MacNN Forums (http://forums.macnn.com/)
-   Feedback (http://forums.macnn.com/feedback/)
-   -   Is this not the appropriate forum to discuss infractions? (http://forums.macnn.com/61/feedback/320313/is-not-appropriate-forum-discuss-infractions/)

 
subego Dec 10, 2006 01:55 PM
Is this not the appropriate forum to discuss infractions?
From this thread.

Quote, Originally Posted by Oreo Cookie
From now on, if you have any complaints or you wish to continue this discussion, please do so via pm -- like everybody else.
In this situation this forum seems like the appropriate place.

Though it might behoove the person with the infraction to approach having it removed in a less antagonistic manner, that fact wasn't addressed in this statement.

In a related vein, as I apparently would have made the wrong judgement call on the post in question, could you provide a (by no means definitive for all cases) example of what would have been an appropriate length for the excerpt?

Otherwise, how am I (or the person in question) not to make the same error with one of my (their) own posts?
 
Blasphemy Dec 10, 2006 02:00 PM
maybe for discussion of the infractions as a whole, but not individual gripes. Users can pm for their private bitch-sessions.
 
subego Dec 10, 2006 02:11 PM
Quote, Originally Posted by Blasphemy (Post 3235089)
maybe for discussion of the infractions as a whole, but not individual gripes. Users can pm for their private bitch-sessions.
You don't see how the person issuing the infraction may not hold the most objective viewpoint?

How do you address that in a PM?

It didn't seem like an infraction to me, and it obviously didn't seem that way to marden. I can see him coming to the conclusion that this particular case was worthy of public comment.

Removed from the tone of the post, I think the nature of the issue marden had with the infraction was worthy of a public appeal.

All I'm ultimately asking for (other than for the clarification on the length) is a recognition of the fact that the problem with that thread was attitude, not misuse of the forums.

Unless I'm wrong, and it was an honest-to-betsy misuse, which would be something I'd want to know.
 
Kevin Dec 10, 2006 02:20 PM
Basically the mods don't want people questioning their authority in public. This garners support for their complaint.

And that is why these threads are being locked. Oreo is locking threads that are not usually locked because his authority is being questioned. He can give all the reasons he wants to as to WHY he locks said threads, but they are all bogus.

Again, mods aren't held responsible for their actions. Until they are, nothing will change.

Either the mods in this place are infallible, or the can't admit they are wrong.

And why should they have to? All they have to do is make up a lame excuse, say that is that and lock the topic.

BTW PMing a mod consists of either.

1. Not getting an answer
2. Getting one telling you that you are wrong, and that anymore replies to them about it will warrant a ban.

It used to be just me complaining about such things. And they could pass it off as just be complaining. I could just be banned.

Now a good bit of people are complaining, flooding this part of the forum with valid complaints and the offenders don't like it.

Next comes the banning of those complaining. Watch and see.

It will be some lame excuse like "Disrupting the forum" or some such.

BTW Chuckit

Quote
The rule wasn't changed to "selectively mess with you." The rule was changed for everybody. Everybody = not selective.
Everyone is effected by that rule, but YES the rule was remade BECAUSE of him.

And it's so frekkin petty.
 
tooki Dec 10, 2006 02:59 PM
The first step in any dispute (regardless of whether here on MacNN, at work, at school, etc) is to try and work it out between the two involved parties. Only if that fails should you bring in a third party, in private, and only if that fails should you go public with your dispute.

Now, it's an entirely different matter to discuss infractions as a whole, which this forum decidedly is the correct place for.

tooki
 
tooki Dec 10, 2006 03:02 PM
Quote, Originally Posted by Kevin (Post 3235116)
Basically the mods don't want people questioning their authority in public. This garners support for their complaint.

And that is why these threads are being locked. Oreo is locking threads that are not usually locked because his authority is being questioned. He can give all the reasons he wants to as to WHY he locks said threads, but they are all bogus.

