[downinflames68]

I just got an infraction for posting this, and nothing else:



Anybody else think this is total bullshit?

[Spheric Harlot]

Without context, your question is meaningless.

I recently said "yes" to the wife, and she threw a fit. Did she overreact? What do you think?

[imitchellg5]

An infraction might have been extreme, but content like that doesn't contribute anything to a discussion and can cause needless bickering. Plus, it had nothing to do with the thread.

[dedalus]

Well, I think it’s total bullshit.

Somebody posts some superstitiously inspired opinion (IIRC, somebody was looking forward to The Bible⁄™ coming to the iPad), somebody else responds with a picture of a ninja chuckling at a piece of religious scripture.

Big deal.

[turtle777]

I don't think it's infraction worthy, but some people here might perceive it as a flame bait.

I think a warning would have been enough.

-t

[Cold Warrior]

I gave you a 1-point infraction because it was off-topic and, given your history and the picture's context with another member's post, likely taunting. Then your follow-up post wouldn't let the Bible issue go, so I could have infracted for defying moderation or incitement. I chose the latter and deleted both posts to salvage a good thread.

Other members would have gotten a PM or a warning. You don't get the benefit of the doubt with your baggage. Check it at the door and focus on contributions.

[downinflames68]

In other words, total bullshit. Got it. >rolls eyes<

[downinflames68]

Is this one okay to post?

[imitchellg5]

Originally Posted by dedalus 

Somebody posts some superstitiously inspired opinion (IIRC, somebody was looking forward to The Bible⁄™ coming to the iPad)

It was an on-topic post saying that he wanted a nice Bible app. What's wrong with that?

[downinflames68]

And if that was on topic, how was a ninja reading a bible OFF topic? This makes zero god damn sense.

[imitchellg5]

Because an inflammatory image with a ninja reading a Bible and LOLing doesn't have anything to do with what killer app would make you buy an iPad. Just a guess.

[subego]

Link?

[turtle777]

Ahh, I remember those days when I used to get upset by infractions. Good times

-t

[downinflames68]

I just think it's BS, since nobody else would get one for that image.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by downinflames68 

I just think it's BS, since nobody else would get one for that image.

'Tis true, but nobody else here is a famous badass. That reputation comes with a price.

-t

[amazing]

Remember the old westerns where everybody is always keeping an eye on the gunslingers? How the gunslinger makes a sudden move to light a cigar or something and everybody else starts drawing their guns?

End result of having a reputation as a gunslinger: nobody gives you any slack...

[besson3c]

Rob, I get infracted all of the time for stuff I don't agree with, but the mods are just using their best judgment to carry out what they feel needs to be carried out for whatever reason it needs to be carried out. Sometimes they make agreeable decisions, sometimes they don't, but there is no point with hostile confrontation over something which really doesn't matter at all. Pick your battles.

[Simon]

Originally Posted by imitchellg5 

Because an inflammatory image with a ninja reading a Bible and LOLing doesn't have anything to do with what killer app would make you buy an iPad.

This. (for the record, let me say I like the cartoon though)

Originally Posted by turtle777

'Tis true, but nobody else here is a famous badass. That reputation comes with a price.

And this.

In the past you tried hard to be as obnoxious as you can and now you're being watched more closely. Common sense says you have only yourself to blame for that. Deal with it. Or get a new nick. That simple.

Regarding the topic title. No, there is no over-moderation here. When people deliberately try to disrupt a discussion or post inflammatory material just to stir up a fight they are not only being childish, they are attacking the very essence of a forum - civil discourse. IMHO moderation has the obligation to crack down on such behavior. And if that leads to one or the other idiot leaving that's just fine by me. There are more than enough places people can go if all they're looking for is hostility and confrontation.

[Ω]

I tend to find the moderation here vague. You can post something really obnoxious and they do not know how to deal with it. Then post something benign and they are all over you like a rash.

As for the original post in this thread I have no issue with it, though maybe the complainant prefers pirates over ninjas?

[dedalus]

Originally Posted by imitchellg5 

It was an on-topic post saying that he wanted a nice Bible app. What's wrong with that?

Imagine a Scientologist made a post about wanting a decent Dianetics/Auditing app for the iPad. You can pretty much guarantee that somebody is going to respond with a possibly offensive (to the OP) picture of Tom Cruise or John Travolta. Would they get an infraction for posting such an image?

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by dedalus 

Imagine a Scientologist made a post about wanting a decent Dianetics/Auditing app for the iPad. You can pretty much guarantee that somebody is going to respond with a possibly offensive (to the OP) picture of Tom Cruise or John Travolta. Would they get an infraction for posting such an image?

If Rob did it, yes. See, the system *IS* fair

-t

[subego]

Link, FFS?

[brassplayersrock²]

Originally Posted by amazing 

Remember the old westerns where everybody is always keeping an eye on the gunslingers? How the gunslinger makes a sudden move to light a cigar or something and everybody else starts drawing their guns?

End result of having a reputation as a gunslinger: nobody gives you any slack...

this

[Oisín]

Originally Posted by subego 

Link, FFS?

CW said he deleted the posts further up.

In the past you tried hard to be as obnoxious as you can and now you're being watched more closely. Common sense says you have only yourself to blame for that. Deal with it. Or get a new nick. That simple.

For goodness’ sake, please, no. Not another. 372 are enough.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Oisín 

CW said he deleted the posts further up.

I figured a link to the thread would do. As it stands, there's no context.

Really though, this is the kind of effort the person with a grievance should be putting forth.

[dedalus]

http://forums.macnn.com/89/macnn-lou...ill-get-you/2/

[subego]

Thank you.

[subego]

Rob.

If I understand this correctly, the image is essentially irrelevant. The infraction was for posting it in response to a particular user.

I see it as highly unlikely you would have received an infraction if you had posted it in any other context.

[Laminar]

[residentEvil]

panties meet bunch

i would google for images but well, blah.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by residentEvil 

panties meet bunch

i would google for images but well, blah.

Here is an image, it is the sound effects guy from Police Academy: