Remove absurd warnings please.

[Brdavs]

I`d like to have 2 warnings (or atleass one) I recieved in the war thread removed please.

One of them being for:

Well I see that "raise the bar for the mod team in setting an example" programme is working wonders for lore lol.

Speaking of dirt low standard bars: I thought I allready told you guys to tell your new recruits not to have 2.5mil out of their 9mil army trained in spies. Cos they won`t have`em long.


P.S. Jack, did you warn yourself for that insult before you edited the post or not?

after Jack called someone a dumbass and called for no more spam at the bottom of the post as alibi. 2 sentances, literarry. Main motive, putting caesar down.
My post is clearly on topic pertaining to the war. More so than that insult of his he later edited out was pertained to modding in any case.


And the other one was for asking why exactly a warning. Inside 30sec. Then clearly threathening me that just about any peep from me would result in a ban.







For crying out loud people, put a leash on Jack, atleast in that thread. He`s clearly foaming at the mouth.

[Jack]

Your post was clearly spam, and insults are allowed. After all, there are two right above my post aimed at Noobert, where is your complaint about those?

The other post was still spam, you want to ask about a warning? There are four ways you can do that...

1. PM
2. Talk to the Mods section
3. Through the WTH
4. MSN

Anywhere else is not one of those options and is spam.

For crying out loud people, put a leash on Jack, atleast in that thread. He`s clearly foaming at the mouth.

*barks at Brdavs*

[zeekomkommer]

manetheren is back on the job and will look into this when he gets a chance

[zeekomkommer]

Just to be clear: mod decisions are NOT to be discussed in a war thread. We have been here before. Discussing a mod decision in a war thread is off topic, and considered as spam. So refrain from it.

next page of the war thread

also note there are new rules for the war thread, wish are ironicly the new ones

[Brdavs]

I personally dont think the original post was any more "offtopic" or "spam" than 99% of posts anywhere, but ofc. if one wants to be pedantic one can ban everyone but onesself I suppose. If anyone asks me, it looks to me the guy just didn`t like what 1/2 of the post had to say.

And the second one... Granted, mod decisions are not to be discussed there. Yet I`ll argue that it wasnt predominantly a discussion about his decision but a statement that he`s a joke.
And, as the man says, insults are permitted.



@jack
As to my not complaining about "idiot" being thrown around...
That doesn`t mean I like the precedent set. I think it`s silly and it opens up door for problems and (your) arbitrarity.
When you warned the first guy it was kinda obvious trolling and spamming had precious little to do with it since they usually consist 80% of the thread. Twas the fact noobert got called idiot (which you again brought up) that spurred some nitpicking and a search for a legit reason to sanction, given the fact "insults are ok".

But I`m actually kinda fine with that in a way.
Whoever decided RL insults only are off limits and that the same time "idiot" does not fall into that category is a bit of the term himself imo. But hey, leave the door opened, ppl will walk through. Bad rule making to blame.

I did (in a part of the above post) sarcastically comment on the issue I`ve allready raised - of mods being ban happy but at the same time a terrible example. I wasn`t inticed to do so by your modding decision but the demeanor and situation in which a mod is clearly nitpicking the rules to sanction some1 for abuse, only to then turn around and abuse the guy himself - from his high modding pedistal of untouchability. You knew you were out of line yourself, hence the timely edit of the thing, no? Bt I suppose some1 pointing it out struck a(nother) cord, and off we went in search for more "hooks" to hang warnings too, left and right. Debating mod decision. Spam. You name it. But in a way I understand, once you start down that slippery slope your best bet really is to follow it through completley heh.

[Jack]

And the second one... Granted, mod decisions are not to be discussed there. Yet I`ll argue that it wasnt predominantly a discussion about his decision but a statement that he`s a joke.
And, as the man says, insults are permitted.

Either way it was still spam.

@jack
As to my not complaining about "idiot" being thrown around...
That doesn`t mean I like the precedent set. I think it`s silly and it opens up door for problems and (your) arbitrarity.

If you're not going to complain about the other people, then what gives you the right to complain about me? Cause I was very much within the rules as applied to everyone else, or are you advocating double standards?

When you warned the first guy it was kinda obvious trolling and spamming had precious little to do with it since they usually consist 80% of the thread. Twas the fact noobert got called idiot (which you again brought up) that spurred some nitpicking and a search for a legit reason to sanction, given the fact "insults are ok".

Twas the fact Qacol was spamming and trolling, no other reason.

I wasn`t inticed to do so by your modding decision but the demeanor and situation in which a mod is clearly nitpicking the rules to sanction some1 for abuse, only to then turn around and abuse the guy himself - from his high modding pedistal of untouchability.

Again, he was warned for spam, not for insults. "High modding pedistal of untouchability." That is just classic.

You knew you were out of line yourself, hence the timely edit of the thing, no?

Nope, not at all. But let's pretend for one moment that you are right, that is what the edit function is for, to correct your post, be it spelling errors or simple slip ups, no?

BU I suppose some1 pointing it out struck a(nother) coard, and off we went in search for more "hooks" to hang warnings too, left and right. Debating mod decision. Spam. You name it. I donts like it, I`s bans it.