Again, mods aren't held responsible for their actions. Until they are, nothing will change.

Either the mods in this place are infallible, or the can't admit they are wrong.

And why should they have to? All they have to do is make up a lame excuse, say that is that and lock the topic.

BTW PMing a mod consists of either.

1. Not getting an answer
2. Getting one telling you that you are wrong, and that anymore replies to them about it will warrant a ban.

It used to be just me complaining about such things. And they could pass it off as just be complaining. I could just be banned.

Now a good bit of people are complaining, flooding this part of the forum with valid complaints and the offenders don't like it.

Next comes the banning of those complaining. Watch and see.

It will be some lame excuse like "Disrupting the forum" or some such.

BTW Chuckit



Everyone is effected by that rule, but YES the rule was remade BECAUSE of him.

And it's so frekkin petty.
Waaah waaaah waaah. Nobody cares about your personal gripe with us. If you don't like how things are run here, go somewhere else.

Oh, and you don't get threatened with a ban for questioning an action. You get threatened when the mod has answered the question repeatedly in excruciating detail, responding to every followup question, and the member refuses to even read what you say, and continues to harass you on private message and AIM about the issue. Eventually you have to draw a line.

tooki
 
Kevin Dec 10, 2006 03:02 PM
Quote, Originally Posted by tooki (Post 3235151)
The first step in any dispute (regardless of whether here on MacNN, at work, at school, etc) is to try and work it out between the two involved parties. Only if that fails should you bring in a third party, in private, and only if that fails should you go public with your dispute.
In which you are told "If this isn't dropped, you will be banned"

So started a thread on it will get you banned.

And since not once has a mod said to a person they have banned or given an infraction to backed down from said ban or infraction, which of course means infalibility or lack of being about to admit wrong doing...

MSGing mods is a lost cause. People that have tried it know this.

When this is the habit, people go to find other avenues to express their feelings.
 
subego Dec 10, 2006 03:04 PM
Quote, Originally Posted by Kevin (Post 3235116)
Basically the mods don't want people questioning their authority in public. This garners support for their complaint.

And that is why these threads are being locked. Oreo is locking threads that are not usually locked because his authority is being questioned. He can give all the reasons he wants to as to WHY he locks said threads, but they are all bogus.

Again, mods aren't held responsible for their actions. Until they are, nothing will change.
This seems to me why attitude seems to play a major role.

Challenging a mod is sort of like challenging your parents. It behooves you to do it respectfully. This involves accepting a rejection of your plea gracefully, because, frankly, what else can you do about it?
 
tooki Dec 10, 2006 03:05 PM
Quote, Originally Posted by Kevin (Post 3235159)
In which you are told "If this isn't dropped, you will be banned"

So started a thread on it will get you banned.

And since not once has a mod said to a person they have banned or given an infraction to backed down from said ban or infraction, which of course means infalibility or lack of being about to admit wrong doing...

MSGing mods is a lost cause. People that have tried it know this.

When this is the habit, people go to find other avenues to express their feelings.
That's not true; I have undone infractions, just not with you!

As for being threatened with a ban: when a member has gone too far, we have to draw a line somewhere. Sending PM after PM after PM, during which the member refuses to acknowledge anything, despite our best efforts to get through to them, and then starting thread after thread full of lies... no. We don't need that.

tooki
 
subego Dec 10, 2006 03:08 PM
Quote, Originally Posted by tooki (Post 3235151)
The first step in any dispute (regardless of whether here on MacNN, at work, at school, etc) is to try and work it out between the two involved parties. Only if that fails should you bring in a third party, in private, and only if that fails should you go public with your dispute.
Copy that.

Makes sense to me.

Thanks!
 
subego Dec 10, 2006 03:08 PM
Quote, Originally Posted by Kevin (Post 3235159)
MSGing mods is a lost cause. People that have tried it know this.

When this is the habit, people go to find other avenues to express their feelings.
Hmmm.

