Warned for an part of my post... ??!

[BenjaminMS]

The following warning was issued to this user
» This is a warning regarding the following post made by you: viewtopic.php?f=135&p=2192158#p2192158

"Mh cried to Jason for an idiot update (granted, unlimited repairs was too much, but just 1x turn?)"

Section 4: Spam
b. Replies
Replies will be considered spam if they do not contribute to the discussion of the topic. This may include off topic posting or an excessive number of posts that contain nothing more than emoticons or small words such as ‘lol’. While it is appropriate to indicate something is amusing, drowning out a whole thread with such posts makes it hard to follow for all users.

Consequence:
A polite note from a moderator will be issued requesting the user cut down the amount of irrelevant posts. Repeat offenders will be given one warning point.

However, my whole post was the following:

't was fun for me, till the moment my bank started running empty, Mh cried to Jason for an idiot update (granted, unlimited repairs was too much, but just 1x turn?) and Feri bought his entire account again for the 3-4x time in a week or so

So... something isn't right here
More funny part is also that in said topic ONLY TL-members got warned. Bias much?

[deni]

Interesting to see a mod complaining to the ombudsman instead of going the proper way and ask the section GM or the administrators about a clarification.

More interesting to see a mod accusing his fellow mods of bias.

[BenjaminMS]

That's since I've got proof (but that is reserved for Jason) that half of the admin team and part of the GMs are actively modding when they aren't allowed (admins) or are actively biased modding (GMs). So...

[deni]

That's since I've got proof (but that is reserved for Jason) that half of the admin team and part of the GMs are actively modding when they aren't allowed (admins) or are actively biased modding (GMs). So...

The only admin who is not modding is Bazsy and that is because he choose not to mod. That's one of the perks that comes with the job - we can mod, but we do not have to

Further, I still miss the pm or a post where you have come to us trying to talk about the supposed biased Global Mods. But I guess all of this is not because you want to help the team better itself but because of the 5 mins of fame you will get.


I will talk to the other admins, but as far as I go - consider your fired.

I do not care if a mod makes mistakes. We all have been wrong and we have tried to better us. What I cannot stand is a supposed team member badmouthing the team.

PS: About the warning - get someone who is not biased against you to deal with it. Cause I know I am now, so I will refrain from a comment and leave it in the hands of the other admins.

[Jack]

Yawn, so much off topic bickering.

I don't see a problem with the post. It was on topic as far as I am concerned. Maybe Mordack will disagree or someone will convince me otherwise.

[BenjaminMS]

That's since I've got proof (but that is reserved for Jason) that half of the admin team and part of the GMs are actively modding when they aren't allowed (admins) or are actively biased modding (GMs). So...

The only admin who is not modding is Bazsy and that is because he choose not to mod. That's one of the perks that comes with the job - we can mod, but we do not have to

You're so wrong there. Read the rules. Admins are ONLY allowed to mod if the post or activity immidiately threathens the integrity of the forums - aka, attempts to hack etc. Not simple posts.

Further, I still miss the pm or a post where you have come to us trying to talk about the supposed biased Global Mods. But I guess all of this is not because you want to help the team better itself but because of the 5 mins of fame you will get.


I will talk to the other admins, but as far as I go - consider your fired.

I do not care if a mod makes mistakes. We all have been wrong and we have tried to better us. What I cannot stand is a supposed team member badmouthing the team.

PS: About the warning - get someone who is not biased against you to deal with it. Cause I know I am now, so I will refrain from a comment and leave it in the hands of the other admins.

Whatever. I knew you were biased (one of the admins I saw actively modding both a certain Bug-topic and the TL vs Mh-wartopic was you), and **Filtered** happens. A part of the mod teams was showing their true colours anyway, and glad I am no longer part of it.

@ Jack, thanks. This will likely be my last post in this topic...

[stuff of legends]

orly? lols. have fun all.

OMG!!! J...is that really you?

GET YOUR ASS BACK HERE MISTER!

page 34. Did he get a warning?

Attacking Mercenaries -286,367

You guys broke the Market

page 34 again. Did empy get a warning?

[deni]

That's since I've got proof (but that is reserved for Jason) that half of the admin team and part of the GMs are actively modding when they aren't allowed (admins) or are actively biased modding (GMs). So...

The only admin who is not modding is Bazsy and that is because he choose not to mod. That's one of the perks that comes with the job - we can mod, but we do not have to

You're so wrong there. Read the rules. Admins are ONLY allowed to mod if the post or activity immidiately threathens the integrity of the forums - aka, attempts to hack etc. Not simple posts.

Further, I still miss the pm or a post where you have come to us trying to talk about the supposed biased Global Mods. But I guess all of this is not because you want to help the team better itself but because of the 5 mins of fame you will get.


I will talk to the other admins, but as far as I go - consider your fired.

I do not care if a mod makes mistakes. We all have been wrong and we have tried to better us. What I cannot stand is a supposed team member badmouthing the team.

PS: About the warning - get someone who is not biased against you to deal with it. Cause I know I am now, so I will refrain from a comment and leave it in the hands of the other admins.

