Isn't it possible to just ban people like this from the site, say, after a suitable warning for the first offence? 🙁🙁🙁🙁🙁
Originally posted by dfm65People do get banned, and then just sign up again with a new nick; this is why Screw Dave turned into Schliemann2. Unfortunate, but since subscriptions are still merely optional, there seems little we can do other that moderate offensive posts, notify Chris and Russ of abusive behavior, and not play against those who behave poorly.
Dave, you gave me a couple of lessons while playing games late last year, in particular prompting me to familiarise myself with openings beyond the ruy lopez and giuco piano. My chess has improved as a result of your input, which you offered without my seeking it. You contribute a lot here at RHP and I hate to see you go because of a couple of idiots. Isn't i ...[text shortened]... people like this from the site, say, after a suitable warning for the first offence? 🙁🙁🙁🙁🙁
Originally posted by bbarrYeah, I guess banning wouldn't be effective against people who just signed up to abuse someone and didn't care about losing their rating. It IS effective against people who use extra logins to boost their ratings, though, if they are blatant enough about it to get noticed. I hope this fool's apology is sincere and that Dave is moved to stay with us. 😞
People do get banned, and then just sign up again with a new nick; this is why Screw Dave turned into Schliemann2. Unfortunate, but since subscriptions are still merely optional, there seems little we can do other that moderate offensive posts, notify Chris and Russ of abusive behavior, and not play against those who behave poorly.
Originally posted by jgvaccaroDear God! Please no! Not untill I can afford the subscription! It's bad enough working graveyard with no one to talk to, but no forum chat either? I cry of depravity. Surely I shall go crazy. 🙄
There is another option-- make forum posting only possible for subscribers/pawn stars. This would definitely solve the problem of people making accounts just to spam or flame the forums.
- Joined
- 20 Feb 02
- Moves
- 58336
Originally posted by OmnislashIt would be harsh but it would be a solution. I suppose from a business point of view it makes sense to look after the interests of paying customers first and also it makes sense to look after one of the preverbial crown jewels of the site in members such as Dave. I suppose you could have pawnstars only forum and a non-pawnstar forum area. Alternatively you could set it so people could not post for say a month once they had joined. This hopefully would slow people down once they had been deleted.
Dear God! Please no! Not untill I can afford the subscription! It's bad enough working graveyard with no one to talk to, but no forum chat either? I cry of depravity. Surely I shall go crazy. 🙄
Andrew🙄