If a mod is ignoring your PMs, it seems to me this would serve as useful evidence in your public plea.
 
mduell Dec 10, 2006 03:14 PM
I too would like to know the limit for quote-to-commentary ratio. The linked to post has 10 lines of quote and 2 lines of commentary, which is only 5:1.

Does Rule 8 only apply to thread starters and not subsequent replies? A lot of my replies are one or two line quotes or links to answer a question.
 
Peter Dec 10, 2006 03:15 PM
I think we should have a sub-forum for resolution of infractions. Maybe make infractions be auto posted in there.
then maybe the non-lounge-mods could act upon them and decide whom is 'right' (not the right word, but cant think what it is atm).
 
subego Dec 10, 2006 03:18 PM
Quote, Originally Posted by Peter (Post 3235176)
I think we should have a sub-forum for resolution of infractions. Maybe make infractions be auto posted in there.
then maybe the non-lounge-mods could act upon them and decide whom is 'right' (not the right word, but cant think what it is atm).
Yes! Yes! Yes!

Yes!

:thumbsup:
 
Chuckit Dec 10, 2006 03:21 PM
Quote, Originally Posted by Kevin (Post 3235116)
Everyone is effected by that rule, but YES the rule was remade BECAUSE of him.
 
And? He demonstrated a case where the intent of Rule 8 could be violated without violating the precise letter of it, so they changed it. I think this is more fair than issuing infractions without changing the rule to close the loophole. And it's not like they changed it in some way that's overly onerous for him to follow — he just has to participate in conversations like everybody else.
 
Kevin Dec 10, 2006 03:23 PM
Quote, Originally Posted by tooki (Post 3235162)
That's not true; I have undone infractions, just not with you!
None the is of any public knowledge.
Quote
As for being threatened with a ban: when a member has gone too far, we have to draw a line somewhere. Sending PM after PM after PM, during which the member refuses to acknowledge anything, despite our best efforts to get through to them,
Or a mod refuses to acknowledge anything, despite the efforts of to get through to them.. see tooki, you are taking the position already that they are wrong, you are right from the start.
Quote
and then starting thread after thread full of lies... no. We don't need that.
There was many many threads locked that had no lies. And were locked anyhow in this part of the forum.
 
Kevin Dec 10, 2006 03:25 PM
Quote, Originally Posted by Chuckit (Post 3235188)
 
And? He demonstrated a case where the intent of Rule 8 could be violated without violating the precise letter of it, so they changed it.
That was a spin Chuck. "He found out how to violate rule 8 without violating it"
No, he wasn't violating rule 8 at all. People wanted it expanded so what he was doing WOULD make it a violation. Had marden not existed in this forum the rule would have never been expanded.

There was no loophole.
 
Chuckit Dec 10, 2006 03:35 PM
Quote, Originally Posted by Kevin (Post 3235197)
That was a spin Chuck. "He found out how to violate rule 8 without violating it"
No, he wasn't violating rule 8 at all. People wanted it expanded so what he was doing WOULD make it a violation. Had marden not existed in this forum the rule would have never been expanded.

There was no loophole.
No, it wasn't a "spin." I have always taken the intent of Rule 8 to be, "We want people to actually discuss things." If a post is basically nothing but a quote, it does nothing to further a discussion. Some of marden's posts are counter to this purpose.

And I even said that if marden hadn't existed, the rule probably wouldn't have been expanded. It's kind of like how if nobody ever got the idea of posting "+1" BS, they wouldn't have made a rule against that. The fact is, it's his annoying actions that the rule targets, not marden himself.
 
bstone Dec 10, 2006 03:38 PM
Quote, Originally Posted by tooki (Post 3235162)
That's not true; I have undone infractions, just not with you!
This is true. When Lateralus banned me for posting "wrong forum" in a thread in the Lounge, tooki did offer to remove the ban.

