23 Jan 10
Originally posted by Very RustyYou are probably correct on this rare instance.
It has to be alerted first, and it really doesn't matter to me. ( I was just making a point that is where it belonged) I am correct as I am most times. 😉
Look at the thread or what is left of it after the posts that were removed. Clan as part of the thread title is mis-leading as it was meant to be. Read for yourself you will see it is all about Jesus and religion. ( Should I mention a way to throw pots shots at users also)?
23 Jan 10
3 edits
Originally posted by SilverstrikerPhlabs and my discussion was before you said it. Actually you are the only one that did say it in Public, unless I missed someone.
To be fair i wasn't really that much of a "secret" mod and i think everyone knew about me as i posted in the recruitment thread
You can correct me on this if I am wrong, but I believe 2 of the 3 other mods also posted in the recruitment thread. There were others who also put their names forward but it was quite obvious they wouldn't be picked.
Phlabs shouldn't have been talking about something him and I discussed in a PM, on the Public Forum. He knows better. You think he will get a warning about that? LOL
23 Jan 10
Originally posted by cheater2Look, if you want to banter with me I'll be happy to oblige you in another forum, just keep your pent up tensions out of this one.
This thread is dedicated to sensible discussion about the level of moderation, please don't let it be hijacked by you trolling. 🙄
25 Jan 10
Originally posted by divegeesterHa! So how does this childish defamation fit into your 'sensible, adult debate' about Forum Moderation?
FFS why was the thread 2^ removed?
You are known here as a 'sad' individual, and an ambassador of inward self promotion who does not have the best interests of this site at heart.
25 Jan 10
1 edit
Originally posted by Daemon SinAh, you caught me out in my frustration with the situation; congratulations. You fail to even comment on the crux of the matter, which is WHY the post was removed in the first place.
Ha! So how does this childish defamation fit into your 'sensible, adult debate' about Forum Moderation?
25 Jan 10
Originally posted by divegeesterThat's because I address my concerns and criticisms of the site's moderation through site feedback. There's no point shouting at the monkey because the organ grinder's not playing your favourite tune!
You fail to even comment on the crux of the matter, which is WHY the post was removed in the first place.
26 Jan 10
Originally posted by Very RustyI didn't share anything sans the fact you were wrong... There is no way you are 99.9% right even if we keep PM message info out. I didn't share any PM info.
Phlabs and my discussion was before you said it. Actually you are the only one that did say it in Public, unless I missed someone.
You can correct me on this if I am wrong, but I believe 2 of the 3 other mods also posted in the recruitment thread. There were others who also put their names forward but it was quite obvious they wouldn't be picked.
P ...[text shortened]... in a PM, on the Public Forum. He knows better. You think he will get a warning about that? LOL
So, consider oiling that rumor mill of yours, and replace the cogs and gears. It's grinding to a halt.
I know this is getting off the topic, but I'm not going to sit back while someone claims I shared something I did not, and claiming they are almost always right when they're more like a blind squirrel in an oak forest.
P-
27 Jan 10
anybody can go to Wikipedia or Urban Dictionary, both unrestricted sites that can be visited by anyone (except maybe in certain totalitarian states), and read some pretty adult stuff. how come RHP GF has to be moderated to a much stricter standard? i believe there are certain people (i'm NOT talking about mods here, who just implement guidelines they're given - i hope) who just want to bowdlerise the forums to fit their own morbidly prudish standard.
27 Jan 10
Originally posted by Daemon Sinprotesters against the Vietnam war would have been unlikely to achieve anything had they been content to sit at home and write polite letters to their congressmen. there's nothing wrong with debating issues likes this publicly.
That's because I address my concerns and criticisms of the site's moderation through site feedback. There's no point shouting at the monkey because the organ grinder's not playing your favourite tune!
27 Jan 10
Originally posted by BlackampRHP is a 13+ site, the sites you mention either cost more to host, or are harder to find in searches... Russ could explain it better with feedback, but he has a real reason to keep the content of RHP MUCH different than the content of the sites you mention.
anybody can go to Wikipedia or Urban Dictionary, both unrestricted sites that can be visited by anyone (except maybe in certain totalitarian states), and read some pretty adult stuff. how come RHP GF has to be moderated to a much stricter standard? i believe there are certain people (i'm NOT talking about mods here, who just implement guidelines they're giv ...[text shortened]... n - i hope) who just want to bowdlerise the forums to fit their own morbidly prudish standard.
P-
28 Jan 10
Originally posted by trev33I seem to share this sentiment, btw. The amount of censorship RHP has when it comes to forum moderation is quite something. Seems as if RHP is based in China or North Korea.
funny that because the new over moderating style is pushing people not to renew their subscription... how do you think the admin feel about that?