22 May 09
Originally posted by PhlabibitProbably because Russ doesn't really want any reviews or right of appeal except in the case of Darvlay. Once a post is removed it's probably hard to put it back internally anyway I would think.
I'm not sure why Russ doesn't just add a reply button that posts a message back to where the warning is recorded.
P-
But, the thing is sometimes the mods are wrong and will admit an error was made when a wee green light comes on. When that happens though as you said it would be nice to allow conversation so that the warning can be removed in the files.
It kind of sucks when one guy can't do what others are allowed to do all day long without mod warnings.
You made a good point and I couldn't agree more. And if #1 wasn't such a whiner I might agree with him...nah. Come to think of it those messages you can't reply to piss me off. I tried to reply once and the sent message disappeared and when I tried to review it, I couldn't even remember what I was warned about. All I can remember was it was some minor trivial matter.
23 May 09
1 edit
Originally posted by KewpieMy best guess would be Yes you would still get the messages. They (Mods) have to have a way to send a warning.
If you put all the individual moderators on your ignore list, would you still get Forum Moderator messages?
I would assume they have it set up that way. When I was on the chat on Mirc you could do the iggy thing. But the Operators, would still be able to send a pre-done message if you were breaking a rule of the site.
23 May 09
Originally posted by no1marauderI couldn't agree more.
Since we can't send one, I'll put in here:
Please do not PM me with your lectures. If you think a post I've written deserved to be removed, remove it. If you think I deserve a forum ban, ban me. Stop wasting my and your time with PMs that scold me for telling the truth on these Forums. I have no intention to stop doing so, so if in your Al ...[text shortened]... nk you for your consideration in this matter.
Sincerely,
no1
As long as a post is pertinent and truthful it should remain, no matter
how contencious it is or how many little girls crawl out their underwaear to
alert it.
The basis of a good debate is to use the truth to tell a story that
represents your viewpoint. These should follow extremes of example as
well as subtle explanations. At the moment these kinds of posts, which
represent the very heart of transforming peoples opinions are punished
and make the poster subject to a ban.
Instead pontification, illegal debating tactics and gang warfare are
encouraged, with no mechanism for challenging moderators decisions
and contingent bans being placed on reposts under the guise of 'Spam'.
It's pure hypocrisy and even worse it's plain and simple censorship.
23 May 09
2 edits
Originally posted by cashthetrashCash, I kindly ask you not to be retarded, buddy.
Why do you always have to bring up someones skin? How racist. I object to your post.
And religion too?
Under your flawed logic, if I say "my favorite football team changed their skin", making a reference to their new uniform or reengineering of their branding strategy, is that racist?
Please, grow up, my friend. After the age of 14, some attitudes just look ridiculous.
Your buddy,
Seitse
For a community without tags: Thread 113128
23 May 09
Originally posted by SeitseHow about rule 3 then?
Cash, I kindly ask you not to be retarded, buddy.
Under your flawed logic, if I say "my favorite football team changed their skin", making a reference to their new uniform or reengineering of their branding strategy, is that racist?
Please, grow up, my friend. After the age of 14, some attitudes just look ridiculous.
Your buddy,
Seitse
[b]For a community without tags[/b]