StarGateWars Forums

How do you know who is warned and who isn't?

Tetrismonkey wrote:I want to say this in the best possible way, but only one phrase wants to come to mind.

Get your **Filtered** straight.

Your excuses as a Staff about not being robots is wearing thin and is completly unacceptable. If you can't all get on the same page and mod atleast within the same bounds of the rules, then a change in Administration is needed. No more can this go on where some people are warned and other not for breaking the same rules. If you find it to be to difficult to do your jobs right, then step down and let someone that can, to do it.

Now, cookies anyone?

Before everyone else starts posting this, how about your give some examples of the current inconsistencies you find on this forum. We can take it from there.

haha tetris welcome to my world. I'll take a cookie

*puts cat amongst the pigeons*

here's one example.. I got a forum warning for posting for a banned user (Les Enimes) in a war thread he was involved in.. Robert posted for JT in a war DDE involved in.. (unless rule got changed in the interim) post is still there

ps.. if a post is not allowed to be reedited by the original poster after a mod has edited it... maybe the mod altering it should lock it so it can't be... just saying

ƒëmmë ƒatalë wrote:haha tetris welcome to my world. I'll take a cookie

*puts cat amongst the pigeons*

here's one example.. I got a forum warning for posting for a banned user (Les Enimes) in a war thread he was involved in.. Robert posted for JT in a war DDE involved in.. (unless rule got changed in the interim) post is still there

ps.. if a post is not allowed to be reedited by the original poster after a mod has edited it... maybe the mod altering it should lock it so it can't be... just saying

Have you even asked any of us to look at it for you See I'm sorry for sounding rude but look up facts before you say stuff lover!

ƒëmmë ƒatalë wrote:ps.. if a post is not allowed to be reedited by the original poster after a mod has edited it... maybe the mod altering it should lock it so it can't be... just saying

The only time a user's post should be locked is if they continue to edit it in a way that violates the rules. The post usually remains unlocked so that the user is free to edit the other content within the post, or so they may reword it in a way that does not violate the rules. I think we're pretty consistent in this regard.

ƒëmmë ƒatalë wrote:here's one example.. I got a forum warning for posting for a banned user (Les Enimes) in a war thread he was involved in.. Robert posted for JT in a war DDE involved in.. (unless rule got changed in the interim) post is still there

You have no idea what you are talking about. Just because the post is still there you jump to the assumption there was no punishment whatsoever. You do absolutely no research to back up your claims of inconsistency and because of that you continue to post redundant comments like this.

ƒëmmë ƒatalë wrote:ps.. if a post is not allowed to be reedited by the original poster after a mod has edited it... maybe the mod altering it should lock it so it can't be... just saying

Again, you have no idea what you are talking about. Who said posts aren't allowed to be re-edited? If you actually take a second, deep breathe and think about this situation for a minute or even 30 seconds you will realise there is a big difference between:

A) mod editing post, then user re-editing post removing the mod edit and replacing it with something not against the rules;

and

B) mod editing post, then user re-editing post by removing the mod edit and re-typing the offending word or phrase that was what caused the mod to edit it in the first place.

So please take your cat out of the pigeons and go do some research in to how to substantially back up your claims against how this forum is run.

Tetrismonkey wrote:I want to say this in the best possible way, but only one phrase wants to come to mind.

Get your **Filtered** straight.

One phrase wants to come to mind? There's no want about it, you chose that phrase out of all the phrases you could have chosen.

Tetrismonkey wrote:Your excuses as a Staff about not being robots is wearing thin and is completly unacceptable.

Unacceptable, lol, only because you don't like it. It would appear unacceptable because of all the other threads where people have said that it's unacceptable, oh wait, there are none.

Tetrismonkey wrote:If you can't all get on the same page and mod atleast within the same bounds of the rules, then a change in Administration is needed.

Only a fool would think that changing the administration would fix your inconsistency worries. It's funny you talk about all of us getting on the same page, when you were a moderator you were definitely not on the same page as the rest of the team.

I'd like to ask on a personal basis, where have I personally been inconsistent in my modding of users on this forum? If you cannot provide an example then I will take that as me being on the right page and therefore the right person for the job.