We have always warned for that, especially when people are already getting warned for the same thing in the same thread.

[Brdavs]

Either way it was still spam.

Arbitrary sanctioned when the message doesn`t strike your fancy thoe. That`s the "problem" here.

If you're not going to complain about the other people, then what gives you the right to complain about me? Cause I was very much within the rules as applied to everyone else, or are you advocating double standards?

Yes, I`m advocating a double standard, absolutley. One that demand that mods conduct themselves appropriate to their station and not as punks with badges in the wild wild west. You`ll find this double standard of the enforcers of rules being rigorously strictly held accountable for their actions and infact demeanor during their enforcing in just about every organisation of the nature.
If you cant follow it, what gives you the right to complain and even sanction me/someone (mr. lol in my suggestion thread spammer without getting warned )?

Twas the fact Qacol was spamming and trolling, no other reason.

Don`t BS a BSter.

Again, he was warned for spam, not for insults. "High modding pedistal of untouchability." That is just classic.

And again I put to you that that is the worst form of legal positivism in existance. Either that, or these interesting coincindances when you take to stamping out "spam and trolling" in cases that, curiously, only crop up when something clealry not sitting well with you (but is not actually techincally against the (bad?) rules) gets said, are really intriguing.

Nope, not at all. But let's pretend for one moment that you are right, that is what the edit function is for, to correct your post, be it spelling errors or simple slip ups, no?

I`d like my chance to edit and correct my "slipup" then. Oh wait, 5 sec in and it was too late.

We have always warned for that, especially when people are already getting warned for the same thing in the same thread.

You have. But that up there in my first post is hardly spam and hardly 100% off topic worthy of sanctions.
Or is it? I`d like a standard defined then, howmany characters of a post must be pertaining the war topic and what exactly qualifies as such. Proportions. Percentages. Give me something I can go by, if that up there does not suffice. Should I have posted the Pi guys name, is that my failing?

[Manetheren]

Ill reread all this when I get to work tomorrow.

[Brdavs]

Any news on this? Not to nag, but I dare not post and it seems to have only got worse lol. Joke now decided to lock the thread.

Now I dunno what forum he`s been made mod on, but when I look around the threads around here and apply his standards (for some) as of late, I can only conclude the entire userbase ought be banned and entire forum locked down lol...

Just... pull the d00de off modding that thread and we`ll all be able to get back to our "normal" lives around here... Christ, howmany bs arguments about his moding of that thread does this make by now? 50? Alarm bells are ringing.

[Manetheren]

Working on it.

[zeekomkommer]

Now I dunno what forum he`s been made mod on, but when I look around the threads around here and apply his standards (for some) as of late, I can only conclude the entire userbase ought be banned and entire forum locked down lol...

Just... pull the d00de off modding that thread and we`ll all be able to get back to our "normal" lives around here... Christ, howmany bs arguments about his moding of that thread does this make by now? 50? Alarm bells are ringing.

brdavs please note that the ombudsman cannot order mods to stay out of topics, furthermore jack is a global mod, if you have issues about him you should for a case for the admins to review

now the only thing that can be determined by the ombudsman is wheter or not your warning was given fairly. it doesn't mather if others don't get warned for it becausse that would fall under inconsistant modding and that's a problem you need to talk to the mods about or the forum admins.

[Brdavs]

I do realise that and I`m not suggesting ombudsman uses any power over a mod.

I am however saying that given the rumors admins do performance reviews and such, ombudsman is perhaps in a position to point out what are very reaccuring and some would say avoidable problems.

I mean, dealing with same old complaints, or atleast unofficially suggesting to people to avoid certain well established friction points... doesn`t sound particulary hard to me. And its not even that unfathomable to pull someone aside and say "hey man, youre a mod`n`all, power be to you, but can we atleast tone down on the modding of the thread you have a personal stake in and in which you have a talkent of sparking needless rows on a bi-weekly basis"?


So zeek, you can direct me to 12 more windows, with 24 more forms to fill out, and explain the proper procedure to question whatever it is that its happening here. But I`ll pass, been there, done that, heard it all.
I`m deciding to (informaly and here, if you will) appeal to your common sense in the metter, to perhaps suggest any permanent solutions to this to the decision makers, when you rubb elbows.

After all, it`s you that has to deal with dozens of warnings`n`stuff. *shrug*

[Jack]

Personal stake? lol What "personal stake" do I have in the server war thread?

Well, except for, of course, the joy I get from watching trolls like yourself squirm. This if you can even call that a "personal stake."

[Brdavs]

Oh, I`m sorry, I though that being in an alliance that is at war makes one involved to a point they have a stake in the said wars thread. (Partial indication perhaps being that you police the stuffing out of one side, prolly merely coincidentaly the oposing one.)

Silly... me... Absurd, innit.


Dude, don`t try, you`re only making it worse. Really.


But as zeek said, wrong place to bring that up. Heh. Right-o. Context shmontext.

[Jack]

I "police the stuffing" out of the criminals, not my fault that one side has more then the other.


As for your attempt at pointing out a correlation, well you're close, but you've got it backwards.