I declined as I needed a vacation from here, but tooki was honest enough to say it was an improper ban.
 
subego Dec 10, 2006 03:42 PM
Quote, Originally Posted by Kevin (Post 3235197)
That was a spin Chuck. "He found out how to violate rule 8 without violating it"
No, he wasn't violating rule 8 at all. People wanted it expanded so what he was doing WOULD make it a violation. Had marden not existed in this forum the rule would have never been expanded.

There was no loophole.
Rule 8 was meant to curtail obnoxious behavior, of which cutting and pasting was an element. It hasn't really expanded in that sense.
 
bstone Dec 10, 2006 03:53 PM
Weird, I just got an email saying Lateralus posted a response here but when I came here his response was gone. It said:

Quote
Dear bstone,

Lateralus has just replied to a thread you have subscribed to entitled - Is this not the appropriate forum to discuss infractions? - in the Feedback forum of MacNN Forums.

This thread is located at:
http://forums.macnn.com/61/feedback/...orum/new-post/

Here is the message that has just been posted:
***************

---Quote (Originally by bstone)---
This is true. When Lateralus banned me for posting "wrong forum" in a thread in the Lounge, tooki did offer to remove the ban.
---End Quote---
A thread?

I banned you for doing it seven times. Give yourself some credit.
***************
I am curious why this isn't here. Am I simply missing it? Pehaps I have made a mistake.
 
Kevin Dec 10, 2006 03:53 PM
Quote, Originally Posted by subego (Post 3235215)
Rule 8 was meant to curtail obnoxious behavior, of which cutting and pasting was an element. It hasn't really expanded in that sense.
It wasn't the cutting and pasting that was the problem. It was the cutting and pasting and then not giving any opinion to the matter.

So he started giving his opinion with the cutting and pasting. Soon people wanted the cutting and pasting gone too.

And again, if it wasn't for who was doing it, it would have never been brought up.
 
Wiskedjak Dec 10, 2006 03:57 PM
Quote, Originally Posted by Kevin (Post 3235197)
That was a spin Chuck. "He found out how to violate rule 8 without violating it"
No, he wasn't violating rule 8 at all. People wanted it expanded so what he was doing WOULD make it a violation. Had marden not existed in this forum the rule would have never been expanded.

There was no loophole.
Perhaps Abe's posting style pointed out a loophole in rule 8 and therefore a need to amend it?
 
Kevin Dec 10, 2006 03:58 PM
Quote, Originally Posted by bstone (Post 3235210)
This is true. When Lateralus banned me for posting "wrong forum" in a thread in the Lounge, tooki did offer to remove the ban.

I declined as I needed a vacation from here, but tooki was honest enough to say it was an improper ban.
tooki unbanned someone else's ban. I've seen this happened quite a few times. This isn't the same as banning someone yourself, then admitting you were wrong.

I've only seen one mod or admin do this in this forum.

It's easy to say "Yeah that mod made a bad decision, I will fix that for you"

But not easy to say "Yeah I made the wrong decision, I am sorry, I will fix it for you."
 
Kevin Dec 10, 2006 04:00 PM
Quote, Originally Posted by Wiskedjak (Post 3235229)
Perhaps Abe's posting style pointed out a loophole in rule 8 and therefore a need to amend it?
There was no loophole. The rule was made so people didn't post and run. That they have to also give an opinion on the matter. Said rule was started when "logic" complained about vmarks doing this. (Another rule that would have never been made had it not been for partisan shenanigans)

The rule was later expanded to say not only to not post and run, but no pasting etc.

Which is just petty partisan cry-babying.
 
Wiskedjak Dec 10, 2006 04:04 PM
Quote, Originally Posted by Kevin (Post 3235223)
So he started giving his opinion with the cutting and pasting. Soon people wanted the cutting and pasting gone too.
His cutting-and-pasting amounted to spam in many cases. Wanting to be rid of such long cut-and-pastes is not unlike wanting to have restrictions on sig sizes.

Quote, Originally Posted by Kevin (Post 3235223)
And again, if it wasn't for who was doing it, it would have never been brought up.
I don't see that it was so much who was doing it as much as Abe just happened to be the first to do it. Perhaps a gauge of this would be to ask if it would be acceptable if everyone were to adopt Abe's posting style?
 
Chuckit Dec 10, 2006 04:04 PM
Quote, Originally Posted by Kevin (Post 3235234)
Which is just petty partisan cry-babying.
 
Much like all this whining about how persecuted poor little Abe is because the moderators made a rule that didn't agree with his previous behavior.

Seriously, most rules are made because somebody is disobeying them. That's how people see a problem. There's no need to make it into some personal vendetta.
 
Kevin Dec 10, 2006 04:09 PM
Quote, Originally Posted by Wiskedjak (Post 3235238)
His cutting-and-pasting amounted to spam in many cases.
You believe that because you didn't want what he was putting out. It wasn't at all. Even saying so is obnoxious.
Quote
Wanting to be rid of such long cut-and-pastes is not unlike wanting to have restrictions on sig sizes.
Then why wasn't it made a big deal about till marden? MANY MANY people including Tali does it. Why didn't anyone get up and pissy when Tali was doing it in every post?
Quote
I don't see that it was so much who was doing it as much as Abe just happened to be the first to do it.
No, the first person that was singled out you mean.
Quote
Perhaps a gauge of this would be to ask if it would be acceptable if everyone were to adopt Abe's posting style?
Again, this was simply an attempt to shut abe up. Regardless of the excuses used.

The partisan crybabying is just that.
 
Kevin Dec 10, 2006 04:10 PM
Quote, Originally Posted by Chuckit (Post 3235239)
 
Much like all this whining about how persecuted poor little Abe is because the moderators made a rule that didn't agree with his previous behavior.
No, you don't see me complaining about Talison doing this. Have you ever before this thread? No. And if people started attacking him because of it I would say the same thing.
Quote
Seriously, most rules are made because somebody is disobeying them. That's how people see a problem. There's no need to make it into some personal vendetta.
Said actions was going on before marden even posted here.
 
mac128k-1984 Dec 10, 2006 04:11 PM
While I generally don't like Marden's cutting and pasting articles with almost no input from himself. I think in general he has a right to question the infraction in the feedback forum. Squelching discussion on these topics does more harm then good. Clearly Marden and Oreo don't see eye to eye on this but what harm is there to discuss this in public provided both parties (or others) don't cause the dialogue to degenerate
 
Kevin Dec 10, 2006 04:14 PM
I think maybe since Oreo's actions against marden are in question. That Oreo should be disallowed to give marden any infractions for a period of time.

If what marden is doing is so bad, other mods will surely be there to give him said infraction.
 
bstone Dec 10, 2006 04:19 PM
Quote, Originally Posted by mac128k-1984 (Post 3235250)
While I generally don't like Marden's cutting and pasting articles with almost no input from himself. I think in general he has a right to question the infraction in the feedback forum. Squelching discussion on these topics does more harm then good. Clearly Marden and Oreo don't see eye to eye on this but what harm is there to discuss this in public provided both parties (or others) don't cause the dialogue to degenerate
agreed
 
Chuckit Dec 10, 2006 04:20 PM
Quote, Originally Posted by Kevin (Post 3235248)
No, you don't see me complaining about Talison doing this.
I haven't noticed him doing this, to be honest. Then again, he posts a lot less than Abe, so I suppose it would be less noticeable.

Quote, Originally Posted by Kevin (Post 3235248)
Have you ever before this thread? No. And if people started attacking him because of it I would say the same thing.
 
That his actions are all so pure that nobody should even think of making a rule against some of them? I don't even feel that way about myself.

In all honesty, I'd prefer that people here simply moderate their own behavior and not do **** like this that they know is annoying and bad for conversation, but apparently it's too much to ask — so the admins make rules.
 