Limited mind, if that is all that comes to it.
Phrase your objections more clearly, and less generic. That might make it possible to understand your unguided projectile gibberish. I am sure you have a point somewhere, but you have obfuscated through overuse of words.

ƒëmmë ƒatalë wrote:here's one example.. I got a forum warning for posting for a banned user (Les Enimes) in a war thread he was involved in.. Robert posted for JT in a war DDE involved in.. (unless rule got changed in the interim) post is still there

You mean this and this?

I'm pretty sure you can't see them as they are in the hidden dump, but those are the links to the two posts of Roberts. I moved them there and appropriate action was taken. The posts are not in the original topics. They haven't been for a few days now.

As long as people remain people, which alas I am sure they will, there will always be a degree of inconsistency with regard to forum moderation. The next round of moderator applications won't discriminate against robots, though, so give us a bell if you find any.

Mordack wrote:As long as people remain people, which alas I am sure they will, there will always be a degree of inconsistency with regard to forum moderation. The next round of moderator applications won't discriminate against robots, though, so give us a bell if you find any.

Bleep beep.
Require-moderator-skill-update-please-upload-at-your-earliest-convenience-STOP

Also. It is intriguing how you intentionally spell inconsistent -inconsistently- as both inconsistant and inconsistent.

Tetrismonkey wrote:Clarkey, it was raised by me time and time again when I was a mod on the inconstancy that plagues the staff. I understand that you all are not robots, however, using that excuse won't work anymore.

I will rant now Clarkey. You cannot judge me as to the moderator I was. I did my job and exceeded what it was to do so. I had the entire For Admin section reorganized to help users navigate it easier. I will not accept all the credit, DaDigi did do a large part. Did it have to be done? No. It was about moving past just modding and working towards improving not only the experience on the forum, but to prove to the team that modding isn't the end, but the beginning. I went above and beyond just modding you insignificant worm. What have you done for this forum Clarkey? Do we need to bring up the past? Do you want to be judged? Do I need to run your name through the mud and poop on whats left of your pride? Your judgement means about as much as a pile of **Filtered**. So, before you go hollering my way about the mod I was, get your facts right.

Now as to the examples part, I will once I have more time at the end of the week, gather those for everyone so we can continue this debate on actual facts instead of "generalizations".

That would be very helpful, and thank you for giving your time to complete such an undertaking. I think it will be useful not only for the staff, but for the users, who always benefit from greater transparency.

Tetrismonkey wrote:... gather those for everyone so we can continue this debate on actual facts instead of "generalizations".

I like this plan.

Moderators cannot be consistent, no matter what forum you go to unless you wish us to act like Blizzard Employees and role play for a mere form of entertainment and professionalism.

No matter how much you complain, etc.

Tetrismonkey wrote:I went above and beyond just modding you insignificant worm.

You certainly did do that didn't you. But still, you were just like me really in your actions.

Tetrismonkey wrote:What have you done for this forum Clarkey? Do we need to bring up the past? Do you want to be judged? Do I need to run your name through the mud and poop on whats left of your pride? Your judgement means about as much as a pile of **Filtered**. So, before you go hollering my way about the mod I was, get your facts right.

I do have my facts right, I know exactly what you were prepared to do as a mod to someone you didn't like. Like I said, you're just like me. And if you have to even ask what I have done for this forum, especially in the For Admin section, then you are just acting foolish with denial.

Tetrismonkey wrote:No hard feelings to anyone aside from Clarkey

Grudges are destructable things to a person. But you are still young, you will learn. I once thought that people like Buck, Mordack, Earendil, Psi, Solus, Jack and Zeratul would always have a grudge against me, never forgive, never forget and not prepared to move on and leave what's past behind us. But guess what, every single one of them did. They may not have forgotten or forgiven but they moved on, and now I see the real people behind those names and they are genuinely good people. Hell even Buck shook my hand! But you still have this grudge, this dagger with my name on it. It must be sad to be you with your little grudge. You can't even admit that you as a mod were also inconsistent with how you handled users yet you expect the current staff to be consistent now and if not then the administration has to change which would inevitably lead to more inconsistency with new management.

But if calling me an insignificant worm and all the other attacks you've made on me recently make you happy, well, it's a sad day.