|
VideoAdminAlpha -> RE: I really don't want to flounce, but... (6/24/2013 4:12:11 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Kaliko
quote:
ORIGINAL: SatinWhip
Businesses ban troublesome customers. Hosts cease sending invitations to unruly guests. And moderators remove posters from forums who cannot behave. It is true that businesses need customers, forums need posters, hosts need guests. They don't need every warm body they can get their hands on. What they don't need is troublemakers. If the moderators here ran roughshod over everyone and the place was a ghost town as a result then that would be different. What small percentage of folks is on time out here at any given time? What percentage of forum posters has ever been placed in the penalty box?
Well, that's kind of been the ongoing discussion on this topic, over the years. What defines "troublemaker?" And what percentage of the forum posters that I enjoy reading have been placed in the penalty box? But I have already said more than my share about that. Moderators know how I feel.
quote:
I just went back and re-read your initial post. This person was placed on moderation and then created a new profile to circumvent the moderation and their predicament is somehow the moderators' fault?
Awareness wasn't put on moderation. He was banned. (That's not private knowledge. He stated that in one of his first posts as TAFKAA.) He did make the new profile, TAFKAA (The Asshole Formerly Known As Awareness) about six months after he was banned. But, he also claimed publicly exactly who he was upon his return and all knew it (including moderators) and allowed it.
TAFKAA was put on a two-month moderation in March. At the end of two months, his ability to post hasn't been restored. There has been no explanation as to why, even upon his inquiry. It seems odd to say, but if they had said in March "You are now permanently banned" then I would have nothing to say right now. But they didn't. Moderation stated something that they apparently had no intention of following through with. That's my grievance.
You are correct. Awareness was banned, and the member you answered is correct, HE CREATED THE SECOND ACCOUNT TO BE ABLE TO POST AND THEREFORE CIRCUMVENT MODERATION/BAN ACTION, whether he publicly admitted it or not is irrelevant. It is a HUGE violation of TOS, if there was a sliding scale. Especially considering that to get the ban lifted he was told he needed to contact me so we could discuss and work out. The reply was to call that mod mentally handicapped (the slur term) and said that a true dominant male would find it demeaning to ask a female for help on an online board since that female (and pretty much of ALL females on the site)were dominant in claim only.
Whether you understand the seemingly nonsensical appearance of him being allowed to continue to post because we were aware of it or not, again, (respectfully) is irrelevant. I am not going to share as many private details about a disciplinary action on a member on these boards as( respectfully again) you would like. I will say this; no matter what your relationship to Awareness, please remember YOU ARE GETTING HALF OF THE STORY., and possibly a biased one since it concerns him personally. I will also go so far as to say, that he was given another chance under the new nick and is aware of that, so what is nonsensical to you, he is fully aware of. What shot his chances and put him on moderation was in part a thread that was full of personal attacks, one of them on a moderator and the descriptive term of “mealy-mouthed, worthless, asshole-enabling, rancid pool of pig's vomit” was used about that moderator. That was not the worst attack IN THAT ONE THREAD ALONE. It is safe to say that members do not realize the posts they never see may in fact be light years worse than the ones they actually know about.
You said in the first post that Awareness told you he has had numerous communications with administration about the matter of moderation. Quote from post one: despite his communication with moderators regarding it. You were told by Chi that maybe you had not seen all the correspondence concerning this matter. The fact that a highly abusive email was sent to Chi on 4/1 and 4/3, than nothing until June 20( 4 days ago) when another highly abusive email was received, (and answered with the message she would forward his remark, as that attack could not properly be classified as a request) belies the statement that there was communication. I certainly have NO emails in my box with communications in any shape or form, and as I am the supervisor, one would assume the communications would be with me. There has also not been any communications from him to support during this time, nor any other possible moderators. I only had one on 4/3 that let me know what deficiencies I possessed when performing my site duties, and some other information that was felt I needed to know because of my perceived lack of mental faculties.I certainly have not had any communications from them since the 20th, and then this thread was started on the 21st. There has still been no communication from him to me, and I feel certain he is probably aware of this threads existence, so is aware and accepting of all you are doing to state his case to the public. He needs to thank you for your help, since he had not done as directed to remove the moderation in the very beginning because of his hesitancy( no matter how he presented that fact) to speak with me.
|
|
|
|