Kevin Dec 10, 2006 04:25 PM
Quote, Originally Posted by Chuckit (Post 3235266)
I haven't noticed him doing this, to be honest.
Because he doesn't bother you.
Quote
Then again, he posts a lot less than Abe, so I suppose it would be less noticeable.
But he posts enough that if such a thing would bother someone, he would bother them.
Quote
That his actions are all so pure that nobody should even think of making a rule against some of them? I don't even feel that way about myself.
I think you are taking what I said, and spinning into some bizarro extreme version.
Quote
In all honesty, I'd prefer that people here simply moderate their own behavior and not do **** like this that they know is annoying and bad for conversation, but apparently it's too much to ask — so the admins make rules.
I feel that rules should only be made when it's actually hurting someone. Personal attacks, spreading hate. Thread derailing etc.
 
subego Dec 10, 2006 04:27 PM
Quote, Originally Posted by Kevin (Post 3235223)
It wasn't the cutting and pasting that was the problem. It was the cutting and pasting and then not giving any opinion to the matter.
No, it was about what is "conducive to fostering discussion".

Quote, Originally Posted by Kevin (Post 3235223)
And again, if it wasn't for the quantity, it would have never been brought up.
Fixinated.
 
OreoCookie Dec 10, 2006 04:31 PM
To answer the OPs question: individual cases should be discussed via pm first. I've issued more than a dozen infractions and warnings, I guess. The feedback forum shouldn't be abused to garner support and compassion or try to intimidate people.

Marden has simultaneously pmed other mods and possibly other members, so there was no real need for this thread to resolve the matter at hand.
 
subego Dec 10, 2006 04:36 PM
Quote, Originally Posted by Kevin (Post 3235247)
Again, this was simply an attempt to shut abe up. Regardless of the excuses used.
I'm curious.

Seeing as how the rule explicitly deals with people pasting words that are not their own, how is this shutting him up?
 
subego Dec 10, 2006 04:38 PM
Quote, Originally Posted by OreoCookie (Post 3235277)
To answer the OPs question: individual cases should be discussed via pm first. I've issued more than a dozen infractions and warnings, I guess. The feedback forum shouldn't be abused to garner support and compassion or try to intimidate people.

Marden has simultaneously pmed other mods and possibly other members, so there was no real need for this thread to resolve the matter at hand.
Tooki set it straight.

PM first.
PM to different mod second.
Public last.
 
Kevin Dec 10, 2006 04:39 PM
Quote, Originally Posted by subego (Post 3235276)
No, it was about what is "conducive to fostering discussion".
That can be subjective. Esp if you have a grudge against him.
Quote
Fixinated.
Again no one complained about Talison.
Quote, Originally Posted by OreoCookie (Post 3235277)
The feedback forum shouldn't be abused to garner support and compassion or try to intimidate people.
Oh please. When people are done wrong, they look for help. When those involved offer none, they look elsewhere.
Quote
Marden has simultaneously pmed other mods and possibly other members, so there was no real need for this thread to resolve the matter at hand.
Come on Oreo just admit you don't like being questioned.

Other threads that have pointed out things you have done wrong always get locked. With no admittance of wrong doing.

Of course I guess you could say it's because no wrong doing was done! :hmm:
 
Kevin Dec 10, 2006 04:40 PM
Quote, Originally Posted by subego (Post 3235284)
Tooki set it straight.

PM first.
PM to different mod second.
Public last.
In the PM they will say "And if you start a thread on this, you will be banned"
 
Blasphemy Dec 10, 2006 04:47 PM
Quote, Originally Posted by Kevin (Post 3235288)
In the PM they will say "And if you start a thread on this, you will be banned"
Do you or other members have any proof that they say this?
 
subego Dec 10, 2006 05:06 PM
Quote, Originally Posted by Kevin (Post 3235286)
That can be subjective. Esp if you have a grudge against him.
So? That doesn't mean the rule wasn't about it. I was pointing out that your interpretation of the rule did not contain "fostering discussion".

Quote, Originally Posted by Kevin (Post 3235286)
Again no one complained about Talison.
[shrug]

I missed most of it. I seem to recall it being dull.

I think you are mistaking "please don't talk to me in this way" for "please don't talk to me".
 
subego Dec 10, 2006 05:07 PM
Quote, Originally Posted by Kevin (Post 3235288)
In the PM they will say "And if you start a thread on this, you will be banned"
How consistent is this?

Is this the content of the first response from the mod? Every time?
 
OreoCookie Dec 10, 2006 05:11 PM
Quote, Originally Posted by mduell (Post 3235175)
I too would like to know the limit for quote-to-commentary ratio. The linked to post has 10 lines of quote and 2 lines of commentary, which is only 5:1.
If we were to make an exact ratio, then people would only adhere to the `letter of the law', instead of its spirit. I think the intention is quite clear.
Quote, Originally Posted by mduell (Post 3235175)
Does Rule 8 only apply to thread starters and not subsequent replies? A lot of my replies are one or two line quotes or links to answer a question.
It depends. If another member asks for specific quotes for instance, it's fine. But if you bombard your opponents with copied text, it doesn't foster the discussion.
 
OreoCookie Dec 10, 2006 05:14 PM
Quote, Originally Posted by Kevin (Post 3235194)
None the is of any public knowledge.
Why should we make everything `public'? In particular if the person in question doesn't necessarily want everyone to know? Sure, tooki could have mentioned bstone's name to back up his argument, but he didn't.
Quote, Originally Posted by Kevin (Post 3235286)
Come on Oreo just admit you don't like being questioned.

Other threads that have pointed out things you have done wrong always get locked. With no admittance of wrong doing.

Of course I guess you could say it's because no wrong doing was done! :hmm:
No, I've closed these threads, because in the end, a few other members and you were starting to exchange off-topic insults. In the end, it usually wasn't even about me anymore.
 
bstone Dec 10, 2006 05:35 PM
Quote, Originally Posted by OreoCookie (Post 3235329)
Why should we make everything `public'? In particular if the person in question doesn't necessarily want everyone to know? Sure, tooki could have mentioned bstone's name to back up his argument, but he didn't.

No, I've closed these threads, because in the end, a few other members and you were starting to exchange off-topic insults. In the end, it usually wasn't even about me anymore.

I am perfectly happy having everyone know that Lateralus banned me for saying "wrong forum" in a thread.
 
Kevin Dec 10, 2006 05:37 PM
Quote, Originally Posted by Blasphemy (Post 3235297)
Do you or other members have any proof that they say this?
I've been told this myself. And tooki admitted above it has happened. And it hasn't just happened when "things got out of hand" or whatever.
 
Kevin Dec 10, 2006 05:39 PM
Quote, Originally Posted by OreoCookie (Post 3235329)
No, I've closed these threads, because in the end, a few other members and you were starting to exchange off-topic insults. In the end, it usually wasn't even about me anymore.
No, not all the threads have been like this that you have locked.

For example this thread

http://forums.macnn.com/61/feedback/...d-to-the-left/

If you are referring to what besson and them was doing. Give them an infraction, delete their posts. Don't lock the thread.

There was a legit concern and question being asked there. Not only was it not answered, it was locked.

And I have my doubts on the reason you gave. "It was going nowhere"

It was going nowhere because you refused to answer the question. So you locked it.
 
OreoCookie Dec 10, 2006 05:44 PM
Quote, Originally Posted by bstone (Post 3235346)
I am perfectly happy having everyone know that Lateralus banned me for saying "wrong forum" in a thread.
Well, but would you want that to be mandatory -- as IMHO such a system would only make sense if it were reciprocal?
 
Kevin Dec 10, 2006 05:49 PM
I'd love to know if Lateralus ever apologized over such event.
 
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:07 AM.

Copyright © 2005-2007 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2016, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.


Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.3.2