StarGateWars Forums

Jack wrote:If you really really want that, I guess we could make it policy that I start handing out all the warnings for GC. But you really, really don't want that. I am predisposed to handing out multiple warnings at a time, like candy. Then people get banned, and my banhammer is all rusty and tends to malfunction causing people to be banned for longer than intended.

Haz wrote:Are you arguing whether the warnings are valid, or are you arguing that Caprila was the one to give the warnings?

Psi Kiya Trist wrote:

Jack wrote:If you really really want that, I guess we could make it policy that I start handing out all the warnings for GC. But you really, really don't want that. I am predisposed to handing out multiple warnings at a time, like candy. Then people get banned, and my banhammer is all rusty and tends to malfunction causing people to be banned for longer than intended.

I really like this idea. Better yet, Jack can be the section head, with me helping him out as section mod. Then we have a contest to see who can get the most people banned for breaking the rules. Because clearly neither Jack nor I actually have any ingame allegiances and clearly can't be biased against any one particular alliance. Just those abusive trolls who like to cry out at "allegiance bias" when there is none.

Unless Jack has become a major player of this game while I've been gone. Then I totally retract the above suggestion.

Field Marshall wrote:It has been policy that in order to show that there is no bias of mods currently at war with those that they are warning that it would be left to someone else.

Caprila wrote:SGW is a great game, but it's one I've been gone from, in all capacities, for a couple of months now. Former alliances, former wars.. former 'games', don't usually hold weight in accusations of moderator bias.

M.I.A wrote:doesnt matter haz if hes been in the game for years he will have grudges

Sol wrote:

M.I.A wrote:doesnt matter haz if hes been in the game for years he will have grudges

Then the whole idea of not modding threads you or your alliance is focused in, to stave of 'bias' warnings, is nullified.
If a mod plays for a day, a week, a year, it doesn't matter, they would always be susceptible to disliking some people, alliance based or not. Hell, if you want to get into it then we should force all staff to not mod any thread that contains players in they show the slightest dislike to. After all I know some staff are sick of certain users, regardless of in game dealings.
Fact is, you're starting to get into the technical stupidity side of the argument, where the original idea is for mods to have the self-awareness to not get involved in threads that would draw a fine line between their ingame dealings and their objective modding. In my opinion this is far far far from law on the forum, sure it would be if there wasn't an oms section, but there is, ergo 'no harm done'.

This doesn't automagically mean any warning given out is wrong if the warn-er hates you or is in the alliance you're against. As it seems with this thread. So I just see another person complaining about another mod because they got a fair warning and it's from the same mod and bla bla bla and yes robert you're going to sit on the person even though they're on vac and yes we all know you will probably quit...again.

Haz wrote:

Field Marshall wrote:It has been policy that in order to show that there is no bias of mods currently at war with those that they are warning that it would be left to someone else.

Caprila wrote:SGW is a great game, but it's one I've been gone from, in all capacities, for a couple of months now. Former alliances, former wars.. former 'games', don't usually hold weight in accusations of moderator bias.

~Wilco~ wrote: You will be in war with TAF for a while then rob if u insist on following this through afterall Caprilla is taf wether you like it or not.

Policy during last server war and subsequent wars was that a moderator would ask another moderator to issue the warning.

What changed, if anything?

Jack wrote: If you really really want that, I guess we could make it policy that I start handing out all the warnings for GC. But you really, really don't want that. I am predisposed to handing out multiple warnings at a time, like candy. Then people get banned, and my banhammer is all rusty and tends to malfunction causing people to be banned for longer than intended.

R0B3RT wrote: i still wait a answer from you mister admin
the magic ETL upgrade in ascend 3 years ago
caprila is in vacantion like always is a war in server
and is a dde traitor like katsumoto is easy understand why fight dde on forum
watch for what i got the 2 warning what rules i don.t respect ?=??

Sol wrote:

R0B3RT wrote: i still wait a answer from you mister admin
the magic ETL upgrade in ascend 3 years ago
caprila is in vacantion like always is a war in server
and is a dde traitor like katsumoto is easy understand why fight dde on forum
watch for what i got the 2 warning what rules i don.t respect ?=??

Yes yes, and DDE harbors known cheaters. So what does this have to do with anything in this thread?

As for your warnings, I don't see them as unfair? You're obviously spamming and posting irrelevant replies to the topic at hand. For example, see above.

Juliette wrote:Not an appeal, but moderator feedback.
Moved.

Field Marshall wrote:

Jack wrote: If you really really want that, I guess we could make it policy that I start handing out all the warnings for GC. But you really, really don't want that. I am predisposed to handing out multiple warnings at a time, like candy. Then people get banned, and my banhammer is all rusty and tends to malfunction causing people to be banned for longer than intended.

Good, that would presumably solve the issue. Good idea. Of course, when bans overrun, they get reinstated. Like always as requested