Whatever. I knew you were biased (one of the admins I saw actively modding both a certain Bug-topic and the TL vs Mh-wartopic was you), and **Filtered** happens. A part of the mod teams was showing their true colours anyway, and glad I am no longer part of it.


[/color]


@ Jack, thanks. This will likely be my last post in this topic...

Please point me to that rules. Because in my active time in this forum I have not see them.


[irony]
And OMG! An admin closed a report! They split an off topic post! Insolence!

Where is this forum going now!!!!1111
[/irony]

I suggest you take a better look at the mod logs while you still have access to them. It will prevent you to look foolish

[Kikaz]

Just to butt in...

Empy's post was actually completely relevant to the topic, the negative mercs were a direct cause of our war.

orly? lols. have fun all.

OMG!!! J...is that really you?

GET YOUR ASS BACK HERE MISTER!

page 34. Did he get a warning?

Attacking Mercenaries -286,367

You guys broke the Market

page 34 again. Did empy get a warning?

[BenjaminMS]

There you go Deni, as you requested (quoted Forum here):

FORUM ADMINS (currently 3 of them):
overall job role: to manage the forums (catagories, rules, etc), and the mods.

They can set the rules they deem best, although with any large decision, group discussion and agreement is key to success.

They can elect/select/hire/designate any mods they wish, in any capacity, any section. They can also give them responsibility for sub-mods, if they so choose. Likewise, they can un-elect, un-select or fire/undesignate -or change- the role, responsibility, section, status, etc of any mod at any time.

What I do not see as their role, is modding users/topics. The mods should be doing this, and if they are not, see above The only exception I forsee is 'very bad' content that must be removed immediately. They can do so, then hand over the punish/ban/cleanup to the mod(s) responsible....

They can elect a new forum admin.

The actions above, where it comes to: mod hire/discipline/fire; forum catagory level change or greater; new forum admin; rule changes --- it requires 2 of the 3 mods to agree. Again, any large change a previous discussion and/or 3 admins agreeing is going to work a lot more smoothly, but is not a requirement....

And most funny is, I've been keeping tabs the past days, and you were mostly involved in the GC and Bug-topic.

[Wepwaet]

Question to the group and or helpful place for the oms to start, was that warning given before or after the mods said to stop talking about the update? Notices were put in several threads about it and spam...

[Jack]

You're so wrong there. Read the rules. Admins are ONLY allowed to mod if the post or activity immidiately threathens the integrity of the forums - aka, attempts to hack etc. Not simple posts.

Admins can do as they wish. Get this, it's going to completely blow your mind, but they are admins. Amazing isn't it?

[deni]

There you go Deni, as you requested (quoted Forum here):

FORUM ADMINS (currently 3 of them):
overall job role: to manage the forums (catagories, rules, etc), and the mods.

They can set the rules they deem best, although with any large decision, group discussion and agreement is key to success.

They can elect/select/hire/designate any mods they wish, in any capacity, any section. They can also give them responsibility for sub-mods, if they so choose. Likewise, they can un-elect, un-select or fire/undesignate -or change- the role, responsibility, section, status, etc of any mod at any time.

What I do not see as their role, is modding users/topics. The mods should be doing this, and if they are not, see above The only exception I forsee is 'very bad' content that must be removed immediately. They can do so, then hand over the punish/ban/cleanup to the mod(s) responsible....

They can elect a new forum admin.

The actions above, where it comes to: mod hire/discipline/fire; forum catagory level change or greater; new forum admin; rule changes --- it requires 2 of the 3 mods to agree. Again, any large change a previous discussion and/or 3 admins agreeing is going to work a lot more smoothly, but is not a requirement....

And most funny is, I've been keeping tabs the past days, and you were mostly involved in the GC and Bug-topic.

You were keeping tabs on me?


Interesting that you did manage to read a post Jason made a few years go (and failed to understand it as you do lack the background), but you did not read all the posts about the team behaviour or about posting content from the closed mod forums in public.


But I will say it again: Admins DOmod when they see fit. It is entirely up to them. If there is a lack of mods available to deal with issues for example, admins deal with that. Considering that the current head of the General Section is away, the General team is undermanned, the admins deal with issues so the work load of the blue mods is still manageable.

About the mh/TLE -topic. Do you really want me to post the logs of my actions and risk you look even more foolish?

Do you?

[stuff of legends]

@dr. House

Admin gary disagrees....

Also isnt this topic about a warning that shouldnt be?

[Kikaz]

I will quote another post of mine here, so that you all can see it.

It's quite simple to understand, MAYHEM AND THE LEGION, the entire forum is not your own personal Galactic Colosseum. The sooner you can understand that, the less warnings you will get.

~Empy

You will not get any more Verbal Warnings from me regarding taking the discussion of this war to ANY other topic. This goes to MaYHeM, ChAoS, and The Legion.

Posts not about the war will be counted as spam
(p.s. don't respond to this)

Last edited by Eärendil on Fri Oct 01, 2010 7:02 pm, edited 1 time in total.

't was fun for me, till the moment my bank started running empty, Mh cried to Jason for an idiot update (granted, unlimited repairs was too much, but just 1x turn?) and Feri bought his entire account again for the 3-4x time in a week or so

Posted Fri Oct 01, 2010 9:56 pm